Sitting of 12 March 1891

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL—(by Order.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BOULNOIS: I desire, on behalf of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Company, to say that this Bill is only one to raise additional capital for the purpose of constructing storage reservoirs and filter beds. If it is thought necessary by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to send the Bill to the Hybrid Committee which is to sit on the general question of the Water Supply of the Metropolis, and not, as in an ordinary case, to a Select Committee, the company will offer no opposition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to the Select Committee on the London Water Commission Bill.

QUESTIONS.

  JOHORE.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the year 1889, an intimation was given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Johore Government that the Sultan should, if possible, arrange with the Singapore Government for the construction of a railway in the territory of Johore; and whether any railway concession was negotiated by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, acting under the direction of the Secretary of State, in substitution for a concession granted by the Sultan in April, 1888, to certain British subjects?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Sultan of Johore is an independent Ruler. The Secretary of State suggested that His Highness should, if he thought fit, confer with the Government of the Straits Settlements as to the line to be adopted for any railway constructed in his territory with a view to such line agreeing with the general system of railway communication established or contemplated in other States of the Malay Peninsula. The Crown Agents acted by the leave of, but not under instructions from, the Secretary of State in the conduct of the negotiations as to which they received instructions direct from the Sultan.

  BRITISH INDIANS IN MOZAMBIQUE.
  MR. ALFRED PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received any information respecting the shipment of a number of Indian British subjects, who are reported to have been taken to Mozambique, at the end of 1889 or the beginning of 1890, by Portuguese, ostensibly to work upon railroads, but in reality to be enlisted as soldiers; or as to what has become of these men, some of whom are reported to have been ill-treated, flogged, and sent "up country," and not to have returned?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): Some British Indians were enlisted by the Portuguese in Goa and were sent to Mozambique in January, 1890. In consequence of reports that the enlistment was irregular inquiry was made by the Indian Government, who ascertained that there had been no misrepresentation in the conduct of the business, which was not illegal. The men are understood to be still in the Portuguese service, in which they would be liable to be moved about, but no Report has been received respecting them since their first arrival.

OPIUM SMOKING.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India upon being sufficiently restored to health to be in his place. I beg to ask him if the Secretary of State has any information of the recent growth in India (apart from Burma) of the Chinese habit of opium smoking, as distinguished from the opium eating always practised to a limited extent in India and other countries; if so, whether any inquiry has been made regarding the alleged greater temptations and injuriousness of the new practice of smoking; and whether any special steps have been taken to limit and restrain houses for the smoking of opium, and check the practice; or, if information on this subject has not reached the Secretary of State, whether he will inquire of the Government of India?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): In reply to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the Secretary of State has received no Reports which lead him to the belief that the practice of opium smoking, as distinguished from opium eating, is increasing. The reply to the second question of the hon. Gentleman is that special attention has been given to the subject in the North-West Provinces and Punjab, with the result that the number of licensed saloons has been greatly reduced.
In reply to a further question by Mr. S. SMITH (Flintshire),
SIR J. GORSTsaid: I am afraid that I must deprecate the putting of questions upon this subject, which involve details, without notice.

INDIAN FACTORY ACT.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the last few months, he has received deputations and communications from Lancashire Members on the subject of the Amendment of the Indian Factory Act, and Her Majesty's Government have consequently urged the demands of those Members on the Government of India; and if the Correspondence so occasioned, subsequent to the Despatches on the Berlin Conference already laid upon the Table, can be produced now that the Government of India has submitted a Bill to the Indian Legislature?
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The only communiation I have had was with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean), when I answered his question some time ago. To the best of my recollection, he asked me to answer a question which he had placed on the Paper, and I begged him to postpone it in order that I might transmit the question to India and obtain a reply. There is no Correspondence on the subject which I am able to produce.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is there any truth in the paragraph which appears in the Times this morning, to the effect that certain parts of the Bill have been presented to the Indian Legislature, contrary to the pledges given to the Imperial
748
Parliament, and have not been accepted?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware whether there is any truth in that Statement or not. The hon. Member has not given me notice of the question, or I would have informed myself.

THE AMENDED INDTA FACTORY ACT.
MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether Her Majesty's Government will instruct the Government of India, in framing the amended India Factory Act, to accord the same protection to the working classes of India that has been granted by the English Factory and Workshop Act to the working classes of this country?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON (for Sir J. GORST): I must refer the hon. Member to the statement made on this subject by the First Lord of the Treasury on the 17th of February, to which the Secretary of State has nothing to add.
MR. CONYBEARE: As the Under Secretary for India is not in his place at this moment, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to say what remissions, if any, were made by the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Province of Oudh to the State tenants in 1887–8, when the average price of food was more than one-third higher than the average of the six preceding years; and whether he can state how far there is any connection between the high prices ruling in 1887–8 and the fact that the recorded death rate in India in that year was the highest known?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am afraid that I cannot reply to these questions without notice. As the hon. Member knows, I am not answerable for Indian questions.

STILL BORN CHILDREN.
DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the statement published by Dr. Robert R. Rentoul, of Liverpool, to the effect that he had ascertained by inquiry, that during the year 1889, 6,321 "still-born" children were interred in 71 Burial Board cemeteries; that there are 1,100 Board cemeteries in

749
England; and that the larger number of such interments take place in parish churchyards; whether he could present to Parliament a Return of the total number of infants interred as still born in all England in 1890; and whether it would be possible in such Return to show the proportion of suck infants born respectively in and out of wedlock.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): My attention had not previously been called to the statements which have been published by Dr. Rentoul. The births of still-born children are not registered by the Registrars of Births and Deaths, and consequently no Returns of these births are made to the Registrar General. I am, therefore, not in a position to give a Return of the number of infants interred as still-born in 1890, nor to state what proportion of these infants were born respectively in and out of wedlock.
In reply to a further question by Dr. CAMERON,
*MR. RITCHIEsaid: If the hon. Member will put down the Return he would like to have, I shall be glad to consider whether it can be given.

YELVERTOFT EDUCATIONAL CHARITY.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther), as a Charity Commissioner, whether he is aware that, although under a scheme of the 9th February, 1883, for regulating the Yelvertoft Educational Charity, as varied by a scheme of the 21st February, 1890, the Trustees may let the building formerly used as a school, and are directed to appropriate the same, if not let, for the promotion of the education, instruction, or recreation of the poorer inhabit-ants' of Yelvertoft, this building has not been let and is not appropriated as directed, but is only used once a week for the practice of the church choir; whether he is aware that, although by the scheme the Trustees are empowered to make payments for children resident in Yelvertoft so long as they attend a public elementary school and satisfy the Trustees as to regularity in attendance, in January, 1891, the Trustees paid 30s.
750
to a girl who did not attend a public-elementary school between 22nd September and 10th November, 1890, and has not attended since 8th December, 1890; whether complaints have reached him that no teacher or child attending a Nonconformist Sunday School has ever received any payment for religious teaching, but that children attending the Church Sunday School receive prizes from the Trustees every year, and that the teacher in such school receives £10 a year out of the net annual income of the Charity of about £25; whether the Trustees have, in accordance with the request which was made to them by the Commissioners some weeks ago, sent in the accounts of the Charity for 1890; and whether the Commissioners will direct a public inquiry at Yelvertoft by one of their Inspectors?
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Commissioners are informed that the old school-room of the Yelvertoft Educational Charity is regularly used for Sunday School, and also has for a considerable time been used as a parish reading-room, and for other purposes, including choir practice and vestry meetings. Permission to use the building has never been refused. As to the second paragraph—
"Whether, although the Trustees are empowered to make payments for children resident in Yelvertoft so long as they attend a public elementary school, and satisfy the Trustees as to regularity and attendance, in January, 1891, the Trustees paid 30s. to a girl who did not attend a public elementary school between September 22 and November 10, 1890, and has not attended since December S, 1890 "—
no such payment as that mentioned was made in January, 1891; but in December, 1890, a payment was made by the Trustees to the only child in the Board School who was qualified under Clause 31 (b.) of the scheme for the school-year ending March 31, 1890. No definite complaints have been, received respecting the payments for teachers or children for the promotion of instruction in religious knowledge. The accounts for 1890 have now been received. Should it appear desirable in the course of communication, the Commissioners are prepared to direct a local inquiry by an Assistant Commissioner.

HALF-TIMERS IN FACTORIES.
MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Com-

751
mittee of Council on Education whether he has inquired into the alleged cases recently brought to his notice of interference on the part of employers in and about Rochdale, Stockport, and Oldham, with the right of the parents of half-timers in factories to choose the school which their children shall attend; and whether he will now state the results of his inquiry?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I have received a Report from the Inspector of the Rochdale and Oldham district confirming the substantial accuracy of the hon. Member's allegations. The reasons given in one case were that the school selected was one to which the firm had largely contributed, and that the requirement was necessary in order to secure discipline in the works and uniformity in keeping the time-books required under the Factory Acts; but how far this may be so I have no means of judging, nor have I any power on behalf of the Department to interfere, as there is nothing in the Education Acts to prevent an employer making attendance at a particular school a condition of employment in his factory.
MR. PICTON: Are not some of the schools largely maintained by the employers, who force the children to attend them? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will use the power of the Department to withhold grants from managers who openly defy the law? Does he not remember, in answer to a former question, stating that the parents of the half-timers had a right to choose the school which their children should attend?
*SIR W. HART DYKE: I do not think I can use the power of the Department to withhold grants. I do not think that under the Education Act I have the power to do that. I doubt whether the Department has the least power in the matter.
MR. PICTON: Are not some of these schools maintained by the Education Department, and could not the Department exercise power in regard to them?
*SIR W. HART DYKE: I will inquire further into the matter. It is one of extreme difficulty. I have already gone into it carefully, as far as I can, and I
752
have stated candidly, as far as I am able, the precise legal position which the Department occupies.

STEEL FORGINGS IN ORDNANCE FACTORIES.
MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what proportion of steel forgings are now produced in Government Departments, as compared with those supplied by public contract?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): In 1890 the steel forgings produced in the ordnance factories were 22½ per cent. of the whole supply.

ALLEGED MASSACRE IN MADAGASCAR.
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received any particulars of the massacre and outrage in Madagascar, reported in the French paper Le Temps, with further details in the Times of the 6th inst., quoted from the Madagascar News; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government has communicated with that of France in order to insure the punishment of the perpetrators of the outrage, and prevent the recurrence of such misdeeds in the future?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: No official information on the subject has been received. There is no warrant for the interference of Her Majesty's Government, as it is not asserted that British subjects were injured. According to the newspaper reports, the persons implicated were to be immediately brought to trial.

SALE OF POSTAGE STAMPS BY PUBLICANS.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give such instructions as will prevent the enforcement of penalties against publicans and tradesmen who oblige their customers by selling them postage stamps after post offices are closed?
A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,): I do not think it necessary to give any instructions as to the enforcement of penalties against publicans and others who sell

753
postage stamps to their customers after post offices are closed.
MR. COBB: Is the hon. Baronet aware that several publicans have been annoyed by the proceedings which officials have taken; and that, although shopkeepers are allowed to have licences for the sale of stamps on application, publicans are always refused?
SIR H. MAXWELL: I will inquire further whether licences to sell stamps are refused to publicans, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

ARMY PRIZE MONEY.
MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a published statement that the Army Prize Money and Legacy Funds for the year ending 31st March, 1890, amounted to £103,147; that out of this sum only £14 14s. was paid on account of prize shares to soldiers and their representatives, the cost of distributing which was £299 5s.; and whether, seeing that the claims on these funds are so small, he will consider whether the interest upon them could be beneficially applied to distressed Crimean veterans not in receipt of pensions who are now in danger of becoming paupers?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: I can only say at present that the question is under consideration whether any portion of this money can be devoted to the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member.

BOARDING OUT PAUPER CHILDREN IN SCOTLAND.
MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is any part of the duty of the Inspectors of the Board of Supervision in Scotland to superintend the system of boarding out pauper children by Parochial Boards, and to report on the fitness of the Guardians selected, and the sufficiency and sanitary condition of the houses in which the children are boarded; and whether, if this has not been attended to hitherto, he will bring the subject under the notice of the Board with the view of securing that the condition of pauper children so boarded out shall be regularly reported upon?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): It cannot be said that it is part of the duty of the Board
754
of Supervision's officers to superintend the boarding out of pauper children, though, as a matter of fact, they do make inquiry for the purpose of satisfying themselves that such children are being properly taken care of, when there is a suitable opportunity for doing so. There are, however, serious objections to a system by which the Board's Inspectors should be required to exercise a constant supervision over boarded-out children. I may add that the larger Parochial Boards have special officers to visit boarded-out children and make periodical reports.

DEATH FROM VACCINATION.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Punshon of 37, Darwin Street, Old Kent Road, S.E., whose infant child is medically certified to have died on 26th February from blood poisoning, from vaccination performed by a public vaccinator; and whether he has directed an inquiry to be made into this case; if so, with what result; if not, whether it is his intention to direct that such inquiry be held by his Department?
MR. RITCHIE: I have received a copy of the entry in the register of deaths in the case of the child referred to. The cause of death, as certified by the medical man, was vaccinia and pyæmia. The case has been brought under the attention of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, and it is, I understand, to be investigated by one of the medical men employed by the Commission for such inquiries.

INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS BILL.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with the Memorandum of data and reasons for the Inflammable Liquids Bill, he will give the Memorials from Public Authorities referred to by him on Monday, 9th March?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; the Memorandum in question will contain, as far as possible, the Memorials referred to.

INTIMIDATION.
MR. COLMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentences of one month and 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour passed by the Norwich Magistrates on the 27th ultimo upon Arthur Shingles and James Wright, respectively, for intimidation; whether it is usual in this class of offences to impose fines; and whether he will communicate with the Magistrates referred to, and advise the liberation of the prisoners?
MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; I have received a Report from the Justices as to these cases, and also a copy of the evidence. Itdepends upon the circumstances of each case whether the offence can be adequately punished by the infliction of a fine. In previous cases in the City of Norwich the Magistrates had imposed fines; but finding that these sentences had not had a deterrent effect they were of opinion that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary for the protection of individuals and for the general peace of the city. The sentence in the case of Wright has already all but expired, and I should not be justified in advising any interference with the sentence on Shingles, whose offence was clearly proved.

SCOTCH SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.
MR. SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether a person who is entered in the Valuation Roll as tenant but not as occupier, where no occupier is entered nor the premises marked "empty," is entitled to vote at a School Board election in Scotland?
*MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: Under Section 1 of the Valuation Act of 1854 it is expressly provided that the Valuation Roll shall set forth in the case of all lauds and heritages the names and designations—
"Where there are tenants or occupiers, of the tenants and of the occupiers thereof respectively."
I am unwilling to assume that in any case this plain statutory duty has been neglected, and that no name has been entered in the column for occupiers in the case of any occupied property. But if such neglect has occurred I am unable to say that any person, whose name is
756
not entered on the Valuation Roll as an occupier, can vote in that character at a School Board Election.

TELEGRAPH BRANCH AT NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
MR. BURT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state why supervising duties in the telegraph branch at Newcastle-upon-Tyne are to continue to be performed under the proposed revision by clerks on a scale of £140 rising to £170 per annum, whilst in the local postal branch similar duties are provided for by the appointment of assistant superintendents (second class) on a scale rising from £170 to £200, and in offices already revised by assistant superintendents (second class) on a scale of £200 to £260 per annum; and whether he will take steps for remedying the grievances complained of?
*THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The hon. Member is not correct in stating that the duties in the one case which he mentions are similar to the duties in the other. There is much difference between them in importance and responsibility, and hence the difference in pay. I have, with the sanction of the Treasury, just revised the entire office at Newcastle, and I am not prepared to alter the decision. I may add that the "clerks" on the telegraph side and on the postal side at Newcastle get precisely the same salaries, namely, £140, by £6, to£170.

THE SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT.
MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the fact that the Treasury has sanctioned the payment of overtime in the Telegraph Department at time and a quarter for work performed after eight hours' employment, he is prepared to recommend that the clerks of the Savings Bank Department, who are compulsorily working overtime beyond eight hours a day, should be paid at a similar rate; and, if not, whether he can state the length of time which must elapse before he can propose to issue instructions that these clerks should not be compelled to work beyond the eight hours a day?
*MR. RAIKES: My answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I hope to reduce the hours of work of the officers referred to soon after Easter.

HOURS OF LABOUR OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.
MR. CHAINING: I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence at the inquest on George Wells, a platelayer of the North London Railway Company, who was killed at Highbury Station at 9 a.m. on 6th February, from which it appears that Wells came on duty at 9 a.m. on 5th February, worked till 5.30 p.m., resumed duty at 11 p.m. on the 5th, and would, if he had not been killed, have continued on duty till 5.30 p.m. on the 6th, and thus was on duty no less than 21½ hours, divided by an interval of only 5½ hours' rest, up to the time of his death, and would, if the accident had not occurred, have been on duty for 30 hours, with an interval of only 5½ hours; and whether the Board of Trade have made representations to the North London Railway Company, with a view to the prevention of such excessive hours of work? At the request of the right hon. Baronet I beg to postpone the question.

PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.
MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I beg to ask the President, of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of "Police v. Cannon," in January last, at Barrow, by which great inconvenience was caused to the defendant and the Cambrian Vinegar Company of Leeds; whether the prosecution was based entirely upon the analysis of the Barrow Borough Analyst, which was proved to be erroneous; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875," by providing that no legal proceedings shall be taken under Clause 20 upon a single unsupported analysis?
MR. RITCHIE: My attention had not been directed to the case of "Police v. Cannon" prior to the notice given by the hon. Member. I have made inquiry as to the facts, and I find that proceed-
758
ings were instituted against the defendant with reference to the sale of certain vinegar. The proceedings were instituted entirely upon the analysis of the sample by the public analyst of the borough. The vinegar was considered by him to be adulterated with 22·4 per cent. of water. The Magistrates deemed it desirable to cause a sample to be analysed by the chemical officers of the Inland Revenue Department. The conclusion at which those officers arrived was that the sample was genuine commercial vinegar of low quality and the Magistrates dismissed the case. As regards the question of legislation, I am not prepared to propose that no legal proceedings should be taken under Section 20 of "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875," upon a single unsupported analysis. Section 22 already gives power to the Justices before whom any complaint is made under the Act, upon the request of either party, to cause an analysis to be made by the chemical officers of the Inland Revenue Department of the article of food alleged to be sold in contravention of the Act and to obtain a certificate as to the result. This power was conferred upon the Justices to enable them to obtain ah independent analysis whenever the circumstances appear to require it.

THE LATE DUKE OF BEDFORD.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire from the Coroner for Westminster and state if, in the case of the late Duke of Bedford, the deceased was described in the inquisition by the same names as in the certificate of the finding of the jury, under the 16th section of the Registration Act of 1874; whether it is usual for the jurors to sign, the inquisition in blank, or only partly filled up, and to fill it up after the jury have signed it; and if, in this case, the inquisition was filled up before signing by the jury?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Coroner that the answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. It is usual for the jury to sign the inquisition partly filled up, the particulars having been previously endorsed. This practice was not departed from on this occasion.

NAVAL UNIFORMS.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state what was decided by the Committee on Naval Uniforms, and what action it is intended to be taken on them?
*THE FIRST LORD OF THEADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Report of the Committee has been received, and the action to be taken upon it is now under consideration.

SUPERIOR OFFICERS OF POST OFFICES.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the revised scheme, affecting the superior officers of the post offices in the towns mentioned in a question put to the right hon. Gentleman by the late Mr. Bradlaugh, will come into force; and whether it is intended to make its action retrospective?
*MR. RAIKES: This matter is being closely examined by the Treasury, and that Department is dealing with the various cases in batches and proceeding with the work, which is very laborious, as it comes before it. The decision on the point referred to in the last paragraph of the hon. Gentleman's question, as indeed on all those involved, rests with the Treasury.

STOCKTAKING IN THE ORDNANCE FACTORY.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in regard to the stock in the Ordnance Factory, referred to by Sir Charles Ryan in the revised Report on Public Accounts, complete stocktaking is effected punctually; and, if so, at what periods?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: Stocktaking is continuously carried out in the Ordnance Factories, so that agreement between the stock and the ledger accounts is arrived at in sections. It would interfere too greatly with current work and would require too large a staff to take the whole stock at any one period.

THE TRANSVAAL.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the
760
Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government perseveres with the policy of that part of the Swaziland Convention, by which the Transvaal was required, as the price of certain advantages, to enter the highly protective Customs Union of the Cape Colony; whether, in that case, Natal must either submit to a double tariff on the trade with the Transvaal by way of Natal, or must also enter the Cape Union, and abandon its more Free Trade policy; and whether Her Majesty's Government has thought it desirable thus to favour Protection at the expense of Free Trade?
BARON H. DE WORMS: Her Majesty's Government adhere to all the provisions of the Convention into which they have recently entered. In the event of the South African Republic joining the South African Customs Union, it would collect duties on goods imported by way of Natal at the Union rates. In that event, it would be entirely a question for the Natal Legislature whether it should continue to apply the present Natal Tariff to general goods merely passing through Natal for consumption in the Transvaal, or grant the exemptions in respect of them already enjoyed by spirits, wines, tea, and manufactured tobacco, or whether it should join the Union itself. The Customs Union Tariff is a Revenue, and not a Protective Tariff, and the question of "Protection" versus "Free Trade" does not appear to be involved.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: The Cape Tariff is a high tariff, while that of Natal is a low tariff. There is a great discrepancy between the two.

POSITION OF MR. JOHNSTON IN AFRICA.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the official position of Mr. Johnston in African territories north of the Zambesi; whether he is an ordinary Consul; and whether he is to be, as stated in the Times of 6th March, practically Governor, assisted by a staff of officers, and by funds supplied to him by the South Africa Company?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: Mr. Johnston is Commissioner and Consul General. An ordinary Consul is stationed in a foreign country from the Government of which he receives an exequatur. Mr.

761
Johnston, being in territory under British influence, is consequently not an ordinary Consul. It would be erroneous to describe him as Governor. His duties will be to conciliate the chiefs, develop trade, and bring the territories gradually under British administration. He will have a certain number of subordinates. The South Africa Company will contribute a sum for the maintenance of a police force.

ARMY AND NAVY SERVICES.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the amount actually expended on Army Services, outside the moneys voted by the House of Commons, for the services of the current year, and what is the amount intended to be similarly expended during the coming year outside the Estimates presented to this House? I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the amount actually expended on Navy Services, outside the sums voted by the House of Commons, for the service of the current year, and also showing the amount to be similarly expended during the coming year outside the Estimates presented to this House?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: In answer to these questions, I have to say that the information is being prepared and will be laid upon the Table.
SIR W. HARCOURT: Will it be laid on the Table in the course of next week?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir; I think so.
SIR W. HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether it will be laid on the Table in the course of a week or two?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Yes, Sir; I think so.

VOLUNTEER BATTALIONS.
MR. SPENCER BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain the reason why the actual time occupied by Volunteer battalions in proceeding to and from regimental camps is not counted as part of the full day of 24 hours for which regimental camp allowance
762
is granted; and whether, having regard to the distances travelled and the expenses incurred by Volunteer battalions going into regimental camps, it is possible to allow such time to be so counted, particularly having regard to the fact the time so occupied would not be available for military training in camp?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: The time referred to is not allowed in the case of a regimental camp; but it is allowed in another form for a brigade camp. The distinction was deliberately made to encourage the formation of brigade camps, which are of much more value for purposes of military training than regimental camps.

TRANSMISSION OF SINGLE LETTERS BY BAIL.
MR. SPENCER BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will take steps to give greater general publicity, by means of notices in Post Offices and in the Public Press, to the important arrangements recently concluded with the Railway Companies for the independent transmission of single letters by rail?
*MR. RAIKES: I am glad to have anticipated the suggestion of the hon. Member, for a notice relating to the arrangements referred to is now being-exhibited at every Post Office, and copies of it have been furnished to the Press, both metropolitan and provincial.

THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE.
SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the fees paid to the Private Bill Office of the two Houses of Parliament are on an average about £27,000 annually in excess of the cost of the Private Bill Office; and what is done with the balance?
SIR H. MAXWELL: I believe the figure stated by the hon. Baronet may be taken as approximately correct. The fees on Private Bills go into the Exchequer.

EMPLOYMENT OF KURDISH AND CIRCASSIAN TROOPS BY THE PORTE.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the state-

763
ment in various Turkish journals, copied into the Daily News and Le Temps, that Kurdish chieftains have been summoned to Constantinople, and that the Porte has decided to form regiments of Kurds and Circassians; that these troops are to be named "Ertogrul;" whether Her Majesty's Government will use their utmost endeavours to prevent the formation of such regiments; and whether the formation of Kurdish regiments infringes the provisions of Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty, wherein it is stated that the Porte is to protect the Armenians against the Kurds and Circassians?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government are aware that a project to form regiments of Kurdish Militia or Yeomanry is under the consideration of the Porte. The experiment would be watched with some anxiety, but it may be, on the other hand, that the disciplining and organising the tribesmen might have a restraining effect upon their irregular propensities. If judiciously carried out it would not violate, but would fulfil, the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin; and there is at present no ground for the intervention of Her Majesty's Government.

LIVERPOOL GENERAL POST OFFICE.
MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Sunday labour is performed in the General Post Office, Liverpool, by stampers and sorting postmen, without any remuneration; and whether, having regard to his statement in the House in August last, he will see that in future such labour shall be paid for?
*MR. RAIKES: The remuneration for duties performed on Sunday at Liverpool and other provincial offices by Post Office servants of the class referred to, is at present given in their ordinary weekly wages. The question whether extra remuneration shall be granted for these duties is now under consideration.

DOG-MUZZLING IN BOURNEMOUTH.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Dog-Muzzling Order now in force in Bournemouth and surrounding district will soon be dispensed with; and for what reason is the
764
Act kept in force in winter in this very healthy place?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I am afraid that I cannot dispense with the Muzzling Order at present at Bournemouth. It is kept in force during the winter in what the hon. Member describes, very accurately I have no doubt, as "that very healthy place," because two cases have occurred there since the winter commenced, one of them having occurred so lately as the end of January or the beginning of last month. In reply to a further question as to what proof there was of disease—I am unable to answer that question in these two particular cases without notice. Usually, I believe, the carcases of these animals undergo examination, and some of them are sent to London—I believe to the Royal Veterinary College for the purpose.
DR. TANNER: What proofs has the right hon. Gentleman in regard to these alleged cases of rabies?
MR. CHAPLIN: I cannot answer that question without notice; but I may say that the great majority of cases were inquired into by a member of the Veterinary College.
DR. TANNER: I will put a further question on the subject

FEES ON PROBATES AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Court fees fixed in 1874, in respect to Probates and Letters of Administration, by Sir James Hannen, with the concurrence of the then Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and approved of by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, have been altered by the Senior Registrar so that the said fees are now paid on net instead of on gross amount; and whether this alteration involves a loss to the Revenue?
MR. GOSCHEN: Under the Table of Fees fixed in 1874 the ad valorem fees are governed entirely by the amount of Stamp Duty payable, the fees being, in fact, a percentage on the duty. Consequently, when the Stamp Duty was assessed by the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1881 on the net instead

765
of on the gross value, in certain cases, a corresponding reduction was made in the fees.

CONVEYANCE OF DISTINGUISHED PERSONAGES.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any payments have been made within the past 12 months for the hire of steamers between Great Britain and the Continent for the conveyance of distinguished personages; and, if so, under what Vote of Supply have they been included?
SIR H. MAXWELL: No payments have been made within the past 12 months from voted money for the hire of steamers between Great Britain and the Continent for the conveyance of distinguished personages.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Have any bills been incurred for the conveyance of distinguished persons to and from the Continent? These sums used to appear on the Estimates; and, as the hon. Baronet says that no payments have been made in this respect with voted money, I wish to know from what sources the payments have been defrayed?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: No charge whatever has fallen upon the Estimates or the Votes of Parliament for these purposes. There has been no charge whatever upon the taxpayer for the conveyance of distinguished personages to and from the Continent during the past 12 months.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any allowance is given to Commanders of Her Majesty's ships whenever personages, not in the Civil or Military Service of Her Majesty, are conveyed on such ships; whether any such personages have been conveyed on Her Majesty's ships during the last 12 months; whether, if any such personages have been conveyed, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return stating the names of such personages, the occasions on which they have been conveyed, and the amounts paid; and whether he will say, if such personages have been conveyed, under what Vote of Supply, and under what sub-head, the amounts thus paid have been included?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: Allowances are given to officers commanding Her Majesty's ships when they are put to expense in the entertainment of personages, whom they, in the execution of their duty, are conveying from one place to another. During the year 1890 there were two instances of entertainment of this kind, namely, that of the King of Tonga and suite, who were received on board Her Majesty's ship Rapid, on July 11th, 1890, and the cost, £6 10s., is in course of recovery from the Colonial Office; and that of the Rev. A. Brittain, who volunteered his services as an interpreter on the occasion of the visit of Her Majesty's ship Royalist to the New Hebrides, and who was received on board that ship from the 23rd to the 28th of January, 1890, inclusive, at a cost of £3 12s. (12s. a day), which amount was charged to Navy Vote IL, sub-head Z, "Miscellaneous payments," to which the cost of interpreters is usually charged.

NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT LOAN.
MR. ATKINSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is true that Her Majesty's Government will guarantee a Newfoundland Government Loan of £2,000,000, or any other amount; and, if so, at what rate, and on what terms?
MR. GOSCHEN: The Government of Newfoundland have been informed that under certain circumstances and conditions Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to meet their wish that an Imperial guarantee should be given on a loan raised for railway and analogous purposes; but I am unable to make any statement as to terms. The matter has not reached any definite shape.

THE COMMITTEE ON LIGHT DUES.
MR. ATKINSON: I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will let the Committee on the Incidence of Light Dues meet, without any longer seeking to bind the ship-owning Members to give up their conviction that Light Dues should fall on the Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the recommendation of Select Committees of this House? but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman I will postpone the question until Monday.

BRUSSELS ACT.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that the Government of the United States has refused to ratify the General Act; and what effect, if any, such refusal would have upon the carrying out of that Act?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Senate has not ratified the Act. The effect of that refusal is not a matter upon which Her Majesty's Government can express an opinion.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
MR. BROAUHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce and circulate the Employers' Liability Bill?
MR. MATTHEWS: I propose to introduce the Bill as soon as the progress of Public Business is such as to enable me to proceed with it effectually.

COUNTY COURT SITTINGS.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the Return of Sittings of County Courts recently presented to the House, from which it appears that 11 of the County Court Judges held less than 120 sittings during the year 1889; and whether any steps will be taken to put in force the 10th and 13th sections of "The County Court Act, 1888," so as to secure more frequent sittings of the Courts for the benefit of the suitors, and to provide for a redistribution of judicial work among the Judges?
*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman regarding the number of sittings are substantially correct. I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that Orders are from time to time made under Section 10 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and every attempt is made in order to secure that the sittings shall be as full as possible. In many cases where a small number of sittings occur the time occupied by travelling is very heavy, and I am informed that this is the case in the instances contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman's question.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: Will the Orders, referred to be laid on the Table?
*SIR R. WEBSTER: I understand there will be no objection to a Return in order to see what the exact number of sittings-is and the time occupied by the County Court Judges.

PUBLIC BUSINESS AND THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Members, he will now indicate the date and duration of the Adjournment at Easter?
MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the continual counts which have taken place on Private-Members' nights recently, and of the general anxiety that the Session should not be prolonged beyond July, Her Majesty's Government will favourably consider the widespread wish that the nights thus wasted should be appropriated to Government business?
MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consideration of the fact that the Census of the United Kingdom, is to be taken on Sunday, 5th April, he-will include that date in the Easter Holidays in order that Members may be enumerated in their own houses?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that the "counts out" during the present Session have almost wholly, and certainly by far the larger number, taken place on Friday nights, and also of the fact that Friday night is, a night on which the Government, by long-established and well-understood usage, have always been under the obligation of keeping a House, the right hon. Gentleman will take increased I means for the fulfilment of that obligation?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for enforcing upon, me the duties of Her Majesty's Government. No one is better able than the right hon. Gentleman to recall to the consideration of any Government the duties which devolve upon it. I think, however, that, if the right hon. Gentleman will make a careful investigation of the circumstances relating to the "counts out" to which he refers, he will find

769
that Her Majesty's Government have not been very deficient in the discharge of their duties. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members opposite have shown so little interest in the question that was being discussed at the time that they gave no assistance to Her Majesty's Government in their endeavours to keep a House. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. E. Ellis) asks a question which is of interest to hon. Members generally, and I should have been extremely glad had I been able at the moment to give some definite information with respect to it. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member will, I am sure, acknowledge that the ground on which I am not able to give definite information is a sufficiently reasonable one, and that is before the date of the holidays can be fixed Supply must be obtained and Ways and Means advanced. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Vote on Account.] The Vote on Account is, of course, included in Supply, and this must be taken by the 16th of March in order to enable the House to rise for the Easter holidays. The intention was to move the Adjournment on Thursday, the 26th March, but I recognise the fact that representations have been made to the effect that there is a strong desire that the ancient practice should be observed and the House rise on Tuesday. In these circumstances I shall ask the House on Monday to give the Government Morning Sittings for the transaction of Public Business on Tuesdays and Fridays. The House has now been sitting for a considerable period, and there remains a large amount of public work to be got through. A review of the conditions under which Tuesday and Friday Sittings have been used by hon. Members leads me to believe that a Sitting of four hours, from 9 o'clock to 1 o'clock, would afford them all the time that they really desire for Debate. I am sure that the view which the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Howorth) presses on the consideration of the Government is entertained largely on this side of the House—a desire that there should be an early Prorogation this year at all events, having regard to the fact that the business of the House began at a much earlier period than usual. I have referred to Supply in order to ask the House to recognise
770
the necessity of agreeing to the Supplementary Estimates before it in the course of this evening, and the Vote on Account not later than Monday. In order that the House may rise on Tuesday, the 24th of March, I have laid the circumstances before it, and I have no doubt that it will take the subject into consideration and give assistance to the Government to carry on the business. As to-the duration of the holiday, the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Johnston) has urged a new ground for its extension. I do not know whether that view will be entertained generally by hon. Members; but, having regard to the circumstances of the case, if the Government were able to obtain the assistance of the House in the matter of Morning Sittings, and if they were able to complete Supply on the day I have named, I shall propose-that the Adjournment be from Tuesday, the 24th, until Monday, the 6th of April.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What business will be taken at the Morning Sittings of Tuesday and Friday, and what constitutes the special reasons for having Morning Sittings on those days?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: The state of public business constitutes the reasons for having Morning Sittings on those days. There are also several measures-which the Government are anxious to send to the Standing Committees, among them being the Public Health Bill and the Savings Banks Bill, and we also-wish to make progress with the Public Trustee Bill. The Government desire to deal with those measures in order as soon as possible to enter on the consideration of the Irish Land Purchase Bill.
MR. BRYCE: Will the Civil Service Estimates be taken this side of Easter?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it improbable that we shall be able to take them. There is the Tithe Bill, which will come down from the House of Lords, and we shall desire, if possible, to take the judgment of the House on the Amendments which the House of Lords-have introduced.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the Irish Land Bill be the first business after Easter?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope so.
DR. TANNER: May I ask, with reference to the "counts out," whether

771
the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on Tuesday last there were several Members of Her Majesty's Government in the Lobby while the House was being counted, including the Civil Lord of the Admiralty and several junior Lords of the Treasury?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.
DR. TANNER: It is a fact.
MR. H. GARDNER: Will the Tithe Bill be taken before the Adjournment?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope we shall be able to do so, as it is desirable that we should part with that subject before Easter.
MR. COBB: Will the Inflammable Liquids Bill be taken before Easter?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: It will not be taken.
In reply to Colonel WARING (Down, N.),
*MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: On the first day after the holidays, Supply will be taken. That has always been the practice.
SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us notice when the Tithe Bill Amendments will be taken?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly, Sir.

PIER AT CASTLETOWNSEND.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any steps are proposed to be taken to provide a suitable pier at Castletownsend, County Cork; whether several resolutions from Public Bodies have been received advocating the building of such a structure; whether, in view of the fact that Castletownsend is a fishing port of considerable importance, and largely used by Irish, English, and Manx fishermen, and having regard to the distress and destitution now prevailing in the district in question, this reproductive public work will be proceeded with?
SIR H. MAXWELL: A Memorial in relation to the construction of a pier at Castletownsend was received by the Board of Works in October, 1887, but I am not aware whether resolutions have been received from Public Bodies. So far as I know, there is no intention of taking any steps for providing a pier at Castletownsend.
DR. TANNER: Is the hon. Baronet aware that the old pier was built by the Treasury, that it is falling down, and also that this harbour is frequented by a large number of fishing boats during the fishing season? If representations are made to the Treasury will attention be paid to them, and the demands for providing harbour accommodation be, at any rate, inquired into?
SIR H. MAXWELL: Any representation which is made will be carefully considered.

IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the intention of the Inspector General and the Royal Irish Constabulary Authorities to wind up the Constabulary Force Fund, and whether unmarried men who joined the Force before 1883, and who are now on pension, continue to subscribe to the Fund with no other prospect of return than that of said Fund being wound up and apportioned to subscribers; and whether rewards of merit have been taken from this Fund and distributed to officers and men who may have joined the Force since 1883, or who, in any case, have not been subscribers to the Fund?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The insurance branch of the Constabulary Force Fund is in process of being wound up by gradual extinction under the Act of 1883, which prohibits members joining the Force after that date from subscribing to the Fund. There is, however, no intention to make a general distribution of the Fund; but each claim against it will, as heretofore, be paid upon maturing. There is no known instance of an unmarried man now on pension continuing to subscribe to the fund, nor could such a subscriber derive any benefit from doing so by the rules governing the fund. Rewards of merit are not paid from the insurance branch of the fund, which is paid from the subscriptions of contributing members, but from the reward branch, the income of which is derived from portions of fines awarded to the police by Magistrates, or under the Licensing Acts. Eight men, appointed since the Act of 1883, have received rewards from the reward branch, amounting in all to a total of £18.

COMPLAINT AGAINST AN IRISH POLICE CONSTABLE.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whose orders did a police constable, named Connell, stationed at Schull, County Cork, load his rifle in the presence of a large number of people returning from a meeting which was addressed by Mr. William O'Brien, M.P.; and was such action warranted by the regulations of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary authorities report that the constable had not received any orders in the matter. It was explained at the time of the occurrence that the constable's action was the result of the hostile demeanour of the crowd. The reply to the second paragraph of the question is in the negative.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Has any action been taken in regard to this man, who appears to have acted without warrant?
MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir; the matter was reported as a breach of discipline, and came before the Inspector General who admonished the constable and placed an unfavourable mark against his name.

OPEN-AIR PREACHING AT ARKLOW.
MR. DE COBAIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that out of four charges brought against the Rev. R. C. Hallowes, Rector of Arklow, and his curate, the Rev. J. W. Harrison, of obstruction, alleged to have been caused by the holding of religious services, three have failed for want of evidence, and that in the fourth case the rev. gentlemen were convicted by the Magistrates; is he aware that the ground occupied by Mr. Hallowes and Mr. Harrison has frequently been used for Land League and National League meetings; under what law or regulation did Divisional Commissioner Cameron act in ordering the arrest of Messrs. Hallowes and Harrison, when on their knees praying with their congregation, and 30 minutes before the arrival of the train which was to convey them to Wexford Gaol; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstance of the case?
MR. MADDEN: The facts are as stated by my hon. Friend in the first paragraph of the question. National League meetings have been held on the Parade Ground where Mr. Hallowes held the open-air services. The Constabulary Authorities report that the arrests were quietly effected and were not made until the train was actually due; but the train was half an hour late in reaching Arklow.

MR. PARNELL'S MEETING AT NEWRY.
MR. DE COBAIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the outrage alleged to be perpetrated by the Belfast section of the meeting of the supporters of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) at Newry on his return journey, in the discharge of two shots out of the railway carriage by which they travelled, inflicting injury on two or more persons in the vicinity of the train; whether he has heard as to whether the injuries are likely to prove fatal, and if he can state to what Political Party the injured persons belong; and whether the Constabulary have obtained any trace of the perpetrators of the outrage?
MR. MADDEN: Two men were wounded by shots fired on the occasion mentioned. According to the latest information both men are progrsssing favourably. A man has been arrested on the charge of firing a revolver, and is detained in custody.

ALLEGED ASSAULT BY A PRIEST AT ARKLOW.
MR. DE COBAIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Father Dumphy, the parish priest of Arklow, had on Sunday the 1st of March broken through the ranks of the Constabulary in the streets of Arklow, taken hold of District Inspector Tottenham, and assaulted him, calling at the same time on the mob to follow him; and what course the Government intend to pursue in relation to this case?
MR. MADDEN: The Constabulary authorities report that on the occasion referred to, the action and language of

775
Father Dumphy were of a violent character, but no special course is proposed to be taken.

LAND COMMISSION—KILMACTHOMAS AND WATERFORD.
MR. P. J. POWER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if a Sub-Commission is soon to sit to hear applications for the fixing of judicial rents in the Unions of Kilmacthomas and Waterford; and, if so, about what date; and, if not, whether, in view of the number of tenants in those districts anxious to have judicial rents fixed, a Sub-Commission will be sent there?
MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question.
MR. P. J. POWER: I will put it down for to-morrow.

IRISH RELIEF WORKS.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what is the daily cost of relief works in West Mayo and the Island of Achill; how much is spent daily in payment of men of the Royal Irish Constabulary and other officials in superintending such relief; and whether Catholic and Protestant clergyman, in each district where relief is necessary, are consulted upon the specific requirements and urgency of the poor people in want of help?
MR. MADDEN: The average daily cost in wages to persons employed on labour at relief works in the district mentioned is £134 9s. 10d. In addition to this, the amount spent daily in payment of Constabulary timekeepers and Royal Engineer supervisors is £14 4s., and the county surveyor gets a sum of £2 2s. for any day he may be employed. Any recommendations from clergymen are fully and carefully considered. In many instances their suggestions have been adopted.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many non-officials have been employed in the superintendence of relief works and the disbursement of relief in the County of Cork during the past month; and what was the total amount paid to the men in the police, and other officials and non-officials during the same period?
MR. MADDEN: There are no non-officials employed in the superintendence of the relief works or the disbursement of wages. Sixty-one officials, including the County Surveyor, are employed in this work. The cost of the various officials carrying on the work up to the 28th February was £253 18s. 6d.
DR. TANNER: What was paid to the police, and what to other officials?
MR. MADDEN: The question of the hon. Member related to the total amount. If he wishes to know how that amount was divided he must put another question.
DR. TANNER: If I move for a Return will the right hon. Gentleman grant it?
MR. MADDEN: I do not know that there would be any objection, except the objection to the multiplication of Tin-necessary Returns.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of a vast proportion of the population of the Gweedore district of Dunfanaghy Union; whether any part of Ireland can show a worse condition than is to be found in the Meenacladdy, Bloodyforeland, and Brinlack portions of this district; what measures he proposes for the relief of this misery; whether his attention has been called to the consequences that must result next year owing to the fact that no seed potatoes have been provided for the Gweedore district, and whether he purposes making provision to prevent the famine that must ensue next year if seed be not promptly provided now; and whether it is by any fault of the Poor Law Guardians of the district that no seed has been provided; and, if so, whether he can compel this Board of Guardians to perform their duty in this crisis, or whether he will take steps to save the people from the consequences of their neglect?
MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this question.

LABOURERS' DWELLINGS IN CORK.
DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can state how much has been spent of the sum of £20,450 sanctioned for the erection of 288 labourers' dwellings in Cork, under the Labouring Classes' Lodgings and Dwellings Acts, and Housing of the

777
Working Classas Act, 1885; how many of these dwellings are completed and inhabited; and when will the work be finished?
MR. MADDEN: The total amount sanctioned for labourers' dwellings in the City of Cork is £20,291 9s. 5d., in addition to a sum of £1,000 sanctioned previously. The number of houses originally proposed to be erected was 298. Building sites have, it appears, been acquired, but as it is proposed by the Sanitary Authority to reduce the number of houses to 254, they have been obliged to submit an amended scheme to the Board of Works. Upon this scheme being approved, the Sanitary Authority intends to proceed at once with the erection of the houses, which can be completed within a few months from the date of approval.

PRISONERS' EXERCISE IN IRELAND.
DR. TANNER: I beg to postpone my question (to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if there is any open-air space in Clonmel, Galway, Kilmainham, or Tullamore Gaols, where prisoners can take the two hours' exercise as required by the Irish Prison Rules?) It appears in a wrong form upon the Paper.
NEW WRIT
For the Borough of Aston Manor—in the room of George Kynoch, esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

MERCHANT SHIPS' MATES AND PETTY OFFICERS (WAGES).
Return ordered—
"Of average Rates of Wages paid to Mates of all grades, Petty Officers, such as Boatswains, Carpenters, Quartermasters, &c, for the years 1850, 1860,1870, 1880, 1885. 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890, distinguishing between Steam and Sailing Vessels of under 500 tons, of 500 and under 1,000 tons, of 1,000 and under 1,500 tons, of 1,500 and under 2,000 tons, of 2,000 tons and above (in continuation of Table 23 of Progress of British Merchant Shipping, Parliamentary Paper No. 192, of Session 1890)."—(Mr. Whitley.)

MOTION.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  On Motion of Baron Henry de Worms, Bill to amend "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Baron Henry de Worms and Mr. Attorney General.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 245.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1890–91.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS VII.
  1. £55,831, Relief of Distress, Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Mr. Courtney, it will be in the recollection of the Committee that in the early days of last December I asked the Committee of Supply to vote a relatively nominal sum—£5,000—towards the relief of distress in Ireland. The sum I ask the Committee to vote to-day is a much larger one, and hon. Members have, no doubt, a right to ask what account I can give of the plan we are actually carrying out, and which I briefly sketched on a previous occasion. Our experience, of course, is not yet complete. In England, as the spring-approaches, the strain of distress either on the Poor Law administration or on private charity sensibly diminishes; but in Ireland, when the distress arises from the failure of the potato, the crisis is not in the winter months, but it goes on steadily increasing in intensity, until it is either relieved by the annual migration of the able-bodied men to England or Scotland, or by digging for the next year's potatoes in those parts of the country where migration is not practised. Therefore, it comes about that the account I shall have to give to-day of what we have done in the way of relieving distress does not include a survey of the whole of the transactions in which this House has taken part in this matter. All I intend now to do is to give the results of our efforts and experience up to the most recent available date. Now, the Vote on which we are actually engaged is a Vote for the Relief of Distress, to be followed immediately by a Vote on Railways; but I think it will be convenient to the Committee if, on the first of the Votes, I touch not, indeed, on the railway policy of the Government—not upon those matters in which I know the right hon. Member for Newcastle is interested, but on certain

  779
  incidents and circumstances connected with our railway policy which have a direct bearing on the relief of distress. Therefore, if the Committee will permit me to presuppose the measures that have been adopted for the relief of distress, and to exclude from our purview such steps as have been taken to meet that distress by special arrangements for railway work, I think the convenience of the Committee will be regarded, and they will have a clearer view than if my statement were divided illogically into two parts. As the Committee are aware, the general railway policy of the Government has no connection whatever with the distress in Ireland. It was begun even before the failure of the potato crop in 1890 was so much as thought of, and, probably, if that failure had merely been allowed to run its ordinary course, the railways would have been constructed, not quite sufficiently or as now constructed, but they would have been constructed at a period when they would not have served, or hardly at all, to mitigate the distress arising through the recent failure of the potato crop. But the House and the Government have taken means by which the work of these railways shall be made directly useful for the purposes we are now considering. In August last a Bill was passed, under great Parliamentary difficulties, in this House for the purpose of expediting these railways. It received the assistance of the majority of the Members of the House, and many at that time seemed to be of opinion that, do what we could, we should not be able to hurry on the construction of these works so as to bring them into action for the relief of distress. But I am glad to think that the prophecies we gave utterance to have not been proved inaccurate. Every means the law allows has been employed to hurry on these railways. Grand Juries were called together early in November, and they assented to the railways, and the Government lost no time in obtaining the necessary land and in getting the contracts made. If we had pursued the ordinary course there is no doubt we should not have been able to set to work much before March, April, or May; but in order that the demand for labour might be met at once we anticipated the completion of the contract
  780
  plans by provisional contracts on a schedule of prices, and in this way it was possible to ante-date the ordinary and natural commencement of the lines by many months. The result was that the sod was broken early in December for most of the lines, and by the end of December a large number of them were in operation. Another difficulty we had to contend with was in the acquisition of the necessary land. Here our progress was facilitated by the Act of 1890, and but for the co-operation of the localities, and especially the priests of the localities, together with the landlords and the tenants occupying the land, it would have been quite impossible to set to work as soon as we did. All heartily cooperated, and the result was that we did not meet with any of those obstacles which one might naturally have supposed would have hampered us. There are two railways on which work has been begun—the extension of the Mulranny line to Achill, and the line from Collooney to Claremorris. These were the only lines which the Government started in view of the distress, and I believe they were justified by the condition of the population through which they run. I have to acknowledge the immense assistance we have derived from all quarters, by which great trouble and a great deal of expense have been saved to the Government in carrying out these valuable and, I hope, permanently useful works. We were told that these railways would not afford employment to the particular class of the population it was desired to employ; it was said that most of the money would be spent in skilled labour, and that only a small branch of the population on either side of the lines would receive any benefit from them. In fact, we were told that any hopes we might build upon those railways as a means of averting distress would be doomed to disappointment. I am glad to think these prophecies have not been fulfilled. We have, where we could, entered into formal arrangements with the various contractors in order to secure that the greatest amount of unskilled labour should be employed, and where these formal arrangements were not possible informal contracts have been entered into. The contractors have been good enough

  781
  to come and talk the matter over with me. They have fitted their plans in with the views of the Government; they have made every effort to suit us, and I have consented to take the advice of, and act in co-operation with, the local priests in the matter of selecting the labour to be employed on the line, and the result has undoubtedly been that while, no doubt, a large number of persons—or a certain number of persons—in the neighbourhood of the line who could not be described as in an acute state of distress have been employed. There have been no instances where, after the line has been in process of construction, and our plans have begun to work, able-bodied persons in acute distress have been excluded from employment. I believe that this will be confirmed by every one who has had practical experience of the work on the line, and if it be true—as I believe it to be—I think it is eminently satisfactory. It is not necessary that I should go into the special contracts that were made for the purpose of securing labour. The general result I have given to the House, and probably no more details will be required. I have a good deal of ground to cover, but if further details are wanted I shall be happy to supply them. We have found that on some of these lines the demand for employment considerably exceeded the demand for labour which would take place if the construction of the lines were left to follow ordinary development. In order to meet that, further arrangements were made with the contractors beyond those broad, general arrangements to which I have referred. On some lines, for example, I found that by making embankments from cuttings it was possible, no doubt at increased cost, to augment the amount of unskilled labour that could be immediately said to work, and I made arrangements for carrying that out. On other lines I found that if special arrangements were made with the contractors, and they could be recouped for the loss which would fall on them through having the earth taken in barrows from the cuttings to the embankments, they would be prepared to give a very much larger amount of employment than they otherwise could. Thus, by dealing with each line and each contractor separately,
  782
  and by having personal conversations and discussions we have been enabled to squeeze out these plans of railway construction, so as to give the very maximum of unskilled labour it was-possible to give. The general result has been that the number of men employed has been about 8,000, who, I suppose, may be multiplied by five or six in order to get the number of individuals interested; and the amount of wages paid is something over £40,000 since the railway works began. A conclusive proof, in my judgment, that the works fully supplied the demands for labour is that in many of these districts there were strikes for shorter hours or higher pay. The wages have ranged from 11s. to 14s. I do not think anything less than 11s. has been paid, and, though I do not complain of the strikes, I think they have formed conclusive proof that our demand for labour was not less than the supply, and that the distress was not so acute as to induce the people to sacrifice any of their cherished convictions, or imaginary convictions, to obtain a livelihood. I recollect on one of the lines—the Westport to Mulranny line—gang after gang gave warning or struck because a tenant of an evicted farm was one of the labourers. I do not imagine that any of the gentlemen who then struck have been allowed to resume work. That, of course, is not my affair. I do not know whether there is any other matter on which I should touch in regard to railways; but before I pass on to the subject of the relief works there-are one or two miscellaneous matters on which the House will probably desire some information. The first relates to the project which I had some hope of being able to accomplish—namely, land reclamation. I have been disappointed in that matter. Anybody travelling through the West of Ireland would suppose that the amount of unoccupied land is at present unlimited; that the landlords would probably desire nothing more than to sell it, and that in the sale they would have the co-operation of all the occupiers in the neighbourhood. But in the inquiries which I made in regard to the various portions or parcels of land which I thought might be suitable for reclamation I have always been met with one or two difficulties—either it has been proved that the landlord, either

  783
  on account of defective title or some other reason, could not satisfactorily sell his interest, or else that the number of subsidiary rights, rights of grazing, turbary, rights of passage owned by occupiers in the neighbourhood, were so numerous and so impossible to get rid of that the Government could not be expected to embark in that transaction. I do not say that land for reclamation cannot be acquired; I only say that, without advertising and taking steps which I did not feel at liberty to take, I have not been able, so far, to acquire land, and therefore I have not been able to carry out an experiment which I think would have been interesting, and possibly very useful. But one experiment I have been able to start—an experiment in planting. It is on the south coast of Lough Boyle. There it so happened that the landlord was quite ready to sell, and the hill-side of 1,000 acres was in the hands of a single tenant, and that tenant was Father Flannerty, a gentleman whose name is perhaps known to many to whom I speak as one who has made great and useful efforts to ameliorate the condition of the people. He offered to give up his rights in the land for nothing. The land required from the landlord was obtained for 10s. an acre, and I have given directions to start an experiment in forestry which I cannot but think will prove instructive. I may say that I sent round a large number of inquiries to various owners in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and I have received a number of valuable answers from them. The information I have thus been able to obtain has quite convinced me that not only in Ireland, but in England and Scotland as well, we are far behind the Continent in this matter of forestry. Of course, it is natural it should be so; there are whole regions in Germany and Denmark where the population depend on wood as their chief source of livelihood; but, still, I cannot help thinking that the sooner we make ourselves acquainted with what they do on the Continent in this regard the sooner we shall be able to turn to useful account large tracts in Ireland, in this country, and in Scotland which are now little better than waste. The next question I have to call attention to is that of fuel. Last year there was not only a failure of the potato crop, but in
  784
  one or two districts where a potato famine was not anticipated there was real reason to apprehend that the people would suffer greatly from want of fuel. I thought that in this matter the difficulties attending Government intervention—I mean in connection with the supply of fuel—were overwhelming; and, therefore, after much meditation, I reluctantly took the course of authorising Boards of Guardians of the several unions concerned to give relief even to able-bodied persons holding more than a quarter of an acre of land in certain electoral divisions of their unions, provided that relief was given simply in the way of turf. The number of unions to whom I gave these instructions was 11, situate in Donegal, Mayo, Clare, Kerry, and Limerick. So far, I believe, not a single union has taken advantage of the permission thus given. This is partly to be accounted for by the fact that subsequent to the action taken by the Government the weather became extremely dry, and it was found that the failure of turf was not so complete as at one time was feared. The parts of Ireland that have, on the whole, caused most anxiety and difficulty to deal with are the scattered islands on the west coast. They are in many cases Sparated from the mainland by a passage, short, indeed, but so stormy that they are sometimes cut off from all intercourse with the mainland for days and even weeks together. It is clear that if in these islands the potatoes fail, and there is no means of substituting other food for potatoes, there must be what there never has been on the mainland, namely, danger of famine. Very early in last winter I took steps for having the condition of every one of these islands carefully examined, and the examination has been continued from time to time. The Admiralty has aided me with gunboats; but I found that was not sufficient, and that it was absolutely necessary to have vessels the movements of which I could control without application to any other office; and, moreover, I found that the gunboats could not always face a head wind of the severity which blows on that coast. I was, therefore, authorised by the Treasury to charter two steamers, which have proved invaluable, both for carrying Inspectors from one island to another

  785
  and in conveying potatoes and stores of meal where it was deemed necessary. They also carried about the engineers and the superintendents of relief works in the places where those works were required. It has been found necessary to establish meal stores at Clare Island, Inniskea, Tory Island, Inishtrahull, and Innismurry. I do not think that, so far, it has been necessary to draw on the meal; but the amount of food stuffs on the islands was, in the opinion of the Inspectors, so small that we could not with safety allow these people to stand the risk of being separated from the relieving officer or food stores for the length of time during which they might be separated from the mainland. Another difficulty arose in connection with these islands, and that was that in many cases Boards of Guardians thought, and thought perhaps rightly, that the people could not afford security for advances of money or money's worth. There are some of the islands which have not paid county cess or poor rate for years. Naturally, the Guardians were not prepared to make a loan to such islands, seeing that they had not shown that anxiety to pay their just debts which would give confidence to their creditors. By way of solution of the difficulty, we started relief works, and we paid 7s. a week, which is the common rate of wages on the relief works, and this was paid partly in money and partly in meal, leaving the balance accumulated to be paid in seed potatoes, and by this means the difficulty to which I have adverted in Innismurry and Tory Island was successfully got over. That brings me to the case of seed potatoes. The House knows that last year, following the pracedent of 1880, we made a loan to Boards of Poor Law Guardians to enable them to purchase seed potatoes to be provided on credit to tenants within the limit of their respective unions. The whole responsibility for the kind and amount of the potato seed was thrown on the Guardians, but we have done everything in our power to enable them to choose the best possible seed. We have supplied them with forms of tender, we have given them advice in regard to the kind of seed that is most suitable, and we have, in fact, done all in our power to secure that the loan which this House authorised shall
  786
  be spent in getting the very best seed that the market can supply. Perhaps the House would like to know some of the details. After the Guardians had issued tenders in the form prescribed by the Local Government Board, the Land Commission, acting in co-operation with my Department, have supplied general and local Inspectors. The general Inspectors were in Glasgow and the North of Ireland, and they were able to telegraph to the local Inspectors when a defective cargo was either sent from Scotland or landed in Ireland. The local Inspectors acted with the Committee of the Board of Guardians; they inspected the seed potatoes on delivery by the contractors, and the result of their inspection was that in no less than 37 unions 46 consignments were found to be defective in quantity or quality. In these cases the contractor was communicated with, and the default was made good. It must not be supposed, however, that all the errors were on one side. I could mention some cases in which, after the potatoes had been taken home by the tenant, he, with a view of getting off having to pay for them, said they were rotten, when, in fact, they were perfectly sound and good. The Inspectors in these cases promply visited the tenants' houses and satisfied themselves that the seed potatoes were quite sound. These cases show that there has been fraud or error on both sides, and that the Inspectors have done admirable and valuable work, and it is satisfactory to know that the Boards of Guardians have shown themselves grateful, and have appreciated the efforts made on their behalf. Now I come to the question of relief works proper. The Committee has, no doubt, gathered that almost all the works have been in the shape of roads. That is not invariably the case, but it is mainly, and, of course, we have met with a great difficulty as to the selection of the roads to be constructed. Any one acquainted with Ireland will understand the kind of pressure that has been put upon a Government which is known to have unlimited resources at its command to start works wherever a Local Authority happens to desire it. Of course, there is everywhere a useful road to be made. There is no part of Ireland, probably no part of the world,

  787
  where, if you have the money, you cannot spend it usefully. And in the West of Ireland there is scarcely any part where there is not genuine poverty. I have received a largo number of letters and resolutions, and I believe over a hundred questions have been put to me in the House this Session to the effect that relief works are urgently required in various districts. I have been told of impending starvation. In such cases I have, within 24 hours, invariably sent down to make inquiries, and in every case I have found such statements to be entire, and, in some instances, fraudulent, exaggerations. It would have been easy for me to have earned cheap popularity in Ireland by a lavish assent to the applications made to me, irrespective of the interests of the British taxpayer. If, on the other hand, I have refused, as I certainly have, very many applications for relief works, it has not been mainly or principally in the interest of the British taxpayer, but rather in the interest of the population of Ireland. I am perfectly certain that to repeat the experiment of 1880, and to lavish money where it is not absolutely required, to make people believe that if they want a year of prosperity they must cry out in a year of panic, is ruinous to the population, and this is why I have refused, and I am afraid have appeared harsh in refusing, the impassioned demands that have been made on me by those who, no doubt, believed in the truth of the statements upon which those demands were founded. The fact is that it is not easy to discover the real truth as to the existence of distress even by those living in the locality. A police sergeant sent up to the Government a statement that the condition of his district was awful, and that one death a week from starvation was taking place. I made inquiries, and found that this statement was greatly exaggerated. Priests living in a district, and who, one would suppose, would be well acquainted with the resources of that district, have made to me communications showing that the population was on the verge of starvation, and imploring aid. In some of these cases I have offered it—I have offered at a place not more than 10 or 12 miles distant free lodging, free cooking, and 12s. a week to those men who desired work, and yet they have not
  788
  come. I do not adduce this with a view of showing that these priests intended to deceive me, but it is evidence that, they were themselves deceived. In one-instance where this offer was made—I believe it was in one of the poorest districts of the Swinford Union—nine men did apply for work, but five were so-drunk that they were incapable of working, and the other four accepted the work, but soon threw it up. [Colonel NOLAN: Name.] I think I had batter-not give any names, as I do not wish to make any reflection on those who made these statements to me. I give these cases as indicating the extreme difficulty in which even people well acquainted with a district find themselves when it comes to determining whether people in that district are or are not on the verge of starvation. The people all live in poor buts and in very much the same way, and the amount of their stock is not necessarily a conclusive indication of their condition. It is thus very easy to mislead even the most careful person as to the real amount of distress. The course I have taken with regard to starting works is this:—I have not relied upon any one Report or source of information; but if I had relied upon one set of persons I should not give their names to the Committee; because, as anyone who knows the condition of the localities of which I speak is well aware, if a man were to report that relief was not needed in a particular place, and if his name were made known, he would render himself obnoxious to the whole population, his popularity would suffer, and his opportunities of doing useful work in the future would be destroyed. I shall not, therefore, throw the responsibility of determining where works should or should not be undertaken upon my officers; the whole responsibility rests-upon myself. I have not rejected any source of information, but have collected information from Inspectors, the Constabulary, local Justices, the clergy, local gentry, and other persons; I have collated it all, and come to the best conclusion I could in the circumstances. Istarted works on this plan: Long ago, through the assistance of Colonel Fraser and latterly of Major Peacock, works were roughly designed for those places where it was thought they might be required. When

  789
  I have satisfactory information that the work is really needed, it is started as soon as possible. The wages in ordinary cases are at the rate of 7s. a week. Only one member of any family is allowed to work except when a family happens to be an extremely large one, when two of its members are allowed to work. Lists are carefully made out of the persons really in need in a district, and those persons only are allowed to work, all others being excluded. I am well aware that this system of allowing only those on the lists to have work has produced a good deal of discontent, but I believe it to be absolutely necessary. If you were to give as much as 7s. a week and were to exercise no supervision as to the class of persons to whom work should be given, this Committee would inevitably be asked to spend money upon those who are not absolutely in need of it. In framing the lists of persons in need of assistance it has not been thought necessary to compel these poor farmers to sell all the stock they may have upon their farms. According to English ideas it may seem absurd to give public assistance to a man who may have a few sheep or a cow; but it is not so in Ireland. Of course, the amount of stock that a man may have ought to be taken into account; but the mere possession of stock ought not to be considered as an absolute bar to work on the relief works. Nevertheless, the number of these works has been kept down very low, not too low to satisfy the necessities of the localities, although no doubt too low to please many of the parsons most concerned. There are certain places where it has been found impossible to collect the information necessary for drawing up a satisfactory list. There are cases where I place no reliance upon the lists furnished to me of persons really in need. The plan I have adopted in such cases is to alter the remuneration from 7s. to a stone of meal paid in kind daily. The worth of a stone of meal is about 11d., and a man working six days a week would therefore earn the equivalent of 5s. 6d. That is enough to keep a family alive, but it is a very small wage, and I do not believe that you wilt get people to work from 8 in the morning until 5 in the evening for a stone of meal a day unless they are really in need of it. I have found in those places where this system has been started and where there
  790
  was a large demand for labour before that the demand has very materially fallen off. Perhaps the Committee would like to have statistics of the men employed, and the money spent upon the relief works. The number of men employed in Donegal is 752, and the amount expended in wages £1,674. In Sligo 85 persons are employed; in Mayo, 2,555, and the amount expended in wages is £7,500. In Galway the number of persons is 2,300, wages £8,400; in Cork, persons 1,700, wages £3,400. The total number of persons employed on February 28 was 7,392, and the total amount of wages spent up to that day upon the labourers was £21,159. We are now actually spending upon labour at the rate of about £3,000 a week. Now I ought to describe the system we have adopted for supervising the relief. Any one acquainted with the distress works started in 1880 and at other periods will know that one of the greatest difficulties then experienced was the difficulty of supervision. The gangers were almost always local men, who had their favourites, and the result was that they largely employed persons who were not amongst those most in need of relief. Moreover, it was not always possible to trust them to see that the day's work was really carried out, and that the day's wages were not earned on false pretences. In order to meet this difficulty I have asked the War Office to lend me the services of two Engineer officers, Major Peacock and Lieutenant Harvey, and they are responsible for the general management of these relief works. Under them the county surveyors, who in Ireland are competent engineers, settle the details of the works and exercise a general engineering control over them. Men of the Royal Engineers act as supervisors, and supervise the construction of the works. The timekeepers or gangers are sometimes local men who can be trusted; but, as a rule, I have obtained the aid of the constabulary, the men being drawn from other districts than those in which the works are in progress. I believe they have given universal satisfaction, and have carried out their duties admirably. Our system, I believe, has secured this invaluable result—the people in the West of Ireland do not look upon the relief work as an excuse for getting money for doing

  791
  nothing; they have to do a day's work for a day's wages. The police, I may add, also act largely as paymasters. Everybody must be aware that the task upon which the Government have been engaged is one of extreme complexity and difficulty. Errors have been committed, I do not doubt. I dare say that there are people engaged on the relief works who ought not to be there, and that there may be cases—I trust very few—of people who ought to be, but are not there. But when we recollect to what extent individual charity goes astray, how many mistakes a charitably-disposed man often makes, how difficult it is for him to investigate the individual cases brought before him, how often fraud is committed in spite of every precaution, I think the Committee will be lenient if some errors are brought home to the Government. We have to act without precedents to help us, for the task we are engaged in has never been undertaken by any previous Government; our plan embraces such different things as railway construction, road-making, the provision of seed potatoes, and the supply of meal, and we have had to create a department for the execution of all these different schemes. When the Committee recollects all this, I am certain that it will think that if the Government have committed errors they are pardonable errors. But I believe it will be found that, on the whole, we have met this great difficulty as well as it could be met. I believe that the general plan we have devised—in its main outlines, at all events—is not capable of any very material improvement, and I believe that we have succeeded in relieving the distress with a minimum of demoralisation to the people. If I am not deceived in these hopes, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the failure of the potato crop this winter will leave behind no feeling of soreness against the Government; that it will not render more difficult of accomplishment those more permanent schemes of amelioration upon which I believe this Committee is bent, and which this Government will endeavour to carry out; and that we shall not find, when the clouds break and this period of darkness comes to an end, that the permanent task before us has been
  792
  rendered more difficult by the gloomy circumstances of the present winter.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have no fault to find with the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, or with the lines upon which the Government are proceeding, and I have only a few observations to make which are of a general character, and in offering them I shall, perhaps, be excused for rising before hon. Members from Ireland, who would interpose with greater local knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman has told the Committee that the land reclamation scheme from which in December he hoped for considerable results has now been abandoned. I, for one, do not greatly regret it, because, as I ventured to say in December, I believed the views of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter of land reclamation were not based on facts which could be sustained. The right hon. Gentleman's view was that reclamation should be undertaken on a large scale by the Government; but I ventured to point out that the only chance of effecting land reclamation lay in intrusting it to small men, each man reclaiming his own patch for his own benefit. Under the head of planting, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to go further, or whether the experiment of planting 1,000 acres is to be the end of his activity. I admit what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the backwardness of this country in the art of forestry. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that within the last three or four years a Committee of the House has been sitting and has made certain important recommendations in reference to forestry, if not in Ireland, certainly in England and Scotland, and it is the fault of Her Majesty's Government that no steps have been taken to carry them out. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will pay attention to these recommendations of the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has not been quite clear in explaining the amount of his estimate. Is the £60,000 to carry out the whole of his relief policy, or is it merely an instalment? I asked that question in December. I did not press the right hon. Gentleman then, nor will I press him now; but it would be convenient for the Committee

  793
  to be told whether this £60,000 is the whole they should be asked for. I do not understand how the amount was made up. The right hon. Gentleman told us that £21,000 has been expended on wages on works, and that £3,000 a week is now going on.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A great many items are involved. The £21,000 merely refers to the actual wages on the relief works.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Do I understand that £21,000 has been actually expended, and that the payment of £3,000 a week is going on?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not said how many weeks that is to last. Am I to take it that it is a continuous expenditure?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The items have not been very clearly stated. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has been allowed by the Treasury to employ two boats on the west coast. Is the cost of these boats included? Of course, we know there must be a considerable expenditure for material. I have not gathered the amount of the expenditure upon seed potatoes. The right hon. Gentleman has made reference to certain frauds and errors being detected, such as might be expected in any operations of this kind. I have no doubt the Committee would be inclined to look with great leniency on any errors that may be brought to light. I have only to say that, at all events, we gather from the scheme of the right bon. Gentleman that when we and hon. Members representing Irish constituencies were charged in September and October last with having stated that there was real distress in Ireland in order to make political capital, there is now ample evidence in the Reports of the Inspectors that there is no truth in that charge, and that there is very real distress, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has now admitted. Putting it generally, as far as can be gathered from the Reports of the Inspectors, what is it that has happened? Simply this: that over one-half of Ireland there is a deficiency of one-fourth of the potato crops, and this seems to be the foundation of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. With respect to railways, I
  794
  put a question on January 30th to the Secretary to the Treasury, my object being to ascertain whether, when a certain contract since laid before Parliament was entered into by the Government with the Great Western Railway of Ireland—whether an opportunity was given for competitive tenders, or whether the Government had altogether placed themselves in the hands and at the mercy of that Railway Company. The Secretary to the Treasury used language at that time which I did not clearly understand——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this would come more properly under the next Vote, which relates to the expenditure under the head of railways.
  MR. J. MORLEY: In that case, Sir, I shall make what remarks I have to offer on this point when the Railway Vote is taken. I only alluded to the matter because the right hon. Gentleman had already opened it in his statement. I may, however, be allowed to say that in regard to the question of the railway policy of the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman referred at considerable length, I should like to receive from him an explanation of the fact that no opportunity has ever been given for inviting tenders for the construction of the railways that are now being undertaken. I will reserve what remarks I have to make on that subject until the next Vote. I can only say that, as far as I am enabled to understand the operations set forth by the Chief Secretary, there is really no disposition on this side of the House to find fault or to offer any opposition.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I have listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with great attention, and on the whole I do not think there is much reason for quarelling with the course he has taken; but I do think there is some confusion in the statement he has put before us with regard to matters of fact. The right hon Gentleman proposes to pay the starving peasantry by three different scales of wages—a 12s. scale, a 7s. scale, and a 5s. 6d. scale; and in regard to the 12s. scale I suppose the right hon. Gentleman only refers to wages in connection with railway construction, which is a matter that does not come

  795
  under the present Vote. I may, however, say that not long since I was travelling with a railway engineer, who told me that it was very hard to get men for the work of making railways who were accustomed to, and able to, perform really hard work, such as that kind of labour involves. It could hardly be expected that men who are to be paid only 12s. a week will do the sort of work that is usually done by railway labourers. It is perhaps enough to pay to a man who requires it in the shape of relief, and who merely needs assistance to tide over from one bad harvest to another, which he hopes will be a good one; but if you take the case of the ordinary labourer who expects to be put into the same position as the English labourer, I do not think 12s. a week can be looked upon as proper wages. It must be remembered that there always are a great number of men who look upon themselves in the light of professional labourers rather than as belonging to the class to whom it is proposed to give relief. These are the men who are discontented with this 12s. a week. Some of them are discontented, I know. These railways are not, strictly speaking, relief works. They were instituted long before the relief was thought of. It is a mere accident that they fall in the year in which the potato harvest has proved bad. The policy of the Chief Secretary has been, up to the present time, to confine the relief works to the mountainous districts. He has left the general portions of the country without any relief at all. There is a large proportion of the distressed population in portions of Mayo, Galway, and Roscommon—other than the mountainous districts. As far as I can see, the Chief Secretary has done nothing in those districts. He promised me that three weeks' ago work would be instituted in those districts. This is the point that I make against the Chief Secretary: In November last he took the whole responsibility upon himself of saying where works should or should not be commenced; and he got a Bill granted enabling the Government to do what they liked in the way of relief. Since then he has done nothing whatever in the greater portion of the districts affected by the failure of the potato harvest. In none of these districts
  796
  could you find one out of every 200 with more than £10 in the bank, and if a man's savings were absorbed, and he were driven to sell some portion of his stock—two or three head of rough cattle, a few sheep, and perhaps a horse, he would be parting with his means of future subsistence. As to the wages given for these relief works, 7s. a week is not a high amount; still I do not grumble at the amount, but at the fact that no wages at all are given in two-thirds of Mayo, three-fourths of Galway, and part of Roscommon and the districts around. It has become fashionable for English Members to visit the mountainous districts, and I admit that poverty there assumes a picturesque aspect, and that, probably, English Members know more about it than they would if it existed within easy distances of London. But the flat portions of Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, and similar districts in other parts of the country, have been neglected altogether up to the present, as far as relief works go. The Chief Secretary has been making promises from week to week, but I hope he will see that these works are commenced in the districts to which I refer. As to the distribution of potatoes I have no great fault to find with it, though, I think, there was a little red-tapeism in some of the orders issued by the Local Government Board. But I am of opinion that the perfect success of the Act will not be shown until the time for the recovery of debts arrives. I went round some of the districts and found the farmers taking limited and moderate quantities of potatoes, and I expect that, on the whole, the Act will be tolerably successful and will work well. I should wish those who are charged with the administration of the Act to take note of the fact that within a fortnight or three weeks applications for additional quantities of potatoes will be made. The Unions have, rather than have left on their hands potatoes which they would be unable to get rid of, under-estimated the quantities they required. I think they were right in doing so. But now that they will have to make application for further quantities, I hope no red-tapeism will stand in the way of their being supplied. I am extremely glad that the Chief Secretary is making exertions in Father Flannerty's district, but

  797
  I think the Chief Secretary has exaggerated the difficulty of acquiring land in Ireland for the purposes of his plans, and he has only to notify to the proprietors that a reasonable price will be given, to secure the land he requires. Of course, compensation would have to be given to the tenants. I quite agree with the Chief Secretary that it would be a good thing if we could have more trees in Ireland, and it is high time that Her Majesty's Government should imitate the example of the French Government and commence the planting of trees. By adopting a system of forestry the Government would in many ways develop the resources of the country. It would appear, however, from the Chief Secretary's statement, that he is giving no relief whatever to the people in a large part of Ireland, but I sincerely hope he will be able to increase the scope of his operations. The right hon. Gentleman took great credit for not spending too much money, and for acting on the principles of political economy. I quite agree with him that he is acting on the strictest and most niggardly principles of political economy. He belongs to an insincere school of political economists who have cultivated hose hard notions of political economy until they have become a kind of second nature. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is acting according to his lights, and thinks he will demoralise the Irish people if he spends more than the sum he has stated; but that sum will not tide more than 50,000 people over a bad harvest, although there are between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 engaged in agriculture in Ireland, of whom at least one-half have been affected by the potato failure. [Colonel WARING: No.] Well, the hon. Gentleman does not represent the whole of Ireland. In his part of the country there has been a splendid potato crop. I am glad it is so, and I hope his part of the country will get no relief; but if the hon. Gentleman likes, I will say a third or a fourth of the agricultural population has been affected. Well, how can the money which the right hon. Gentleman is spending help such a vast number of persons? The right hon. Gentleman has been very chary of figures, but it is clear that this insignificant Vote will not meet the present emergency. I do
  798
  not believe that the people are going to starve in Ireland, on the main land at all events, but I am afraid what will happen will be that the people will eat up their means of subsistence so that they will be reduced to poverty for the next three or four years. This might be very easily remedied if the right hon. Gentleman would apply his relief works over a larger district than at present.
  SIR JOHN POPE HENNESSY: There can be no doubt that the statements of the gallant Colonel who has just sat down are entirely justified as regards the area of distress. It is evident from the reports that, along the coast of Kerry, and throughout the County Cork the gravest distress prevails, and that distress will be intensified week after week. This Vote is described as one for the relief of distress in Ireland. It amounts to £60,800, and in that sum we find items of £2,500 and £2,230 for the payment of Inspectors and officials employed in administering this comparatively small amount. How does it come to pass that 9 per cent. of this money is to be laid out upon officials? One answer will naturally occur to those who have been observing the action of the Chief Secretary for the past few months, namely, that these Inspectors of the Local Government Board in Ireland are employed in administering another fund—a fund amounting very nearly to £60,000—a fund which has been collected by Lord Zetland and the Chief Secretary under the famous letter of the 3rd of January last. Can we then deal with this sum of £60,000 and omit altogether from our consideration the £50,000 or £60,000 which has been collected by Lord Zetland and the Chief Secretary? It is impossible. In the letter to which I refer the Chief Secretary very kindly tells the British public what is the main necessity on which he bases that appeal. I venture to ask the attention of the House to the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman why the public should contribute to a charitable fund for Ireland. It is that there exists in Ireland a law which does not exist in England or Scotland, and the effect of that law is to render a charitable appeal necessary. Here is what the Chief Secretary said—
  "Outdoor relief, except, of course, in cases of emergency, cannot legally be administered

  799
  to persons holding more than a quarter of an acre of land; and though no one acquainted even superficially with the history of the Irish Poor Law would regard a general relaxation of this rule as other than a public calamity, yet its maintenance undoubtedly limits the capacity to deal, unaided, with periods of exceptional distress. Here, then, is a state of things which may well appeal to the charitable."
  First of all, is the Chief Secretary wise in calling attention to that exceptional law which is harsh to the poor, which does not exist in Great Britain? He says that no one would think of repealing it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon Member has disqualified himself from discussing that subject because he has brought in a Bill dealing with it.
  *SIR J. POPE HENNESSY: I may perhaps be allowed to say that the House many years ago dealt with the law, and actually repealed it, though the Bill was thrown out in another place. The Irish Members say that the area contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman is too small, that the distress in the South and West of Ireland is widespread, and we appeal to the officers of the right hon. Gentleman in support of our contention. The right hon. Gentleman deserves credit for much that he did in connection with Irish distress—he himself visited that particular part of Ireland to which he has especially called attention to-night—but the House will observe the very fact that the right hon. Gentleman's tour was not extended to the more southern parts of Ireland may account for the fact, that in the proposal put before us to-night he has omitted those districts to which my hon. and gallant Friend called attention. But the whole question of the relief of Irish distress depends upon far higher considerations than those which have been stated by the Chief Secretary. Take that experiment which he is now about to begin. He deserves credit for being the first Chief Secretary to try the experiment of afforestation even upon a very minute scale; but it is impossible not to see that the difficulties to which he has just referred are difficulties that can only be encountered by an Executive in Dublin and a Parliament in Dublin. It is impossible for this House, with the large amount of business before it, adequately to deal with the remedies for the state of things in Ireland; and, there-
  800
  fore, what I and other Irish Members venture to recommend to Her Majesty's Government is that they should adopt a radical remedy for all these evils, and that is to throw on my hon. Friend (Mr. Justin McCarthy) and the other hon. Members from Ireland the responsibility of dealing with these questions—not dealing with them here, but in Dublin.
  MR. THEODORE FRY: I am certain the House listened with the greatest interest to the Chief Secretary's statement of the work the Government have undertaken in various parts of Ireland, but I cannot help feeling that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) has hit one of the weakest parts of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and that is, whether he has really commenced sufficient works in order to deal effectually with the distress which now exists. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think he has done all that is necessary for the relief of distress; or, at any rate, he appears to convey that the Government will have very carefully to consider before any other works of any kind are commenced in Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I stated we had started all the works that are necessary up to date.
  MR. THEODORE FRY: I am glad of the correction. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman told us that, up to the present time, the total number of persons employed on the works is 7,300. Considering the population of Ireland, that number is exceedingly small. I am aware of the difficulty of starting relief works in a hurry; but I think that the right hon. Gentleman is disposed now to minimise the distress in Ireland just as he was some months ago. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the greatest care is taken to employ the most needy men; but when there are large numbers of men precisely in the same position, how are the men chosen for employment? The week before last I visited the Island of Achill. The population of the Island is about 8,000, and there are 317 persons employed in relief works. These persons are not all men, because I noticed a great number of able-bodied girls, and in some cases two or three members of one family at work. 317 is an exceedingly small number indeed to employ on relief work, espe-

  801
  cially when there is scarcely any difference whatever in the position or the income of the inhabitants of the Island. Father O'Connor, the respected parish priest, told me he did not believe there are 20 persons on the Island who are not in need of some assistance of one kind or another. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is attending to all the distress when he employs 317 persons, he is taking far too much credit to himself. When I was there hundreds of people ran up and clamoured for work, and one man with a large family seemed almost beside himself when he was told he was to be employed. I impress upon the Chief Secretary the need of granting, if it is possible, even a greater amount of relief than he has yet done. The other day I asked a question in the House concerning the distribution of seed potatoes. When I was in Ireland I saw seed potatoes being weighed out. The women carried them away, but when they got them home they found many of them were rotten. Although the responsibility of inspection is taken off the shoulders of the Government by the Inspectors being appointed by the Boards of Guardians, it is necessary the Government should see that the potatoes are carefully sorted. One great evidence of distress is that several families are eating their seed potatoes; but perhaps nothing can more clearly show the poverty of the people than a statement made to me by an eminent ecclesiastic. That gentleman told me that within his knowledge there are at least 100 families who are so poor that the piece of peat with which they heat their gruel in the morning, they carefully cover up with ashes so that it may serve them as a fire at night. This is an occurrence in a district from which large sums of money are taken year after year by the landlords. "And," added the ecclesiastic, "not a single penny comes back to the district in the form of charity or work." I trust Her Majesty's Government will, if possible, increase the area of relief, and see that greater care is exercised in the selection of the seed potatoes which are to be distributed.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Pry) if the seed potatoes distributed are found
  802
  to be rotten, the blame in no sense rests with the Government. The distribution of such relief is in the hands of the Boards of Guardians, whom the Government assist by means of a system of Inspectors. I am astonished to hear that out of a population of 8,000 in the Island of Achill there are only 20 persons who are not in need of relief. I think if that were the fact we should have heard a great deal more about it, and it would not have been necessary for an hon. Member of the House of Commons to go over there to make the discovery. I must express surprise that upon this occasion, when a matter so vitally interesting to Ireland is under discussion, the Irish Benches should be almost completely empty. The hon. Member for North Kilkenny (Sir J. Pope Hennessy) seems to think this or any other Irish question cannot be dealt with except by an Irish Parliament. I will not follow him into that question, but I must flatly contradict the hon. Member's statement that "all along the coasts of Kerry and Clare the greatest distress prevails." On certain patches of those coasts there is distress, but there is not distress along the entire coasts. And with regard to the hon. Gentleman's question whether we can deal with this Vote without regard being paid to the private fund raised by Lord Zetland, let me say I cannot see what we have to do with the fund raised by the Lord Lieutenant any more than with the funds of the National League. It is satisfactory to note that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) has no hostile criticism of the Vote to make. There can be no hostile criticism of the Vote, for the best of all reasons that the greatest care has been taken to prevent anything like jobbery or waste. But in respect to land reclamation, the right hon. Gentleman advocates an alternative policy to that formulated by the Chief Secretary. I am not surprised that the Chief Secretary had to abandon any immediate action with respect to land reclamation, and I am not in the least surprised that he should have found that, although there are large areas which appear to be utterly waste, when you come to examine them you find they are really in occupation of tenants who wont improve. The hon. and gallant Member for Gal way

  803
  said there was no such, difficulty. For instance, in his county, he said, you have only to write to a solicitor in the town of Galway and say you want to buy land, and you can get it. You will have to pay the solicitor, of course, but the whole point of the question is, what price will you have to pay for the land? When he hon. and gallant Member talks about going to the landlord first and then to the tenant, he must know that the object is to get the land vacant in order to deal with it, and, therefore, you must go to the tenant and settle with him before you approach the landlord. I put it this way: Suppose the Chief Secretary, following out the hon. and gallant Gentleman's views, writes to a solicitor in Galway, and says, "I want to get land for Government reclamation." Then the solicitor finds a landlord who is willing to part with land at a price, and he arranges with the landlord, but then he must also arrange with the tenant; the tenant is not going to give up occupation, as the hon. and gallant Member must know perfectly well. Whenever a railway is being pushed through the difficulty arises with the tenant, and not with the landlord, it is the exorbitant demand of the tenant that usually creates the difficulty. Therefore, unless the Government have compulsory powers to take land from the tenant for purposes of reclamation or planting, it is perfectly plain they will not get it at a price rational and decent for the Government to pay. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle has an alternative policy to this Government action. I understand him to say he would prefer to have the work done by the tenants themselves. Well, if that is the alternative, then the right hon. Gentleman has really no proposal to make, because every possible facility is now afforded by the law for the tenants carrying out these very operations.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not quite understand me. I said I did not believe an any gigantic scheme of Government reclamation, nor do I. I said, if reclamation is going to be carried out properly and promptly it should be done, with or without the assistance of the Government, by small men working for themselves in the first place.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: I am exactly in accord with the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite opposed to the Government undertaking such gigantic operations at all, but I must also point out that the law as it is, is quite sufficient for the full development of the policy the right hon. Gentleman advocates. Take the case of a small tenant in any county in Ireland. Suppose I am a tenant, and want to reclaim a piece of land. I post a letter without a stamp to the Board of Works in Dublin saying what I want, the Board sends an Inspector and the Inspector draws the plans, everything is done for me. I am not even required to pay for his expenses, or his plans, or for postage. The Government give me professional advice, and advance the money on easy terms, spreading repayment over a large number of years, and I get the full benefit of the reclamation, which becomes my absolute private property. Well, I do not see that legislation can go any further, so that what the right hon. Gentleman says, in effect, amounts to this—that the law as regards reclamation is perfectly sufficient, and that there is nothing further to be done. But I think if the right hon. Gentleman really knew Ireland, and had travelled through Ireland, he would feel amazed and distressed at the amount of land there is in Ireland which is capable of being made infinitely more productive by the expenditure of very little capital and labour upon it in view of the fact that all the land is in the occupation of tenants, and that the law as it at present stands does not produce the result that was hoped for as regards reclamation of land, there is no alternative; you are either to say the land is not to be reclaimed, but to remain as it is, or you must propose some new plan. For my part I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not work for the Government; but I certainly think it is the business of the Government to assist in the operation of reclamation—not through the occupying tenant, but by some process of enabling capitalists and landlords to acquire from tenants neglected land for purposes of reclamation, making that land more profitable in the future. That, I believe, is the true policy; but you are immediately face to face with the difficulty, that the Land Acts of the last few years have

  805
  stereotyped a condition of things adverse to reclamation and progress and disastrous for the future of Ireland. One further observation I wish to make on the statement of the Chief Secretary. I was rejoiced, greatly rejoiced, at the firmness with which he has resisted the pressure of gentlemen, Members of Parliament and others, to spend money on relief in a more reckless way. In Kerry, for example, drawing a comparison between what happened there in 1880 and what is happening now, I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman, while amply dealing with the distress existing, has saved us from that demoralisation which followed the reckless expenditure in 1880. I think we ought to be exceedingly grateful for that; and as regards the fact that he has not relied on local supervision, I may say that my observation of the expenditure of public money in Ireland, in my own district and other districts, has been that there has been the greatest jobbery connected with it, and this largely due to the fact that local supervision has been employed. I have not the acquaintance of Major Peacock and others engaged in supervision, but I think that in the supervision provided we have a safeguard against a repetition of that wasteful and demoralising expenditure.
  MR. MACNEILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred with regret to the absence of Irish Members from this discussion, but let him be assured that he will have ample opportunity of renewing his acquaintance with Irish Members in his own constituency at the next election. Now let me turn with a few words to the interesting statement of the Chief Secretary. Very full and clear that statement was, and very significant, inasmuch as it admitted the existence of severe and even appalling distress in Ireland. I expected an admission of that, and it would have been strange if that admission had been absent from the statement. We cannot shut our eyes to the reports in the public Press, and we know that the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman, in their capacity of high officers of State, have actually solicited the charity of the world for Ireland. As I listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—his statement of the amount of distress, its
  806
  severity, and the absolute inefficiency of the ordinary means to cope with it—I thought what a commentary that statement was on the effects of the legislative union between the two countries, that, after 91 years of incorporation with the richest country in the world, here is Ireland, according to the admission of the Minister at the head of Irish administration, a mere Lazarus among the nations. The right hon. Gentleman is a practical man. I do not know whether his reading lies much in ancient history, but has he ever looked into the speeches of Mr. Pitt at the time of the Union? Why, he assured the nation there would be something like a shower of gold falling into the lap of Ireland. He spoke with the earnestness of conviction, and showed with almost mathematical precision that if Ireland for 18 years before the Union had been prosperous the 18 years after the Union would have 12 times the prosperity. But here we are now in exactly the same position in which we were in 1846, and the inhabitants of Ireland are unable, according to the confession of the Chief Secretary, to support themselves in their own country without special legislative assistance. My right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Morley) is far too gentle a man to say what I am going to say now, but he will remember the dates. He has only gently and almost kindly touched upon matters I shall more directly refer to—the warnings we gave the right hon. Gentleman months before of the impending distress. If the Chief Secretary had accepted our warnings much of the suffering of the last three months would have been obviated, and the Irish tenants would be relieved from the pressure of severe distress, of which I admit the Chief Secretary has spoken to-day very properly, very feelingly. But so far back as the middle of July we knew distress was imminent, and again and again we referred to it in the House. I have asked a few questions, and in doing so I may have exceeded the usual limits accorded on such occasions, but my excuse for not considering the feelings of those around me is the knowledge of a starving population at home. From July onwards, so far as we were able, in season and out of season, did I and my colleagues bring the extent of the distress and the con-

  807
  dition in Ireland before the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary to the Treasury visited Donegal, not my constituency, but he went to Glenties early in September, and there was a large and influential meeting at Glenties to meet him. At that meeting the Recorder of Cork (Mr. Hamilton), a Conservative gentleman entirely out of sympathy with the people, but an upright, honourable, kindly man, declared that the cry of famine in Donegal was raised by agitators for political purposes, as did also Archdeacon Cox. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury went to Achill, but instead of going to those who can give authoritative information as to the condition of the people (the Irish clergy) he went to Mr. Johnston, of Ross town, and so we find afterwards the paragraph going the round of the Press that "Mr. Jackson considers the accounts of distress in Ireland very much exaggerated." Matters went on, and the Chief Secretary received letters from priests in my own constituency warning him of the state of the country. There were meetings of the Catholic clergy, there were letters to the papers, all announcing the distress to no small extent, and then there came a series of political meetings, held in Newcastle, where my right hon. Friend (Mr. Morley) referred to the Irish distress, and hinted that the Chief Secretary, who had not been in Ireland since the January before, would do well to go there to see the condition of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman retorted that it was not for my right hon. Friend to dictate to him from whence he should address his letters. Quite right, and my right hon. Friend never dreamed of such dictation; but, still, the right hon. Gentleman is the head of the Irish Government, and holds in his hands power on which life in Ireland depends. Then the Times took the war path. Letters appeared in the Times from a well-known hand, and Times' articles were written by a well-known hand—that of Mr. Wilson—to check the flow of subscriptions, and then on October 3 came a letter from the Chief Secretary, dated from Whitting-ham, to an American gentleman, with a view of stopping American contributions to Ireland, to the effect that there was no real distress in Ireland; that the amount of distress was exaggerated by
  808
  agitators for political purposes. Yet though this was on October 3rd, in three weeks the right hon. Gentleman rushed down to Mayo, Sligo, and Donegal. The right hon. Gentleman had been judiciously prodded to this, and there was another effectual prod in the Eccles election. I wish the hon. Member for the Eccles Division were present now. The factor of Irish distress and the conduct of the Irish Executive formed the subject of debate on every platform, throughout the Eccles election campaign——
  An hon. MEMBER: And the Eight Hours Bill.
  MR. MACNEILL: Yes, and the Eight Hours Bill, too. I wish to be candid. On October 22 the result of the Eccles-election was declared, and on the 25th came the expedition to Mayo. And the result shows the benefit that in some respects would accrue from a short period of Home Rule even in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. So long as he remained in England he could not believe in the distress. The expedition returned in three days. It was planned, so far as Mayo and Sligo were concerned, by an eminent Judge, who has four times received promotion from a Conservative Government. During this tour a remarkable document appeared, a pastoral signed by nearly all the Catholic Bishops, declaring the distress imminent and the country in a desperate condition, and imploring the Government, while the people were in want of food, not to allow the Forces of the Crown to be used to deprive the people of their homes. It was impossible to pay the rent, and the Executive were implored to do as the President of the Board of Trade once did in the case of the Clanricarde tenants to stay the arm of the law in the interests of justice and humanity. Well, the right hon. Gentleman came back from Mayo and Sligo, and of that tour I say nothing. I only wish to refer to the visit to my own constituency. We have evidence from the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fry) that the people are starving in Achill, and we have that in letters from the clergy of the district. I was looking over, a short time ago, a little volume, very amusing and, I may say, unconsciously comic, describing "Mr. Balfour's Tour," and in that is a picture of the

  809
  right hon. Gentleman addressing the islanders, he promising them help, they responding with cheers and "God bless you" Have those promises been fulfilled? No one can say so if what the hon. Member for Darlington says has any approximation to accuracy. The right hon. Gentleman, having returned to the Castle from Mayo and Sligo, thought he would then try Donegal, and started for that bleak and picturesque region. He telegraphed Mr. Olphert, the celebrated Donegal benefactor, of his movements, and I daresay the hon. Member for South Tyrone knew all about them; but the right hon. Gentleman did not do the Representatives of the constituency the courtesy of announcing his intention of visiting it, or invite co-operation in his object. On the 4th November, the day on which the Donegal tour began, and of which we knew nothing but from the newspapers, there appeared a letter from Dr. McDonald, the Bishop of Raphoe, in whose diocese Donegal is comprised, A public letter which must have drawn the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that Mr. Olphert was again on the war-path. He had unroofed and burned the houses of 150 of his tenants, and had obtained warrants for the eviction of 250 more, and this the Bishop referred to and to the fact that troops were proceeding from Derry to Donegal to carry out the evictions. I confess it seemed too strange to me that the right hon. Gentleman should be going to Donegal with the honest intention of investigating the distress, and at the same time that Mr. Olphert, the scourge of Donegal for 50 years, should be permitted to complete the ruin of people whose condition had evoked so much sympathy. So I went to Donegal myself, and I found great difficulty in catching the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for West Donegal went also, and I think we spent a small fortune on telegraphing in our efforts to discover the whereabouts of the right hon. Gentleman. At length we found him, and I had an interview, of which the right hon. Gentleman has given at Liverpool a very amusing, very witty, though slightly inaccurate account. The speech on the occasion, so far as Donegal was concerned, harmonised with the traditions of the place in which it was delivered; it was bright and
  810
  merry, and addressed to an audience in Hengler's Circus. He stated there that I went to Donegal to obstruct him in his work of benevolence. Nothing of the kind; I went there with the intention of showing him how and where his attention might be most usefully directed. I wanted to stay Mr. Olphert's hand. It was not an unworthy motive, but I knew it would be open to misconstruction. I had no intention of putting myself in antagonism with him; I simply wanted to obtain the highest influence to restrain Mr. Olphert's hand. I brought as awful a charge as could be brought by one man against another against Mr. Olphert.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Mr. Chairman, I rise to Order. I desire to ask for the information of the Committee, and especially of Members on this side of the House, whether it is allowable on this Vote to go into all the details of the management of the Olphert estate and the relations of Mr. Olphert with his tenantry?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It clearly would not be in order to take that broad view, but I do not think the hon. Member has gone so far as that.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I desire to point out that in the Paper laid before the House with regard to the Poor Law Union in which Mr. Olphert's Estate is situated, not a single case of outdoor or indoor relief has been added since these occurrences.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I will take no notice of the interruption except to say that when I come to the question of the Olphert estate on another Vote, I shall appeal to the hon. Gentleman, who was himself there when I was, to reply to the facts which I shall bring before the House. I am keeping strictly to the subject of Irish distress and its relief. Hon. Gentlemen will understand that distress arises from want of food; and if people burn other people's food and destroy it, there is a probability that food will be wanted. I brought this charge against Mr. Olphert publicly, and he could have charged me with libel if he had so chosen. I stated that the food and the crops of those people who had been evicted had been taken by Mr. Olphert's emergency men under the protection of the Royal Irish Constabulary——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. MACNEILL: I will not, then, say any more about that. I would, however, point out that as the finale of the Chief Secretary's tour in Donegal, no fewer than 250 families were deprived of food and housing.
  MR. MACARTNEY: By the Plan of Campaign.
  MR. MACNEILL: Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like to hear the truth. Falcarragh is one of the most desolate places in the world. I have been in the Karroo Desert, and I can inform the House that that desert is a Garden of Eden compared with Olphert's estate in Donegal. The right hon. Gentleman heard from me that these people were Starving, but he did not take the trouble to go to Falcarragh, but ran away the next morning without even seeing Father M'Fadden, who could have given him the best information in the district. He saw Mr. Olphert, however, and the evictions took place two days afterwards. If the right hon. Gentleman had gone to Falcarragh, I believe he would have told Olphert, as the President of the Board of Trade when Chief Secretary told Clanricarde, "These people are starving, and I will not give you the forces of the Crown to assist in putting them out of their homes." The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman this evening have been fairly conciliatory, and I will give him some information in reference to the distress in one parish. In this parish no less than 66 able-bodied men have nothing to do. There is one district mentioned in the documents I have before me relating to the district of Killcar in my constituency, and it is described as the most congested district in all Ireland. The value of the potato crop there is given as one-fourth of the ordinary value, while the bulk of the potato crop is given at one-third of the ordinary bulk, and I have been told recently that nothing has been done for the relief of distress in this district. Nothing has been done, and the people are in a starving condition. The right hon. Gentleman knows the nature of the Donegal coast, and his experience has been that of every public man who has had to do with Ireland. The fishermen come and implore you for God's sake to do what you can to get them a few piers run out from the land,
  812
  so that they can get out and in from the bays in stormy weather and send their fish to market. There is not in Donegal or on Tory Island the slightest attempt being made to provide piers. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary what he intends to do in the matter? He has £60,000 in his own hands, which he can spend as he likes. What does he intend to do in reference to Gweedore? Does he intend to leave the people to starve? They are in the unfortunate position of being on the Olphert estate, and Mr. Olphert has a son in Dublin Castle. When there is an eviction in the neighbourhood, this gentleman makes Olphert Castle a barrack for Her Majesty's troops. But the tenantry are human beings, although they are Mr. Olphert's tenants. One of the Government overseers went to Father M'Fadden in the autumn and asked him what, in his opinion, should be done for the people, and he recommended the construction of a certain road, and undertook himself to do it for £5,000. The work would cost the Government £15,000 if they undertook to do it themselves. What do they intend to do in the matter? They hold the opinion that Father M'Fadden is a gentleman who has used his spiritual influence over the people to their detriment; but the right hon. Gentleman should go to Gweedore for himself and see what has been effected by the exertions of Father M'Fadden, and I undertake to say he, for one, would goon change his opinion. I am sorry to say anything against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in his efforts to alleviate distress in Ireland; but I must remark that his own intelligence should show him the uselessness of giving doles for public works with one hand, while with the other he allows the scenes which have taken place at Falcarragh—the evictions, the burnings, the oppressions—to go on. The items devoted to Donegal were spent before the 8th February, when the right hon. Gentleman had an interview at Letterkenny with the Bishop of Raphoe, who told him that what had been done was illusory, and that unless Some great and comprehensive scheme were undertaken there would be a danger of the people dying of starvation. Some of the people who ought to have been the recipients of relief are in a state of absolute destitu-

  813
  tion and starvation. Within two days of the Chief Secretary leaving Donegal some peasants were expelled from their homes. I saw them, myself, and saw the food some of them were taking with them and preserving with the utmost care. Here are some of the potatoes. [The hon. Member exhibited to the Committee two or three extremely small potatoes.] They are miserable tubers like those described by the right hon. Gentleman's own Secretary as "more resembling plums than potatoes." Such, is the food of the people who are being expelled from their homes because they cannot pay their rent, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do to relieve their distress.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think there are two things with which the Committee need not trouble themselves. I do not think it has been gravely argued that an Irish Parliament could have solved all the difficulties which have been raised. In the second place, I do not think we are called upon to go into the question of evictions, whether in Donegal or in any other part of Ireland, for it cannot be successfully contended that evictions have increased during the distress, or even during recent times. Indeed, evictions have absolutely diminished, and therefore I need not trouble myself with either of those two arguments. There is one thing the Committee should remember in connection with this matter, and that is that we have had periods of distress in Ireland over and over again. I am not referring to the famine of 1846–7. We have had repeated periods of distress requiring the intervention of the Legislature or of private charity. Now, I want to know whether any man in this House is prepared to state that on any of those occasions one-half so much has been done for the people, or that it has been done half so well as on the present occasion? You may go back to 1880 when distress occurred, and two relief funds were brought into existence in Dublin. There was not half so much system or care in the administration of that relief as in that of the Government this year. Then, in 1886, we had the experiment tried by the right hon. Member for Newcastle in the West of Ireland, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself would like to see that experiment repeated.
  814
  The Island of Achill has been referred to, and described as having a population of 8,000. I really wish the habit of exaggeration could be kept out of these matters. As a fact, the population of Achill is only 6,000, and that is 5,000 more than the island is capable of supporting. Who is to blame for that? Certainly not the Government or the Chief Secretary. The fact remains that that island is overcrowded, and that it can only maintain a bare existence by labour in England and Scotland. Any English Member choosing to go to the Island of Achill will find distress there at any time. It is the normal condition of a large number of the people living there. It is, therefore, no argument against the Government for the hon. Member for Darlington to say that he has seen crowds of people there waiting for work, because he can see precisely the same thing at any period of the year, and will find abundant means to get rid of any money he may desire to dispose of in a charitable way. I was there myself in November last, and saw the people, and a most interesting people they seemed to me. They were coming-home from the labour markets in England and Scotland in hundreds. I made inquiries, and found that they brought home something like £6,000. Now, that is a sum not easily disposed of in that island. Those people returned, not only with that money, but clothed with garments which they had purchased in England and Scotland. The potatoes there were all but a total failure—I do not believe there was a fourth of them good. It did not seem to me necessary to bring any of them to the House of Commons, like the hon. Member for South Donegal, for I did not suppose the Committae would require occular demonstration. What has been done? In the first place, seed potatoes have been placed within reach of these people. It is quite true they are paying for them, as I think it is right that they should. I do not think that charity in the way of gifts of seed potatoes in such cases as these is much appreciated or does much good. There is no reason why these islanders should not have fresh seed for the planting of this year. The hon. Member for Darlington says there were some rotten potatoes supplied, and the Chief Secretary admits that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The rotten potatoes were not distributed.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think the hon. Member for Darlington said they were distributed; but in any large distribution of potatoes under any scheme, or system of inspection, we are bound to get dishonesty of that kind. In addition to that there has been a railway made at a distance of eight or ten miles; there have been relief works opened in the island; a road there between Dooagh and Keel—one of the most execrable I ever walked upon—is being repaired; and other works are being carried on. I heard the hon. Member for Donegal say the people cannot get to the railway. I said to the people when they were pleading with me to use my influence with the Government and the Chief Secretary to open the railway, "If this railway is made you will get a good deal of work." Then, even those able-bodied young men who had just come back from working in Scotland shrugged their shoulders and said, "It is too far," although the works were only seven or eight miles from their homes. Huts, bedding, and food have been provided for them, but these people think seven or eight miles from their own doors too far to go for work. What are the facts at the present moment? We have heard a good deal about the distress on the island. I say it is normal—though deplorable. Bat I am informed that there are seven buts, with bedding and everything ready, vacant at Newport now. The directors sent for 50 labourers to the island the other day, and only got eight. The hon. Member for Darlington went to the parish priest and got those tales of distress, and no doubt he was quite right in the course he took; but how does he come to say these measures are not sufficient, and that the Government is not doing its duty? I myself have had doubts whether the Chief Secretary's measures of relief would come in time for the pinch in the spring. I was afraid the works would not be in operation in time, but I am glad to say my fears have been falsified. I think the measures taken by the Chief Secretary with respect to the money expended on relief works, the providing of seed potatoes, the construction of railways, and the system of inspection established during this time of distress were admirably
  816
  and perfectly made, and I believe that the people of Ireland are profoundly grateful to the Chief Secretary for what he has done.
  DR. TANNER: I think every attention should be given to such a Daily Graphic statement of the hon. Member. The hon. Member has travelled at considerable expense all over Ireland, and like many another Gentleman who misrepresents Ireland, he never loses an opportunity of trying to depreciate the sufferings of the people of Ireland, and to do harm to the country which gives him shelter. The hon. Member has talked about evictions having ceased in Ireland. Well, we are at the present time on the eve of a census being taken in Ireland. It is known that our population has diminished very considerably in Ireland. They are not taking into consideration the number of evictions which, have been going on through the length and breadth of the land since the present Chief Secretary came into office. Under his shelter—under the aegis of this god of eviction—there do not remain many more people to be evicted, and the consequence is that the hon. Member tries to make much of what is, practically speaking, very little in this the last term of the power of the present Government. We know that the majority of Irish landlords are not at the present time so prone to persevere in evictions as they were, because they know that the day of retribution will come, when they will have to give an account of their stewardship. The Chief Secretary, in the course of his very able speech, told us that he was able to ask the House of Commons for anything he wished, and that he would not be refused. That, unfortunately, is true, because a majority of the House of Commons at the present time support the policy of the Government. The hon. Member for South Belfast called attention to the fact that a few Sundays hence the Census would be taken, and it would be found that the people who had been working in England, Scotland, and Ireland, had taken back to the Island of Achill, as the result of their labour, £6,000, which would be sufficient to keep them during the winter. But I can state with certainty that considering the number of women and children there were, and the congested state

  817
  of the Island, £6,000 will not be sufficient, especially in face of the failure of the potato crop, to keep these people during the winter. I do not accuse the hon. Member of want of compassion; I trust no honest gentleman lacks compassion; but I can assure the Committee that in some of the districts of Achill there is a near approach to starvation, and the £6,000 will in no degree help to relieve the tension. I know that a great deal of benefit has come from some of these relief works, but they are not administered in a proper way. An hon. Member who sits for an English constituency, because no Irish constituency would return him, suggested in regard to reclamation of the land that it should be made not in favour of the tenant, but, naturally enough, in favour of the landlord. We hear these things said occasionally in the House of Commons, but few Members have the bluntness to declare them in such an unequivocal way as the hon. Member did. The Chief Secretary whom I love and revere, our beneficent Chief Secretary, is, naturally enough, trying to do his best under difficult circumstances. His policy is one of whips and sweet buns, chains and soup, prison and Indian meal. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he finds it necessary to give the unfortunate people who require relief a stone of meal per diem. And in that he is following the policy of his predecessors in the Island of Achill, where the people were provided with soup on condition that they changed their religion. To this day the buildings can be seen in the Island of Achill where the people were supplied with soup on changing their religion. The right hon. Gentleman is following that policy; he is trying his uncle's 20 years' of coercion together with this policy of relief, in the expectation that Irishmen will forego their nationality and accept what he gives them in return. Many of those poor people who require relief are called upon to pay exorbitant rents, and if the right hon. Gentleman really means to do good work, instead of following his policy of "souperism," he would try to effect a reduction of these exorbitant rents. The information we have about the light railways is scant. In my opinion these light railways——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The railways will come on the next Vote.
  DR. TANNER: I have been led into the mistake by reason of the Chief Secretary having alluded to them. At the present moment we have only to deal with relief works. In connection with these I find that only one member of a family is employed at 12s. a week—a sum which has to support some seven or eight people. In many cases that is not enough. He has alluded to fraudulent starvation cases; but I regret that he did not furnish us with the names of the clergymen who had been imposed upon. We are, however, accustomed to the word "anonymous" in many of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. He has frequently given us statistics of boycotting, but has never favoured us with the names of those who had been boycotted. I hope, before the Debate closes, he will be able to furnish the names of the rev. gentlemen who have been imposed upon. Attention has been called to the planting which has taken place at Lough Boyle. Last year I introduced a small Bill dealing with planting in Ireland. I took up the subject believing that if tree planting were properly carried out in Ireland, many good results would arise. Places now sterile would thus become productive; while employment would be given to a large amount of labour. I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman admit that the English system of forestry was inferior to that which is pursued on the Continent, particularly in Germany and France. A gentleman in Gal way, a Mr. M'Dermott, whose acquaintance, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman has made, has paid great attention to this subject, and notably to the Forestry of the West of Ireland; and I think if the right hon. Gentleman would read his pamphlets, and follow the advice he has tendered to the Royal Society at Dublin, much good: would result. The late Sir G. Coulthurst, who was a Member of this House, planted Ballyvourney and Rathcoole, I believe, with success; and if the Chief Secretary could but see his way to planting many other districts which it is impossible to make productive other-

  819
  wise, much benefit might accrue to our impoverished people. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the fuel famine of last year, which, undoubtedly, produced a great deal of trouble; surely he is aware that when times become troublous and the people are sorely in want of light and warmth, those are the very times that are pitched on by many landlords in Donegal and the North of Ireland for trying to promote their turbary rights as a means of extracting rent. We hear many strange things in this House; and I was pleased this evening to find the right hon. Gentleman somewhat sympathetic. It is in the memory of most Members of the House that many of us who had been amongst our constituents, and knew their condition, saw that there was danger ahead, and that something should be done to meet it. Bat at that time we were laughed and scoffed and jested at as alarmists. Now, however, they are able to realise the fact that our people are in danger of starvation. When I went to Mid Cork last November, I found that Inspectors had been sent to various places threatened with starvation, places where the poverty of the people was almost unendurable. I then heard that a gentleman, Mr. T. S. Porter, whose report I hold in my hand, had visited the town of Rathcoole shortly before, and had stated that the crops in that district were fairly good. Hearing this, I made it my business to follow Mr. Porter through the district he had visited. I went into the very same fields and got the people to point out the places where he had dug, and show me the kind of tuber he had seen. I had potatoes dug from the same places, and out of every 12 of these tubers I brought away six. Out of the whole of these I assure the House there was not one that was really fit for human food. At Macrooni, where Mr. Porter had had potatoes dug for him, a friend of mine, a member of the medical profession, and a Conservative gentleman experienced in agricultural matters, gave me a solemn assurance that the potatoes were not only unfit for human food, but that the people who ate them would possibly bring about some kind of typhoid fever or other serious illness. From inquiries I have made on this subject, I find that there has been a considerable increase of fever
  820
  in some of these districts consequent on the consumption of this class of potatoes, notably in the poorer and more congested districts. I followed Mr. Porter from Macroom to Inchegeela, where there is very beautiful and picturesque scenery, but where, I regret to say, the character of the soil is very bad. In every field I visited there was proof positive that not one quarter of the crop would be available. Nevertheless, although relief works are elsewhere being offered, nothing has been done for these people, who are now suffering great privations, beyond what is obtainable from private charity. Where the right hon. Gentleman has himself seen what is taking place, something is being done, but in the districts I have mentioned nothing is being done. In the Mushra district, between Macroom and Millstreet, the state of things is nothing short of lamentable. I shall never forget my visit to a poor labourer's cottage on the slopes of Mushra, where we saw a poor woman boiling potatoes for dinner. I asked her to let me see what she was putting into the pot, and I assure the Committee that no English labourer would give to his pigs what was then being boiled for the consumption of that family. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman trusts so much to his Medical Inspectors. Doubtless men like Colonel Slade would do much, but he and Mr. Porter and others have too much thrust upon them. The right hon. Gentleman would have done better had he not trusted quite so much to his own system, and had not done so much to conciliate the clergy and medical men of the country. Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the dispensary doctors of Ireland? Hon. Members may say, that in putting this question I am actuated by by feelings in connection with the order to which I belong, but that is not the case. My reason is this, that if you want to ascertain whether real distress exists, you must go to the medical men who have to deal with the diseases of the people, and to whom the people go for parochial advice. That is not the right way to do it. The Catholic clergymen with whom I have come into contact, are not men likely to have put themselves in the humiliating position of begging assistance from the right hon. Gentleman.

  821
  We listened with great attention to the Chief Secretary. He did not tell the House whether these people who through no fault of their own, but by the visitation of Providence have become paupers, and been driven to receive outdoor relief are to be disfranchised and their votes taken away from them? I hope he will answer that question. So far as I can see in distributing the relief the Chief Secretary has erred in many respects. To a certain extent some good has been done, no doubt, but I think, for instance, that the light railways will not pay their way.
  MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not relevant.
  DR. TANNER: Then, Sir, I will leave that subject. There is one district in which nothing at all has been done. I allude to the district of Donoughwon, and I venture to say if anyone would take the trouble to drive through it he would become convinced of the terrible poverty of the people. I have called attention to their condition time after time without effect; but I hope that even now something will be done on their behalf. I am not often able to praise the Chief Secretary, but I am bound to say that in the Castle Hayden district a considerable amount of good has been done. Still the wages paid are, in the case of large families, only just enough to stave off starvation, and I think they might reasonably be increased. I am afraid, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has trusted too much to the Reports of his Inspectors as to the condition of the various districts in Ireland. I followed one of the right hon. Gentleman's Inspectors through certain parts of the country, and found that in many places where the Inspector reported the potato crops to be fairly good the greater part of the potatoes were not fit for human food, and I was informed by medical experts that if the people were to consume such food they would probably become victims to fever. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, instead of trusting exclusively to the reports of his Inspectors upon the state of the various districts of the country, he should apply for information on the subject to the clergy and to the medical men who reside in them. With regard to the classes of officers by whom the works are
  822
  being superintended I should like to say a few words. As to the local surveyors, I have nothing whatever to urge against them. No doubt they are well fitted for the task. I say little either for or against the engineer officers, but it is the constabulary to whom I feel I must refer. Why should the right hon. Gentleman, knowing the unpopularity of the police, have made them the paymasters of these poor people? The fact is that by his policy he has made them unpopular, and now he seeks to whitewash them by making them ministers of relief. He gives them the power to pick and choose whom they will relieve, and they take care to relieve the land grabbers. There is an old saying, "Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar," and I venture to assert that if you only remove the epidermus of this magnificent scheme of relief you will find it is intended to subserve political interests. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find out a way of doing more solid work in the interests of Ireland; that he will cease to do evil and learn to do good.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I am growing sick of this system of relief works, by reason of the way in which they are managed, for jobbery and demoralisation prevail all around. We must, however, hope for better things by and bye. The congratulations showered by the hon. Member for South Tyrone on the system of the Chief Secretary are, I think, premature. A few days ago I called attention to cases of distress in the County of Roscommon, and the Chief Secretary said he was inquiring into them, but he has as yet done nothing. I now wish to call attention to the dire distress prevailing in Gweedore. Not a single seed potato has been sent there, neither has any relief works been started. This is owing to the apathy of the Guardians, an apathy to be accounted for by the fact that the Chairman of the Poor Law Board is Mr. Olphert. I am afraid that it is his hardness of heart which has prevented the Chief Secretary from relieving the distress there. Finally, I should like to say, I do not know anything more cruel than to make the police the instruments for distributing the relief seeing how they are hated in Ireland, and I feel confident that many people would sooner starve than accept

  823
  relief from them. It is a cruel and horrible idea.
  DR. FITZGERALD: We wished very much at the time these grants were first submitted to Parliament that we had been able to dispense with them, but still relief was necessary, and I cannot help saying after the statement we have listened to to-night that as far as the limited funds permitted, the right hon. Gentleman has certainly endeavoured to carry out the work satisfactorily. The only thing I regret is that Parliament could not see its way to grant more money. I am one of those who think that any money voted by this House for the relief of the poor in Ireland is not given in the way of charity, but is simply a restitution of money which Ireland has for many generations been improperly deprived of. The main reason why I regret that the House has not seen its way to vote more money for these relief works is, that although much of it finds its way into the pockets of contractors and others who are not in need of it, a considerable amount does reach the very poor. I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for having selected those districts which stood most in need of relief, but still the amount which the Committee are asked to vote to-night is but as a drop in the ocean; and a great many districts remain—among them some in the county which I have the honour to represent—in need of this help. Much might be done in the towns by getting rid of the filthy hovels in the back streets and substituting for them houses which would be a credit instead of a disgrace to a civilised people. The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of the difficulties with which he had to contend, stated to the House—not, I believe, for the purpose of prejudicing the case of these poor people who are often very much in need of work—instanced cases in which men had applied for work while they were drunk. Of course, we know that unfortunately this disease of drunkenness is very prevalent among the lower classes of the Irish people, but I would submit, in extenuation, that it may in part be attributed to the want of food, for they sometimes have to go without dinner and supper three or four days in succession; and then a pint of bad porter
  824
  would quickly upset a person in such a condition. If the right hon. Gentleman were to live under such conditions he would not be able to perform his duties as he now does with such satisfaction to himself. I again say, however, I am glad to see he has got rid of much of the red tapeism which usually surrounds these undertakings, and in the administration of relief has taken a good deal of care to prevent the injury which often succeeds the doling out of charity, I ask the Chief Secretary not to leave-the people altogether in the hands of the-contractors; and, above all, I impress upon the right hon. Gentleman, if he is wishful that these funds should be justly administered, the necessity of entrusting their administration to some other body than the police. I do not complain of the police, but I know that in the district in which I live there is an idle policeman to about every 20 inhabitants, and during the last five or six years I have never known the policemen do anything, for the simple reason that they never had anything to do. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) will bear me out that many of the people who sorely want work would rather starve than go to a policeman to get a day's employment. I trust, therefore, the Chief Secretary will pause before employing policemen practically as the masters of these funds. The right hon. Gentleman compared the wages paid in England with those paid in Ireland, and told us that the unskilled labourers who work upon these railways get wages which vary from 11s. to 13s. a week, and from a stone of meal a day, which, according to him, amounts to 11d., 5s. 6d. a week. Is it not astonishing that there are to be found in any country men willing to work for 11d. a day, or 5s. 6d. a week. I confess that if I were in the position of one of these poor men I would never work for 11d. a day while a sheep or a bullock was to be found grazing on the land of the country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of 11s. and 13s. a week as a high wage for work upon railway embankments and the like. I would remind him that in the county of Dublin the wage of an ordinary labourer, of a man who drives horses, or gathers leaves, is from 12s. to 13s. a week besides lodging, milk and other things labourers often get from their

  825
  employers. When these poor people have to go 7, 10, and 15 miles to work, I think the wage the right hon. Gentleman is paying is very poor indeed. I am inclined to think it is the old story over again: the greater portion of this money will find its way into the pockets of the wily contractor who hovers about this House and Dublin Castle, and the poor labourer will get the worst of the bargain. I do not complain of the Chief Secretary, I think he has done his utmost to administer these funds in a just and legitimate way, and to hurry on these works in times when there was great need of them in Ireland; but again I impress upon him not to employ the police, which is really an insult to the people. I have a word to say as to the cause of the distress in Ireland. I believe bad government is the primary cause of distress in every country, but I am disposed to think that in Ireland the secondary cause of distress is the potato. I believe you will have famine and distress in Ireland so long as the people depend entirely upon the potato, and I suggest—and one day or another if this Parliament does not an Irish Parliament certainly will act upon the suggestion—that every man in Ireland who has land to plant anything in shall be obliged to discard, partly, at any rate, the potato, and to plant for himself a crop of wheat. If some system could be devised whereby people would be compelled to plant a crop of wheat, and the people could feel that the crop would be safe from the landlord or the bailiff, famine would never be known again in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman told us he thought of establishing some works for the reclamation of land, and he made one remark I was particularly glad to hear. He told us he was enabled to go on with the scheme of reclamation because of the fact that a number of landlords in Ireland are unable to make good their title. That is what we have been trying to persuade the people of this country all along. We know that the great majority of the landlords of Ireland have no title at all to the land, and, therefore, we have arrived at the conclusion that eventually we shall be able to get back every sod of the land and use it for the purpose of the people. (8.40.)
  (9.15.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  DR. TANNER: There are several points which have not been touched upon in the course of this Debate, and there are several questions that deserve specific answers. To what extent has the right hon. Gentleman availed himself of the local knowledge of the priests in the distressed districts in Ireland? I have already elaborated this point, but no answer has been vouchsafed. Are the police entrusted with the administration of the whole funds? My hon. Friend the Member for South Longford (Mr. Fitzgerald) certainly did very well in hammering this point home, but I put the question specifically. Are the police entrusted with the administration of the whole funds; and, further, is it true that the famine-stricken condition of the people is being made the excuse for paying starvation wages? By the statement of the Chief Secretary we learned that the people employed on relief works are getting, in some cases, shelter and fuel for cooking and 7s. a week; but, said the right hon. Gentleman, in certain instances it is in the power of the administration to give them a stone of meal, which he showed is worth 11d. a day, which amounts therefore to 5s. 6d. a week. Therefore, it would seem that advantage is taken of the condition of the people to pay starvation wages. To speak plainly, is it an alternative open to the police if a man has strong political views opposed to the Executive—if he is, say, a campaign tenant—is it in the option of the police to decree that that man is to receive a stone of meal in lieu of 7s. a week and shelter? Another point arises in connection with local relief works—are alien artisans employed? If reports are accurate, this has been the case. Aliens have been employed to the exclusion of poor and respectable men in the small towns of the West of Ireland. This is not fair, and I should like to know under what circumstance it is allowed. Something we have heard of what is being done on Tory Island, and we should naturally suppose the name would evoke the sympathy of a Conservative Government. We have long been anxious to

  827
  have a lighthouse established there; but we have still need of enlightenment. We have heard of the difficulties gunboats have to contend with, and what is really the condition of affairs on these small Islands. It seems to me the right hon. Gentleman is making the time-honoured mistake of putting the cart before the horse at Clare Island, Inishkea, and undoubtedly at Achill the pressing need is for piers, and road making and repairing are secondary works. Off Clare Island, Achill Bay, in Black Sod Bay there are magnificent fishery banks, but the fishermen are unable to avail themselves of these advantages because they have no accommodation for their boats. I know from personal experience the difficulty of embarking and landing at Achill. There is a pier, I know at Achill Sound, but it is unapproachable except at high tide.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: Yes; I am travelling a little beyond the Vote; but all I want to do is to draw attention to the fact—that money would be much better spent in constructing piers in Achill and other places than in making and repairing roads. It is important that the expenditure should be directed in the best manner, for the amount asked for is very small, the right hon. Gentleman telling us he has had regard to the interests of the British taxpayer. I am glad to hear that, though my experience in Committee of Supply is that the British taxpayer has often scant consideration, and millions are voted for dubious purposes upon very vain reasons. But if the right hon. Gentleman, instead of putting so much trust in the system he vaunts, and in which he is upheld by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, would avail himself of the local knowledge of the clergy, his efforts for the alleviation of acute distress would be much better directed. One point more in reference to piers. If the Reports of Inspectors are to be relied upon, it is upon the sea-bound congested districts that the failure of the potato crop has been most felt, and the distress among the people is most acute. I know from personal acquaintance with these districts, from fishing and yachting visits in times long past, as well as in more recent visits, the cry of the people is for
  828
  piers that they may be able to prosecute the fishing industry. But here I go through all the relief works enumerated and find only one estimate for such a purpose—a pier and approach road at Schull, and two other estimates for repairs of piers. But still the people of these sea bound districts reiterate the cry "Give us shelter for our boats that when the land harvest fails us we may reap the harvest of the sea." What, comparatively, is the use of making these roads at Mulranny and Achill Sound beyond the present means of finding employment? You only get a kelp crop from Achill. Let the right bon. Gentleman turn his attention in the direction I have indicated, and he may confer a lasting benefit upon the people, and accomplish a work upon which he may be congratulated in future years. I content myself with putting the questions I have referred to, and I sincerely hope I shall have an answer.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The next Vote is one on which I expect some discussion, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle intends to raise an important point with regard to it. Perhaps, therefore, the sooner we proceed to that Vote the better. The hon. Member opposite has put three questions to me which I think can be answered in three sentences. It does not rest with the police to determine who shall be employed on the works; the rate of wages is not determined by the police; and, with regard to the priests, I am desirous of obtaining all the information I can of the various localities through the priests, or any other trustworthy source. The other questions raised hardly call for reply. The hon. Member for Donegal spent a good deal of time in discussing details, and I will not follow him in that, but he said that the Chief Secretary awoke to the fact that something ought to have been done in November last. In that the hon. Member is greatly mistaken. It was in July last that I asked the House to pass the Light Railways Bill against the opposition of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. It was in August last that I had many important interviews with Inspectors of the Local Government Board on the subject of the condition of the potatoes, and it was in September that I made arrange-

  829
  ments for the purchase of seed potatoes. The tour which has so exercised the mind of the hon. Member for Donegal was made in the month of September. As to the statement of an hon. Member that the works of the Island of Achill are insufficient, all I can say is that if it is proved that they are insufficient they shall be augmented. The fact, however, pointed out by the hon. Member for South Tyrone should not be lost sight of, that a higher rate of wages has been offered on relief works in Achill than was ever offered before, and that, though there are many men who could avail themselves of the opportunity up to the present time, hardly any advantage has been taken of it. As to the potatoes, the most minute examination has been made by the Inspectors appointed for the purpose. They have inquired into over 40 cases in which bad potatoes are alleged to have been given; but the result of the inquiries has been to show that there was an error in the Report. There have been bad potatoes, but they have not been distributed, and the potatoes which were distributed were not bad. There is the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Darlington of the woman who showed him potatoes which he says were rotten. Well, I notice that the Inspector reports that in one case of complaint made by a woman he made an inquiry, and the woman showed him some bad potatoes, which she said she had been supplied with. He found that the potatoes were bad, but that they were potatoes which the woman had grown herself, and which she tried to palm off on him. I fear she found the Member for Darlington a more credulous witness than the Inspector. The potatoes shown were not the potatoes supplied by the Guardians. As to the cases brought forward by the hon. Member for Galway, I must point out that there appears to be very little difference in the matter of the relief granted by the Union this year and last.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I listened with great attention to the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech. He laid great stress on the difficulty of obtaining accurate information as to the poverty and absolute need of the people in the distressed districts, but the whole drift of his information seemed to me to depend
  830
  on the statements of the police. But I would point out that the people consider it a disgrace to be seen speaking to a policeman. Yet it is on police statements the right hon. Gentleman relied.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, their statements were simply supplementary.
  DR. TANNER: The principal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may be interested to know that the police reported some heartrending cases.
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: What I was pointing out was that if the right hon. Gentleman's words meant anything they meant that he relied on the reports of the police.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And I say the hon. Member is mistaken.
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I am very glad to hear I am mistaken, for how can the population have any sympathy with the police, whom I have myself seen assist at evictions? I am sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has left the House. I wish to point out to him what I saw in a district which he carefully avoided when in Ireland, namely, the district of Gweedore and Falcarragh. At Falcarragh the police actually stoned the people in their own houses, so anxious were they to assist in turning the starving people out of their miserable cabins. I saw 150 police going out to assist in the evictions, and they assisted in storming the houses. How could the people have any sympathy with those officers? Why, the people there say that there is not a man amongst them worth his salt who has not been to prison. And yet the right hon. Gentleman says he gets his information supplemented by statements of the police. The people would rather starve than go to the police with their tales of distress. As to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the people in many cases have acted fraudulently in dealing with seed potatoes, one can very well understand a woman with a starving family of little ones around her going to almostany length—even the length of false representation—to obtain a few potatoes for food. Then, as to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cork, who urged on the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for the construction of piers. I have lived on the south coast of Ireland for a year and

  831
  a half myself, and I know how much works of this kind are required. The existing piers have all been built in wrong places by persons who have had no local knowledge. I cannot imagine a stronger argument for Home Rule, or Local Government, whichever you are pleased to term it, than the present position and state of repair of a large proportion of these fishing piers.
  DR. TANNER: With regard to accurate information, I would call the attention of the Government to a statement in the Return of 1890, referring to the district I represent. Mr. T. S. Porter says—
  "My Report on this Union not being completed, Mr. Doran will also report upon it.
  Then, on page 47, Mr. Doran says—
  "I did not interview the clerks of the Union, believing that Mr. Porter hd done so.
  It is said that too many cooks spoil the broth, but it seems as though this truism could with equal force be applied to Government Inspectors. Though I have pointed out, time after time, the condition of things which exist in my district, we find Inspectors, when they are sent down there to make inquiries, neglect to do their duty. To whom are we to lay the blame of this failure to obtain accurate information. Are we to expect it from the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, who, when he was driving through a district in Ireland, had his glass in his eye, and looking at some fine turniptops said to the car driver, "Well, there is no failure in that potato crop." We are told that the accurate information does not come from the police. Then from whom does it come? I think we are entitled to an answer to that question before the Debate closes.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS I.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £136,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for Expenditure under The Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889,' and upon certain Railway Works not yet included in that Act."
  MR. J. MORLEY: Now that the first Vote is passed, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to a matter
  832
  on which I put a question to the Secretary to the Treasury last year. I then asked the right hon. Gentleman for copies of the bargain or arrangement that was made for the construction of the Connemara Light Railways between the Treasury and the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland. I did not then understand the answer given, nor have I been better able to understand it since from any information I have been able to gather. The Chief Secretary himself told us that there was to be a competition between promoters. He said that it was not intended by the Light Railways Bill to exclude private promoters, but merely to enable public companies to carry out the schemes of the private promoters. Now I should like to have from the Secretary to the Treasury a clear account of what actually took place between the Treasury and the Midland Great Western Company. In a passage of the speech of the Chairman of that company to the shareholders on the 12th August last, there occurred what everybody who heard of it at the time, and everybody who has heard of it since, regard as a very remarkable statement. Sir R. Cusack said—
  "The entire sum for constructing these two lines from Galway to Clifden, and from Ballina to Killala, will amount to something like £314,000, without ever paying one single penny of dividend on it. There will be no debenture stock issued to cover it, no preference stock issued, no original stock. We shall not pay any interest on the loan. Every penny that we get will go into the pocket of the company, and I trust will largely add to our dividend."
  Now, if that is a complete account of the transaction, what is happening is this: that a large sum of public money which has been voted by Parliament has been handed to the Midland Great Western Company in connection with the construction of the lines, and out of that money the company will naturally expect to make, and, in fact, have announced that they will make, a consider able addition to their annual dividend. I wish, therefore, to know from the Secretary to the Treasury what the real terms of the bargain were, and whether any chance has been given enabling private promoters to compete with one another, so as to bring down the cost of construction, or whether an extravagant amount has been given to the

  833
  Midland Great Western Company without any advantage accruing to the taxpayer in consequence. That is the point I put to the Secretary to the Treasury, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the lines for the construction of which agreement has been made with the Midland Great Western Company have been started under what he calls preliminary contracts, with the object of employing labour at the earliest possible moment on the works. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what he means by preliminary contracts, to which the Chief Secretary also referred in his opening speech to-night. Then the Secretary to the Treasury went on to say that—
  "He understood that the company was about to invite tenders from a considerable number of selected firms for the final contract."
  What is the difference in terms between the preliminary contract and the final contract; and, next, have tenders been invited from a considerable number of selected firms, or has the Midland Great Western Company been allowed to carry out the details of the final contract according to their own intentions and designs? Now, I observe in the contract made with the company that the ordinary clauses of forfeiture on non-conclusion of contract have not been inserted, and I do not see that the Government have taken powers, in case they are dissatisfied with the execution of any portion of the work, for executing the works themselves at the expense of the company. That is yet another point that demands explanation. As it is, the transaction certainly looks one of the most dubious and un business-like proceedings that I have ever known, even in Irish administration, and I ask for an explanation—first, of the preliminary contract, then what is the relation between preliminary and final contracts; whether private promoters are at any point invited to compete, or whether the whole transaction has been a close one; and, finally, whether, close or open, it has had the effect of handing over to a Railway Company a large sum of money voted by Parliament.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I do not profess to know the details of a great number of the items in this list of railways, but I know very well the details and the circumstances surrounding the
  834
  larger railway—that between Galway and Clifden. I have always supported the Government in this question of light railways, and have addressed some complaints to them on the subject, but those complaints have always been that they have not gone far enough. They are doing a good work in opening up these western districts, which hitherto have had a lower civilisation than the rest of Ireland. They have always been in a chronic state of poverty and distress. As to the question of the dividends that may accrue to the Midland Great Western Railway Company, I confess I do not attach as much importance to it as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. The hon. Member for Longford opposed all the railways of this kind, and he did this so persistently that the struggle lasted till 5 o'clock in the morning; but it was pointed out that although the action of the Government in giving the Galway line to the Midland would entail an expense of £30,000 to the county, the Government had done it to a great extent to please the hon. Member for Longford, who had said there ought to be a broad gauge instead of a narrow gauge. On the broad gauge being conceded the hon. Member for Longford withdrew his objections. Since then the position of County Galway has very much improved, because instead of having to pay £30,000, the Government has to pay it. Consequently, Galway is placed in a much superior position to that in which it stood before, when it was only offered a narrow gauge line, with a large liability attached to it.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I am extremely glad to have the opportunity of answering the question which the right hon. Gentleman has asked so fairly. It is an important question, because it ought to be made clear what the arrangements have been with the Midland Great Western Railway Company. In answering a former question I did not quite catch the right hon. Gentleman's meaning. The right hon. Gentleman confused me, because he spoke of competition between promoters, not between contractors. They who were spoken of as promoters were those who went to the Grand Jury for the presentment. In this case there happened to be promoters

  835
  who had gone to the Grand Jury and got a presentment. These promoters I am afraid I confused with the Midland Great Western Company, who subsequently became promoters and subsequently got their presentment. At that time I could not see how there could have been competition between promoters, because there was no competition between promoters, and that was what my answer was intended to convey. The point now raised is whether there would be, or there has been, any competition as regards the construction of the works. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted a statement made by the Chairman of the Midland Great Western Company in August, 1890. At that time, no doubt, the Chairman might have been under the impression that the £314,000 which he spoke of was a sum which would construct and complete the two lines from Galway to Clifden and from Ballina to Killala. In that statement he also spoke hopefully of the prospect of earning dividend from that outlay. It is not surprising that the Chairman should be hopeful as regarded the dividend to be earned by his company from this expenditure. As to the prospects of earning a dividend from the working of the line from Galway to Clifden, it must be remembered that it would become a feeder to the company's system. So far as the Government contribution went, whether the Government had given it to the construction of a line to be made by the Midland Great Western Company or by any other company, the result would be the same as far as that company is concerned, namely, that they would have an increase of dividend without expenditure of money, and in consequence of the expenditure of money by others. At a meeting held in February last the Chairman of the company said there seemed to have been a misapprehension of what he had said as to how they were getting this money. It had been inferred that they were to get the money at once and to put it to their own account without any supervision whatever; but such was not the case, because the Board of Works would see that the work was done by the contractors and that the money was properly spent. He added that they had invited tenders for one line and would invite them for the other. This coincides
  836
  with what the Chairman of the company said to me when the agreement was made with the Treasury. As to the preliminary contracts, the Chief Secretary is anxious that the work should be commenced at as early a date as possible. At the time the agreements were made plans and drawings had not been got out, and therefore it was not possible to invite tenders. After much consultation plans were agreed upon, under which the Midland Company made a preliminary contract with a contractor on a schedule of prices for doing certain portions of earthwork in preparation for the line, and so employing a large amount of unskilled labour. The works on the line have been progressing under this preliminary contract, and in the meantime plans and specifications for the works have been in course of preparation. The Board of Works have nothing to do with the preparation of the plans and the drawings, but the plans have to be submitted to them and approved by their engineer, and the works have to be completed to their satisfaction. While these plans have been in preparation tenders have been invited for the Westport and Mulranny line, and one has been accepted, and I anticipate that before long the company will be in a position to invite tenders for the Galway and Clifden line. I have made clear what is the difference between the preliminary contracts and the complete contract. The former is a schedule of the rates and prices per yard, and is for work which could be done by unskilled labour; and so soon as the complete plans and specifications can be made, tenders will be invited to complete the works. Since that time further information has been obtained as to what may be the possible cost of the lines, because the Midland Company have made their statement to the Grand Jury, and subsequently they obtained from the Privy Council their Order in Council for the making of the lines. An estimate was presented to the Grand Jury of the estimated cost of the works, and I find that instead of £314,000, as named in the first statement, the cost will be £373,000 and some odd hundreds. I am afraid that this is not a novel experience; and though these estimates have been exceeded, I do not say for a moment that the increased amount is for work

  837
  identical with that to which the first estimate applied, bacause the first estimates were by the promoting company, who, without capital or security at their back, could not have undertaken to execute these works. We have preferred to adopt the plan, and we have adopted it throughout wherever it has been possible of working through the existing companies; or if we had proceeded with the promoting company, that company would have required a working agreement in perpetuity with the existing companies for the working of their line. The arrangement made with the Midland Great Western as to the Galway and Clifden lines was an arrangement under which the Treasury agreed to contribute £5,500 per mile. I confess I never believed the line could be made for that sum; nor do I think the Chairman of the company anticipated otherwise than that he would have to make some further contribution for the construction of the line. With regard to the security taken by the Government for the due expenditure of the money, I may say that all expenditure has to be vouched expenditure. I do not expect that we shall be called upon to pay a less amount than the total sum we have agreed to pay. Our contribution is not nearly the whole cost of the line, and, therefore, if the Midland Great Western for its own purposes is prepared to spend £100,000 or £140,000 in excess of the Government contribution on the three lines for which agreements have been made, I think that is the best possible security that the Government can have that the line will be constructed in the cheapest possible way, coupled with efficiency. I think we may rely that a great Railway Company like the Midland is not likely to spend any money of its own unless it be absolutely necessary for the purposes of making a good line; and our object all the way through has been to endeavour to make efficient lines that will give satisfaction.
  MR. J. MORLEY: What is the estimate per mile now?
  *MR. JACKSON: I am afraid the estimate is more now. The line, I believe, has been a little shortened, because there have been fresh surveys. The estimated cost of the Killala line is £65,937, to which the Treasury have agreed to contribute £44,000. The estimated cost of
  838
  the Westport and Mulranny line, in connection with which there are heavy engineering works, including a viaduct, is £191,000, to which the Treasury contribute £131,400. The Clifden line, which has been given at 48 miles, and is now a little shortened, will cost £307,500, towards which the Treasury contribute £264,600. The total, estimated cost is£564,500 in round figures, towards which the Treasury have agreed to contribute £440,000. I think that is the best security we can have that the Midland Company will bring all their energy, experience, and skill to construct the line as cheaply as possible, because they will be saving their own money. I may say that the agreements were carefully drawn by competent counsel, and I think there is-not much likelihood of the Midland Great Western Company doing anything to forfeit their contract. Their whole resources are responsible for the work, and I think, therefore, as far as we are concerned, we have no need for a single moment of anxiety that any difficulty will arise. The right hon. Gentleman will see by the Order in Council that the Midland Company have taken power to raise £100,000 in capital towards the expenditure which will become necessary on these lines, and that, of course, goes to confirm the figures and estimates I have already given. I hope I have satisfied the House that we shall not be running any risk, and that the agreement will prove satisfactory as regards the construction of the line. If any gentleman thinks the proportion we contribute is too large, I have a complete answer to give. It would have been impossible to have had the line constructed for less money by anybody else, and therefore there was no option. I do not know whether hon. Members desire that the whole of the charge should fall on the barony, because that is exactly what would have happened if we had not adopted this course. I am quite satisfied that the arrangement we have made is best in the interests of the Government, of the district, and of the Treasury—best in the interests of the Treasury because we have made a contract with a responsible company, who are bound to complete for the sum we have agreed to pay; for we are certain that we shall meet with no excess on these

  839
  estimates. I think that in itself is a very great advantage so far as the Government is concerned. I am not prepared' to deny—in fact, I admit at once—that the Government have dealt with this question of railways in a broad, liberal, and even expensive way, but I maintain that it was the truest economy to make bargains with responsible companies, so that they would be certain to be carried out, because if arrangements had been made with companies promoted without capital, and they had failed to complete the work, then the Government would in the ordinary way have been called upon to complete. It may be said that the barony would have been called upon to complete, but the barony to be charged is not a rich one and has large arrears of rates, and I have seen sufficient of Irish companies and Irish works and arrangements made with Irish Local Authorities to satisfy me that the arrangement made in this case was the best in the interest, not only of the district, but in the interest of economy. I should like to take this opportunity of saying one word with regard to the Board of Works. I think it is only right that I should say that all through these negotiations there has been put upon the Board of Works a pressure of work most unusual and very trying. I had an opportunity during nearly seven weeks of what I ought to call my vacation, while I was superintending the negotiations for these agreements, of seeing the pressure that has been put upon the Board, and I am bound to express my sense of gratitude to them for the able and competent manner in which they have carried out all details. It was new work, done under great pressure of time, and I may say that it is a result of the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that we have been able to use these works in aid of giving employment which otherwise would have had to be given independently, and to be provided at considerable cost without producing such good work. I feel bound, therefore, to express my thanks to the Board of Works.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am sure that we all agree that the right hon. Gentleman has devoted himself to these works with ability and in a spirit of self-denial, but I submit that if parlia-
  840
  ment had known at the time the money was about to be voted that it was to be given to a Railway Company without competition, in fact that the terms were to be dictated by the company itself, the House would have thought twice before sanctioning any such proposal. The Government did not put that proposal rightly before us. It was distinctly expressed that there was to be competition, and it stands to reason that unless there was to be competition the bargain was sure to be an extravagant one; and I do not blame the Railway Company. The right hon. Gentleman admits that the terms made by the Government are broad, liberal, and expensive, and, for my own part, I maintain that the more they are scrutinised, the more plain will it become that they are even excessively extravagant, and that a more unbusiness-like transaction was never entered into. We do not know how the sum to be handed over to the Midland Company was arrived at; it was simply and solely on the demand of that company, and has not in any way been tested by competent persons.
  *MR. JACKSON: I ought to have mentioned that a Court of Inquiry has been held in each case under competent authorities, whose duty it was to check the estimates, and we have also had the estimates of the Board of Works checked by the most competent engineers.
  MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask whether any sort of change has been made in the estimate as the result of this inquiry?
  *MR. JACKSON: It was enlarged.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Was the Report of the Commissioners submitted to the Board of Works, and examined and passed by them?
  *MR. JACKSON: Certainly.
  MR. J. MORLEY: At all events, it appears that the estimate fixed by the Railway Company was accepted by the Board of Works and the Treasury without alteration.
  *MR. JACKSON: We found that the bargain was the best we could make, after the most careful inquiry into the whole matter.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Now we understand. What has happened is this: Towards undertakings, which will cost £564,000, the Treasury are going to contribute £440,000. That sum of £440,000 is, in fact, given over to the

  841
  Railway Company by way of free gift. Why have the Government done that? Surely it is not the ordinary way of proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman says that we shall get a good strong line of 5ft. 3in. gauge. But is a 5ft. 3in. gauge required? I have heard a good deal about light railways, but I have never understood that a 5ft. 3in. railway was a light railway. The Government ought to have put the work up to tender before giving it to the company, but instead of doing that they have practically accepted the terms of the Midland Great Western Company. I submit that what I said in January, i.e., that the Government had allowed that company to dictate terms which are excessively severe for an article which is not what Parliament has expected, and which we have not bargained for, is correct. Then what security have we that the Midland will not throw this line on our hands?
  *MR. JACKSON: They have undertaken to work it in perpetuity.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Under what penalties? I maintain we have no assurance against that line being given up, and I submit that the Government ought not to have given this sum of £440,000 in the way they have done.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the Debate we had upon this question of light railways in 1889. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is a new policy to get the great Railway Companies to work one of these lines; not only is it not a new invention, but it is part of the policy of the Act of 1889, and it is the point on which, for my own part, I think the policy of the Government is incomparably in advance of anything which has been done by their predecessors. I observe that there is not a single Irish Member in the House, except the hon. and gallant Member for Galway.
  DR. TANNER: Order, order! I am here.
  An hon. MEMBER: There are four.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, there is not any one present, as far as I know, who represents any county which is interested in these lines, and the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway is that the
  842
  arrangement is the only tolerable one. The accusation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been that we have given too much, not to the County of Galway, but to the Midland Great Western Company. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the history of these light railways. If anything has been brought home to the mind of any one who has studied the question of these Government subventions, it is that any county is only too delighted to enter into any bargain to pay the difference between the traffic receipts and the costs of management in order to get a railway made, but when it is constructed they grumble at the county cess they have to pay; there have been, and I fear there may be again, difficulties in this respect. The moral of that is not to have a county cess to make up the working expenses of the line, but a responsible Railway Company whom it will pay to have the branch line. Then the railway system will be self-supporting and on a business basis. The right hon. Gentleman seems to look forward to a time when the Midland Great Western Railway will repudiate its obligations. He might as well expect the North-Western or the Great Northern Company in England to repudiate their obligations. It would be just as absurd. But with a small promoted company managing its finance somehow in London and getting a guarantee to make, up any deficiency there is no security that the line will be made, or, when made, that it will be worked. Even if it is worked, it may be found that the big company on which the branch line depends will not do its best to promote the interests of the branch line; and then the Treasury will again find itself in the position it is to-day, of being the owner of some miles of derelict railway, from which the rails have been dragged up from time to time, and constituting a sort of monument to the incompetence and folly of the arrangement under which the line was constructed. It may be a debatable question whether Parliament ought to make these great subventions for the construction of railways in the poor districts of Ireland; but Parliament has deliberately adopted this policy, and I am perfectly certain that the only way of carrying it out with safety to the taxpayer, and to the

  843
  locality, is to insure that the line shall be worked by a responsible company. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle seems to suppose that the Treasury could have had better terms from another company. There is no evidence of that. A saving of £10,000 on the whole amount might have been effected if a narrow gauge railway had been constructed. But how would such a railway have worked in connection with the Great Midland system? Every truck of goods from Galway to Clifden would have had to be transshipped. To get for merely an extra £10,000 a broad-gauge line worked by a responsible company, instead of a narrow gauge line worked by an irresponsible company, is the best bargain the House of Commons has ever made. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine in cold blood the transaction, which, perhaps, only my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury with his great knowledge of railway affairs in England could have carried through so well—transactions which I wish to say I heartily endorse—he will find that no better transaction for the locality or for the Treasury was ever entered into in the long history of Irish loans.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The first contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle was that railways which are called in this scheme light railways are not accurately described. I think we have just cause of complaint on that ground. I might have had no desire to complain of the making of light railways, and so have stayed away from this House to-night. Yet now we are being asked to vote money for works not correctly described. The Chief Secretary, in answer to my right hon. Friend, says the policy of the Government in having heavy lines is a wise one. But surely light railways would have suited just as well, and have been less expensive. Take the County of Donegal, the Stranorlar or Glenties line; or take the Killybegs line. I am told that at Killybegs there are about 200 people. Surely their requirements would have been amply met with a light line.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Both the lines named are light lines.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: And yet the right hon. Gentleman said it was preposterous to make a light railway.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said nothing of the kind. What I said was, it would not be wise to have a narrow gauge line running into an ordinary line.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: And the right hon. Gentleman admits that the narrow gauge system is working satisfactorily in Donegal. I do not see why you want these expensive lines. The people have not enough to eat, so they are not likely to have any produce to send by train; and they have no money, so they cannot buy things which would have to be brought to them by train. The whole thing is a farce and an absurdity. I have the warmest sympathy with the Irish, and am perfectly ready to give them Home Rule to any extent. One reason for this is that if the Irish do not soon get Home Rule the English people will be left without a shirt to their backs, all their money having been voted in Irish subsidies. It seems to me these Government schemes are only put forward in order to try to induce the Irish to give up their demand for Home Rule. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who come strolling in after dinner intent on voting the money may be impatient, but we intend to have an explanation about every shilling asked for; we intend to protest against this expenditure, and in many cases to vote against it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle complained, in the second place, that the Government had entered into these contracts recklessly. I agree with him. In these arrangements which the Treasury have made the shareholders of the great Irish Railway Companies and not the particular districts are benefited. This is another instance of the Government legislating at the expense of the masses for the benefit of the classes. One day it is the publican, the next the clergy, then the landlord, and now the railway shareholder who are to be benefited at the expense of the English taxpayers. I think that what has transpired to-day thoroughly justified our action in spending a whole night before Christmas in opposing these Bills. The scheme is a thoroughly bad one, and it is perfect hypocrisy to say that it is to give immediate relief to the poor

  845
  Irish. How many men get employment on these railway works?
  *MR. JACKSON: About 8,000,
  MR. LABOUCHERE: On the railroads alone?
  *MR. JACKSON: Yes.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: They receive 10s. to 13s. a week each, so that you are only spending about £40,000 a month out of this £440,000 grant upon the working classes. The rest of the money will go into the pockets of the shareholders, who belong to the classes and not to the masses.
  SIR J. COLOMB: The hon. Member for Northampton has talked about the farce and absurdity of the position taken up by the Government in this matter, but he has himself illustrated the farce and absurdity of a Member discussing a question connected with districts the very names of which he cannot pronounce, and as to which he openly professes utter ignorance. Was it wise and right for the Government to make these arrangements with the great companies or was it not? If I give a short account of one of the railways of which I have intimate knowledge, it will sufficiently explain why I say the Government was absolutely right, in the interest of the district and of Ireland generally, to take the course they did. I speak of the Headfort and Kenmare Railway. For years the district has been trying to get a railway; and as to the question of a light or heavy railway the hon. Member for Northampton cannot have taken the trouble to look at the speech the Chief Secretary made when he introduced the Light Railway Bill. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman distinctly stated that the Bill covered both a 5ft. 3in. gauge and a narrow gauge, and that he proposed to leave it to the discretion of the districts whether they should adopt the 5ft. 3in. or the narrow gauge. The position in regard to the Headfort and Kenmare line was this: The Government gave as a free gift £50,000, and the country guaranteed £60,000 on the security of the county cess; but the condition was most properly imposed that the railway should be worked. It could only be worked by the Great Southern and Western Railway, because there was no fund out of which any other body could
  846
  provide the rolling stock. An inquiry was held, and it was found that £110,000 would be the cost of the line. We only had that sum, and when that sum was spent the line would not have been worked unless the Great Southern and Western Company approved of it. There was no prospect whatever of our being able to make the line to the certain satisfaction of the Great Southern and Western; and had not the arrangement been entered into with that company, the result would have been that the district would have been saddled with a guarantee of £60,000, and we would have had a railway badly constructed which the Great Southern and Western would not have worked. The money would have been lost, and the district would have been without railway communication. I was a member of the Local Board, and I know there was not a man on the Board that was competent to make a contract to work a railway or to carry out the scheme. The first thing the Board set itself to do was to try to give a high salary to an estimable young gentleman who should act as secretary, but who had no knowledge whatever of railway business. Therefore, it is apparent that unless the Government came to an arrangement, the district was in great danger of spending its money and not getting a railway. It was with the greatest possible satisfaction that everybody, from the parish priest downwards, heard of the determination of the Government to take the matter in hand and deal directly with the Great Southern and Western Company by setting aside the Local Board. If the Government had not taken that course, Parliament would have voted money in vain for this particular line, the money would have been spent, the county would have been saddled with guarantees, and a railway would have been constructed which it was certain the Great Southern and Western Railway would not have been able to work, and the policy of Parliament would have been defeated. Now, however, we have solid guarantees that the line will be properly made, because it is the interest of the Great Southern and Western to make it, the £110,000 which the Board of Inquiry fixed as the amount which ought not to be exceeded will not be exceeded, and the company

  847
  will be bound to work the line for all time. Therefore, speaking from this particular instance—and I think it is applicable to all other lines—a great benefit and boon has been conferred on these districts, because the districts will get the value of their money, and the people are grateful to the Government accordingly.
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I agree with the last speaker that the people are very grateful to the Government; if you give people half a million of public money, they ought to be grateful. The Galway district was very poor indeed; if it was not, it would make its own railway. Yet there is to be a broad gauge railway constructed, and in consequence of the reduction of the gradients resolved upon, the engineering works will be enormously increased. The North Eastern, one of the best managed railways in England, made a railway the other day to a sparsely populated district of Northumberland, with a gradient of 1 in 50, but in a poor district in Ireland, where the people will not have the money to pay a third class fare, the gradient is to be reduced to 1 in 60. The Secretary to the Treasury argues that if the line were not broad gauge, the engines of the Midland Company could not run on it, and it would be useless. There is a broad gauge line up to Londonderry, and yet the branch lines running into County Donegal are of narrow gauge. Therefore the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury will not hold good for one moment. This business is a gross job. We are throwing away nearly half a million sterling, for we shall never see the money again, or get any interest upon it. The Secretary to the Treasury says the scheme is not opposed by the Members for Galway. My constituents would not object to be relieved from the public purse. I think the House has been very badly treated, for some months ago we were asked to vote money for light railways, and now we find that one of the railways to be constructed is to be of the most expensive kind.
  SIR J. POPE HENNESSY: I think the greatest credit is due to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for the businesslike proposal he has made to the House. I venture to ask the Chief Secretary to
  848
  consider the possibility of extending his operations, and at the same time of inducing not only the Midland but the Southern and Western Railway Companies, who will benefit—and nobody objects to it—by these transactions, to reduce their rates both for passengers and goods. For many years—since 1866—there has been before Parliament the proposal that the State should purchase the Irish railways. The time has come, I think, when the Government might consider the question. The two practical questions we should like to see solved are the reduction of the rates and the purchase of the railways.
  MR. JOICEY: I was one of the Members who opposed the Light Railways Act; but I confess I am surprised to find to what extent Her Majesty's Government have availed themselves of that Act in order to increase the expenditure. I am not surprised that hon. Members from Ireland should compliment the Government for having spent so much money in Ireland, One of the chief arguments used by Her Majesty's Government when they introduced the Light Railways Bill was that there was to be an addition to the ordinary railway of the country, not in the shape of heavy railways but of light railways, and I am astonished to hear the Chief Secretary ask how is it possible to work a light railway in conjunction with a heavy one? I expected the railways made under the Bill would be practically of the same character as the ordinary railways of Ireland; because if you attempt to work any railway in conjunction with the ordinary railway system, you must make such a line as will not only carry the wagons but the locomotives of the railways with which the line is connected. I, from experience as a railway man, know that General Hutchinson will not pass any line or bridge which he is perfectly sure will not be equal to the strain. Notwithstanding what the Chief Secretary has said the Light Railways Act, which was passed last Session, is nothing more than a misnomer. I scarcely think it was right for the Government to put forward an estimate of £50,000, and then come to the House and ask for a supplementary estimate of £136,200. This is hardly a Supplementary Esti-

  849
  mate: it is rather a main estimate. It is just in keeping with the action of Her Majesty's Government-, in financial matters, for I have watched their action very closely, and I confess I never place any faith in any of the financial proposals they put before us. The statement, was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that branch railways seldom pay, and I think in the main he is right. In this country, as a rule, such railways do not pay, and I fail to see why we should make any difference between the railways of Ireland and those of England. I have opposed the expenditure of money in connection with the Government of Ireland when that Government is conducted as at present, and I think the only safeguard you can have that such money will be judiciously and carefully expended in Ireland, is to provide for its expenditure by a Government whose interest it is to deal with Ireland alone. I protest against the expenditure of this money in the way proposed by the Government, and I think the Government have no right to enter into contracts which they know exceed the Estimates put before this House, practically, without consulting this House. They have entered into a contract for £564,000, £440,000 of which they have pledged themselves to pay. I cannot conceive what advantage the taxpayers are to get from this expenditure, and I protest most strongly against it. I listened to the speech of the Financial Secretary with great care, and I did not hear one argument which justified the expenditure. I should like to know under what conditions the agreement was made with the Railway Company, and why there was no competition for the contract? I thoroughly agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), and I feel so strongly on the matter that I shall not be content unless I give my protest against the Vote by taking a Division.
  MR. KNOX: On this question Members who come from Ireland cannot be expected to take the same line as some of the English Members who have spoken. I was one of those Irish Members who at the end of last Session kept the House till very early one morning in oppos-
  850
  ing the Bill of the Government and I am bound to say I think the course the Government has since taken abundantly justified us in keeping the House up all night on that occasion. We did so because the scheme of the Government in connection with the Galway and Clifden Railway involved a local guarantee. I spend a considerable amount of time almost every week in corresponding with various constituents in different parts of my division who are oppressed by various kinds of local guarantees in connection with railways. There is one guarantee for the Great Northern Railway Company, another for the Midland Great Western, and a third for a special company, which made a light railway under the Act of 1883. In each of these cases the guarantee system has been found to work unsatisfactorily. The local control is not sufficient and the people of the district are dissatisfied. We protested last Session against the Government scheme because it involved a local guarantee. The Government has abandoned that local guarantee, and I think that if, by keeping the House up on the night I speak of, we saved the poor taxpayers of Galway £30,000, we have no reason to be ashamed of ourselves. I have examined with some care the various Provisional Orders made under the schemes of the Government, and I have noticed that in most of them any sort of local control over the companies to which these large grants are given has been abandoned. Under the Act of 1883 there is a system by which the barony elects a certain number of directors of the company. I do not think the local control, thus provided is by any means sufficient or that it works satisfactorily, because the local directors are always swamped by the representatives of the shareholders. It is, however, better than nothing. In the case of the Downpatrick and Ardglass Railway, there is a local guarantee large in proportion to the amount spent on the railway, but there is no sort of provision for representation of the taxpayers on the Board of the Belfast and County Down Railway Company. Many of the people who will be taxed for the construction of this line live in distant parts of the County of Down, and will get no benefit whatever from it. Surely, under these circumstances, the least that

  851
  could be expected was that some provision should be made for the representation of the locality on the Board of the Company. The question has been raised, whether it is better for these lines to be worked by big or by small companies. I have in my own constituency an example of each system, and I am bound to say, on the merits, that I prefer the system the Government have adopted. The big Railway Company will always get the benefit of a feeder whether it belongs to the big company or not; while I daresay it is possible that the very astute gentlemen who manage the Midland Great Western Railway have got rather the better of the Government in their bargain, on the whole I confess I prefer the system of working these lines in connection with a big Railway Company to that of setting up small companies with expensive offices.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has expressed his satisfaction that Irish ratepayers are not to be made responsible for the result of this expenditure, and I understand that generally he approves of the policy of the Government. Now, my experience is that when I see Irishmen on both sides agreeing to a Government proposal, I say, "woe to the British taxpayer." Under such circumstances, we may expect the perpetration of jobs; and again I feel inclined to say, "Oh for an hour of the late Mr. Biggar." He was a man who thoroughly understood these things, and was ever ready to expose jobbery in connection with them. It may be a question whether it was better to pay moderate sums for plans never fulfilled or to devote larger sums to construct Irish railways by jobbery. I do say the House of Commons has been misled. Last year the Government made a comparatively moderate proposal, but now they bring forward a much greater scheme, under which these railways will be constructed by the large companies, and five-sixths of the money will be paid by the British taxpayer, for whom there is no prospect of the return of a single farthing. Why are these things done so readily in Ireland as compared with the cautious, hesitating way in which the demands of the Highlands of Scotland are met? The Irish Members are apt at agitation, and can
  852
  make themselves troublesome and disagreeable, and so these things are sops to quiet them. I deeply regret that the views of the late Mr. Biggar no longer find an exponent. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) does not disguise his satisfaction, and in that satisfaction we see danger to the pockets of the British taxpayer.
  MR. LEA: I do not wish to detain the Committee; but I may explain to the hon. Member for Northampton that Glenties is the most populous of the towns in West Donegal: that is the centre of the stocking knitting industry; that there is a considerable amount of this work done, and there is a difficulty in getting it sent away. For this, among other reasons, there is no doubt that this particular line will be a boon to the people of West Donegal and a national benefit, even though the undertaking may cost the taxpayers something for the time. I am quite sure that the policy of the Government for the relief of Irish distress commends itself to the Irish people whatever their public opinions may be. But I take the opportunity of asking the Secretary to the Treasury why it is that North Donegal has been left out of these advantages? The claims of the districts of Inishboffen and Cardonagh have been urged, but I do not find that they been recognised. As there is no Representative of North Donegal present, and I had the honour of being its Representative in two Parliaments, I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any prospect of railway works in North Donegal being commenced?
  COLONEL NOLAN: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, who, in contradistinction to Irish Members, always makes himself so agreeable in the House, has invoked the memory of our lamented colleague, the late Mr. Biggar, in opposition to these proposals. But Mr. Biggar objected, as his successor in the representation of Cavan has, because they were narrow gauge railways projected. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members who contradict me do not recollect the speeches he made here. I know he also objected to the local guarantee, but now that principle is practically eliminated, or confined to only a few rich baronies. Let me recall to the memory of the Com-

  853
  mittee what occurred last year when the light railways proposal was before the House. I find it recorded in Hansard that the discussion which commenced at 2 o'clock in the morning with an Amendment of the hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) was continued until 5.18, when the hon. Member withdrew his opposition, using these words—
  "Inasmuch, however, as the Government are giving the Galway people a better line than I supposed—that is to say, a heavy broad gauge line—I shall not persist in my opposition, but will leave the Government the responsibility of rejecting my advice."
  It all turned upon the difference between broad-gauge and narrow-gauge lines, and I think it is rather hard that the Government, having been strenuously opposed because they proposed, narrow-gauge lines, should now be abused because they propose the broad-gauge.
  DR. TANNER: Remarks have been made upon the Irish Members praising the Government for what they propose to do. We are doing nothing of the kind. But, of course, we are ready to take from the Government all that we can get. The Government have so bungled Irish affairs as to bring about starvation, and now they must pay for their mismanagement. No gratitude is due from us; and from time to time we have pressed the claims we have on the Government in great emergencies like this. I have pressed the Government for three light railways within my own county; but though they were passed by the Grand Juries, I have only had success in one instance. As to this Galway and Clifden line, I think it will be more satisfactory to have the line worked by a large company, and they will probably manage it better than a small company could; and we have seen so much bungling in tramway administration, that perhaps this offers a better prospect. But, of course, we know that the reason why the Government have made this contract with the Great Western Company is not for the benefit of the people, but that they may be able to put a certain amount of money into the pockets of their political friends the landlords. But, even in this Galway and Clifden line, they have followed the worst course. They should have followed the line of the sea coast tapping
  854
  the fishing villages and districts where there is most population, instead of carrying the line from Galway to Oughterard across a series of bogs, and adding to the cost of construction. Then take the Westport and Mulranny line. I pressed the Chief Secretary to extend it to Achill, and this has been done at an expense of £8,000; but that line cannot pay unless the Government do more. I endeavoured earlier to press upon the Government the necessity of building piers, and I want to connect the two works—railways and piers. There will be little traffic over the Achill line unless a pier is built. Stopping at a point in Achill Sound is not enough; there is not sufficient traffic to pay. The annual migration of Achill men to find harvest work in England will not assist much. So I must press home the practical importance of piers for creating a fishery traffic. There is no agricultural produce to be sent from Achill. It is a black and barren district, producing no crops beyond a few potatoes and a small quantity of oats to feed a few horses there. Unless you go further and build piers to encourage the fishing there will be nothing for this railway to carry. There is another line—the Baltimore and Skibbereen—a very short line that will certainly, pay, and this for the simple reason that the efforts of the Rev. Father Yates have been successful in establishing a fishing industry at the latter place. I warn Her Majesty's Government that on this western coast piers are required if there is to be any hope of railway traffic. Let them construct these, and in doing so let them not be guided by the advise of engineers from London and Dublin, otherwise we shall have only more monuments of incapacity like Lewisberg Pier in Clewer Bay, which is useless to the inhabitants. I hope the Government will, in addition to these railway works, build piers that the people may have a means of getting the full advantage of the fisheries.
  MR. JOICEY: I think hon. Members from Ireland have rather misinterpreted references from this side of the House. I am not surprised that hon. Members advocate the spending of British money in Ireland for any purpose which provides labour for their people. No doubt, if similar expendi-

  855
  ture were necessary in any of our constituencies, we should support such a proposal in the interest of our constituents. I do not find fault with the action of Irish Members, but I do find fault with the action of Her Majesty's Government, who have proceeded in a most unbusinesslike way. Here is a sum of £560,000 to be spent over one railway, when the impression produced in the House was that for such a sum a complete network of railways might be constructed in Ireland. But a line of 50 miles is to cost £560,000.
  COLONEL NOLAN: No, no; not half that.
  *MR. JACKSON: I explained just now it was for three railways.
  MR. JOICEY: Of what length?
  *MR. JACKSON: 74 miles in all.
  MR. JOICEY: Yes; over £8,000 a mile! I do not think that is the kind of light railway the House contemplated when the Bill was passed. The Government applied to the House for £50,000, not having the slightest knowledge of how they were going to spend it. I gather from what has been said by the Secretary to the Treasury that it was spent in digging here and there, and making plans and sub-sections of the lines. But everyone who has had experience in these matters knows that it is the custom of contractors to take contracts for the whole of the work. The whole of the proceedings of the Government have been most unbusinesslike, and I feel this so strongly that, by way of protest, I move the reduction of the vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That £135,200 be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Joicey).
  MR. CRAIG: As one who spent a great deal of time on the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce in 1889, when the Bill known as the Light Railway Bill was sent to it; as one of those who remembers how a measure of 21 pages was reduced, by a series of very clever tactics and artifices, to three or four pages; as one of those also who remembers the significance attached to the words light railways in those days, I confess I am surprised that those who sit on the Treasury Bench should tell us that in-
  856
  cluded in the meaning of the term "light railway" is a line with a gauge of 5ft. 3in. I am certain from my knowledge of the proceedings of that Committee, from which I was never absent for a moment, not even when Ministers reinforced their own strength and when pressure was applied such as had never been applied to a Standing Committee before, and I hope never will again—such pressure as was made matter of comment in the House and observation by the highest authority—these matters should be brought to the remembrance of the House that the House may see how, to use a sporting phrase, we have been "jockeyed" for the sake of getting the British taxpayers money for—I will not say nefarious purposes, for the House has sanctioned it—but by a series of artifices we who are here to watch the administration of the national funds have been deceived, and this by gentlemen who call themselves Unionists. [Interruptions.] They obtained the wretched little Bill of 1889 for Light Railways, and now they come and tell us that means a line of 5 feet 3 inches. [Interruptions.] Yes, this may be a laughing matter to the Government and their supporters. We have been told, in reference to one line, there are no funds but there are promoters. No capital but a promoter. Yes, that is just the point, there are promoters—[Interruptions]—but where does the money go? Does it go to the assistance of distressed people? Precious little of it. One hon. Member has advocated the construction of a line because it will increase the wages of his constituents by 2s. 6d. a week, but is that a sufficient reason to satisfy the representatives of English, Scotch and Welsh taxpayers? Are they to provide the money for such a line as that the late Mr. Biggar mentioned—where the engine, being unable to pull the train up an incline, the passengers got out and tried to push it. [Interruptions.] It is very funny, no doubt, that the money of British taxpayers should be expended in this way. The money goes into the pockets of promoters, and promoters can afford to smile. Why are we called upon to provide money for these railways when the Act relates to light railways? What is the definition of a light railway?
  *MR. JACKSON: A light railway as I should have thought the hon. Member would have informed himself from the proceedings before the Committee, may include a railway which may be 5 feet 3 inches.
  *MR. CRAIG: I have no hesitation in giving an emphatic contradiction to that statement. I have practical experience in these matters. The normal gauge of English railways is 4 feet 8½ inches, and beyond that the line is known as a broad railway. The right hon. Gentleman has no practical acquaintance with these matters, and has been led into the use of misleading terms. A light railway means, light rails and narrow gauge, light work and a light engine to run upon it. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Act of 1889 he will find that a light railway is defined as including a tramway, did the right hon. Gentleman ever hear of a tramway 5 feet 3 inches? The term tramway was included, so that part of the money might be used for carrying out the object of the Tramways Act of 1883. The whole proceedings in Committee was misleading in the highest degree, and I say they were intended to mislead [Interruptions.] I know the facts, but hon. Gentlemen do not; and I shall not change that opinion. There were 24 pages of clauses, and when we got into Committee 21 of these were torn out. [Cries of "Divide!"] Yes, I will divide the Bill; I will show how the 21 pages were divided from the Bill as it was sent to the Committee. These pages contained safeguards, introduced, as we were told, by the Treasury to protect the pockets of the taxpayers. [Interruptions.] As representing the British taxpayers, I do not intend, on a matter of this importance, to be roared down at this time of night. Two sub-clauses took the place of these 21 pages. First, there was a proposal for dealing with companies that were solvent, solid, and substantial, which occupied three pages of matter.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
  MR. WILLIAM HENRY SMITHrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  (12.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 49.—(Div. List, No.83.)
  Question put accordingly, "That £135,200 be granted for the said service."
  (12.15.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 84.)
  MR. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."
  Original Question put accordingly.
  (12.25.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 40.—(Div. List, No. 85.)
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.

SUPPLY REPORT.
Resolutions [9th March] reported (see pages 494–569), and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1890 and 1891, the sum of £596,025 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, the sum of £9,036,700 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
Committee to sit again to-morrow.

LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 69.)
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL (No. 40.)
As amended, considered.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to move after Clause 1, the insertion of the following new clause—
(Construction of 53 and 54 Vic. c. 60, s. 1.)
"The expression 'technical education' in Section 1 of The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890,' shall be deemed to include both technical and manual instruction within the meaning of the Technical Instruction Acts, 1889 and 1891."
The only object of this clause is to make it quite clear that the County Councils

859
may utilise the money they obtain under the Excise Act of last year for manual instruction as well as other forms of technical instruction. Owing to the difference in the wording of the two Acts, some doubt exists in the country on the subject, and I hope therefore my proposal may be accepted.
*THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am very doubtful as to the necessity of inserting this clause. I see that the intention of my hon. Friend is to provide that this measure and the Act of 1889 shall be construed together. If, however, my hon. Friend refers to the Act of last year he will find that the residue of the money is to be applied within the meaning of the Technical Instruction Act of 1889, and if he refers to the Definition Clause of the Act of 1889 he will find that it covers manual as well as other technical instruction. At the same time as my hon. Friend assures the House that there is real doubt in the minds of members of County Councils—and nearly every County Council has appointed a committee to deal with the question of technical education, and as the clause is perfectly harmless, I will not oppose it.
MR. HOBHOUSE: A doubt has arisen in the country owing to the fact that in the Act of 1889 there are separate definitions of technical and manual instruction, whereas in the Act of last year there is only the expression "technical education," without any definition.
Clause read a second time and added.
MR. A. DYKE ACLAND: I have to move the following new clause at the end of Clause 1—
Appropriation of Moneys towards Technical Instruction.
"Where a Council shall have referred to a Committee the question of appropriating to purposes of technical instruction any sum consisting of the whole or any part of such moneys, this section shall, until the Committee shall have made their Report and the Council shall have arrived at a decision thereon, apply to such sum as if the same had been directed by the Council to he appropriated to such purposes."
MR. TOMLINSON: I am not quite sure the word section ought to be used in this way.
MR. A. ACLAND: The words follow on those carried the other night, and
860
they have been approved by the President of the Local Government Board.
Clause read a second time and added.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I also move that at the end of Clause 2 the following words be inserted:—
"And shall be construed as one with the Technical Instruction Act, 1889."
Amendment agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC BODIES (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.—(No. 233.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That Mr. John O'Connor be discharged from the Select Committee on Railway Servants (Hours of Labour).
Ordered, That Mr. Maguire be added to the Committee.—(Colonel Nolan).

ST. LEONARD PARISH, SHOREDITCH (SANITARY CONDITION.)
Address for—
"Copy of Report of D. Cubitt Nichols, esquire, and Edward Seaton, esquire, M.D., of the result of a public inquiry held by them, by direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, into the Sanitary Condition of certain premises in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch."—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)

POLICE ACT, 1890 (SUPERANNUATION SCALES.)
Address for—
"Return of Scales for Ordinary Pensions adopted under Section 3 of The Police Act, 1890,' by Police Authorities in England and Wales."—(Mr. Stuart Worthy.)

TEACHERS' REGISTRATION AND ORGANISATION BILL COMMITTEE.
Ordered, That Mr. Sydney Buxton be discharged from the Select Committee on Teachers' Registration and Organisation Bill.
Ordered, That Mr. James Ellis be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Arnold Morley.)
House adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Lord Teignmouth—Petition of Sir Charles John Shore, Baron Teignmouth in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND REPEAL BILL [H.L.]—(No. 52)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I believe it is competent to Members of this House to bring questions of privilege before your Lordships at any time. I wish to complain of a misreport of a speech of mine on this very intricate subject of the Local Government Acts of England and Scotland Repeal Bill. I stated that the Prime Minister had given his opinion that the majority of the House was in favour of this measure, and I stated at the same time that I thought his Lordship was misinformed. It makes a very great difference those words being left out, and I conceive it is the duty of the reporter of this House to send the speeches early enough to those who have uttered them to enable speeches to be corrected. Another object of this interruption, if I may call it so, is this: I wish to know if the Clerk of the House has any right to refuse notice of any question that a Peer chooses to place before him? In my opinion, it is the duty of the Clerk to put a notice, if requested, upon the Paper, and if that notice be informal, the House itself can correct the Mover of it. I mention this particularly in relation to the Duration of Speeches in Parliament Bill. That Bill was sent to the printer, with a request that a proof might be sent to me. It was altered very materially, but no proof
  722
  was sent to me, and, to my surprise found the Bill in the Paper without my authorisation. Certainly the noble Marquess at the head of the Government postponed it for 10 months, which is really worse than a final rejection. I believe the noble Marquess wishes to do that which is fair, and I trust when I make the Motion to-morrow that that Order may be rescinded that the House in general will see the justice of my claim, and will allow the Bill to reappear in the Paper.
  Order discharged.

CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]-(No. 45.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I have an Amendment on this clause. I only suggest to the most rev. Prelate that a few words should be omitted which are evidently surplusage. They may have had some meaning as the Bill was originally drawn; that I do not remember, but as it stands the 2nd clause stands thus, omitting the early part of it. After referring to cases where clergymen have been convicted, it goes on to say—
  "The following consequence shall follow that is to say, the ecclesiastical preferment held by such clergyman shall become vacant."
  It is perfectly obvious that to provide that "the following consequence shall follow" is absolute nonsense, and the Bill would, I think, be a great deal better without those words.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I would ask the noble Lord whether he does not think these words still serve a purpose with regard to the 2nd subsection? If the words are omitted, as the noble Lord proposes, the 2nd subsection would want considerable alteration.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I must say I doubt that, because the words "Provided that if," and so on, in the subsection are only interpolated to qualify the 1st section. Let us leave that out for a moment. It says that at the time of the conviction becoming conclusive

  723
  for the purposes of the Act the ecclesiastical preferment held by the clergyman "shall become vacant." Then read on—
  "The same consequence also shall follow after the like date if a bastardy order under the enactments for the time being relating to bastardy is made on a clergyman, and is either not appealed from, or on appeal is confirmed, or if a clergyman is found by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a Court sitting without a jury on an issue in a divorce or matrimonial cause to have committed adultery."
  I have read it in full purposely, so that your Lordships may know exactly what it says, as the most rev. Prelate has referred to it, and I must say I still cannot see that there is any object whatever in these words which I am moving to omit, or that the 2nd sub-section has anything to do with them.
  LORD HERSCHELL: It is quite true that the proviso interpolated is a proviso on the first section. It is the last consequence mentioned that is referred to which would, therefore, refer to the first part of the clause, and not the last proviso but one. I think the words, do no harm, and that the clause is safer left as it is.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I will move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved, to omit the words, "the following consequence shall follow, that is to say."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: On this clause I have an Amendment to propose. I stated the general nature of it on the Second Reading of the Bill. You will observe that in the group of cases which are included in Clause 3, and which admit of many varieties and degrees there is a provision that the conviction is to be conclusive; but, according to the clause, the last words of it provide that the clergyman shall be heard to prove mitigating circumstances. Now, the first question I ask is, how are those mitigating circumstances to be proved? Of course, if justice is to be done, there must be a full inquiry into the matter on both sides, and this is one of the cases in which the clergyman wouldcertainly be
  724
  entitled to what may for shortness be-called a jury. The probability is that he will very often desire to have one. The result would be he would go on and prove his innocence if he can, and he may be able to prove absolute innocence. The first trial will not be conclusive as to punishment, and if he is to be allowed to go on proving all he can he may succeed in proving that he was absolutely innocent. Such cases are not at all unknown; but the Court would have to say, to him, "You are guilty, because you have been found guilty by another Court; but we do not think you are guilty, and we will treat you as having proved mitigating circumstances, and give you a very slight punishment, or none at all." That seems, an absurdity. What you want to provide is this: that the Ecclesiastical Court shall know all the circumstances; and it strikes me that the simplest way of doing it is to allow the Ecclesiastical Court to have all the evidence apon which the man was convicted laid before it. Then it would have all the materials that have been considered necessary to be brought forward in the first instance. Then comes the question whether he should be allowed an appeal, and upon that point I am bound to say I am rather against what I have put down as my own Amendment. I have thought it possible that some noble Lord might think that in certain cases the clergyman ought to be entitled to an appeal; but I believe, that if you adopt the other part of my Amendment, namely, that all the evidence is to be laid before the Court which has to pass the sentence or before the Bishop, you will ensure that the Ecclesiastical Court knows all the circumstances—that it has a complete know-ledge of everything, and that is what you want. I quite agree with what the noble and learned Lord opposite said on Second Reading that you must run the risk of a certain amount of injustice being done, but you need not do more than run that risk. The moment you say there is to be another trial, surely you ought to provide that the other trial shall be as complete as it can be without involving extra expense, and if you simply provide that the evidence which has been used in the Temporal Court shall be laid before the Ecclesiastical Court you will do all that is necessary for securing

  725
  justice on both sides. Otherwise you will run the risk which I have pointed out before. I wish to point out that this only applies to cases where the guilt of the accused clergyman admits of a variety of degrees. Take, for instance, cases of assaults. There may be cases of assault involving indecency, such as I alluded to the other night, in the case of Mr. Hatch, who had not, it afterwards turned out, committed any offence at all, and, therefore, mere mitigation would have been nonsense. That seems to me to be a case which ought to be subject to revision in the subsequent trial, as before a jury, if the clergyman thinks fit to demand it.
  Amendment moved, to omit the following words:—
  "This section shall not preclude the clergyman from being heard to prove mitigating circumstances,"
  and to insert the following:—
  "The evidence on which he was convicted shall he laid before the Court, and its judgment shall be subject to appeal under the same conditions as in other cases, and the evidence shall in like manner be laid before the Bishop if he has to pass sentence summarily."—(Lord Grimthorpe.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Ordinarily, as I understand it, the Judge takes a note of the evidence at trials of this description and it is the Judge's note ordinarily which is looked at afterwards in other Courts. Does my noble Friend mean that the Judge's note of the evidence should be laid before the Ecclesiastical Courts?
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I think that probably this result would follow as in the case of what is called the preliminary inquiry in reference to drunken clergymen. There is a provision in the old Clergy Discipline Act that the evidence shall be laid before the Bishop, and the parties either agree to have a shorthand writer, or the notes are taken by the Court. I may say that I have taken them myself to save the expense of a shorthand writer. I think that is an answer to that question.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have no objection certainly to the purpose which the noble Lord has in view. I think it is very desirable that before passing sentence and awarding punishment the Ecclesiastical Court should know what the character of the offence was as
  726
  disclosed by the evidence, because, of course, that would obviously influence or might influence considerably the punishment to be inflicted. Therefore I agree entirely with his object, and I think the words at the end of the clause to which he refers were added with that notion. Certainly I do not think the language happy, though I rather thought it was my noble and learned Friend's.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: No.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I rather thought that was so, because I had a manuscript sent from him in which it appeared. However, we quite agree that the words as they stand will not do, and I had thought of suggesting some such words as these—that the clergyman "may be allowed to show the circumstances under which the offence was committed in mitigation of punishment," but such a proviso is again open, no doubt, to the objection which my noble and learned Friend has raised that the matter might be more simply dealt with by providing that the Ecclesiastical Court shall have the evidence given in the temporal Court before it. I think if those words were adopted there would be nothing to prevent the accused person being heard in mitigation of punishment. I fancy that any Court in dealing with a case before it, would hear whatever could be said in mitigation of punishment without any express provision; but in providing for it the difficulty, of course, arises of determining what the machinery to be used is for bringing the evidence before the Court. I think we might consider in Standing Committee how best we could do it. I quite sympathise with my noble and learned Friend's object, and agree that it would be desirable to ensure that being done.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: At present I will withdraw the Amendment, reserving to myself liberty to bring it before the Standing Committee.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, in regard to Clause 4, I cannot help thinking that the language requires amendment. What it says is that if there is no appeal the decision pronounced shall be conclusive—

  727
  "Upon the expiration of the time limited for such appeal or the expiration of two months from the time of the conviction order or finding, whichever is earliest."
  Now, if that means it shall be absolutely conclusive when the time for appealing has expired, I can quite understand it; but surely, if more than two months are allowed, it ought to provide for that. Surely that must be the object, and I venture to suggest that it requires amendment, so as to make the term of two months applicable only when no time for appealing is really fixed. I propose, therefore, to omit the words "whichever is earliest," and to insert the words "when no such time is limited."
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Then in the next line, at the beginning of the next sub-section, the language is not clear, and I think the intention is insufficiently expressed. The words "in the event of an appeal" overlook a case provided for by the previous sub-section, because the appeal may afterwards be abandoned, and I, therefore, propose to put in after the word "appeal" the words on which judgment is pronounced by the Court of Appeal.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I would suggest an Amendment, instead of the too indefinite words "for good reason" on page 5, line 14. The provision is this: that in certain cases which are necessary to be provided for, the Chancellor may—
  "Appoint some clergyman or layman, as the case may require, who is willing to serve and who is not objected to by either party for good reason,"
  to make up the necessary number of assessors. There must be somebody to determine the sufficiency of the objection; and I, therefore, suggest that those words "for good reason "should be left out, and that there should be inserted instead "for cause shown and deemed sufficient by the Chancellor." It is a matter which must be decided at
  728
  the time, and it would in that case be for the Chancellor to decide whether there was sufficient reason for objecting or not.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Before this clause is passed, I should desire to point out one matter which will probably have to be considered by the Standing Committee. Sub-section 4 provides that the assessors chosen shall attend when required, and that if anyone fails to do so "he shall be disqualified for acting or being elected again as assessor." Supposing a man is ill or that his absence is entirely owing to circumstances over which he has no control, it is not intended surely to disqualify him from acting in future. It would be wrong in such a case to say that his appointment as assessor shall be at an end, and it should surely be subject to this proviso: that "any one without assigning some sufficient reason for his absence "shall be disqualified, and that it should be for the Judge of the Court to decide as to the sufficiency of the cause.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I quite agree with the most rev. Prelate that it should be so. The Chancellor is to declare the vacancy, and he should be satisfied with regard to any excuse offered that it is a valid excuse.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Would it not do to say "except for good cause allowed by the Chancellor?"
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Yes that would do; but I am afraid I am not in order in suggesting it now, and I will say no more about it at present.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am disposed to think that the words at the end of this clause will require modification, "that if an appeal is brought the operation of the sentence shall be suspended until the appeal is dismissed or abandoned." There may be upon the appeal a sentence which is, on the one hand, partly in favour of, or, on the other, wholly against the person accused. I would suggest the substitution of the word "determined" for "dismissed."
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I have an earlier Amendment in line 12, which is this: It is in Sub-section 3, which provides that—
  "If sentenced to suspension from the performance of the duties of his ecclesiastical preferment for any term, he shall not during that term reside in the house of residence of that preferment, nor if the sentence so requires reside within the distance specified in the sentence from the place of such preferment."
  The object of that sub-section is, of course, to provide against interference on the part of a suspended clergyman in the affairs of the parish. Of course, though he might be required not to reside it would be possible for him to return for a few hours and do a great deal of mischief. The real evil does not consist always in the actual residence of the suspended clergyman in the house, although that might be very annoying, but it mainly consists in the fact that he may persist in presiding in the vestry, interfering in the management of the schools, and taking other part in the general administration of the parish. It is, of course, the object of this part of the Bill to prevent that. I therefore propose to your Lordships to add, after the word "preferment," the following words:—
  "And further, he shall not, dining the term, he entitled, without the leave of the Court, to exercise or perform any right or duty of or incidental or attached to his preferment."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, to omit the word "dismissed" and to insert the word "determined."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: In this clause, my Lords, I have to draw attention; the wording, which seems to me to be of very great importance. The clause makes provision for deposition by the Bishop of the diocese after the derivation of the delinquent clergyman. It seems to me rather a strong ring to say that the Bishop of the diocese could have the power of actually grading a clergyman, and what I was going to propose was that there should
  730
  be an appeal granted him to the Archbishop. I propose, therefore, that these words should be added to the clause:—
  "Provided always that such clergyman should have the right of appeal within one month to the Arch bishop of the province, whose decision shall be final."
  These cases are quite analogous to many others in which the Bishop acts as regards curate's licences, sequestration of benefices, and many other like cases, in all of which there is given an appeal to the Archbishop of the province. I cannot help thinking that the clergy would be more satisfied if there was in these very grave cases also an appeal to the Archbishop of the province; and unless the most rev. Prelate objects to the Amendment, I beg to move an Amendment that the words I have read be added to the sub-section.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Would it not be better to include the Bishop of the diocese and the Archbishop of the province together? This point has been called to the attention of the Bishops, and I was in hopes that by this time the right reverend Bench might, have thrown some light upon it. I really do not pretend myself to know whether it would absolutely require the concurrence of the Archbishop.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I think what I propose will do what is wanted.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: The Bishop and Archbishop being included in it together would probably avoid any possibility of conflict.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Is the suggestion that they should jointly depose?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Suppose they are both named and they differ.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: It would be subject to the decision of the Archbishop.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should have thought it would for the moment have been better to accept the most rev. Prelate's Amendment.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I only want the proper form to be ascertained. That might be done among the Bishops themselves. Perhaps by the time we get to the Standing Committee they will have been able to settle that.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Amendment is to insert after the word "diocese," in line 31, the following words:—

  731
  "Provided always that such clergyman may appeal from the said sentence within one month to the Archbishop of the province, whose decision shall be final."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am not quite certain, my Lords, that the effect of some Amendments which I proposed to move upon this clause would he clearly understood. I will, therefore, with your Lordships' permission, withdraw the Amendments on Clause 29 and bring them forward in Standing Committee.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: Upon Clause 31 I have only this remark to make: It is possible there may be a case or two pending when this Act comes into operation. Now, one object of the Bill is to prevent the expense of a multitude of appeals on technicalities and things of that kind. I therefore suggest that it would be expedient to add some such words as these: "All further proceedings in any suit then pending shall be carried on according to the provisions of this Act." That proviso, I propose, should come at the end of the clause.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think that will require a little consideration, because I am not quite sure whether at after stages you could in an old suit work under this new procedure. I think I understand the object which my noble Friend has in view, but perhaps he will defer that proposal to be hereafter considered.
  *LORD GRIMTHORPE: I will omit that Amendment for the present.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee: and to be printed as amended. (No. 59.)

POLLEN FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 51.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which has passed the House of Commons. It relates only to Ireland, and its object is the better preservation of the Pollen Fisheries by making it illegal to take or sell under-sized fish. I need only mention that it has the approbation of the Fisheries Board in Ireland, and I move now that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 55.)
Amendments reported (according to order).
Clause 1.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I wish to call the attention of the noble Marquess to Sub-section 3 of Clause 7, and to the Amendment moved substituting County Court proceedings for distress. On the last occasion the Government said that certain words should be inserted in that sub-section, and I must say that that promise has been strictly, but too literally fulfilled. We had a right to expect, as the noble Marquess moved the suspension of that section, that something would be done to give us access to the County Courts, but now words have been added which were not there before referring to the provisions of Sections 81 and 85 of the Act. That is to say, that sub-section has been made worse than it was before by bringing forward more prominently the provisions of the Tithe Bill. Then, in addition to that, in Standing Committee, all words referring to the Tithe Act and tithe rent charge have been removed, and words substituted referring to the Act of the 6 & 7 Will IV. chap. 71. I am afraid that He Majesty's Government, who have give no reason for shutting the landowners out of the County Courts other that that of passing the Bill more easily

733
are only playing into the hands of their enemies, who do not care for the occupiers, bat simply wish to provide opportunities for further disturbances. I hope it may not be so; and if, fortunately, it should not—if, in reality, the people who now object to the tithe are blinded and satisfied with these words—then, indeed, the ostrich will be justified, which thinks that it has concealed itself when it has buried its head in the sand. I suppose at this time it is of no use to say anything more, or to ask for the omission of the words "not otherwise" in the sub-section, if the Government is firmly decided upon not allowing the landowners access to the County Courts. I would also ask the noble Marquess if he can find any words regarding the rating of the clergymen, which will provide that they shall not be in a worse position than before. At present, in most unions, they are allowed 15 percent. off the gross tithe; and if they are in future to be assessed as occupiers, they will lose that advantage, and be rated rather higher than before.
*LORD BRABOURNE: My Lords, before the head of the Government answers that question, I wish to say a few words—and a few only—at this stage. I think the House has some little reason to complain that, after the Amendments which have been adopted in Standing Committee, no longer time has been given to enable the House to become acquainted with the Amendments before having to consider the Report. But I do not wish to trouble myself with that point at present; the point upon which I do wish to trouble your Lordships for, I am afraid, a few seconds is this: The reference in Sub-section 3, Clause 1, to the Tithe Rent-charge Act is in this manner—
"Such sum shall he recoverable from the occupier by distress in like manner as is provided by Sections 81 and 85 of the Act of the Session of the sixth and seventh years of the reign of King William IV., chap. 71, and the enactments amending those sections, and not otherwise."
In the Bill as it went up to the Committee the words were "under the provisions of the Tithe Act. 1836." Now, the noble Marquess moved in Standing Committee to change that, and I want to point out two things: In the first place, in the Bill as it stands, other references are made to the original Act as the Tithe Act of 1836;
734
and if you are going to refer to the Act in the present measure I cannot see why the reference to the Act cannot, in every instance, be couched in the same terms. It seems to me rather absurd to refer to the same Act in one form in one section of the Bill and in another form in another section. But I have something more to say. I have read in the ordinary channels of information that in the Standing Committee the noble Marquess said that his reason for the change of words was that he did not think it necessary to call the farmers' attention to the fact that it is tithe that is still being paid by them. Now, I humbly conceive that it is not only desirable, but just and fair, that this should be done. What, in the first place, are you, in fact, doing by this Bill? It has been represented that by this Bill you are giving something to the occupiers. You are doing no such thing. You are only forbidding the owner to pay the tithe in the manner which has been shown practically to be the most convenient. But, supposing a man is paying £40 a year for his farm, which would be worth £50 but for his contract to pay £10 to the tithe owner, you are now going to make the owner pay it. Do you mean the owner to be robbed to that extent or not? I presume the answer would be "Certainly not." What then, I ask, could be more fair than to provide by this Bill that he shall be allowed to keep it before his eyes, and before the eyes of the occupier, that it is still tithe rent-charge which is paid, only that he is to be compelled to pay it in that way instead of its being paid by the occupier as hitherto? I do not want to recapitulate the arguments I have already used against this Bill. I believe it to be a measure which will do a great deal of mischief; and that it will cause a great deal more friction between owners and occupiers than it will remove between clergymen and their parishioners. But now I would put it to your Lord-ships whether the plainest, most straightforward, and most honest proceeding is not this: As you are going to give the landlord power in such a case to obtain by distress £10 more from his tenant, because that sum of £10 is to be now paid by him which the tenant had hitherto undertaken to pay, would it not be better to say so? What you are doing, it is said, is not to rob

735
the owner, but to remove friction between clergymen and their parishioners, and to facilitate the recovery of the tithe rent-charge. Well, if so, let us have a plain, straightforward reference to that object in a manner which will be understood by everybody. I will move, for form's sake, that the words after "as provided" in this subsection be left out; that is, from the words beginning "by sections," and so on, in line 26, to the end of the clause, and insert in their stead "as provided by the Tithe Act, 1836." That will restore the Bill to its original state, and make the reference to that Act the same as it was before, and is now in one or two other places, in the Bill.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord opposite, I must disclaim having made any promise at all, and therefore I must disclaim having been guilty of any breach of faith. I am very sorry if the noble Lord was misled by what I said on a previous occasion, or was induced not to speak against the clause or to take a Division on that occasion, or if any noble Lord has been inconvenienced by the Report having been brought up so soon; but I had no intention of any such result, and I must assert that I gave no promise, either on the Second Reading of the Bill or on the stage of Committee of the whole House, which has not been fulfilled. I certainly never gave any kind of promise that we would give the landlords access to the County Courts. I must equally repudiate the noble Lord's charge that we have given no reason for that policy. I do not mean to say that I think it would do any great harm; but undoubtedly, in strict logic, as we maintain that by this Bill we do not change the status of the occupier but merely change the relations of the tithe owner and the landowner, we are bound to take care that in no respect shall the occupier be in a worse position than he was before. A part of the advantages which he has enjoyed, or is supposed to have enjoyed, under the existing law is the precise limitation of the remedies by which the amount could be recovered from him. If we enlarge the number of those remedies
736
and make the recovery of the debt, so far, more easy, we should to that extent have diminished the advantage of his position; and, therefore, upon the principle which we announced as the principle upon which the Bill is drawn, I think very strict justice required us not to give the landlords, in the words of my noble Friend, access to the County Courts. With respect to the point which has been raised by the noble Lord behind me, I cannot say that I think it is one of very great importance; but I maintain that the designation of the Act which I have given in this clause is the correct one. If yon put the "Tithe Act" merely, you run a certain danger that ignorant persons will think that this money which the tenant owes to the landlord is still tithe. It will no longer be tithe: it will be a debt due from the occupier to the landlord, arising out of a previous covenant. It is no longer tithe, and I think it is undesirable that any mistake should exist upon that subject. I am not for a moment saying that it is a matter of serious importance, but I confess I think that the clause as it stands; is in the most logical shape, and I should be disposed to adhere to it.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble Friend who spoke at an earlier period of the discussion was, I think, under a misapprehension in reference to the words which occur in Clause 2, at line 5, that the County Court,
"After such service on and hearing of the owner of the lands as may be prescribed, may order that the said sum or such part thereof as appears to the Court to be due together with the costs, be recovered in manner provided by this Act."
And then it goes on to say that the tithe shall not be recovered in any other manner. The effect of those words would, I think, be to render it essential that there should be a hearing; and I think it would be well to amend that. I cannot think that the criticism which was passed upon this clause was without some foundation, and I propose to strike out the words "and hearing" and to-put in substitution for them—
"And, after hearing the owner if he appears and desires to be heard"

737
The clause will then read thus—
"After such service on the owner of the lands, as may be prescribed may, after hearing the owner if he appears and desires to he heard, order,"
and so on. It seems to me that will get rid of the difficulty, and will, at all events, I should think, not raise any controversy. We are all agreed as to what is intended to be done, and it really resolves itself into a question of drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
Verbal Amendments made.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 8 agreed to
Clause 9.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move in this clause, at page 6, line 4 after the word "recoverable," to insert—
"And if the court is satisfied that such remission has not been taken into account in estimating the rateable value of the tithe rent charge, the court may remit such amount of any then current rate assessed on the owner of the tithe rent-charge as appears to the court to be proportionate to the amount of the remission of tithe rent-charge."
The object is to meet cases not of probable or of large injustice, but still of undoubted injustice such as that which was brought forward by the right rev. Prelate who presides over this Diocese during the Debate in Committee of the whole House. You give by one clause of the Bill power to the County Courts to decide that tithe in certain cases is not due, and it would be eminently unjust in those cases that the owners should pay rates upon that tithe. This clause is intended to remedy that defect.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not wish to raise an objection to the principle of the Amendment proposed; but I would wish to ask the noble Marquess whether there ought not to be a provision that the landowner should pay the amount. It may, I think, be stated in this way: there is so much owing out of the land; the landowner will, in certain cases, have to pay less to the tithe owner, and that of course increases the amount which the owner gets from the land, and, therefore, I think the landowner ought to pay the amount which the tithe owner would otherwise pay.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not know whether I may speak again, but it seems to me, with deference to the noble Lord, that the value of the land has so far been destroyed; and the value of the land having been destroyed there is no rate upon it, and there ought not to be any rate upon it. Therefore, the parish would have no more right to get it out of the landowner than to get it out of the tithe owner.
LORD HERSCHELL: I would only point out that the rate, such as it is, has been fixed upon the rateable value of the land under different circumstances. It may have been fixed upon the land in its condition of producing very little, and obviously if it has been so fixed the rate is perfectly right. Although you say the tithe owner is not to pay the whole of it, that does not make the rate wrong, because it may have been actually fixed with regard to the fact that the land has produced so little. Then there is one other point upon this which I should desire to call to the noble Marquess's attention. It treats the case as if the tithe owner must have been rated to the full amount unless the remission has been taken into account. But what had really happened might have been this: The remission might not have been taken into account, because the time for making it might not have come, but the tithe owner might have had his rateable value diminished because there was this power of remission. I think the noble Marquess will see in a moment how it will raise the rateable value, if any, if the tithe is obtained in this way, by simply enquiring what a tenant will give for it. If a tithe owner could show that he was entitled to tithe out of lands of such annual value as that the Court had power to deprive him of part of it it is quite clear that the tenant would give less for it if those tithes were payable than before, and consequently the parson, or whoever the tithe owner might be, would get the remission because under the power of remission his rateable value ought to have been reduced below what it was before. Of course, if that has been done he ought not to get a further remission under those circumstances, because the fact of the remission has been already taken into account in fixing his rateable value.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord has exerted his ingenuity to a very considerable extent, but perhaps I may suggest the word "deduction" instead of "remission." "Deduction" is, I think, capable of conveying both meanings.
LORD HERSCHELL: Or "that the provisions of this Act relating to deductions have been taken into account." If the noble Marquess will put it in that form that might be sufficient, but I would rather consider it before I make any further suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had another Amendment in Clause 7, but I shall not move it now.
Clause 10.
*LORD THRING: The object of my Amendment upon this clause is to substitute a shorter, and I hope a clearer, definition for the definition which has been carried into the Bill by reference from the Act of 1836. My definition makes the owner in effect to be the person, who receives the rents from the occupying tenant. I think it can do no harm whatever as the Act imposes no liability upon the owner. The only effect of this clause is to designate the owner as the person on whom service is to be made before proceedings can be taken in the County Courts. It is evidently exceedingly necessary that in a Bill which is to be carried into effect by County Court Judges, and in which clergymen and other persons not versed in legal technicalities are interested, the provisions should be couched in such a form, if possible that they can be "understanded of the vulgar." I rather thought the words in reference to the Act of 1836 might be unintelligible to most people, though in saying that I am subject to correction by my noble and learned Friend Lord Selborne, who says that he quite understands it. Still I think it is a clause not to be easily understood by ordinary intellects, and I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will accept this shorter form. I am sorry to say that the references are not quite right in the printed notice, but I have set them right
740
in the Paper which I have given to the Lord Chancellor.
Amendment moved, in page 7, line 14, to leave out from "case" to end of paragraph and insert—
"means any person who shall be in actual possession or in receipt, or entitled to the receipt, of the rents and profits of land, and for the purposes of this Act the decision of the County Court as to who is the owner shall be conclusive."—(Lord Thring.)
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill to be read 3a on Tuesday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 60.)

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 43.)
Read 3a (according to order); amendments made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to make provisions in regard to the registration of certain writs in the divisions of the General Register of Sasines in Scotland—Was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 61.)
ORDNANCE SURVEY—IRELAND.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to ask the Lord Privy Seal, with reference to the reply to a recent question as to the progress that is being made with the revision of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland, whether Her Majesty's Government will cause steps to be taken to hasten the completion of the survey on the 25in. scale, said: My Lords, about six weeks ago I asked my noble Friend below me a question about the progress that was being made with the Ordnance Survey in Ireland, and the answer I got from him was in effect that considerable progress had been made with two of the counties. One of those counties was Galway, a large county, and the other was Roscommon. Now, as there are 32 counties in Ireland, it stands to reason that progress at the rate of parts of two counties in a year is not very rapid, and that to complete the survey of Ireland on the 25in. scale, would at that rate take something like 20 years

  741
  at least, This is a matter or very pressing importance, because we have now in full swing a system of land purchase by small occupiers, and we are likely to require the maps very shortly in view of the system of local registration and legal record of title under a Bill introduced in the other House. I have thought it well, therefore, to bring the matter again before Her Majesty's Government, and to ask whether it is possible in any way to hasten the completion of the survey on the 25in. scale.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBKOOK): My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to state that steps have already been taken to hasten the progress of the 25in. survey of Ireland by the creation of a new and additional Survey Division, and some of the surveyors of this division are already at work. To show the progress that has been made, I may state that the provision in the Estimates for revising the Irish survey was, in 1889–90 £15,750, in 1890–91£25,200, and for this year 1891–92 it is £39,950.

HYDROPHOBIA AND SHEEP WORRYING.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to ask whether, in view of checking hydrophobia and sheep worrying, the Government would omit "cattle" as a ground of exemption from the dog licence, and so restrict exemptions on account of sheep, said: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble Friend the Lord President has undertaken to answer this question, because knowing as I did the illness of the Lord Privy Seal, it is a great relief to me that he has not ventured to come down to the House notwithstanding the increased clemency of the weather. It is hardly necessary for me to dwell much upon the danger of spreading hydrophobia being increased by a large number of vagrant ill-fed dogs. My noble Friend the Lord President will remember that once before in this House he stated that Anglesey was one of the worst counties in the Kingdom for hydrophobia: and there were about that time many more dogs than holdings in Anglesey. With regard to the worrying of sheep,
  742
  complaints have appeared from time to time in the newspapers in various places, but last December some figures were published in the newspapers of North Wales of the destruction of sheep and lambs during two years, in seven parishes only, of Carnarvonshire. From these it appeared that 1,502 sheep and lambs had been killed or worried, causing a loss of £1,047, the value of the sheep, and a loss of £211 paid to watchers to protect them from their natural guardians, for such these dogs must be considered, being a total loss of £1,250 odd. Most of these dogs are exempted from duty on the ground of their attending "cattle" or sheep, "cattle" being a plural word, which is understood to mean two. There is a very prevalent belief in all parts of the country that there is great laxity on the part of the Excise officers in granting exemptions, but that is not the case. The fault lies, I think, in the wording of the Act, which left no discretion to the Excise, which allows any farmer to claim exemption for a certain number of dogs to attend or watch cattle or sheep. The consequence is that any tenant of four or five acres with two cows, and who is not properly speaking a farmer at all but a cottager, and who generally cannot afford to feed a dog properly, keeps an exempted dog. Cattle—cows especially—are much better without dogs coming near them. They have the greatest aversion to dogs, and the consequence of using these dogs is that the cows frequently drop their calves. Farmers in Scotland constantly get their milk curdled, from the cattle being pursued by collie dogs, in consequence of the agitation and alarm caused to the animals on that account. The only place where there is a good excuse for using dogs in connection with cattle is in the Highlands of Scotland, where the cattle roam over extensive unenclosed mountain tracts, but in these cases the herds were usually sufficiently numerous for their owners to be able to afford to pay for licences. The same thing may be said of sheep; it is not to be wondered at if so large a destruction of sheep has taken place in Carnarvonshire when it is remembered that a large number of these dogs are not sheep dogs at all, but lurchers, greyhounds, and mongrels of every description. The

  743
  primary object of the Dog Duty at the present day is not so much revenue, as to prevent the undue multiplication of dogs; but this habit of exempting some dogs, which was only introduced in or since 1879, provides for the survival of the unfittest. The Dog Tax, your Lordships will remember, originated in the latter part of last century during the great war. It was proposed by a man named Dent, who got consequently the nick-name of "Dog-Dent," and it was so unpopular at first that he used to receive hampers with legs and tails of pheasants sticking out of them, but filled only with dead dogs. These exemptions give a vast amount of trouble at Somerset House and they cause, therefore, additional expense besides the loss of duty. In the County of Anglesey last year, 1,235 dogs paid duty, and 2,621 were exempted; in the seven parishes of Carnarvonshire, where this great loss of sheep occurred, 605 dogs were licensed, and 1,332 exempted, so that there were more than two dogs exempted for every dog that was licensed. In the Birmingham district, however, and its immediate neighbourhood, which is as your Lordships know, principally black country, there were only 384 dogs exempted on cattle farms—there are no sheep farms there—and as many as 11,573 dogs that paid duty. So that Birmingham stands very well both with regard to the vigilance of the Excise officers and the honesty of the pitmen who are very fond of their dogs, which sometimes it is said even get the children's milk and are supposed to be fed with mutton chops. I hope the Government will do something to check the increase of the number of dogs, which in 1878, before the exemptions were allowed, was 1,490,493. Calculating from the duty now paid, and assuming that the exemptions are upon much the same scale in all parts of the country the number of dogs would now amount to about 2,250,000. With regard to London I have not asked for the figures; but it is said that the Muzzling Order has had the effect of very much diminishing the number of dogs in and about London. What I ask upon the Notice Paper the fore, is, whether Her Majesty's Government will omit "cattle" tending as a ground for exemption of dogs from being licensed, and
  744
  will restrict the exemptions on account of sheep. The simplest way, it seems to me, would be to abolish all exemptions, and if that cannot be done farmers might be defined and distinguished from cottagers, and dogs claiming exemption should be brought before the Excise officers to show that they were bonâ fide sheep dogs.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I do not propose to enter upon the details into which my noble Friend has gone so fully. The fact is that the exemptions are regulated by an Act of Parliament. That Act of Parliament the Legislature has thought fit to pass, and I can only say that there is no intention on the part of the Government to take any steps for the repeal of that Act. As regards Birmingham, which my noble Friend mentioned, it is not likely that there would be any cases of sheep worrying there, because as he says there are no sheep dogs, and no sheep. If there were, farmers in the district would, probably, ask for exemptions for the purpose of taking care of them. I must point out that an Act of Parliament would be necessary to give effect to the proposed exemptions, but in view of the marked decrease in rabies consequent upon the Muzzling Regulations imposed by the Board of Agriculture, and that it appears unnecessary to impose a tax which would in other respects be injurious to the agricultural interest, the Government do not propose to make the exemptions suggested, or to alter those which at present exist.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.