Sitting of 23 March 1891

QUESTIONS.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: May I ask when it is proposed to take the new Standing Orders which appear on the Paper?
  MR. COURTNEY: The new Standing Orders, and an Amendment to Standing Orders 21 and 23, which stand on the Paper in the name of the President of the Local Government Board relative to Procedure in case of Bills promoted by the London County Council, will be proposed on Monday, April 6.

COLONIAL POSTAL CHARGES.
SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has in contemplation to remedy the great inconvenience to which British traders are put by the charges for transmitting printed matter to the Colonies; and whether he is aware that British firms, in order to obtain the cheap postage prevalent on the Continent to India, Australia, New Zealand, &c, send large packages of price-lists and circulars to an agent abroad, to be posted there?
*THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I have been informed that certain firms send their price-lists and circulars to the Continent to be posted; but the transfer of this unremunerative business to foreign post offices is not financially disadvantageous to the British Post Office, though a slight advantage may be gained by the senders of the circulars. I have for some time been considering the question of postage rates as they affect the book post, which have formed part of the subject recently inquired into by a Departmental Committee. But I cannot' at present say whether any reduction can be made in this particular case.

INDIAN COUNCIL BILLS.
MR. MONTAGU: I bag to ask the Under
1648
Secretary of State for India whether the surplus drawings of Council bills, which now exceed the amount estimated in the last Budget by about £750,000, without reckoning the sum announced to be drawn next week before the end of the present financial year, are in anticipation of the amount required next financial year, and will be deducted from the £16,000,000 estimated in the new Budget?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I beg, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir J. Gorst), to answer the question. The amount of £14,989,000 in the Budget for 1890–91 has, in the revised Estimate just published, been raised to £15,989,000. The Estimate for 1891–92 is £16,000,000. Unless the sum received up to the 31st instant exceeds £15,989,000, there will be no deduction from the £16,000,000 estimated for 1891–92.
MR. MONTAGU: Can it not be possible in future to bring the balance nearer?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: The estimates are drawn as carefully as possible. The amount now estimated has been very carefully considered.

OPIUM DENS IN LOWER BURMA.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Statefor India (1) whether he supports the statement made in the official "Collection of Papers relating to the Excise Administration of India" (page 334), issued by the Government of India in 1890, that there exists only one opium den in the Akyab district of Lower Burma, or has he any further information which would support the statement that there are over 1,000 opium dens in that district; and (2) what is the total amount of opium consumed in Upper and Lower Burma in the years 1887, 1888, and 1889, respectively and separately?
*SIR J. FERGUSSON: As regards the first question of the hon. Member, I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to a similar question on the 26th of February, when it was stated that the Government of India would be asked to inquire into the allegations as to the number of opium shops; but that, according

1649
to the latest Excise Reports, there was only one licensed shop in the Akyab district, and that if information were given to the police of others they would be suppresed. A Despatch on the subject has been sent to the Government of India. The answer to the second question is that the lawful consumption of opium in Lower Burma in 1887–8 was 48,226 seers; in 1888–9, 51,139 seers; and in 1888–9, 53,348 seers. No correct statistics exist for Upper Burma. The Report for 1889–90 says that 669 seers were imported during those years, but that probably a much larger quantity was smuggled.

TREATMENT OF TENANTS IN THE NORTH-WEST PROVINCES OF INDIA.
MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that a Government tenant, Russ Ram by name, farming 17 acres in the Jolesar Tahsil, Etah District, North-West Provinces, whose Kharif and Rabi crops in 1887 were of the value of Rs.321 90, paid as rent Rs.306, being 95 per cent. of the gross produce; (2) whether his attention has been called to the following cases cited in the Report on the economical condition of the Agricultural and Labouring Classes of the North-West Provinces of India (1886): Aba Ram, a cultivator of 21 fields in Nanganm, Payana Chhata, whose gross yield in 1887 was Rs.70 4 0, the sum of Rs.68 15 0 was taken for rent and canal dues, being 99 per cent. of the gross produce; Hira Singh and Bhara Singh (brothers), of Hazara, cultivators of 10 acres, whose gross yield in 1887 was Rs.67, the sum of Rs.40 11 G was taken for rent; and Baksha, cultivator of seven acres in the Jolesar Tahsil, District Etah, the gross produce in 1887 was Rs.85, and the rent taken was Rs.40; (3) whether the above cases may be taken as samples of the manner in which the State, as landlord in the North-West Provinces, treats its tenants; and (4) whether any remission of rent or delay for payment was granted; and, if not, under what circumstances are remissions or delays granted?
*SIR J. FBRGUSSON: In reply to questions No. 1 and No. 2 I have to say that it is a mistake to speak of these ryots as Government tenants. They are tenants of private landlords. Other-
1650
wise, the facts are correctly reproduced from the Return presented to Parliament on the 21st of June, 1889. The Return being very bulky has never yet been printed. The reply to the third question is, No. The ryots whose names are given were tenants, not of the State but of private landlords. In the two districts concerned—Etah and Muttra—the State Land Revenue falls on the cultivated area at the rate of 1½ rupees per acre in Etah and 2⅓ rupees per acre in Muttra. The answer to the fourth question is that the Secretary of State cannot say whether the landlords in these cases granted remissions of rent; but the Reports contained in the Parliamentary Return show that these ryots, with the exception of Aba Ram, were not in arrears with their rent and were not seriously involved in debt.

THE SILKSWORTH EVICTIONS.
MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, on Saturday, 6th March, the County Magistrates at Sunderland refused the application by Mr. Dix, on behalf of the miners of Silks worth, to enter into a bond with two sureties to try the point of law in the Superior Court, and also refused to delay the execution of the warrants of eviction; and whether, having regard to the provisions of 1 & 2 Vic, c. 74, s. 3, the Magistrates, if satisfied of the sufficiency of such sureties, had "any legal power to refuse the said application; whether he is aware that, on Saturday, 13th March, after notice of mandamus, the said County Magistrates agreed to bind the said miners, but required a bond of £6150 in each case, or, there being in all nearly 500 cases, a total security for costs of £75,000 sterling; whether, the point of law in all these cases being one and the same, the practice of the Superior Court is, under such circumstances, to consolidate the actions into one; whether Clause 3 of the Act requires the Magistrates to approve two sureties
"in such sum as to them shall seem reasonable, regard being had to the value of the premises and the probable costs of an action; "
and whether a demand for sureties for £75,000 was in accordance with the Act?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Clerk to the Justices that on the 7th March the Magistrates refused the application of Mr. Dix, because in their opinion, which had been twice expressed in previous cases and acquiesced in by the tenants, the point of law which Mr. Dix raised, namely, that a new tenancy had been created in the miners by holding over, and that there was no lawful right to possession in the landlord, was not well founded. On the 14th March the application of Mr. Dix was renewed as to another batch of warrants, and counsel for the landlord on this occasion joined in the application in order to get the legal question definitely settled. For this reason, and not because Mr. Dix on the 14th March intimated his intention of applying for a mandamus, the Magistrates agreed to accept sureties. The amount of the sureties was settled between Mr. Dix and the counsel for the landlord at £100 for the value of the premises and £50 for the probable costs of the action in each case. There were 173 cases included in the application of the 7th March. Ultimately bonds were completed in two cases only, the sureties in those cases refusing to execute any further bond, no other sureties being offered. The Magistrates made various offers to facilitate the finding of sureties by the defendants; and ultimately made an offer, with the landlord's consent, to reduce the amount in all cases, but the two above mentioned to the nominal sum of £5; but this offer was refused. The Magistrates held that under Section 3 of the Statute they were bound to require separate bonds in each case; that they had no power to delay the remedy under one warrant because security had been given with respect to another; and that they had not power to consolidate the cases, as the Superior Court might and probably would do. I have no authority to interpret the Statute, and must decline to express an opinion on the subject.

LOCAL LOANS FUND.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can inform the House whether it is true that the interest in arrear upon the various
1652
public loans in connection with the Local Loans Fund is in England over £400,000, and in Ireland over £200,000?
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The situation is as follows:—In the Report of the Controller and Auditor General on the Local Loans Fund the arrears of interest are given, but a great portion of that interest has already been written off as lost, and is kept on the account merely as against the debtor. As regards England, the amounts advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners applied not only to English loans, but to loans made by them in Ireland in old times; the arrears are the accumulations of a long period. Such items as the following are included in the account:—The Ulster Canal, £227,000; Rosslare Harbour, £25,000: Pulteney Harbour, £19,000; and Carlingford Lough, £20,000. The only other considerable item on this account is "Battersea Park," where the arrears of interest were £74,000. In this case the property, consisting of lands adjacent to the park, is in the hands of the Office of Works, who pay over all available receipts to the credit of the loan. In Ireland the list of arrears comprises a large number of relatively small items, of which the largest represents Clare Slob. Railways show arrears of £123,000, and each individual case is now annually examined by the Treasury and the Board of Works.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Have any of these arrears been written off?
*MR. GOSCHEN: I think it will be found that some of the items have been written off.

INDEBTEDNESS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the indebtedness of Local Authorities in England and Wales which, by the last Return, amounts to £195,442,397; and to the fact that the local debt is now 42·7 per cent. higher than it was in 1880, while during the same period the rateable value of the whole country, excluding the Metropolis,

1653
has only risen 8·6 per cent.; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will cause inquiry to be made into the financial condition of Local Authorities?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): The indebtedness of Local Authorities in England and Wales, inclusive of the Metropolis, was, according to the last Return, as stated, £195,442,000, and this shows an increase of 42·7 per cent. since 1880. During the same period the rateable value of the whole country, excluding the Metropolis, has risen 8·6 per cent., and, including the Metropolis, about 12 per cent. The increase of indebtedness in respect to harbours, piers, and docks amounts to £6,362,400, and it should be borne in mind that the debt in respect of these undertakings, which amounts to about £31,000, is with very few exceptions not a charge on local rates, but on tolls, dues, &c. A considerable portion of the increase on the outstanding loans is attributed to the works acquired or undertaken by Municipal Corporations and other Local Bodies in their capacity of Sanitary Authorities. There has been a large expenditure on waterworks, gasworks, sewerage, and sewerage disposal, markets, street improvements, and similar undertakings. A considerable proportion of the expenditure, such as that for waterworks and gasworks, is the result of the Local Authorities themselves undertaking the supply of gas and water, instead of leaving the supply to companies. These undertakings, the outstanding debt incurred in respect of which exceeds £51,000,000, are to a large extent remunerative. In respect of the provision of schools under the Education Acts, there has also been a large capital expenditure during the period referred to. Notwithstanding the circumstances which I have mentioned, the increase of local indebtedness as so large that it is well worthy of attention; but I do not consider that any advantage would result from an inquiry into the financial condition of the Local Authorities of particular districts, and clearly an inquiry into the condition of the districts of all Local Authorities, which number many thousands, could not be undertaken.

DAY TRAINING COLLEGES FOR TEACHERS.
SIR R. PAGET: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will be good enough to state to the House what measures are now being taken, with regard to the day training colleges for teachers at Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff, Nottingham, Leeds, &c, to carry out the recommendation of the late Royal Education Commission, that in all day training colleges for teachers due provision should be made for the religious instruction of the students?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The Report of the Royal Commission mentioned the point as one for the consideration of Parliament, but did not suggest any means by which the Education Department could secure such provision. It is no part of the duty of the Department to inquire into the character or amount of the religious instruction provided, even in residential colleges, which it is assumed will be the care of those responsible for their maintenance; but by requiring that every day training college shall be under the direction of a committee who are responsible for the moral conduct and discipline of the students, and by seeing that all arrangements for the purpose are satisfactory, the Department has, in my opinion, gone to the full extent of its obligations in this important matter.

CHLORODYNE.
MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the large consumption of chlorodyne, especially among women, and the grave evils which result from this practice; whether the fact of chlorodyne being a patent medicine and protected by a stamp exempts it from the operation of the Sale of Poisons Act; and whether the Government will take into consideration the expediency of classing chlorodyne with other narcotics, and only allow it to be sold under the same restrictions?
MR. MATTHEWS: I received last year a representation from a Coroner's Jury that some restriction should be

1655
placed on the sale of chlorodyne. I forwarded this representation to the Privy Council Office, which is the Department concerned. The answer to the second paragraph depends upon the proper construction of Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. Section 2 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, prescribes the manner by which any article may be added to Schedule A of that Act, namely, by a resolution of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society. The hon. Member should address any representation to that Society in the first instance.

ADMIRALTY SECOND DIVISION CLERKS.
MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that many of the recommendations for the promotion of Second Division clerks at the Admiralty have, although involving no change in the organisation of the office, been under consideration now for a period of nine months, he can say when there is any likelihood of effect being given to these recommendations?
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The delay in dealing with applications for promotion of Second Division clerks is due to various causes, among others, the question of fixing a normal establishment for the Department of the Accountant General, and the creation of a new Department of Ordnance in which one or two of the best Second Division clerks may be included with higher pay. I hope that shortly it will be possible to deal with these applications, each of which will receive careful consideration.

BOY MESSENGERS.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Boy Messengers' and the District Messengers' Companies could be allowed to carry out and to reap the benefit of the system which their labour and capital inaugurated, and if he will, with that view, grant them licences to work the electric call system upon payment of a royalty to the Post Office; and' whether, if it should be legally necessary, he will introduce a short Bill to authorise charging a royalty?
*MR. RAIKES: It is my first duty to vindicate the rights of the State in the Courts of Law if necessary. After this has been done, I am quite willing to consider any suggestions that may be made in the interest of public convenience, so far as they can be reconciled with the law. If the hon. Member has read the correspondence which has passed between the Post Office and the companies, he must be aware that the system inaugurated by these undertakings has-been commenced and carried on in the* face of repeated warnings of its illegality.
*DR. CAMERON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury sends, five times a week, written communications to the Government's supporters by messenger; whether that is not an infringement of the rights of the State; and whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take any steps to vindicate those rights in this case?
*MR. RAIKES: Of course I cannot suppose that the hon. Member's question is serious; but I have no reason to believe that the action to which he refers is in any way illegal.
LORD ELCHO: May I ask whether it is illegal to employ commissionaires in the delivery of letters; and, if it is not illegal, whether the right hon. Gentleman will say where legality ends and illegality begins in this matter?
*MR. RAIKES: There is no illegality in the employment of commissionaires for the delivery of letters. We are advised that it is equivalent to the employment of any ordinary messenger for a particular message. It is not a system for the collection and delivery of letters to the profit of a company which, by that profit, trenches upon the revenue. There is no profit to any company in the employment of commissionaires.
MR. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to grant some ready way of deciding the legal point involved—as to the right of these companies to deliver letters? Further, when the point is decided, will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to grant licences to the Messenger Companies for the use of the electric call system?
*MR. RAIKES: It is my intention to have the legal point decided almost immediately. An information will be

1657
filed before the Easter holidays, and the case will be heard as soon as the Courts re-assemble. When a decision is given, I shall be in a position to consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman as to the electric call system, together with any other proposal which may be made.

REMOVAL OF WRECKS.
SIR E. BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fact that, on the 16th instant, one of the Palling lifeboats, stationed on the coast of Norfolk, was launched to the assistance of a stranded vessel, and rescued six lives; whether he is aware that she struck on the wreck of the "Danmark," and was seriously stove in: whether this is one of the wrecks for the removal of which the professional advisers of the Board of Trade refused to grant the funds under "The Removal of Wrecks Act (1877) Amendment Act, 1889," notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee of the Trinity House that it was dangerous to lifeboat service; and whether he will give the necessary instructions for its speedy removal?
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Yes, Sir. The facts stated by the hon. Baronet are substantially correct; but I am now in communication with the Trinity House with regard to the removal of the wreck referred to.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the actual expenditure in the Post Office Savings Bank exceeded the Estimate in each of the years 1887–8, 1888–9, and 1889–90; whether he will state the amounts of the Estimates, of the total Votes, and of the actual expenditure for overtime in the Post Office Savings Bank in each of these three years; and whether the actual expenditure for overtime for the current financial year up to 14th March exceeds the Estimate for the year 1890–91; and, if so, by what amount?
*MR. RAIKES: I give the figures asked for by the hon. Member as they appear in the printed Estimates and Appropriation Accounts. The actual expenditure in the Post Office Savings Bank for all purposes in 1887–8 was less than the amount estimated
1658
by £7,089, and was greater by £8,085 and £9,356 in the years 1888–9 and 1889–90 respectively. The amounts given in the Estimates, which were also the amounts voted, as the cost of extra duty of the clerical force in the same years were £8,500, £8,500, and £13,000 respectively, and the amounts expended in these years were £11,585, £13,643, and £15,796. The whole amount payable in 1890–91 is £16,282, which exceeds the Estimate by £3,282.

RATTRAY HEAD.
MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the Commissioners of Northern Lights have recently urged strongly the erection of a lighthouse and fog-signal station on Rattray Head, as a necessity for the safe navigation of the adjoining coast, but that this request was refused by the Trinity House, and also, on appeal, by the Board of Trade, on the grounds of the insufficient amount of funds allotted to the Commissioners out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, whether he will take steps to secure that an adequate sum is allotted to the Commissioners of Northern Lights, to enable them to render navigation safe along the coasts for the lighting of which they are responsible?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Trade have, on appeal, sanctioned the establishment of a light and fog signal on Rattray Head; but the order in which this and other new lighthouse works sanctioned in Scotland should be carried out has not yet been determined, and I think there are more pressing works than this.

THE UTOPIA.
MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has information of the number of life-belts on board the Utopia, and of what description; and whether any new life-belts of foreign design have been submitted to the Board of Trade, and with what result?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The vessel has been plying between Trieste and New York, and I have, consequently, no official information as to the number of life-belts on board, but I am informed

1659
by the owners that there were 160. Only one life-belt of foreign design has been submitted to the Board of Trade, who have not approved it.

POST OFFICE THEFTS.
MR. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why, although the parcel was properly insured, all compensation has been refused for the loss of a sum of £8 17s. 7d., which was stolen, in transitu, from a parcel sent by post from West Pennard to London, on the 19th January last, and insured at the Glastonbury Post Office; if, in spite of application being made at the time, the Post Office authorities have been wholly unable to discover the thief; if he is aware that the money was collected in West Pennard Church for the purpose of relieving distress among the London poor; and if, under the circumstances, he will re-consider his decision, and order some compensation to be paid?
*MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that compensation has been refused on the ground that the parcel contained money—money being expressly excluded from insurance under the Regulations of the Parcel Post. The parcel when insured was not known by the Post Office servant who received it to contain money. If this had been made known by the sender, the insurance fee would not have been accepted. The thief, I regret to state, has not been discovered. I understand that the money was collected for the purpose named. I regret that it is out of my power to direct that compensation should be paid.

PRISONERS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether, without giving a Return, he can state the number of persons now in prison in England and Wales for contempt of Court, the periods for which they have been in prison, and the places and dates of their committal?
MR. MATTHEWS: I have asked the Prison Commissioners to furnish me with this information, which I will in due course communicate to the hon. Member. I do not, however, propose to include in the Return persons who have
1660
been committed by County Court Judges for non-compliance with an order to pay a debt.

"SHARPE v. WAKEFIELD."
SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the great importance of the decision of the House of Lords on the appeal case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield," and the desirability of removing any uncertainty as to the existing Law in regard to the renewal of licences, he will consent to print the full text of the Judgments delivered, and to deliver Copies to hon. Members of this House, and to the Magistrates' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace throughout England and Wales?
MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think that the re-production of the newspaper reports as a Parliamentary Return would be advisable, as they would not necessarily have the authority and accuracy which in such a case would be essential. These Judgments will in due course appear in the most authoritative form in publications devoted to reporting the decisions of the Courts of Law. Such publications are well known and perfectly accessible to all Magistrates' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace.
SIR W. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Solicitor General to draw up a short abstract?
MR. MATTHEWSdid not reply.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether the decision given by the House of Lords overrules that given in the City of Dublin (Queen's Bench) to the contrary effect?
MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid I am not sufficiently acquainted with both Judgments to be able to answer that question.

THE SELF-GOVERNING COLONIES AND COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what decision has been arrived at with regard to the protest of the Agents General of the self-governing Colonies, presented to the Trade and Treaties Committee of the Board of Trade, against the maintenance of the clause in the

1661
Treaty of Commerce concluded with Belgium in 1862, and with the German Zollverein in 1865, prohibiting British Colonies from admitting to colonial markets the goods of Great Britain and Ireland at a lower duty than the products of Belgium or Germany, and practically of any foreign nation; whether a similar denunciation was also urged by a deputation comprising Members from both sides of the House, and of the Canadian Legislature; whether the Committee made some weeks ago a Report on the subject; and when such Report will be laid upon the Table?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Evidence to the effect stated in the question was given to the Trade and Treaties Committee, and the Committee have reported on the subject; but I do not think it advisable at present to publish their Report.

TYPE-WRITTEN LETTERS.
SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the case of a large manufacturer at Ipswich, who on submitting a specimen of 20,000 circulars in new type somewhat resembling type writing, to be transmitted at the cost of £80 postage, was told that they could not be sent except at the letter rate, because
"The Department cannot undertake to distinguish between type-written letters and letters or circulars produced by means of printing or other mechanical process in imitation of type-writing";
and how the rule so laid down agrees with an extract in the Postal Guide (p. 3, re circular letters), which includes among letters that may be sent by book post those which are produced
"By means of ordinary type, engraving, lithography, or other mechanical process"?
MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the Post Office refuse to pass at the halfpenny rate circulars printed in characters resembling those of the type-writer; and whether he will give orders that they may in future be accepted?
SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I beg also to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain on what grounds, although the Act of 1870, passed when the halfpenny
1662
postal rate was introduced, defined a newspaper as—
"Any publication consisting wholly or in great part of political or other news, or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics, with or without advertisements,"
the Post Office interpret "great" as meaning "greater," and decide what are articles relating to "current topics;" and whether objections raised by the Department based on the proportion of different contents, not only cause inconvenience to the public, but loss of revenue from this source?
*MR. RAIKES: I am advised that under the Act of 1870 it is for the Postmaster General to decide when a publication contains a sufficient proportion of
"Political or other news, or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics,"
to satisfy the requirements of the Act, and, though the view that commended itself to some of my predecessors was that the phrase "wholly or in great part" required a preponderance of the matter specified, I have adopted a more liberal interpretation, and hold the Act to be complied with if the space given to
"News or to articles relating thereto, or to other current topics,"
is not less than one-third of the whole paper. The only ground on which objection is raised to the registration of publications is that they do not comply with the conditions laid down in the Act. In regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I may state that there is already a considerable loss from the conveyance of newspapers at ½d. each; but I do not think the loss is enhanced by the regulation referred to. The particular Paper headed "Pacts about Kola," which the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) has forwarded to me, is transmissible at the book post rate, not being of the nature of a letter at all. But in regard to the general question put by the hon Member, as he is no doubt aware, the type writer is now largely resorted to for the production of ordinary letters, which are, of course, chargeable at the full letter rate of postage. He may also be aware that various devices are employed to turn out from the printing press close imitations of type-writing work, the unevenness of impression, the irregular interspacing, the dropping of letters, even

1663
the smears, being so carefully copied, that except by experts, and by daylight, it is impossible to distinguish such productions of the press from productions of the type-writer. In these circumstances, I have found it absolutely necessary to give directions that productions of the type-writer, or imitations thereof, are not admissible as circulars, but that all letters in type-writing characters are liable to letter postage, and I regret I should not feel justified in withdrawing those directions. An announcement on the subject will appear in the April number of the Post Office Guide.

THE COAL MINES REGULATION ACT.
MR. CRAWFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to complaints from the mining district round Airdrie, alleging that the provisions of Section 21 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, which requires that daily personal supervision shall be exercised either by the manager or by an under manager, nominated in writing by the owner or agent of the mind, is in many cases habitually neglected; if so, whether he has made inquiry into the complaints, and with what result?
MR. MATTHEWS: My attention has been drawn to these complaints, and I have made inquiry. The Inspector reports that the existing arrangements work satisfactorily; but I am not satisfied that in some cases the requirements of the law as to personal supervision are fully observed; and I have it under consideration what further proceedings it may be desirable to take.

THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has under consideration any arrangements for making local provision for courses of annual drill for men of the Royal Naval Reserve serving on Royal Naval Reserve vessels which are placed on distant stations and do not come to ports in the united Kingdom; and whether such facilities could be afforded at Hong Kong and Esquimalt for men serving on Pacific Mail Steamers earning the Admiralty subvention?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: Provision has been made for drilling Royal Naval Reserve men abroad, serving in vessels subsidised by the Admiralty, and this will include arrangements at Hong Kong for men serving in steamers running between that port and Esquimalt which earn the Admiralty subvention.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee appointed to report upon the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers is specially instructed to collect the opinions of both officers and men who have the experience of actual service in either Force?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: No special instruction of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend seems necessary, as the Committee have power to take evidence, and they would naturally take the opinions of those who have the most practical experience on the subjects upon which they are directed to Report?

NOTTINGHAM LETTER CARRIERS.
MR. H. S. WRIGHT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why a number of letter carriers at Nottingham, who have been on the permanent staff about five years, are only receiving 21s. weekly, whilst others, who commenced their service at the General Post Office on the same date, are receiving 25s. or 26s. a week?
*MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the second class postmen at Nottingham, to whom I presume the question refers, are on a scale of wages rising from 18s. by 1s. a week to 21s. a week. On promotion to the first-class they would receive wages of 22s., rising to 26s. a week. The rate of wages for postmen employed in London has always been higher than that for postmen in provincial towns.

INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS BILL.
MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the House when the Memorandum containing the data and facts, upon which the provisions of the Inflammable Liquids Bill have been founded, is to be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether, if this cannot

1665
be done before the 26th instant, he would be willing to give proper time for full consideration of such facts and data by postponing at once the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill to some date well after the 13th proximo?
*MR. MATTHEWS: The Memorandum containing the data and facts upon which the provisions of the Inflammable Liquids Bill have been founded has been some days in the hands of the printers, and I hope that it will be circulated to hon. Members in the course of the Recess. The notices, however, of opposition to this Bill are so numerous as to render its chances of passing this year very remote. I propose, therefore, as soon as the Memorandum is before the House, to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and to await their Report before asking the House to legislate.

SUNDAY COLLECTION OF LETTERS IN LONDON.
SIR J. SWINBURNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will make arrangements for the collection of letters by the Post Office employés in London on Sunday evenings in time for the despatch of mails to the country, in the same way as is done in other parts of the United Kingdom?
*MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that, in view of the strong disfavour with which extensions of Post Office labour on Sunday are regarded by a large section of the public, as well as of the decision of the Select Committee on this particular question, I have not seen my way to impose additional work upon the Post Office servants in order to make a general collection of letters in London on Sunday evening.
*SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities to a private company to carry out such a collection of letters?
*MR. RAIKES: I think I must ask for notice of that question.

BRITISH GUIANA.
MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colony of British Guiana has been in negotiation with the United States of America, and also with the Dominion of Canada, with
1666
a view to the establishment of Reciprocity Treaties for commercial purposes; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to make any statement on the subject?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Suggestions have been made for reciprocal fiscal arrangements between Canada and certain West Indian Colonies, of which British Guiana is one; and the question whether this and other West Indian Colonies should enter into reciprocal arrangements with the United States has also been under consideration. The subject is receiving the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government, and it is not possible to make any statement at present.

BRENNAN TORPEDOES.
ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will stop the further manufacture of Brennan torpedoes, pending the completion of the experiments with the dynamite gun, which, it is believed by many, does all that the Brennan torpedo can, and probably much more, and is not open to many of the objections to the Brennan? I beg also to ask whether any Admiralty opinion has been obtained as regards the sites selected for the Brennan installations?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I should have thought that my hon. and gallant Friend would have been aware that the dynamite gun differs so essentially from the Brennan torpedo that the weapons cannot be compared; and it is improbable that the adoption of the former, should it occur, would justify the neglect of the latter means of defence. A naval officer detailed for the purpose advised as to, and concurred in, the sites selected for the Brennan Torpedo Stations.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE ACT.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the statutory accounts of expenditure required to be provided under the Imperial Defence Act, the Naval Defence Act, and the Barracks Act for the year ending 31st March, 1891, will

1667
be delivered to Members before the Budget?
MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that statutory accounts required under the Acts in question are accounts of expenditure actually incurred and audited. It is, of course, impossible to furnish such accounts till some time after the close of the financial year, in view of the distance of some places, such as Hong Kong. But I am considering the form of a Return which will give the Exchequer issues to the various Departments during the year.

FOREIGN POSTAGE OF NEWSPAPERS.
MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as a number of newspapers now exceed the four-ounce limit for foreign postage, he can see his way to alter that limit, and place the postage for newspapers for places abroad on the same footing as regards weight as newspapers sent by post in the United Kingdom?
MR. RAIKES: Without pledging myself as to the decision which may be come to on this subject, I may say that the question raised is already under consideration.

LONG RANGE AT SHOEBURYNESS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government proposes to lay out a long range down the coast to Warden Point, Shoeburyness, and on to the Nore Light; and, if so, whether, in view of the serious injury to and destruction of fishing on that portion of the coast, the scheme can be modified?
*MR. E. STANHOPE: I cannot follow my hon. and gallant Friend's question. Warden Point is in Sheppey, and Shoeburyness on the north bank of the Thames, and it certainly is not intended to fire across the river. The extended range at Shoeburyness is over the sands, nearly parallel to the shore, and no injury to fishing is anticipated.

THE CORPS OF COMMISSIONAIRES.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Corps of the Commissionaires receive and take in letters, for delivery by express messengers, at their office in the Strand, precisely in the same way as the
1668
Boy Messengers' Company does; and whether he will state the grounds on which he proposes to differentiate his action under the Post Office Acts between these two useful organisations?
*MR. RAIKES: I am not aware that the Corps of the Commissionaires receives and takes in letters at its office in the Strand in the mode stated by the hon. Member. The Corps of the Commissionaires has no resemblance in organisation or objects to a company organised for profit, such as that of the Boy Messengers.

MR. GLADSTONE'S VISIT TO HASTINGS.
MR. KELLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the occurrences which took place at the Charing Cross Railway Station upon the occasion of the departure, on Tuesday last, of the right honourable the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) for Hastings, when the crowd broke down the frail barriers which had been erected, and two persons were thrown down between the saloon carriages forming part of the moving train, and narrowly escaped being crushed to death; and that again, on the same day, at the Tunbridge Wells Station, another crowd broke down the barriers, and gathered round the train there; and whether the Board of Trade have any power to prohibit the use of railway stations for political demonstrations; and, if so, if he is able to give the House an assurance that it will in future be exercised?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir; I have no official knowledge of the facts referred to, and the Board of Trade have no statutory authority to take any action in the matter. But I agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that it is most undesirable that the safety and convenience of those whose business compels them to use railway platforms should be interfered with by political or other demonstrations. If an accident resulted, those who permit such demonstrations will incur a grave responsibility.

EXPLOSIONS IN COAL MINES.
MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

1669
whether the Return, "Coal Mines (Explosions)," was compiled (and especially as to the hours of the shifts when the explosions took place) from information already in the Home Office or in the hands of the Inspectors, or whether it was specially obtained from the colliery owners for the purposes of the Return?
MR. MATTHEWS: The Inspectors whom I called upon to furnish this Return do not in all cases state the sources of their information; but it appears to have been gathered for the most part from notes and documents in their possession, and in part from inquiries made at the collieries.

MERCHANT VESSELS.
SIR T. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case that he has appointed a Committee to investigate the question of arranging a system of watertight bulkheads and compartments in merchant vessels; if any of the members of such Committee are shipowners, actually at the present time carrying on business in that capacity; if he will state the names of the members of the Committee, and the terms of the Reference placed before them for consideration, and Report; and whether they have been authorised to take evidence on the subject?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Sunderland on the 13th of March, 1890, the Board of Trade have appointed a Special Committee consisting of the following gentlemen:—Sir Edward Harland, M.P., Mr. James G. S. Anderson, Professor Philip Jenkins, Mr. A. C. Kirk, Mr. James Laing, and Mr. T. B. Royden, M.P., to consider and Report upon the question of the efficient subdivision of merchant ships by means of watertight bulkheads, and I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the terms of Reference. All the members of this Committee, with two exceptions, are shipowners. The Committee are still engaged upon their Inquiry, and have no doubt obtained such evidence as they required; but they have received no special authority for this purpose, beyond that implied in their appointment.

THE GAMING LAWS.
MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce his Bill to consolidate the Gaming Laws during this Session of Parliament, so that it may be printed, and Members have an opportunity of considering its provisions?
MR. MATTHEWS: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have already given, and to which I beg to refer the hon. Member.

LITIGATION AGAINST THE WAR OFFICE.
DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the affidavits filed by a retired officer of the Royal Engineers in the Court of Queen's Bench, and in which a rule nisi for mandamus v. Secretary of State for War was obtained, 15th November, 1890; and whether he intends to give effect to the official recommendations of the Commander in Chief and Attorney General to make a payment to this officer, and thus end this protracted litigation?
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for War, on the 28th November last, to an almost precisely similar question. To that answer I have nothing to add.

DISTRESS IN MAYO.
MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great distress prevails in the parishes of Kiltimagh and Kilkelly, in the County of Mayo; whether it is his intention to mitigate the distress in these parishes by means of the relief works proposed to be started at Black-loon and Kilbeagh in the same county; whether he is aware that the latter places are a long distance from the former two places; whether he can say how many hundreds of names the police-have given as needing relief in Kilkelly and Kilmovee, and how many have been relieved in these places; and whether, considering the numbers in need of relief in Kilkelly and Kilmovee, he will consider

1671
the propriety of starting some relief works in that neighbourhood?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Relief works have been arranged, and are now in progress. I cannot say anything about Kilmovee at present.

IRISH POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
MR. BYRNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any truth in the rumour that the mail car which has been plying between Tinahely, Hacketstown, and Kiltegan for the last eight years is about to be discontinued; and, seeing the great advantage and convenience to the commercial and residential community of the existing system, whether he will make arrangements for the continuance of the present postal service through that locality?
*MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that while a scheme is under consideration for giving a later despatch of the day mail from Hacketstown and Kiltegan, which would involve working the mail car from Baltinglass instead of from Tinahely, I have not as yet full information before me, and I have come to no decision on the subject. I have certainly no desire to make any change which would not be acceptable to the residents generally; and I will take care that their views shall not be lost sight of when the matter comes before me for final decision.

SALE OF AN IRISH FARM.
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 an abortive sale by auction, on behalf of the Irish Land Purchase Commissioners, at Marsh's Auction Mart, in the City of Cork, on the 3rd instant, when the farm of Daniel Kelly was put up for sale, he having failed to pay the instalments to the Commissioners; but no bidders appearing, the sale was abandoned; whether he will inquire at what terms as to valuation and number of years' purchase Daniel Kelly purchased the farm, and whether he purchased under threat of eviction by the landlord, Mr. James H. Payne, of West Cork; and whether, in his new Land Bills, he will take measures
1672
to save the taxpayers from the cost occasioned by such transactions?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the holding referred to was put up for sale as stated in the question. There being no bidders, the sale was adjourned, but not abandoned, as the Commissioners have reason to believe that a sale will be effected. No evidence or complaint reached the Commissioners that the purchase was made under threat of eviction. On the contrary, the terms appear to have been favourable to the tenant. The Poor Law valuation of the holding was £23, the judicial rent was £30, which, by the sale, was considerably reduced, the purchase annuity being £20 in respect of the purchase money of £500 agreed upon. The Commissioners do not apprehend any loss whatever in regard to the transaction.

CHARGES AGAINST AN IRISH CONSTABLE.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that charges have been made against Police Officer James Curry, of the F Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, in connection with the action of "Smyth v. Madden and Curry"; and whether he will have inquiries made as to whether there is any foundation for these charges?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioner of Police reports that no charges have been made against the police officer mentioned, except those referred to in previous questions put by the hon. Member in 1888. As then stated, the charges were groundless.

THE KILTIMAGH TELEGRAPH STATION.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will allow the telegrams coming in to the telegraph station at Kiltimagh, County Mayo, to count, as well as those going out, towards making up the £68 required by the Post Office, in consideration of the fact that the former, equally with the latter, contribute towards the revenue of the station?
*MR. RAIKES: The telegrams coming in to an office at Kiltimagh from other places would represent revenue proper

1673
to those places, and not to Kiltimagh. I regret, therefore, that I am not able to allow them to be credited to the guarantors at Kiltimagh.

JUDICIAL RENTS.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the Kiltimagh district of County Mayo, the regulations for the reduction of judicial rents do not apply to the rents due on November last; and whether, although the Government is actually giving relief to the people of that neighbourhood, they are now compelled to pay their rents without any reduction?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the provisions of the 29th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887. It is the case that the variations of judicial rents throughout Ireland, under that section, only applied to the rents which accrued due for the three years commencing from the first gale day in the years 1887, 1888, and 1889. The half year's rent due in November, 1890, was therefore not affected.

HEALTH OF MR. JOHN DILLON.
DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the reported illness of Mr. John Dillon, M.P.; and if he can give any information with regard to Mr. Dillon's health?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that Mr. Dillon had for a few days a slight internal complaint, but that he reported himself well on Friday morning.

NEWFOUNDLAND.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with respect to the request of the two Houses of the Legislature of Newfoundland conveyed by telegram on the 20th instant, if Her Majesty's Government are now able to make known to the House their reply to that request?
MR. STAVELEY HILL: At the same time, I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, his attention having been drawn to certain Resolutions passed by the Legis-
1674
lature of Newfoundland, he is prepared to acquiesce in the request contained in those Resolutions?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: In answer to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and of my hon. and learned Friend behind me, I have to state that the Secretary of State for the Colonies telegraphed on Saturday to the Governor of Newfoundland, requesting him to inform the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly that the Bill to give effect to the modus vivendi would not be proceeded with in the House of Lords until the 16th of April, allowing ample time for such further communications from the Parliament of Newfoundland as they might think it right to make, but it would be necessary, if the colony failed to make legislative provision for the observance of existing Treaties and the temporary arrangements with France, for Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Bill.
CAPTAIN PRICE: May I ask whether the Government has made any attempt to dispose of the whole of the Treaty rights, or supposed Treaty rights, of France in Newfoundland by suggesting an exchange of territory or other equivalent?
*MR. W. SMITH: The proposals made by the delegates here from Newfoundland were submitted to the French Government, but were declined. The French Government have declared themselves unable to negotiate for the surrender of any of their rights until the extent of those rights has been authoritatively settled.
MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government intend to try and compel the Newfoundlanders, by a new enactment, to obey an old and repealed Act of Parliament (the Act of George the Fourth) against the wishes of the Parliament and people of that colony, who are anxious to settle the whole question by buying out the Treaty rights of France?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: This country is bound to secure observance of Treaties and international arrangements with a foreign country as long as they are in force. This obligation is not put an end to by the grant of a representative Legislature to the colony, and if the Colonial

1675
Legislature decline, as they have done, to pass the necessary measures to secure observance of Treaties, the responsibility of this country must be met by the Legislature here. This is not a measure interfering in any way with the internal government of the colony, or with local questions, but is simply a measure of international obligation. If at any time the Colonial Legislature pass the measures necessary for this purpose, it is provided that the original Act shall be suspended.
MR. STAVELEY HILL: Will the Government, before endeavouring to enforce upon Newfoundland the present modus vivendi, give the Newfoundlanders an opportunity of pressing upon them the re-consideration by the French Government of some of its clauses?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already said that the Bill will not be proceeded with in the House of Lords until the 16th of April. We have information that the delegation from Newfoundland will start immediately, and there will be ample time for any representation which the Legislature of Newfoundland may wish to make to Her Majesty's Government.
MR. MORTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with regard to the buying out of the French Treaty rights, the real difficulty is not our occupation of Egypt?
*MR. SPEAKER: That is a question which can only be put after due notice has been given.

THE EIGHT HOURS (MINERS) BILL.
MR. JACOBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consideration of the general desire of the House, and the great importance of the question, he will give a day for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill for miners?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not in my power to set aside a day for the consideration of the Eight Hours Bill for miners.
MR. PICKARD: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman gave us strong hopes that we should discuss this Bill on the 18th inst., will he now re-consider his decision?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say I did that; I only expressed a desire that
1676
the question should be discussed, and suggested a mode by which the Debate-could be brought on.
MR. PICKARD: Cannot the Government give a Saturday after the Easter holidays for the purpose?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid that that would be a most unpopular proposal.

ADMIRALTY ESTABLISHMENTS AT SYDNEY.
SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Sydney is the recognised headquarters-and base of the British Fleet maintained in the South Pacific for the protection of the maritime interests and sea commerce of the Empire; whether the contemplated surrender of the Admiralty establishment at Circular Quay, Sydney, to the Colonial Government (as referred to in the statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates) includes the surrender of the land; whether this land belongs to, and is under the control of, the Imperial Government; and whether the land to which it is proposed to remove the Admiralty establishment at Sydney belongs to the Imperial Government or to the Colonial Government; and, if to the latter, will the Admiralty reserve the right to use this new naval establishment for Imperial purposes for a fixed period or only during the pleasure of the Colonial Government?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: Sydney is, and remains, the headquarters of the Royal Navy in the South Pacific, in the sense that Admiralty stores are kept there; but the ports of other colonies will be equally visited by Her Majesty's ships, and serve as bases in the event of war. The Admiralty will cease to have any interest in land which is surrendered in exchange for land more suitable for naval requirements. The "Imperial purposes" for which the naval establishments are maintained are primarily the defence of Australasian commerce, and Her Majesty's Government are fully satisfied with the conditions under which the land will be held, which have been agreed upon by Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government.
SIR J. COLOMB: Does the noble Lord mean to say we hold the land subject to the consent of the Colonial Government?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: I would not put it in that way. We have an absolute right of ownership of a certain part of the land, and other land is now being transferred to us.
SIR J. COLOMB: Will the noble Lord lay the Papers on the Table?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: We have not the Government contracts.

GIBRALTAR DOCK.
ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of his statements on the great importance of the Dock at Gibraltar and of the lengthening of the Mole there, and also of the fact that no reference is made to these important works in his statement for this year, he will state what is the practical upshot of the deliberations of the Committee which reported last year on the Dock, and whether any steps are being taken towards its construction; and whether the Mole is going to be lengthened so as to enable it to store more than the ridiculously inadequate amount of coal it can at present?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: The Committee on the Gibraltar Dock reported last year; but considering the many urgent demands made upon naval finance, and the amount of work of various kinds now in hand, it was considered desirable not to begin the work until a large sum could be annually applied to it, and its construction rapidly and continuously pushed forward. An extension of the Mole would be part of the scheme.

NAVAL POLICE.
ADMIRAL MAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction now existing with respect to the police in Her Majesty's ships, he will take steps to improve their position, and so induce petty officers and other seamen of standing and good character to join the Force?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: This matter is now under consideration; but as it involves questions beyond those connected with the improvement of the position and pay of ships police, it requires very careful investigation, and a final decision has not yet been arrived at.

BABY FARMING.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence in several recent baby-farming cases in which convictions have been obtained for manslaughter; whether he has observed that it appears from the evidence in these cases, and in similar cases, that the children are largely obtained by means of advertisements in daily and weekly newspapers published in London and the provinces; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of legislating with a view to control or prevent the insertion of such advertisements?
MR. MATTHEWS: I observe that the evidence in these cases shows that children are obtained by means of advertisement. I do not see my way to legislative interference with these advertisements, which do not invite to anything necessarily illegal. Neither the Infant Life Act of 1872, nor the amending Bill of last year, which was considered by a Select Committee of this House, proposed to control or prevent the insertion of such advertisements, which are, moreover, found by the police to be a useful clue to the whereabouts of the baby-farming establishments.

WATERTIGHT BULKHEADS.
SIR T. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case that he has appointed a Committee to investigate the question of arranging a system of watertight bulkheads and compartments in merchant vessels; if any of the members of such Committee are shipowners, actually at the present time carrying on business in that capacity; if he will state the names of the members of the Committee, and the terms of the Reference placed before them for consideration, and report; and whether they have been authorised to take evidence on the subject?
*SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Sunderland on March 13th, 1890, the Board of Trade have appointed a Special Committee to consider and report upon the question of the efficient

1679
sub-division of merchant ships by means of watertight bulkheads, and I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the terms of reference.

BURMA AND CHINA.
SIR J. POPE HENNESSY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any remonstrance from the Government of China respecting the recent annexation of a port of Burma, which part of Burma was tributary to the Empire of China?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of the Question. Speaking offhand, I am not aware of any recent communication on the subject.

DOCKYARD PAY.
MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: May I ask when the Memorandum explaining the Government proposals for increasing the pay of workmen in our dockyards will be issued?
*LORD G. HAMILTON: I hope it will be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days.

THE COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the Motion for the Adjournment be made at the commencement of the Sitting to-morrow?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: No, not necessarily. It may be necessary to advance one or two Bills before the Motion is made.
MR. J. LOWTHER: As there are a great many Notices down on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply, and as the first Order, the Committee regarding Scotch Private Bill Procedure, is apparently likely to give rise to some discussion, may I ask on what day after Easter the Government will set down the Order for Supply, Civil Service Estimates?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: It is not usual for the appointment of a Committee to take a very long time, and I hope that in an hour and a half's time we may be able to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I took exception to a like course being adopted on the Navy
1680
Estimates, and the First Lord of the Treasury gave way. I must now ask whether it is not the case that there is no precedent for putting down Supply as the second Order?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the majority of Scotch Members left town on the understanding that the Scotch Private Bill Committee would not be taken to-night?
VISCOUNT WOLMER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the proposal to nominate the Committee before the Easter adjournment has created great satisfaction in Scotland?
MR. LABOUCHERE: And I will ask whether, in case the Speaker is got out of the Chair to-night, it is intended to take effective Supply?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir, it is not intended to do that. There is no rule against moving the Speaker out of the Chair as the second Order of the Day, when it is preceded simply by the question of the nomination of a Committee. I gave notice early in the week that if the Scotch Committee was not appointed before Easter it would not be taken until the Thursday after Easter; and, in answer to a question, I gave notice on Friday that I should propose it to-day, being aware, as the noble Lord has stated, that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the Committee being appointed. I am only keeping my engagement, therefore, with the House in putting down the Committee for to-day. The Member for Stirling Burghs spoke to me privately on Friday, and I told him, as I told other hon. Gentlemen, that the Government intended to proceed with the Motion on Monday. I should be exceedingly sorry if Scotch Members are not present, but I repeat I have given full notice, and I must adhere to the arrangement.
MR. BRYCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not state on Thursday that the Private Bill Procedure Committee would be nominated on Friday, and whether it is not within his knowledge that a large number of Scotch Members, relying on that statement, arranged to leave town on Saturday morning?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that though I may propose I cannot dispose of the time of the House. I certainly had no expectation that the proceedings on the Welsh Tithe Bill, with regard to one clause, would be protracted as they were. Owing to that fact, it was impossible to take the Motion on Friday.
MR. CALDWELL: Was there not an hour and a half available on Friday when the Motion might have been taken?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not wish to impute anything to the hon. Gentlemen who differ from me in my views, but I had reason to believe that the opportunity would be taken to talk out the discussion on that night.
MR. H. H. FOWLER: When the right hon. Gentleman stated on Thursday that if the Motion was not taken on Friday it would not be taken till after Easter, did not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs make arrangements to leave England on Saturday, so that when it was decided to bring that on today it was too late for him to alter them?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I should be exceedingly sorry if the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. Bat if reference was made to the record it will be seen that my statement was that if the Motion for the Committee was not taken before Easter it would not be taken till the Thursday after. Moreover, no suggestion was made to me of an objection being raised at a sitting like this, which is a day before the adjournment.
MR. FLNLAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will persevere with the Motion, as great interest is taken in the matter in Scotland.
SIR W. LAWSON: What business will be taken before the Motion for the adjournment for the holidays is made?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the Motion for the Adjournment will be reached at a Morning Sitting to-morrow. The course will be to move that the House after a Sitting on Wednesday, or perhaps, Thursday—because the Government can hardly tell when the Commission will arrive for the Royal Assent—adjourn until Monday, April 6. It is not intended to proceed with any business at the Sitting on Wednesday or Thursday,
1682
whichever may be the day fixed for the Royal Assent to the Tithe and other Bills. The Commission will make a House, and therefore no quorum of Members will be necessary.
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Will the First Lord of the Treasury be good enough to say what Bills will be advanced before the Motion for Adjournment?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: The Mail Ships Bill, the Electoral Disabilities Removal Bill, and one or two others.
MR. D. CRAWFORD: What Supply will be taken when the House resumes?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: Class I. of the Civil Service Estimates.
SIR J. SWINBURNE: Will the Tithes Bill come before the House again prior to the holidays?
*MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes, Sir; we have reason to believe it will be before us to-morrow.

ARMY (COURTS MARTIAL).
Address for—
"Return for 1890 for each Regiment of Cavalry (including the Cavalry Depot), Battery of Artillery, Company of Engineers, and Battalion of Infantry, respectively, of the number, and proportion to average strength, of (1) Courts-Martial, distinguishing those in which the offences are only in relation to enlistment; (2) minor punishments; (3) desertions; and (4) stations (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 393, of Session 1890)."—(General Sir Frederick FilzWygram.)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, Army (Annual) Bill.
Amendments to Custody of Children Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the constitution of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and to amend the Law in regard to Mussel Fisheries in Scotland." [Fishery Board (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for better enforcing Discipline in the case of Crimes and other Offences against Morality committed by Clergymen," Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill Lords].
That they have agreed to, Amendments to Amendments to, Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill, with Amendments, to which they desire the

1683
concurrence of this House; and do not insist on their Amendments to which this House has disagreed.

TITHE KENT CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 251.)
Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock, and to be printed.
FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 114.)—SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do consist of Twenty Members."—(The Lord Advocate.)
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I think the Scotch Members have good reason to complain of the course taken by the Government tonight. I snail, before I sit down, move the adjournment of the Debate. Two reasons mainly actuate me in making this Motion. The noble Lord the Member for Hampshire who told us that there is great joy in Scotland over the action of the Government in this matter is not yet a Scotch Member, and probably never will be. He certainly is not entitled to speak for public opinion in Scotland; all he was justified in saying was that there was great joy in the Scotsman office, that the Committee was being proceeded with. Let me advert to the discussion across the Table a few minutes ago. I assert, and the right hon. Gentleman has not denied, that on the part of the Scotch Members there was an understanding that this Committee would not be moved either immediately before the Easter Recess or immediately after the Recess. I believe those were the very words used. And the reason for such an arrangement is clear. The Scotch Members, like those from Ireland, have a long way to travel, and it has become a rule not to take Irish business
  1684
  immediately before or after Easter and Whitsuntide. Surely the same reasons apply for not going on with this Motion to day, especially as the Scotch Members were certainly under the impression that if it was not taken last week it would be left over till after Easter. That is my first reason. My second reason is that it is notorious that in going on with this Motion the Government have executed a change of front without a single word of explanation. It is notorious that some weeks ago the Government stated that they were prepared to accept a Joint Committee of both Houses, instead of the foreign and alien Commission which this Bill proposes. They said the great object was to secure that in the case of Scotch Private Bills there should be a local inquiry, and since that time no communication has been made of a change of views beyond the sudden bringing forward of this Motion. The Government told us they would consider the propriety of proceeding by way of Resolution, instead of by Bill, but suddenly we are told they will insist on the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. Such a change of front surely requires explanation. These are the grounds on which I have ventured to take the unusual course of moving the adjournment of the Debate. Such a course is, I admit, unusual, but so also are the circumstances. What has been the attitude of the Lord Advocate towards this Bill? Before the Session commenced, at a meeting of Scotchmen, the right hon. Gentleman declared that the progress of the Bill depended on the Scotch Members themselves, and he suggested that pressure should be put on the Scotch Members to help it on. I ask him now, whether, seeing that so many of my Colleagues have gone home to their constituents, that is not a strong reason for not now pressing forward the Motion. I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to second that. The right hon. Gentleman was asked not to proceed with the Motion immediately after the Easter holidays, and he said if it were not taken before the adjournment it would not be proceeded with until the 9th April. Thereupon the Member for Stirling Burghs asked that the Motion

  1685
  should not be taken this week, and the First Lord assented that it should not be taken this week.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): No.
  *DR. CAMERON: Of course if the eight hon. Gentleman says that he did not mean that, then everyone will accept his statement, but then the right hon. Gentleman said the Motion would be taken on Friday.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I said I hoped so.
  *DR. CAMERON: It was put down for Friday, and it might very well have been taken on Friday, instead of a number of small Bills being proceeded with. I may point out another reason for not pressing on this Motion now. The Second Reading of this Bill was taken on the first day of the re-assembling of Parliament after the Christmas holidays—a day most inconvenient for Scotch Members to be in their places. Therefore, we ought now to have a fair opportunity of discussing this matter. I think ample justification has been shown for the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. E. Robertson.)
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman said he moved the adjournment first, because there has been a breach of an understanding, and next because there is a change of front. I do not think it possible for anyone in my position to be more distinct and clear than I was in what I said on Thursday, for I then said that if it was not taken on Friday it would be taken on Monday. I was careful to say that if it were not taken before the Easter Recess it would not be taken till the Thursday after the House re-assembled. Surely my remarks were of the nature of a distinct notice that the Government desired to take the Motion before the Easter Recess, not on the last day, but on a day like this, when the attendance is usually very full. With regard to the question of change of front, there was no change of front on the part of the Government, who are willing to act on the suggestions contained in the letter which I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the
  1686
  Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), that suggestion being that we would effect such changes in Committee as would make the Bill acceptable to the Scotch Members. But when a Bill has been read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, any change in the measure must be made in that Committee, and we are willing to carry out the promise made to the right hon. Gentleman when the Bill is considered by the Committee. The hon. Member opposite shakes his head.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The suggestion was that you should abandon the Bill.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: In my letter I distinctly stated that we could not entertain the proposal to abandon the Bill, and that so grave a change with regard to procedure as the substitution of a Commission for Select Committees in dealing with Private Bills could not be made unless by Statute. We are of opinion that procedure by Standing Order is not desirable in so grave a matter, and that the judgment of both Houses of Parliament should be taken with regard to the proposal. It is obviously a proposal which cannot be confined to Scotland, but must be extended to other parts of the United Kingdom if the measure is successful, and it is impossible that it can be made by Standing Order. There is nothing which would pain me more than to have it supposed that I was capable of a breach of understanding in this House; but I cannot be responsible for the interpretation hon. Members may put upon my plain words, which is not consistent with those words. I would remind the House that I stated on Friday, before the adjournment, that I did propose to proceed with this matter to-day and at this hour, and therefore the House is not taken by surprise. Hon. Members from Scotland are not taken by surprise, and therefore I should be breaking down the practice under which we have conducted business hitherto, if I were to yield to the Motion for adjournment.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am sure that everybody will agree that the right hon. Gentleman is most scrupulously honourable in recognising understandings in carrying on the business of the House, but I

  1687
  must be allowed to say to him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs has left London under a totally different impression from that which the right hon. Gentleman entertains. We may all have lapses of memory on questions of this sort, and the right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, allow me to remind him of what was the conversation that really took place as to proceeding with this measure. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that if the matter was not taken before Easter it would not be taken for some time, and my right hon. Friend said across the Table: "Neither immediately before Easter, nor immediately after?"
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I did not gather that.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to bow assent. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of promoting the business of the House. Nobody wishes to obstruct the appointment of this Committee, but the Scotch Members have a right to have their say with reference to the constitution of the Committee, as far as the Scotch element is concerned. To-night there are several questions of paramount importance on the Paper; the Committee, if appointed, cannot sit before Easter, and therefore, as there has clearly been a misunderstanding, and as both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for, Berwick, have left London believing that this matter would not come on, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to assent to the question being postponed.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Assuming that there has been no breach of faith with the Scotch Members, it would be most unsatisfactory, as a mere matter of business, to enter upon the consideration of a question affecting Scotland so intimately—and a question, which of course, indirectly affects in a like degree England and Ireland—when so large a number of Scotch Members are away. The right hon. Gentleman has said there is a fair number of Scotch Members present, but when I look round I do not see more than 20 of the 70 Scotch Members in their places. I am told that five
  1688
  of the hon. Members whom it is proposed to place upon the Committee are absent, and that two of the hon. Members who have brought forward Amendments in regard to the Committee are also absent. I therefore trust that the small remnant of Scotch Members who are here will take the opportunity of protesting against this action on the part of the Government, and will give support in the Lobby to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dundee. I do not see what reason there is for hurry in this matter, and I have failed to discover in Scotland that extraordinary interest in the question and zeal for its settlement which some hon. Members seem to think exists. We have had some representation from Hampshire that there is a strong feeling in favour of this Bill in Scotland, but I am in a position to know what, at any rate, one Scotch constituency thinks about Scotch questions, and, as yet, I have heard nothing favourable to the Bill from them. I am glad the Motion has been brought forward, for it will show the Scotch people how Scotch questions are dealt with in this House. The fact that this night of all others has been selected for this Motion will cause great dissatisfaction in Scotland.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I intend to vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Dundee, though I disagree with every word that-has fallen from him and from every Scotch Member who has spoken. What with Scotch Members, Irish Members, and Welsh Members the unfortunate English Member never has an opportunity of expressing his views in this House, or of getting any sort of English legislation. Hon. Gentlemen from Scotland tell us that only 20 of their number are here. Where are the others? The answer is "Oh! they did not know that Scotch business was to be brought on."' Well, let me tell hon. Members from Scotland that their duty when they are elected to this House is not only to come-here when the Scotch business is on. The duty of every Member on this side of the House, no matter where he comes-from, is to help Ministers to carry on good legislation, and to do their best to hinder them from carrying on bad legislation. We always have this sort of appeal from Scotch and Irish Members when the holidays are coming on—

  1689
  that Scotch and Irish business shall not be taken either immediately before or immediately after the holidays. The unfortunate English Members, in whatever part of the country they may live, have to come here to make a House and proceed with business. It is just as disagreeable to them as it is to Scotch Members to have to come here when they want to be at home. English Members object to it as much as the Scotch Members. I shall vote for the Motion, however, for the reason given by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. We have a right to a whole day's discussion on Motions, on the first day the Question for the Speaker leaving the Chair is put, on the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service Estimates. It is said that the Motion now before the House will not occupy more than an hour and a half, but I very much doubt that, with 20 Scotch Members present. I always listen with great interest to Scotch Members, but I am bound to say that when one Scotchman gets up half a dozen others follow him, and generally repeat what he has said, or "strengthen his arguments." Seeing that there has been some misunderstanding, and that we want to have an opportunity of discussing the second Order of the Day, I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should accept the Motion.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I entirely acquit the right hon. Gentleman of any departure from an understanding, but it is evident that there has been a belief in such an understanding, and important Members who are deeply interested in the question have left London in that opinion. But, still it remains a contested matter, while the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman has not been brought in question at all. He has been appealed to on the ground of an understanding, of courtesy, and of favour. I will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on less lofty grounds, namely, those of interest in connection with the progress of the business of the House. I submit that the great interest of the Government, as the representative of the public in this matter, is to get the Speaker out of the Chair to-night for the consideration of the Civil Service
  1690
  Estimates. I think it is generally admitted that the practice of giving an evening for the discussion of all these questions before entering into Committee on the Estimates is a reasonable one. The right hon. Gentleman will see, on looking at the list of Motions, that there is ample motive for fair and legitimate discussion; but, for my own part, what I am afraid of is, that if we waste much time in this preliminary matter and come to the discussion of the names of the Committee without being in a harmonious frame of mind, and then pass to the consideration of the Speaker leaving the Chair, it is doubtful whether the Speaker will be allowed to leave the Chair to-night. I hope that in the general interests of the House the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to consent to the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman urges the Government to make this concession on the ground that it will forward public business. I own that is a very strong ground indeed. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton says that the Debate ought not to take more than an hour and a half, and that he will do everything in his power to limit the discussion to a reasonable period. Upon the understanding which I think I have obtained from the other side of the House, including hon. Gentlemen from Scotland, that assistance will be given to the Government in bringing the Debate to a speedy termination, I will put the Order down for Thursday, April 9th, as the first Order of the Day. With regard to proceeding with the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill, it is a serious matter to postpone a measure of that description; but I accept the assurance which has been given, and consent to the adjournment of the Debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday 9th April.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SALE OF GLEBES.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I shall not occupy the attention of the House at any great length, as the question I have to submit lies in a nutshell, and after the Debate on the Small Holdings Bill and the speech of the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) I am quite sure he will approach the subject with which I have to deal in a friendly and sympathetic spirit. One of the main objects of the Sale of Glebes Act was to promote the acquisition of plots of land by cottagers and labourers in rural districts. In 1888 a measure was introduced into the House of Lords to enable the sale of glebes, and when the Bill came down to that House it slipped through its various stages without observation till it reached the Third Reading. At that stage it came under my notice, and I moved to recommit the Bill for the purpose of adding two clauses. One aimed at greater publicity, requiring that before the sale of a glebe there should be public inquiry in the parish, so that the villagers and labourers might become purchasers; the other to enable a portion of the purchase money to be left on mortgage, repayable by instalments. The Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), who had charge of the Bill, objected to my proposal, and it was rejected. I then moved the rejection of the Bill, stating that in my belief no sales would ever take place to labouring people under the measure as it stood, and that it would be futile and useless for the object it had in view. The Secretary of State for War replied that—
  "The Government desired these glebes should he sold in small plots, and he had no hesitation in saying that he believed the measure, in many parts of the country, would not only enable them to be sold in small plots, bat would lead to their being acquired by labourers."
  More than two years have now elapsed since the passing of the Act, and a recent Return laid before the House shows that my predictions have been verified. 75 glebes have been sold, and there are about 50 more in various stages of negotiation. Of the 75 glebes 67 have been sold in single lots, 45 to the principal landowner of the district; only four have been sold in six or more lots; and not a single lot has been sold to a
  1692
  labouring man or artisan. The Act has, therefore, failed in respect of one of its main objects. To what extent that failure might have been avoided by the administration of the Board of Agriculture I am unable to say, but I cannot but think that the Board might, to some extent if not wholly, have remedied the defects of the Act. One of the principal causes of its failure has been the want of publicity. My proposal was that there should be a meeting in the parish at which the wishes of the people might be ascertained. Although the Act contains no clause on this point I hold it would be quite within the competence of the Land Commission to direct an inquiry of this kind to be held. Publicity, I believe, is now given by means of notices exhibited on the Church doors and at the Post Office previous to the sale of glebe land, but no local inquiry is held. Then, again, with regard to leaving any of the purchase money on mortgage. In a rural district very few labourers or village artisans would be able to advance the whole of the purchase money. I do not know whether the Land Commissioners would have power to make any arrangement of this kind, but when the failure of the Act in this respect becomes manifest, I think the President of the Board of Agriculture should have applied for an amending Act, and arrangements might be made through the Ecclesiastical Commission for allowing a portion of the purchase money to remain on mortgage. In some cases, no doubt, the glebes are in position unsuitable for small holdings, remote from the village; but in such cases, where they are bought by the principal landowner of the district, arrangements might be made for the exchange for other land more suitable for the purpose. There is a very good illustration of this in the case of the glebe of Abinger. In this case the glebe was in the centre of a residential property, remote from the village, and unsuitable for many reasons for labourers' allotments or cottages. On the other hand, there is the greatest want in other parts of the parish of land suitable for cottages and gardens for the labouring people. The principal owner of the parish, who desired to acquire the glebe, offered to exchange land near to the village of equal value

  1693
  more suitable for small plots. This was refused. The public opinion of the district was very adverse to the sale of the glebe without such exchange, and the Vestry passed a resolution against it. On the other hand, the rector called a ticket meeting of his friends, and sent a deputation of them to the Land Commission. The Land Commission refused the offer of the landowner, and the land was sold by auction for villa residences at a considerable price. The income of the rector, already quite sufficient for his duties, was largely increased, but no public benefit resulted from the sale; no plots have been sold to the labouring people, and there is greater difficulty than ever in providing cottages and gardens for the labouring people in the village. The correspondence in this case, and especially the letters of Sir Thomas Farrer to the Board of Agriculture, would throw a great deal of light on the subject; but the President of the Board of Agriculture has refused to lay them before the House. In another case, a letter which I have recently received from a small village tradesman will show the kind of difficulty which exist in carrying out the intentions of the Act. He writes to me—
  "I see by the papers that you intend to speak in Parliament about the sale of glebes. In this parish all the land and houses in the village belong to our squire. Many of the village tradesmen and labourers would like to be independent and to be owners of small plots of land to cultivate or build on, and some have money to do so and others if helped by loans. But when the glebe here was to he sold it was put about that the squire meant to buy at any price, and we thought it useless to compete with him or to offer for the land. We think a preference should be given to people in our position in such a case, at a fair market value."
  I could illustrate my case by other communications I have received, complaining of want of publicity and of want of facilities. It is not, however, necessary to go further into detail. It cannot be denied that the Act that has totally failed in respect of one of its main objects. It is not necessary to decide whether this is due to the defect of the Act or the defect of its administration. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture has announced that the Government intend to introduce a measure for facilitating the acquisition of small holdings. I think Le will agree with me that until
  1694
  that measure is carried, and until District Councils are formed which can facilitate such purchases by loans we ought not to allow any more of these glebes to be sold. For my part, I hold that these lands in mortmain afford by far the best opportunity for trying an experiment in this direction, and think not an acre of them should be sold for the present except for this purpose. I am certain, also, that Parliament would never have allowed the Sale of Glebes Act to pass unless it had been assured that it would result in the multiplication of small owners, and if it had foreseen that it could merely add to the existing land monopoly. Under these circumstances, I feel certain that I can appeal with confidence to the Government to accept the spirit of my Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the sale of Glebes under 'The Glebe Lands Act, 1888,' should be suspended until greater facilities are afforded for their purchase in small plots by agricultural labourers and artisans, in accordance with the intentions of the Act,"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. SWINBURNE: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has brought this subject before the House. The main principle of the Act of 1888 is to effect sales for the benefit of the benefices, and the Commissioners are bound to get the best prices they can, and the only way to obtain this is to put the land up to auction, when they are bound to accept the highest bidder, whether that offer is made by an adjoining landowner or any other solvent person. That, I consider, a great blot on the Bill of 18S8. The second blot is that, after the land is sold, the incumbent or the owner of the advowson is obliged to invest the money under Section 4 in Railway Debentures or Metropolitan Board of Works Stock or Consols, which do not yield more than 3 per cent. interest, and therefore it necessarily follows that the incumbent must get a high price for the land, a price above the real

  1695
  agricultural value, in order that he may not be a loser in his income through having to invest in Stock paying such a low rate of interest. I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they should amend this, and it would really be in favour of the incumbent——
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not proceed to discuss Amendments of the Act; the question now is the administration of the Act, the expenses of which are voted in Committee of Supply.
  *SIR J. SWINBURNE: I will only point out that distinctly there would be an advantage in giving publicity to these sales by means of advertisement, and also I think an inquiry might be held prior to a sale of glebe which anybody interested might attend. A large portion of the purchase money also might be allowed to remain on mortgage. I do not agree altogether with the suggestion that the operation of the Act should be suspended immediately; because the great bulk of the glebe lands which have been sold have been a long way from the villages and are quite unfit for occupation by labourers. It is quite impossible for a labouring man to take an allotment for cultivation more than a mile from his cottage. In a great number of cases an adjoining proprietor has bought the land because it lies in the middle of his property. Landed proprietors have not, unfortunately, usually a large balance at their bankers, and the natural result is that a proprietor has to sell other land in another part of his estate in order to provide the funds for the purchase of the glebe land because it is advantageously situated, thus indirectly leading to small portions of land, situated suitably for allotments and small holdings, being thrown upon the market. The real fact is, these glebe lands are sold to the best advantage of the incumbent, and so long as the Act is in its present form I do not see how its operation can be otherwise.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I think we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. There is no doubt that the Glebe Lands Act of 1888 was primarily a measure of relief for the clergy. That was the intention and object of the Act. Clergymen had glebe
  1696
  lands unlet in various parts of England, and the difficulty was to cultivate this land. In some cases a large part of the income of the clergy is derived from these lands; that is to say, at the time of the commutation of tithe land was transferred in lieu of tithe, and the glebe in some parishes is very considerable. In consequence of the agricultural depression the clergy have been unable to let the land, and being unacquainted with agricultural operations, and being-short of capital the result has been the land has been a considerable incumbrance instead of being a source of income. So the Act was passed for the purpose of affording the clergy in such cases the opportunity of getting rid of the property. No doubt there was an idea in the minds of some hon. Members, and, probably, more especially in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Motion, that the glebe land might be cut into small parcels and sold to agricultural labourers and others desirous of acquiring small holdings. That, no doubt, was in the minds of Members when the Act was passed; but I am afraid there is no machinery in the Act to enable that to be done effectively. The duty of the Commissioners is to sell the land at the best price they can obtain. That is their primary duty; but I think that they might, as far as possible, combine with the exercise of that duty encouragement to persons, who desire to cultivate small holdings, to come forward as purchasers. I do not know whether under the Act a portion of the purchase money might be left on the security of the land itself; but, if not, it is desirable that some provision of the kind should be embodied in an amending Act. This discussion may lead to the Government considering the desirability of amending the Act, giving power to the Board of Agriculture to make arrangements whereby glebe lands may be sold in small parcels to purchasers for amounts payable by convenient instalments. I appreciate the difficulty there is in making this Glebe Lands Act directly available for the creation of small holdings, but there was an idea that it would operate in that direction, and I hope the Government will seriously consider this matter in connection with their contemplated Bill, to facilitate the

  1697
  creation of small holdings. In most cases the glebe is good land, and at a convenient distance from the village, thus fulfilling one of the conditions the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) laid down the other day as absolutely essential in the creation of small holdings. I admit that when I road the Return of sales under the Act I was very much disappointed. I did hope that it would have led to small holdings, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the land has been mainly sold in large parcels to adjoining owners. Now, that is an unsatisfactory result, for most of us desired that the number of small landowners should be increased, and the House has committed itself to a policy of de voting £5,000,000 for the creation of small holdings. It does seem to me, having gone so far, we might well give practical effect to that policy by turning our attention to these glebe lands. The Act is not working satisfactorily. The laud has, no doubt, been sold at a good price, and the sales have been beneficial to the clergy; but the sales have been to large owners, not to that class of persons we desire to see in possession of land throughout the country. I believe the general feeling in the House will be in favour of an amendment of the Act by providing machinery which will enable the land to be sold in small parcels, and that the sales will be conducted after full notice, and with encouragement to persons of small means to become purchasers.
  MR. CHANNING: I think the right hon. Gentleman is amply justified in raising this question, and the time is opportune when we remember that it is only a few days ago that the Government assented to the Second Reading of a Small Holdings Bill, and are themselves pledged to introduce a Bill of their own dealing with small holdings. The Glebe Lands Act was a wise and just measure. I know many clergymen who are good farmers, and many who are not, but whose benevolent intentions exceed their agricultural knowledge. To my knowledge many of them are promoting useful work among labourers in regard to allotments, but, as we are well aware, the great incentive to success in these small holdings is the prospect of being the owner. In position and in quality
  1698
  these glebe lands are generally well adapted for small holdings, and they should be brought within the reach of small purchasers. In the Return of Sales last year I see one instance in which glebe land of 47 acres was sold to ten purchasers for £712. This was in the parish of Landford, Wiltshire. It would be interesting to have some information as to this, apparently the only, instance in which the Act has been of use in bringing the land within the reach of landowners. In this Act we have the beginning of the use of the power of the State to transfer the land to those who wish to use it for agricultural purposes. There are between 600,000 and 700,000 acres of glebe lands, the rent of which is £900,000 or £1,000,000 a year. These lands form an important section of the country which we contemplate using in the development of the policy of small holdings. I hops this discussion will show on which side of the House there is a real and earnest desire to meet the wants of labourers in regard to giving them the most available lands. When we have seen Her Majesty's Government forced by political exigencies into accepting a small holdings proposal made by some of their dissentient Liberal friends, we may challenge them to say whether they will deal with the Glebe Lands Act and its administration by an amending Bill, which will provide machinery for rendering available for the labourers and small artisans of our villages lands which are most convenient and suitable to their use.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The right hon. Member for Bradford certainly deserves the thanks of the House for having inaugurated this discussion, and it is to be hoped what he has said may be taken to heart at the Board of Agriculture. It may be that the consideration which ought to be uppermost in the minds of the Land Commissioners is to sell the glebe lands to the highest bidder; but it seems doubtful whether Section 8 of the Glebe Lands Act does not militate against that view, and whether more strenuous efforts ought not to be made to secure a development of the system of small holdings out of the glebe lands. There is no doubt that the profit incumbents obtain by sale is considerably more than the profit they

  1699
  make by farming the land themselves. Therefore, there is every inducement to incumbents to part with the glebes if the opportunity presents itself, and they would not be human if they resisted the temptation offered them. But I think a certain duty devolves upon the Board of Agriculture and the Land Commissioners, and that is to make every effort to secure that the utmost publicity is given to the sales. I would also like to ask the Board of Agriculture whether they will not consider some scheme by which a portion of the purchase money may in certain cases remain on mortgage? If the President of the Board of Agriculture could accept such a provision, I think the Act might be turned to some good account; otherwise, the probability is, that much of the property which consists of glebe lands will be sacrificed. Amongst the records of sale there is one to which attention has been called already. It was the case of 38 acres of land at Saxlingham, Norfolk. The land was sold for £112, or rather less than £3 per acre. That was a ridiculously small sum, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some further information in regard to the matter. Unless the circumstances were extremely exceptional, I cannot but think, if there had been more publicity given of the sale, some person would have been willing to purchase some portion of the glebe lands for the purposes of small holdings. It is only in the case of land situated in or near villages that there is a probability of land being wanted for small holdings; and until there is an increasing demand, and an increasing demand can only arise owing to increased publicity being given to the sales, and facilities being afforded for the acquisition of the land, the President of the Board of Agriculture might well consider whether the proposition of the right hon. Member for Bradford would not be that which would in the long run be most conducive not only to the interest of the benefices themselves, but also of those who are to be created small holders.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I have no cause whatever to complain of the tone of the Debate, and I sympathise
  1700
  very much with a great deal which has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I share their regret that one of the objects which Parliament had in view in passing-the Glebe Lands Act has not been effected. It is true one of the objects the promoter had in view, not the main object, in which the right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate, was to provide facilities for acquiring small portions of land by cottagers and others, and, though it is not accurate to say that there is no case in which it has occurred, it is the fact that out of the entire number of sales we have only two instances in which the land has come into the hands of the labouring classes. I wish, however, to correct some misapprehensions with reference to the administration of the Act. According to the right hon. Gentleman, no sufficient notice is given when glebe lands are sold. Unless I am entirely misinformed, ample notice has been given on every occasion; so much so that, according to one of the Reports submitted to the House, the actual form of the notice was published in each case. The section of the Act was quoted, and communications from the residents in the neighbourhood on the question of the proposed sale were invited. Having inquired into the matter myself, I believe that, so far as notice is concerned, everything has been done that can be done under the terms of the Act for the promotion of the acquisition of small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman has called attention to the case of Abinger. If I had had notice from the right hon. Gentleman I should have been able to deal with the case much more fully and satisfactorily than is possible at a moment's notice. As no fewer than 108 sales of glebes have taken place since the Act came into force, it is manifestly impossible for me to carry all the particulars in my head. In the case of Abinger, the right hon. Gentleman said that a great opportunity was lost. The right hon. Gentleman must be entirely misinformed, for I myself know perfectly well that a long and somewhat acrimonious correspondence occurred between the incumbent and the Board of Agriculture before I was in charge of that Department. I remember that in one of his letters the incumbent stated that there was no land suitable for allotments.

  1701
  I believe that some of the land was suitable for artisans of the higher class.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: What I stated was that the land itself was unsuitable, but that a great proprietor of the district was ready to exchange for it land which was extremely suitable.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I believe that is quite accurate. The landed proprietor referred to was perfectly willing to give facilities, and the Board of Agriculture was exceedingly desirous that it should be done, but, owing to unfortunate disputes in the parish between some of the residents, the only thing that could be done was to put the land up to auction at the best price that could be got, and unfortunately none was obtained for allotments. The right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that the Board of Agriculture should give a preferential right to labourers. [Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE: At fair market value.] Then I fail to see how you are to give a preferential right. If we had adopted this course there would have been good ground for complaining of the administration of the Act, because it is expressly provided in the Act that before the land is offered in small parcels, or to the Local Authority for the purpose of small holdings, the Board of Agriculture is to be satisfied that the price of the land will not be diminished thereby. How, then, would it be possible, in accordance with the terms of the Act, to give a preferential right to agricultural labourers or any other class? To do so would be acting in opposition to the terms of the Act, and had I adopted the course which he suggests to me, then, indeed, the Board would have been deserving of the censure which he passes upon it. I should like to put before the House what are the precise facts with which we have to deal. Since the Act came into force in 1888 glebe land belonging to 64 different benefices in 24 English and in three Welsh counties have been sold in 108 different lots, making an average of 12½ acres. The sum realised by these sales was £81,845, averaging £60 per acre, and affording an increase in the income of the 64 benefices of something like 60 per cent. Let me remind the House that the first object of the promoters of the Act was to benefit incumbents. The view of the promoters was that, in consequence
  1702
  of the long period of agricultural depression and the great hardship suffered by the clergy, some efforts should be made for their relief, and a Bill was introduced in order to enable them to sell glebe lands. As far as that part of the Act is concerned it cannot, therefore, be contended that it has been a failure. And then as to the wider distribution of the land in small parcels there remains the fact that 108 sales have been effected with the general result that the average purchases have been 12½ acres. Although I admit that that does not prove that parts of these lands have been sold to the agricultural classes, it cannot be said that the Act has failed in the degree many hon Gentlemen have said. The right hon. Gentleman took some credit to himself for his prescience in predicting that unless some additions were made to the Act it would be a failure. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the Prime Minister who first drew attention to this. His proposal was that more land, if possible, should be brought within the reach of the agricultural classes throughout the country, and this scheme was propounded as a means of dealing with glebe lands and to see whether this object could not be attained.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I said that Lord Salisbury had first propounded the idea of selling glebe lands for the purpose of making labourers' holdings.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: Yes; but the Prime Minister took occasion at the same time to offer a word of warning as to whether on economic grounds it was likely that any great quantity of land would in the long run pass into the hands of the agricultural labourers, and he expressed great doubt upon that point. The fact is, that if people do not want or are unable to buy land, no legislation which can be passed will compel them to buy it. The proposals of hon. Gentlemen opposite are to the effect that money should be left to be paid by instalments. Why? Because it is for a great public object. Very good; then the burden should be borne by the public, not by the State; and it should not fall on the unfortunate incumbent, who may possibly need his money for other purposes.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands my proposition. My suggestion was that money

  1703
  should be left on mortgage and might be repaid by instalments. It never occurred to me to deprive the incumbent of reasonable interest on the unpaid instalments.
  *MR. CHAPLIN: I never supposed that the hon. Member intended to go as far as that, but the Act provides certain methods in which the purchase-money may be invested; and the hon. Member suggests that, instead of the money being invested in the manner prescribed by the Act, it should be invested and left to be paid by instalments, on a security which the incumbent may not consider to be a good one, and which is not provided for in the Act. What is the kind of security offered to the incumbent? When allotments and small holdings were provided at first, they were exceedingly popular; but that is not always the case. I was talking only yesterday to a great proprietor in the Midlands, not a member of the Tory Party, but a man of advanced and even of extreme opinions, belonging to the Party who sit on that side of the House; and he told me of a case where many small holdings and allotments were made by him a few years ago, in order to satisfy a demand then current in this neighbourhood. This demand has fallen off since then, and the small holdings have been given up and thrown on his hands. That might be the experience of the incumbents, who might eventually be saddled with various half-acres of land as a security, which might turn out to be of very little value. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) proposes that the Act should be suspended until greater facilities have been provided for the acquisition of land by agricultural labourers. I should be glad to consider any plan for promoting such facilities, although I cannot say that I have received much information, or derived much encouragement from anything that has fallen upon that point from hon. Gentlemen opposite to-night; but I do not think that the absence of these facilities offers any justification for the proposal to suspend the operation of the Act for the future. In its main object the Act has certainly not been unsuccessful. The right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that there were 600,000 acres of glebe land in this country which could be sold under
  1704
  the Act. In three years, out of 600,000 acres, all that have been sold are 1,200 acres for £81,000. Even supposing we proceed at that rate of progress for the next five or ten years, there will still be quite sufficient glebe land left for the future to come under the operation of any plan to be devised to meet the views of Gentlemen opposite, and I certainly can see no justification for accepting the Motion, which would have the effect of suspending the operation of the Act. I must therefore oppose the Resolution.
  MR. COBB: I have only risen to raise a point on which I shall be glad if the President of the Local Government Board would say a word or two. I cannot quite agree with the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). No doubt this Act was passed in order to benefit the incumbents, and I understand that it has done so, because the incumbents were formerly exposed to great trouble and anxiety, and occasionally had to suffer a good deal of poverty in consequence of the great uncertainty which existed as to the amounts they were to receive, and the small amounts they did obtain at times as compared with what they had anticipated. Since the Act has been passed an Incumbent, when he sells his glebe, is not subject to the uncertainty which formerly attached to the annual value of the agricultural land. He gets a certain income, and he knows whether it is large or small, and what arrangements he can make. I agree that it is the duty of the Commissioners under the Act to get the utmost value they can for the property, and I should be very sorry if the labourers, simply because they happen to be poor, were to be allowed to buy land at a less price than other people. I do not agree with the suggestion as to leaving a portion of the purchase-money on mortgage. I do not think that that is desirable in the case of the labouring men, and further I think it clear, as pointed out by the Minister for Agriculture, that if the money were allowed to remain on mortgage, either wholly or in part, one of the main objects of the Act would be defeated. If the money was left on mortgage, one of the requirements of the Act that the Commissioners should invest it at the request of the incumbent in buying

  1705
  other land could not be carried out; but the point I wish to bring before the House is this: Under Section 8 of the Act there is a difference between Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 2. Subsection I says it shall be the duty of the Land Commissioners, in giving their approval to a sale under this Act, to require that the land or some part of it shall be offered in small portions, or that they shall sell it to the Sanitary Authority of the district for allotment purposes under the Act of 1887. It also says that they are to satisfy themselves in every case that such offer is not at a lower price than can be obtained for such agricultural land. Subsection 2 gives directions for certain notices of sale to be given, and it seems to me that that sub-section does not override Sub-section 1, and that it is the duty of the Commissioners in every case either to offer the land for sale in small parcels, or if they do not do that, to satisfy themselves that the Sanitary Authority of the district does not wish to purchase the land at a price which is not less than would be obtained from other persons for the same property. I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board this question: whether in all these cases the Rural Sanitary Authority has had the opportunity given to it by the Commissioners of purchasing this land under the Act of 1887? because if this has not been done it is clear the Act has not been administered as it was intended to be administered.
  MR. HALLET STEWART: Before the right hon. Gentleman rises to answer the question put by my hon. Friend, I wish to raise this point as to the administration of the Act. Assuming the answer to my hon. Friend's question to be in the affirmative, would it not be practicable to combine with the Act the suggestions that have been made from this Bench as to the Sanitary Authority being enabled to undertake payments by instalments for the land which is purchased for agricultural and labourers' allotments. Although it might be impossible for incumbents to sell their land to Tom, Dick, or Harry, and run the risk of his credit, it would be a totally different thing if, instead of substituting
  1706
  the individual agricultural labourer as the creditor of the glebe, you were to substitute the Sanitary Authority, because the Sanitary Authority is able to borrow money from the Government on the security of the rates of the district. If it is good enough for the Government to lend money to the Sanitary Authority, surely it is good enough for the incumbent to accept this arrangement.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is now advocating an alteration of the Act of Parliament, which is going beyond the scope of the Resolution that has been submitted to the House.
  MR. HALLET STEWART: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for the correction, but although I may not have made myself clear, I was merely suggesting that there is within the four corners of the Act sufficient power for the Commissioners to lend to the Sanitary Authority, and that they might be forgiven for doing so, inasmuch as it may have been the intention of the Act that this should be done.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House. But perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the questions addressed to the Government. I speak from memory, but I believe I am right in saying that in every case where a glebe has been sold it has been invariably offered, either in small parcels, or to the Local Authority, for the purpose of allotments in the first instance. I may also add that there have been several cases in which invitations have been sent to the Sanitary Authority, but in which there has not only been no response to the invitation, but where the answer sent back has been that they preferred to have nothing to do with it.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am afraid that what I have said with regard to the sale of the land has been misunderstood. I did not intend to intimate that the land should be sold for less than its true value. In fact, I maintained that the land ought to be sold at its full value, and that the proper way of carrying it out would be to ascertain, in the first place, what the full value was, and then to offer it to the agricultural labourers of the district at that value. Unless this is done, and the land then

  1707
  put up to auction in the district, my belief is that the agricultural labourers will not be able to purchase. But after the speech which has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who gave no hope of any alteration being made in the Act, or of the introduction of any other measure, for the purpose of amending it, I must divide the House upon the Resolution.
  (6.42.) The House divided:—Ayes 131; Noes 67.-(Div. List, No. 101.)
  Main Question again proposed.

  FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
  MR. BRYCE: I desire to take this opportunity, which may not recur for a long time, to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, so far as it affects the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, although I shall, of course, be unable to move the Resolution which I put upon the Paper—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, effect ought to be given to the recommendations of the Royal Commission relating to improve-men's in the organisation of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service."
  The uncertainty of obtaining another opportunity renders it desirable that we should bring this matter before the House with the view of obtaining from the Ministry some statement which will put us in a better position to discuss the question when it arises on the Vote. The first and most important point is the recommendation of the Commission that the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service should be fused into one Service. Hon. Members will find the suggestion in the 25th paragraph of the Report of the Royal Commission. An analysis of the evidence is given which will enable hon. Members to see what data the Commissioners proceeded upon. The advantages of the fusion would be mainly two. There would be great convenience in having a constant transference from home to abroad, and from abroad home. By that means the man who has to do the work would have the advantage of knowing what diplomatic work is like on foreign missions; and the man on foreign missions would have an understanding of how foreign questions present themselves here, and an appreciation of the
  1708
  views taken in this country. In that way I think the Public Service would be benefited, and we would procure a higher measure of competence in each class. There would, too, be a better and more general promotion in the Service. It is always found that a certain number of men, after a few years' service, develop a special talent for one or other branch of the Service, though it may not be the one into which they first entered. It seems desirable that as soon as the man of special talent becomes known to the Secretary of State, he should be able to send him to the work for which he is most fitted. In that way you would better carry on promotion than is now possible. At present promotion is so slow as to be discouraging, and the man of talent loses the interest and energy which he ought to possess, considering the importance of his functions. Promotion is apt to be extremely slow in the Foreign Office, and in particular parts of the Diplomatic Service. The salaries, too, are very low, so that it is a long time before a man can hope to derive any income from his talents. That being the fact, anything which tends to improve the career of a public servant in the Foreign Office or Diplomatic Service, and which tends to accelerate promotion by making the whole field wider, is clearly an advantage. It is with the view, too, of enabling a greater number of men to be got than is now obtained, that I hope the recommendation of the Royal Commission will be carried out. These are the arguments which seem to have, commended themselves to the Royal Commission, and it follows from the fusion which they recommend that there should be one Examination Staff. At present, though there is a competitive examination, it is an examination by nomination. A candidate has to obtain the nomination of the Secretary of State before he is admitted to compete. But the number of places to be filled up is always such that there is no competition between the nominated candidates. The Commissioners do not seem to have considered it desirable to alter the system of nomination, and, as some of the witnesses concurred in that view, I do not propose to bring it before the House. I will assume that there ought to be nominations in the first instance, and that the

  1709
  number nominated would necessarily be limited. But the union of the two Services would necessarily tend to raise diplomatic examination to a higher level than that which now obtains. It might, therefore, be necessary to contemplate the offering of further inducements to men to enter the Diplomatic Service than are now proffered. In the first place attachés on receiving an appointment get no salary for two years, and the salary given after that period is low, besides which candidates are informed that they must have private means to enable them to meet the expense of living at foreign Courts. Clearly, to carry out the change which the Commissioners re-commit, would involve an increase of expenditure. I hope it will be found desirable to pay members of the Diplomatic Service on a somewhat better scale, so as not to make necessary the requirement that the candidate must be prepared to invest £400 a year. It would be a distinct gain to the Public Service, because it would widen the area from which diplomatists are drawn. Considering the many important and delicate questions that have to be dealt with, as well as questions affecting our commerce, I do not think we at present draw enough talent into the Diplomatic Service. I believe that in the interests of the country it has become of increasing importance that we should endeavour to attract men of first-rate talent to the Diplomatic Service. How is this to be done without imposing an additional burden on the Treasury? I think it might be done to a very large extent, if not completely, by various retrenchments in the present Diplomatic and Foreign Office Service. I will mention a few of these. It is a question of great intricacy, and therefore I will not go into much detail. For one thing, the salaries of some of our Ambassadors might be reduced. It is true that they are paid liberally by reason of the costly residences they have to keep up and the hospitality they have to exercise. Instead of the palaces of official residences in which they are housed—residences erected at large initial cost, and requiring great annual cost for repairs—it would be well to be content with more modest accommodation. "We might also intimate to our Ambassadors that they need not keep up so large a scale of
  1710
  hospitality as they have done, and that they need not consider it their duty to ask every Englishman who comes with a letter of introduction to a State dinner. I believe we might also effect a certain number of retrenchments by not keeping up Missions at such places as Munich and Darmstadt. The Royal Commission in its Report stated that these Missions might be reduced. They have really no longer any political object. The main policy of Germany is all centred in Berlin, and our Ambassador there is perfectly able to conduct every negotiation. I think a saving might also be effected by abolishing certain chaplaincies. Again, there might be a saving by re-arranging the Foreign Office Establishment. In the Foreign Office there are now three sets of clerks—the Permanent Establishment clerks, the Supplementary clerks and the Lower Division clerks. The Commission recommended that all distinctions between the Establishment clerks and the Supplementary clerks should cease; that the number of clerks of the higher class should be diminished, and that more work should be thrown on the Lower Division clerks. Clearly, as the scale of payment is very different, if that recom-commendation is carried out a considerable saving will be effected. The transference of work from the Upper to the Lower Division would lead to a considerable diminution of the Annual Charge. At present a great deal of the work done by the higher clerks is work of a purely mechanical and routine order, requiring no high intelligence, education, or talent. There are two objections to the system hitherto observed. The first is, that men of ability and distinction are paid for doing work for which no great ability or education is needed; and the second is, that by setting highly-trained and educated men to do purely mechanical work, they become dissatisfied with their work at the beginning of their life, when it is most important that they should learn to become interested in their work, and when their minds should be stimulated by having interesting work to do. There can be no greater mistake than that a young man should become wearied of his work and cease to care for it. Even apart, therefore, from the question of expense,

  1711
  it would be a considerable gain if the number of Upper Division clerks were diminished, and those retained were kept for the higher and more intellectual kind of work. This is the view of the Commissioners as contained in the 24th paragraph of the Report. I know it is sometimes objected that the Foreign Office work is largely confidential. But I do not believe that the Lower Division clerks will be found deficient in a sense of official honour, and unfit to be intrusted with confidential work; and, besides, it is, after all, not much of the work that is really confidential. The part of the work which is secret in this sense, that a newspaper would pay a high price to have it, is comparatively small, and it is only in rare cases that a powerful temptation could be brought to bear. I believe, therefore, there need be no alarm on that score. With regard to the Diplomatic Service, there is one point I should like to refer to. It would be a very great advantage if in every Embassy or Legation abroad there were some person to represent the permanent element, a person who would remain from year to year unchanged, and so prevent those difficulties which arise when new attachés come in and take up work with the earlier stages of which they are not acquainted. I know that there is a difference of opinion on this point, and that Lord Granville, in his Memorandum, threw some doubt on the advisability of adopting this plan; but if the House will look at the evidence and at the nature of the proposal, I think they would see the great advantage to be gained by its adoption. Lastly, I desire to say a few words on the Consular Service, as to which the Commissioners have reported infavour of certainchanges. That Service is an extremely abnormal and accidental kind of Service. It is not a branch of the regular Civil Service. There is a light qualifying examination, and it is in the power of the Secretary of State to dispense even with that examination, and to exercise his patronage practically unchecked in connection therewith. He can give effect to private and political motives. I think the House will feel that it is very undesirable that in a branch of the Civil Service so important it should be open to the Secretary of State to give rewards to political supporters or find places for
  1712
  personal friends. The Service should be entered by examination; and if the Secretary of State ever makes an appointment outside the examination, he should be required to make a special Report giving reasons for such deviation from the usual practice, so that his action will be open, if necessary, to be discussed in the House. It is also desirable that those entering should have a career open to them, and that promotion should not be a merely haphazard matter. Consuls should be more generally promoted to better posts, in order that they may feel that merit is appreciated and rewarded. I am glad to know that the Commissioners have expressed themselves as satisfied with the manner in which the Consuls perform their duties. A few years ago complaints were made by the commercial community as to the alleged indifference of the Foreign Office and the Consuls to the promotion of British commercial interests abroad. These complaints were to a large extent refuted; but since then, no doubt partly owing to the action of Lord Rosebery when at the Foreign Office, the Consuls have been put on a new footing, fresh instructions have been issued for their guidance, the Board of Trade officially publish all commercial intelligence from them, and the Consuls certainly now perform their duties to the satisfaction of the British commercial community. It would, however, be well, as the Commissioners suggest, if the Consuls had more commercial training. The Commissioners have reported also on a number of other matters of detail, to which I shall not now refer; but it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would lay before the House a statement showing what has been done to carry out the recommendations of the Commission, and on what grounds the Secretary of State differs from the recommendations of the Commissioners which have not been carried out.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think that the suggested fusion between the Diplomatic Service and the Foreign Office would entail far greater changes than the hon. Gentleman appears to contemplate. The fact is, that many men enter the Foreign Office who have no private means, for they can in London live on their salaries, whereas it is quite impossible for attachés abroad to do so. They are not

  1713
  merely clerks to the Ambassador, but in the position of his aides-de-camp. They have to go into society and maintain a certain position. I believe it is still deemed necessary to insist that a young man appointed as attaché should have a guaranteed private income of £6400 a year. I very much doubt whether any attaché does live on £400 a year; if he is to live up to the style of his colleagues he must spend £600 or £700 a year. My hon. Friend says—" Then pay him more." Does he mean pay them £6600 or £700 a year? because if you do that, you will have to put all the clerks in the Foreign Office on the same footing. If this fusion were to take place, it would be necessary to pay the Foreign Office clerks at the rate of about £600 a year so as to enable them to take up the position of attachés. The fact is, that these young men who enter the Diplomatic Service and work for such small salaries do so, not merely because they thus get into good foreign society and lead an agreeable life, but because they look forward to becoming in time Ambassadors and Plenipotentiaries themselves, with big salaries and considerable pensions. It is the very same reason which, as Sydney Smith said, induced men to act as curates and humble clergymen; they look forward to getting fat livings and to becoming Bishops. How does my hon. Friend propose to carry out this fusion without an increase in these salaries?
  MR. BRYCE: I realise that the change will involve some extra expense, but I suggest it may be met by retrenchments in other matters.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No doubt certain retrenchments might be made, bat I believe that if the Commissioners had taken the trouble to make out an estimate they would have found the increased expenditure would nearly, if not quite, outweigh the saving. There certainly is great opportunity for reduction. Our Ambassadors at St. Petersburg and Rome are overpaid, being paid more than those of any other country. It is said they have to dispense a great amount of hospitality. I have been in the Diplomatic Service, and I never saw this reckless hospitality. The real expense is incurred in keeping up a position equal in style to that of the inhabitants of the country. But I would do away entirely with Ambassadors. All that is required
  1714
  might be easily well done by a Minister-resident, and, where commercial interests are involved, by a Consul. Before the time of telegraphs it was necessary to have abroad to represent us a man of great position and political eminence. But now an Ambassador has very little initiative. He is always telegraphing to the Foreign Office and it to him. The supposed advantage of an Ambassador over a Minister Plenipotentiary is that he has a right to an interview with the Monarch. But nowadays that is no real advantage; for if the Minister Plenipotentiary asked an audience, no doubt the Monarch would grant one. All that is wanted is a good business man as Minister-resident. Then we could do away with attachés and aides-de-camps, and there need be no compulsion to go into society. What amount does my hon. Friend propose to give these young men? If he intends to give them £700 or £800 it is obvious he must give it to all, whether they are in the Foreign Office or the Diplomatic Service, a proceeding which would be exceedingly expensive. My hon. Friend alluded to the Consular Service, and I am surprised he did not propose that that Service should be fused with the Diplomatic Service.
  MR. BRYCE: The proposal was made and rejected.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When any sensible suggestion is made one generally hears it is rejected. Why was it rejected? Because, no doubt, the Consular Service is a happy home for the friends of gentlemen in power. There is an examination, but it means nothing. In France there is a different system. There is a fusion between the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service. The French do not take gentlemen who are broken down in business and in health, but they start men in the Consular Service, just as they start them in the Diplomatic Service. Gentlemen start as Consular cadets, and these are to the Consuls what attachés are to the Minister. They rise to be Vice Consuls and afterwards to be Consuls, and if I remember right there are three different grades of Consuls. It frequently happens that instead of going on in the Consular Service a man will pass into the Diplomatic Service; whilst many gentlemen who are in the French Diplomatic Service, when they

  1715
  get a certain age, wish to be at the head of a Department, and pass again into the Consular Service. I therefore ask the Under Secretary to give us some explanation of the views of the Government in regard to Ambassadors, as to the possibility of merging the Consular Service in the Diplomatic Service, as to what salary attachés or clerks in the Foreign Office should commence at, and as to whether it is still necessary to exact the assurance that a gentleman entering the Service should have £400 or £500 of his own.
  MR. LEGH: As a former member of the Diplomatic Service, there is one portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) with which I most thoroughly agree, namely, that portion in which he expressed the hope that the Diplomatic Service would in future be protected from the interference of outsiders. The practice of introducing outsiders has almost attained to the proportions of a scandal. The hon. Member for Northampton remarked that the Consular Service has become a sort of refuge for the friends of persons in power, and that the Diplomatic Service has literally been turned into the home of rest for decayed or distressed politicians, and in that I agree with him. But I feel bound to add that is the only friendly sentiment the hon. Member expressed towards the Diplomatic Service. I may possibly be somewhat prejudiced on this question, but I maintain there is no great difference, on the whole, between those in the Diplomatic Service and the clerks in the Foreign Office. If I mistake not, the hon. Member for Northampton was once in the Diplomatic Service. When he entared it probably the examination was not one of a very severe character, and yet I presume there would be few people who would be disposed to express the opinion that the hon. Member is not equal to the average Foreign Office clerk in ability or in anything else. Now, the most important change which is advocated by the Commission is the fusion between the Consular and Diplomatic Services. Anyone who has had experience of either of the Services must have come to the conclusion that that fusion is eminently desirable. Even the Foreign Office clerks, who are so superior
  1716
  to the members of the Diplomatic Service, will no doubt improve under a system of fusion. It is anticipated that two distinct advantages will result from fusion. In the first place, it is said promotion will be more rapid. I sincerely hope it will: it cannot possibly be slower than it is now. Another advantage anticipated is that young attachés will not be sent abroad on their supposed £400 a year, which many of them do not possess, but will be immediately provided with a salary. It is not clear how the money for the salary is to be found, but I suppose the salary for the attaché is to be taken out of the salary of the Ambassador, who is to meet the matter by reducing his hospitality. I desire to refer to what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the way in which young attachés are employed. On entering the Service they are, under the present system, employed for a year at the Foreign Office. It is perfectly true their work consists in a great measure of copying, which may almost be described as purely mechanical work. They copy Despatches and decipher telegrams, but the Despatches are of a most interesting, confidential character, and the telegrams they decipher contain the whole pith and marrow of the questions which are uppermost at the moment. So far from the work discouraging persons to join the Service I cannot imagine anything that would give them a more rapid insight into their work. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) appears to think that their time is thrown away on work of this kind, and that it might properly be delegated to clerks of an inferior description—to what I believe are called Lower Division clerks. As far as I know, experience with regard to Lower Division clerks is not a particular happy one. If I mistake not, no Lower Division clerks were occupied until there was great pressure of business in 1877. On that occasion Mr. Marvin was introduced. Such a result might occur on a future occasion.
  MR. BRYCE: Mr. Marvin was not a Lower Division clerk, but a person brought in from outside.
  MR. LEGH: I confess I do not see much difference. Mr. Marvin was introduced, and the results were particularly unfortunate. Under the circum

  1717
  stances, I should be very reluctant to alter the present system.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: As I am one of those Commissioners of whom the hon. Member for Northampton has so low an opinion, I may say that the Commission devoted a considerable amount of time to the organisation and work of the Foreign Office. We received answers to something like 4,000 questions as to the work and organisation of the Foreign Office, and not one of the points raised to-night failed to receive fair consideration and examination. I wish to ask the Under Secretary a question, and so emphasise the appeal made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen—whether the Foreign Office intend, in the shape of a Minute or Memorandum, to take any course with regard to the recommendations of the Commission? We made 54 separate recommendations, and I think it is due to a body of gentlemen who devoted a large amount of time and attention to a careful examination of these public questions that some official notice should be taken of their recommendations. I think the Commission on Civil Establishments have some reason to complain of the mode in which their recommendations have been treated by the Government as a whole. With reference, to the Foreign Office, the Commission was very careful to recognise the exceptional peculiarities of the administration. The Commission entirely dissented from many of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Northampton, and I do not think there is in any one of our recommendations any point on which the traditions of the Foreign Office are not duly and sufficiently recognised. I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman being in considerable difficulty in making a speech on this subject. A speech will have to be carried to a great length, and there will be some difficulty in discussing the various points with the Speaker in the Chair. I would suggest that, before the Foreign Office Estimates are discussed, some official Memorandum should be placed before the House of what view the Secretary of State takes generally of the recommendations of the Commission.
  SIR J. POPE HENNE3SY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I wish to call his attention to an important recommendation of the Commission. It is a recommendation that ought not to escape the criticism of the House. The Report proposes to stereotype the system under which admission to the Foreign Office is gained by nomination, and not by open competition. The time has come to consider whether we are prepared to support that system. It is said you must have a certain number of clerks on whom you can implicitly rely. Clerkships in the Admiralty and the War Office are thrown open to competition, and it cannot be said that there are never any secrets to be kept in those Departments. Clerks are also appointed in the Colonial Office by open competition. They are entrusted with the most secret and confidential work, and they do it as faithfully as the Foreign Office clerks. What occurs with regard to many of the most confidential cypher telegrams? They pass through both Offices. Take the case of Newfoundland and France. I suppose that not a single telegram relating to the pending question of Newfoundland has not passed through the hands of clerks in the Colonial Office as well as in the Foreign Office. In 1859 a Committee was appointed on my Motion, which threw open the whole of the Civil Service to competition; but it made an exception with regard to the Foreign Office. Great changes have occurred since then. England has become more of a Colonial and less of a Continental Power. Why the old line should still be drawn and why one office in the State should be so exceptionally treated it is difficult to understand. With regard to the suggested consolidation of the Consular and Diplomatic Services recommended by my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere). It is much better to keep them separate. It was the practice in China and Japan to amalgamate them, but the plan did not work well, and Lord Salisbury wisely altered it. The recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners, with the exception of that by which it is sought to stereotype the present exclusive system of appointments to clerkships in

  1719
  the Foreign Office, are admirable recommendations.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The subject the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has brought before the House is so important that I do not think any exception can be taken to his raising it. Yet I think that the hon. Gentleman, with his own experience at the Foreign Office, might have accepted for the present the assurances I gave him the other day that, as far as it could be done, the recommendations of the Commission were in course of execution. But the hon. Gentleman and others hare asked for a statement on the matter, and I hope I shall be able to satisfy the House that the Government are taking due and proper steps to carry out those recommendations. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that the Report of such an important Commission is highly entitled to the consideration of the Government of the day, and that in particular the manner in which that Report deals with the Foreign Office demands the consideration of those who belonged to that Office. The Commissioners entered into the question with a care and consideration that certainly showed their full understanding of the very pecnliar character of the business of that Office. I will, without unduly detaining the House, endeavour to show that the recommendations of the Commission are not being neglected in any way. The hon. Member for Aberdeen placed in the front the question of the amalgamation of the Services. That is being attended to. The examinations for the two branches are being assimilated, and after the next examination gentlemen who passed the last examination will be eligible for appointments both in the Foreign Office and in the Diplomatic Service. There is one matter in which the recommendation of the Commission has not been exactly followed. The Secretary of State thinks the limit of age proposed is somewhat too narrow. It is recommended that the limit should be between 20 and 24, but the Secretary of State has determined to appoint gentlemen between the ages of 19 and 25, and in special cases above that age,
  1720
  No one, I am sure, will dispute what the hon. Member for Aberdeen has said about the important character of the Diplomatic Service. Undoubtedly, unless our Diplomatic Officers are specially qualified, they will not be able to cope with the clever men of other nations with whom they are brought into contact, and the interests of this country will suffer. Instances have been brought before this House from which it is evident that our Representatives in past times have failed from geographical or other special knowledge to safeguard the interests of the country. Several hon. Members have referred to the salaries that are paid to the higher officers of the Diplomatic Service, and have expressed the opinion that in the superfluities of the Ambassadors and Ministers Plenipotentiary may be found the means of backing up the salaries of other ranks. I cannot think the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) will recommend itself to the House. It is not in accordance with the practice of other nations that the Represensatives of the great Powers should not be able to live in a handsome manner, and so represent, if I may use the expression, the splendour of the country as well as its commercial greatness. It is not in accordance with the dignity of the country that our Representative should be meanly housed, and not be in a position to entertain hospitably. The French are much more liberal in the matter of Ambassadors' Residencies than this country. It may not be a popular sentiment, but I think that there would be a regrettable inferiority if the Representatives of this country were not able to maintain themselves in a position equal to that of the Representatives of other Powers. The question of whether Embassies should be provided, or whether Ambassadors should be left to take houses for themselves, is a moot question; in certain capitals it has been thought best to acquire residences. The same course has been followed in regard to some Foreign Representatives in London. With regard to the pay of Ambassadors, no doubt reductions may be made as vacancies occur. When Spain raised her Representative to the rank of Ambassador, and a vacancy occurred elsewhere, there was a transfer of some part of the salary, in order to

  1721
  improve that of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid, and hereafter it maybe possible to effect savings in other directions; but it is manifestly impossible to reduce the standing salaries of Ambassadors during their tenure of office. One hon. Member has suggested that the Minister at Washington should be raised to the rank of Ambassador, having regard to the magnitude of the interests committed to his care. The House must remember that the rank given to our Representative depends largely on the wishes of the Government to whom he is accredited. If the United States desire to be represented by an Ambassador at this Court, nothing could give Her Majesty's Government greater pleasure than to reciprocate that desire; but no such desire has been expressed, and it would be premature for us to make the suggestion. I now come to matters of detail, with which I shall not occupy many minutes; but I am bound to show the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that we have attended to the recommendations of the Commission. There was a recommendation in regard to details of work at the Foreign Office—the preparation of memoranda, the clearing off of arrears, the registering of all papers, and these things are in course of being carried out. In the copying room type-writing has been instituted. In reference to the question of Supplementary Clerks, I have to say that on the occurrence of vacancies the question of replacing them by Second Division clerks will be carefully considered. The recommendations with regard to foreign messengers and home messengers are being carried out. Then, as I have already stated, that most important matter of the amalgamation of the two branches of the Service is being attended to, as well as the reduction of higher salaries. As to chaplains, no doubt the Secretary of State will bear in mind that future chaplains should not be appointed under the old system. With regard to honorary attachés, in two or three instances already such appointments have been made. It is quite evident that the establishment of pensions for the two branches of the Service cannot be carried out without arrangements which will take some little time to complete with the Treasury. As to the Consular
  1722
  Service, the question of work in the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office has been attended to. The recommendation of the Commission was that Consuls should be required to work some period in the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, and that is done when they can be spared from their posts, and they so spend two or three months on their first appointment There are difficulties in the way of the grading of Consuls and Vice Consuls, owing to the endless variety in the nature of the positions, and a system of grading would add greatly to the expense. A great deal of work is done by unpaid Consuls, who are content to discharge the duties in the place where they are appointed for the honour of the position, and the fees; and if these were dispensed with there would be a gain in uniformity, but there would be an addition to the cost of the Service. The hon. Member for North Kilkenny (Sir J. Hennessy) has touched upon a matter of very great importance and some delicacy. The hon. Gentleman has declared there is no necessity for keeping up the system by which there is only limited competition for the Diplomatic Service and Foreign Office. The hon. Member is well aware that every Secretary of State has held a different opinion from that which he has expressed. The matters which pass through the hands of every member of the Foreign Office are of the most delicate character, in which the interests of the country might be gravely jeopardised if the Secretary of State was unable to depend absolutely upon his subordinates. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has said that the deciphering of telegrams is mechanical work; but, as a matter of fact, it is most important and confidential work. Nobody can tell what a Despatch may contain until it is deciphered; it might be a matter which would cause grave jealousy and friction with a Foreign Power if it were made known. It is the duty of Her Majesty's Representatives abroad to convey to the Secretary of State matters that come under their knowledge, matters between Foreign Powers which in a variety of ways may seem to menace or have a bearing upon the interests of this country; and I think it is evident that these are matters that cannot be entrusted, even so far as deciphering

  1723
  telegrams are concerned, to any but public servants whose fidelity can be relied upon. It is a subject of pride to the Foreign Office that, with the exception of a case where a temporary writer surreptitiously gave the contents of an important Despatch to a newspaper, breach of confidence is absolutely unknown; and I think that if the system has worked so well for the benefit of the country, it is one which should not be disturbed. Of course, individuals should not be kept to mechanical work when they are fit for higher things; yet, nevertheless, the habits of routine and regularity gained in the lower ranks of the office cannot but be very useful when a man is raised to higher duties and appointed to a high post elsewhere. I hops that I have shown the House that in these matters we have not been unmindful of the recommendations of the Commission, but have treated them with the respect which they deserve; and I trust that when they have been carried out they will conduce to the efficiency and economy of the Service. With regard to the position of younger members of the Diplomatic Service abroad, I fear that it is impossible to make the Service self-supporting without an increase of expenditure which the country would not be willing to incur. It would be a miserable thing for a young man to go into the best society in a foreign capital where he should be, in order to be in touch with official life, possessed of means so small that he could not maintain his position or appear in the manner which he must desire. No doubt Ministers should save their subordinates from the necessity of expenditure as far as they can do so; but I feared that it must always be an expensive Service, and that the House would hardly grant the money which would be required to make it otherwise, and allow of the appointment of gentlemen in the first place not possessed of private means. (8.14.)

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL SHIPS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I am in sympathy with the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) who said he had waited nine years in the hope that he would be able to introduce this House to the mountains of Scotland. I have waited for three years to intro-
  1724
  duce the House to a most miserable system which has lasted for a long period, in regard to the management of the reformatory and industrial school ships of this country, to say nothing of the reformatory and industrial schools. I desire at the outset to set myself right with all members of industrial and reformatory school Committees by saying, that no one admires more than I do the disinterested zeal and the spirit of self-sacrifice they bring to bear on their work, and the great interest they have taken in trying to train up the poor little waifs and strays of our great cities. I do not desire either to say a harsh word about the Chief Inspector, Colonel Inglis, as I am satisfied that no officer could bring more zeal to bear upon the duty he has to perform, but I say that the system under which he is appointed is bad. I have placed upon the Paper the following Resolution, which, however, the Forms of the House will not permit me to move:—
  "That in any measure dealing with reformatory and industrial schools provision should be made for the interchange of boys between school ships and land school?, so that lads deemed unsuited physically for a sea life should be discharged to land schools and vice versa, and that all training ships under the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Act should be inspected by competent seamen Inspectors."
  It would occur to every person, no doubt, as a matter of common-sense, that ships would be inspected by seamen Inspectors, but it is not, and it never has been, so. What are the qualifications of the existing Inspector? Colonel Inglis is an ex-officer of Dragoons. I should like to know what the Army would think if I myself, a nautical man, were appointed an Inspector of a troop of Horse Guards, although I can ride a horse and leap a fence, while I doubt whether Colonel Inglis could go aloft or know when a sail was properly reefed or furled. If the reformatory and industrial school ships were properly worked, they would furnish admirable sailors for our Mercantile Marine. It may not be known to many Members of the House what an enormous State expenditure goes on upon our reformatory and industrial school system. The hon. Member for Wigton said the other night in the Debate on Friendly Societies that State aid, if granted, would signify

  1725
  State control. Well, Sir, we have an enormous amount of State aid in this matter of reformatory and industrial school ships, and we practically have the minimum of State control. I want more State control, so that the control may bear a better proportion to the aid. There are altogether in Great Britain 56 reformatories, including three ships, and the number of children detained there is 5,940. The Treasury grant amounts to £79,586; the County and Borough rates provide £23,999; there are subscriptions amounting to £4,092, and the parents are compelled to pay £5,037. The total expenditure is £118,724. 122 lads only are sent to sea out of 1,325 discharged during the year—that is to say, barely one-tenth of the whole go to sea. The industrial schools number 143, of which 10 are ships, 5 being tenders. The children under detention number 21,059. During the year 3,097 boys were discharged, and of these 440 go to sea. The Army takes 96 a year, and 160 are emigrated. The Treasury grant for industrial schools and ships amounts to £191,905; the County and Borough rates provide £40,157; the School Boards, £62,172; subscriptions,£35,299; and parents £15,521; the total expenditure being £361,817. Altogether nearly £500,000 of money yearly is spent on the rescue of children by means of our reformatory and industrial school system. It is time public opinion was brought to bear on that system. I have done my best to bring about an alteration by interviewing the officials of the Departments concerned, but can get no satisfaction from them. They all think that the system is perfect. Naval men do not agree with them. I have here some very valuable letters from naval men on the subject. Admiral Jones-Parry, who commanded the school-ship at Greenock for 17 years, writes—
  "These vessels are neither efficient nor manned for safety or utility, and the Home Office Inspection is a myth. They do not care cither as to quantity or quality of the Staff."
  He adds—
  "It really will be a public benefit and most useful to commanders of these ships if you will draw attention to this matter. They certainly cannot afford bands and tenders till they can get funds to obviate this very dangerous scandal…… The Inspector is a soldier, an ex-major of Dragoon Guards, with two civilians as his assistants,"
  1726
  I have another letter from an officer commanding another ship, who has nearly broken his heart over this work. He says he hardly knows how he has done it so long. He does not care who inspects as long as it is a seaman, and he would rather be inspected by a chief boatswain than by a landsman. He has no fault to find with the present Inspector, but he wants to be inspected by a seaman. He goes on to say—
  "The spiritual and the nautical work fire ignored to a great extent, and as long as so many per cent. pass the Fifth Standard everything else—discipline, &c—may go to pot. All institutions that have to do with nautical training should have nautical Inspectors."
  He says also—
  "I have to put up with so much that I sometimes blush to think that I should have allowed half, for the sake of our noble profession. But I am devoted to the work, and would bear a great deal."
  In another letter he says—
  "The laws want amending and adapting to the times. The same code is enforced for children of 11 and 12 on shore as is employed on ships for young men of 18 and 19."
  I am one of those who do not desire the Admiralty to have a hold upon these ships, because I think if they were properly worked, they are an admirable nursery for supplying the waste of life in the Mercantile Marine. I find in a very admirable pamphlet by Rear-Admiral Parry, for many years in command of one of the training ships, the writer says—
  "I find that during the six years 1874–79 the five industrial training ships discharged 2,864 boys, of whom 1,760 only went to sea."
  Then he goes on to say—
  "In 1886 the discharges were 439 to sea, and to shore 362, or out of 800 a little more than half went to sea. The cost of each boy discharged from the Clio, he shows, was £132 10s.; for the Mount Edgcumbe, £171; for the Welkahy, £ 129 15s.; the Shaftesbury, £115; the Formidable, £122 15s.; the Southampton, £149 15s.; the Cumberland, £109 10s.; and the Mart (tender), £113—or an average of £122 per boy."
  I do not reckon what is expended on boys discharged to shore, because I hold that these ship schools are intended to train boys for the mercantile marine, to supply the waste of life, for it is sad to contemplate that from 4,000 to 5,000 persons are drowned every year. The system I desire to see inaugurated is shortly this:—First, the Magistrate should not send to these ship schools boys under 12 years of age. If under

  1727
  that age, they should be committed to the land schools; and any sailor who knows anything about the training of boys for sea will at once confirm me in that view. Many of the lads sent to the ships are starvelings, with no physique fitting for the sea. It is useless to send many of them, and to forward them to the ship schools is like sending them to their graves. Only those boys who are qualified for the sea should be sent for training. What I want from the Department is a promise that this matter will be really considered, with a view to seeing whether some remedy can be applied. A circular might be sent to the Magistrates suggesting that they should not commit boys to ship schools under the age of 12 years. Under that age it is a waste of time and money to train them. And if a circular were sent to the Committees of the land schools in the vicinity of the ship schools, I am certain they would encourage the transfer to the ship schools of boys fitted for the sea. There are boys of 15, 16, or 17 years shipped now as ordinary seamen who ought not to be permitted to assume that position. We had a case brought under the notice of the President of the Board of Trade the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, of the illegal shipment of persons called able seamen at Cardiff. It is a gross scandal, and I hope the officers who were guilty will be prosecuted for their pains. If a circular were issued—I do not think legislation is required—the system I advocate would be an accomplished fact in a month. We ought to bear in mind that whatever tends to improve the Mercantile Marine must improve the Navy, as it is on the Mercantile Marine in time of war, that we must rely for the supply of the Navy with men. I now represent the unanimous opinion of all the officers who command these training ships. In another part of his pamphlet, Rear-Admiral Parry says, that if school ships are to remain as at present, there must be Naval Inspectors. That is what I have long advocated, and you could have it without extra charge. You are spending enough money now, but you are getting no result compared with your enormous expenditure. It is anomalous that these ship schools—13 in number, 10 industrial and three reformatory schools, excluding one in
  1728
  Ireland which is worst of all, and they are all inspected by a soldier, while there are plenty of sailors available who would do the work for a trifle, aye, for nothing, if you cannot afford to pay. But if the Home Office plead expense, I would point out that they have already an officer who is admirably qualified for the work, and was for some years in command of a training ship. Afterwards he became Post Captain, and took, up the work of reformation among boys commanding the reformatory ship at Liverpool for five years. You could not have a better man than Admiral Pen wick. Perhaps you will say that he cannot be spared. Try, you will not find it difficult. I make every apology for the Home Office in this matter, because it is overwhelmed with work. Still, that is not an argument why this absurd system should not be stamped under foot. I believe the Home Office would be perfectly willing to meet my views if they could bring their powerful minds to bear on the subject; but they are so immersed in work that they do not read the Reports of their own Inspectors, otherwise the present state of things would not be allowed to continue. For instance, there is the Havannah, at Cardiff, which ought to be immediately got rid of. Cardiff is a large port, and ought to have a big ship commanded by a naval officer and 300 boys on board, whereas she has only 92. The Inspector, in his Report for the year 1887, says, in regard to the Havannah, industrial school ship—
  "The situation of the ship is undesirable and unwholesome, being damp and swampy. The medical officer has given the most unfavourable Report of its sanitary surroundings. As to industrial training the boys, it is stated, make most of their own clothing under the matron, and are taught clothes making."
  But these schools are established not to teach the boys to make clothes, but to make them sailors. Then it is said that they go out for housework in the neighbourhood and as errand boys; but they ought not to be employed in such work; they ought to be trained as sailors. In this year's Report it is said that there is a wholesale deposit of town refuse close to the vessel, and that neither site nor so-called training-ship is suitable for the work carried on. The Report further says—
  "The industrial training amounts to very little, there is no progress from year to year,"
  Then I gay shut it up.

  1729
  "Much more could be done," the Report goes on, "if proper use were made of the opportunity."
  Why is not proper use made of the opportunity? The number of boys in the vessel is, as I have stated, 92; the total cost is £1,447, or at the miserably low sum of £15 4s. per bead. The thing is a fraud and a scandal, a deceit and a snare. An officer of Dragoons went round and inspected the ship, but he does not know whether there was a sufficient staff on board or not. The Education Department have no difficulty in getting their system carried out; the Home Office would have none if they appointed a naval officer to inspect the ships. If nothing is done by the Home Office in consequence of my criticism I shall take a Division upon the Vote when it comes on, and I shall spare no trouble to expose this fraud all over the country. The friend who has given me information on the subject has been 17 years in command of vessels, and he says that the second officer is a schoolmaster, and that he ought to be a warrant officer or a retired officer. There was one ship, the Cornwall, at Purfleet, which has a lieutenant, a retired officer acting as second in command, and it is doing well. Only the year before last the Cumberland was burned down to the water's edge, to the great danger of life, having been set on fire by some of the boys. They confessed their guilt, and they would have been punished if a naval officer had been allowed a free hand. But they were handed over to a Civil Court, and the Sheriff summed up against them, but a Scotch jury brought in a verdict of "Not proven," and although I appealed to the Lord Advocate that the boys should not be discharged, but should be sent to some shore school, and at his request repeated that appeal to the Home Secretary, it was found that no Committee on a land school would receive the boys, and ultimately they were allowed to go scot free. Then there was the case of the Akbar, which occurred at Liverpool two years ago; a mutiny arose among the boys on board that ship. The learned Judge, according to the Report, said the boys got the upper hand for a time, that they committed robbery and went ashore, but he declined to punish them because the system on the Akbar was defective, the Staff of officers was defective and inadequate,
  1730
  and the management characterised by a want of firmness and determination which, if it had been exhibited at the right time, would easily have quelled the disturbance. That is my point. If this ship had been adequately inspected this scandal would have been avoided. I dare say that scarcely a Member of this House has taken the trouble to read this Report, or no one would attempt to justify the present system. I think I have suggested a proper remedy. We want that the training ships shall be considered as recruiting establishments for the Mercantile Marine. They should all be commanded by naval officers, as I believe they are with the one wretched exception of the Havannah at Cardiff; Naval Inspectors should be appointed; certain land schools should be affiliated to the ship schools; and representations should be made to the Magistrates to stop boys under 12 years of age being committed to the ship schools. If these reforms are effected I shall probably not have occasion to call the attention of the House to the subject again.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I think everyone sympathises with my hon. and gallant Friend in his trouble in getting an opportunity of discussing this question, and also with his desire to realise to the full the ideal possibilities of these reformatory and industrial ship schools in the way of recruiting the Navy and the Mercantile Marine. But in considering this question the House must remember that this class of schools is entirely founded and managed by private philanthropic enterprise and not conducted for the purpose of profit. Their only connection with the Home Secretary is that the right hon. Gentleman has to see to the enforcement of the conditions on which a certain rate of grant in aid is given by the overnment. The actual net result of the training given in these ships has, undoubtedly, been disappointing. There are 11 of these ship schools in England and Scotland, three of them being reformatories, and eight of them being industrial ships. Among these 11 the Havannah does not appear, as she is not regarded as a school ship. In the eye of the law she is an industrial school, registered under the Act of 1866

  1731
  It is true that of the children who passed through reformatory school ships in the last three years not more than 59 per cent. went to sea; and of those who passed through the industrial school ships not more than 56 per cent. went to sea. But then the children are sent to the ships by Magistrates, over whose decisions the Home Secretary has very little control except by discharging a child out and out. Supposing the Home Secretary wishes to have a child transferred from a land school to a ship school, he can not effect the transfer by the mere exercise of his executive power. The managers of the ship school must declare them salves willing to receive the boy; the managers of the land school must declare themselves willing to part with the boy; and the wishes of the parents must be consulted in cases where the parents are of good character. Therefore, we are unable to effect the transfer so readily as my hon. Friend wishes. The reason is not far to seek. Obviously, the boys best fitted for a school ship are robust boys; and as boys are received into industrial schools with a view to their labour in the later years of their training becoming profitable, and with a view to their later careers reflecting credit on the schools, it is clear that no land school would be willing to part with its more robust boys in exchange for the weaklings. The managers of reformatory and industrial schools are particularly averse—for which they cannot be blamed—to allowing children to be moved about from one school to another in the earlier stages of their detention. My hon. and gallant Friend has hinted at one measure which might be taken, and which is taken, as a matter of practice in a large number of the 11 ships now existing. This measure is that committals to the ships shall not take place before the age of 12 years. I will undertake to inquire if this rule cannot be laid down, and I do not think that legislation will be necessary to give it effect. I will also gladly undertake that the Inspectors shall be instructed to take every possible opportunity of promoting the transfer of fit boys from the land schools to the ship schools. But many persons' consent is required for these transfers, and if the boy himself is unwilling it is generally necessary to consult the parents of the boy if they are living and respectable.
  1732
  It is impossible for the Government to seek to bring about a better proportion between expenditure and results by lowering the grant as a measure of economy, because to do so would simply kill the schools altogether.
  *ADMIRAL FIELD: I did not advocate the reduction of the grant for one moment. I only want to secure a supply of boys for our ships.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEY: The only alternative is to proceed to a system of compulsory transfers, to which course there are obvious difficulties. With regard to the small proportion of boys taken into the Navy from these school ships, I may point out that the Admiralty refuse to take the boys from the reformatory ships, because they have been convicted of some actual offence. That, no doubt, is a proper decision, for they ought not to allow boys of this class to associate with other boys. As regards industrial school boys, the Admiralty requires them to satisfy high physical standards; but I am bound to admit, as regards the industrial school boys, that the physical standard of many of them is not so high as might be desired, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend in wishing that the total number of boys who enter the Navy and the Mercantile Marine, from the whole of the schools referred to, were greater than at present, namely, 56 per cent. But there are several difficulties in this, not the least of which is often the wish of the parents at the close of the period of the boy's detention, which may occur as early as 14 years of age, and cannot go beyond 16. It is impossible to deny to respectable parents who still have the right to exercise parental control, a voice in the ultimate disposal of their children's future, and in many such cases their wish is that their children shall not go to sea. It is to be borne in mind, too, that the boys are just at the age, having received a number of years' training and education, to be of use and profit to their parents at home. I admit that the result of the naval training in such schools is not so satisfactory or ample as my hon. and gallant Friend desires. As to the inspection and management of the ship schools, it should be remembered that these particular schools contained only 3,000 children out of about 23,000 in all the industrial and reformatory schools

  1733
  and for that small proportion it can hardly be expected that there should be a separate Inspector appointed solely for the school ships; but I am bound to say that I think there is great justice in the remark of my hon. and gallant Friend that in appointing Inspectors in future special regard should be had to the fact that the training in these ships is to a very great extent to fit boys for the Navy and the Mercantile Marine. It ought, however, to be borne in mind, at the same time, that every one of these ships is under the command of a retired naval officer, and also that each of the ships being situated in some port of importance, it follows that the committee who manage them is composed mainly of persons who are acquainted with the needs of the Mercantile Marine. I submit, too, that if a naval man were appointed as Inspector, it would be necessary to appoint an officer of high rank to supervise the work of the commanding officers of the school ships, and I doubt even then whether we should be able to get very much better securities than we have already that these establishments shall satisfy the requirements naturally expected by those who wish to see a good result from them in the way of training boys for the Navy or Mercantile Service. It must be remembered, moreover, that training for the Marine Service is net the only object of the schools. Carpentering, tailoring, shoemaking, and other trades are taught in them, and if my hon. and gallant Friend's contention were to be fully carried out, it would become necessary to have a distinct Inspector for each of all those occupations.
  *ADMIRAL FIELD: I did not suggest that another naval man should be appointed. I asked that the Home Office should use one of their own officers—Admiral Fenwick.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEY: And that Admiral is now doing admirable work as an Inspector of Prisons, and it would be very hard to take him away from that duty. However, I have made certain promises to my hon. and gallant Friend, beyond which I cannot go, and I hope he will be satisfied with them, and that in asking us to improve these school-ships, as we shall always seek to do, he will not ask that we should lay them under conditions which might improve them off the face of the earth.

  THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. CALDWELL: I desire to call the attention of the House to the Report of the West Highland Commissioners, although I shall not be in order in moving as I had intended—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Government ought to proceed without delay to carry out the schemes recommended for the devolopment of the material resources of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
  No apology is required for bringing this matter forward. The Report of the Commissioners was issued in July last, and the Government were asked what they were prepared to do to carry out the recommendations it contained. The reply given was to the effect that the subject would be considered by the Government, and that they hoped to be able to announce their policy on the re-assembling of Parliament for the Autumn Session. When Parliament re-assembled, however, the Government stated that the matter had been under their consideration, and that they were then only waiting for the arrival of Lord Lothian, who was detained in Scotland through illness, to announce what they intended to do. Two months have elapsed since then; but the Government have not yet made any declaration, and I think it is time they should do so. I approach the subject in no censorious spirit so far as the present Government are concerned, for I admit that they have shown some desire to deal with the subject. Lord Lothian has personally visited the localities, and in that respect he was, I think, the pioneer of the Chief Secretary for Ireland in respect to his action on Irish distress. The condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland has long been the subject of Commissions; but no practical good having yet followed from them, it is not surprising that the inhabitants have lost confidence in them, and are sceptical as to any good results. The fact has been fully admitted on all hands that extreme poverty prevails in those parts of the country that came within the sphere of the Commissioners' Report; indeed, I venture to say that the distress there is not less than that in those districts in Ireland for the relief of which so much money has lately been raised. Since 1889 as much as £1,500,000 has been voted for the purpose of constructing

  1735
  light railways, drainage works, and other improvements in the distressed parts of Ireland, and surely it is not unfair to expect, if the need exists, and it does exist, that Scotland shall be treated in an equally liberal manner. I claim from this Unionist Government that the United Kingdom shall be treated as one indivisible whole, and that in whatever part of it great distress exists, whether in England, Ireland, or Scotland, it shall be relieved. Each part of the United Kingdom ought in this respect to be treated by the Imperial Government equally with the others. I must give the present Government credit for having voted more than their predecessors for the relief of distress in the Highlands. The Local Government (Scotland) Act set aside £10,000 for the benefit of the crofting counties, where the distress was more clamant, but that £10,000 came out of the pockets of the people of Scotland as a whole. We, therefore, have this result: that we have exceptional distress in the Highlands, for which Scotland, as a portion of the United Kingdom, is called upon to pay, yet the Lowlands of Scotland have nothing to do with that distress; and, on the other hand, Scotland, as a part of the United Kingdom, is called upon to bear its share of the relief of distress in Ireland. What I contend is, that if we have exceptional distress in any portion of Scotland it ought to be treated in the same way as exceptional distress in any portion of Ireland or England. The £10,000, which has really been expended locally, is being spent in discharge of what is properly an Imperial obligation resting upon the Government. The next point is, what is the amount we have to claim on behalf of the Highlands to develop the material resources of Scotland in the same way as the material resources of Ireland are being developed? The sum needed would represent a capital of £1,000,000 sterling, and that, at 2¾ per cent., would be about £27,500, or, say, in round figures, £30,000. If £30,000 a year were devoted to grapple with a distress which is an Imperial distress, the amount would not be excessive for us to ask the Imperial Government to bear. I find that the recommendations of the Commissioners involve an outlay of £280,000, in addition to £30,000 for beacons, lighthouses, &c.
  1736
  (10.2.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. CALDWELL: The count that has just taken place has had this good effect: that it has brought in the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom have undertaken to consider the question of the grants to the Highlands. I hope they will take the opportunity of declaring the policy of the Government. Some remarks were made on the Report of the Commission by the late Lord Advocate, which would probably tend to cast a reflection on the men of the West Coast. It was pointed out that men on the East Coast can come round to the West and fish, while the boats of the West Coast fishermen are lying on the shore. But in the case of the East Coast fishermen, the boats are necessarily large. The men live in localities intersected by railways, and in which there is a large population, and the result is that the East Coast fisherman is a man of more wealth, and necessarily has a larger boat, which can come round to the West Coast. The West Coast fishermen are very poor, and it is impossible for them to own large boats. There is also a lack of harbours such as exist on the East Coast, and what is wanted is better harbour facilities and a ready communication with the markets of the South. Three lines of railway are recommended by the Commissioners. The first is a line to Mallaig, and the Commissioners recommend that a sum of 2½ per cent. should be guaranteed for four years on an estimated cost of £285,000. It is impossible that any Railway Company would construct a railway on any such terms. I think in such a case, considering what is being done in the congested districts of Ireland, the Government should bear a third of the cost. The Commissioners also recommend the construction of a harbour at Mallaig at a cost of £15,000. The second line proposed is to Kyleakin. If a line were made to Mallaig we would have the North British competing with the Highland Railway, who would be compelled to bring their line from Strome Ferry to Kyleakin, and also to Ullapool, if they wished to secure any of the Lewis or Skye traffic. The proposals of the Commissioners for the improvement of harbour accommodation in the Lewis amount to about £53,000

  1737
  I do not suppose the Government will dispute the necessity of spending £11,000 to improve the harbour of Ness, or of the £12,000 on Carloway. So far as the proposed expenditure of £20,000 on piers and coal slips is concerned, I am not at one with the Commissioners, as I think they ought to encourage the use of large rather than small boats. But to be of any real use to the fishermen, the harbours of Ness and Carloway must be connected with Stornoway by means of light railways, so that the fish can be sent to the southern markets in a fresh condition. The Commissioners recommend as an experiment that a steamer should go round, but a steamer would occupy a day or two to going round, with the result that much of the fish would lose the market. The only reason why I can suppose the Commissioners recommended a steamer is that they travelled in the summer in one of Her Majesty's yachts, and they found it in fine weather very agreeable. But in winter it is quite impossible for a steamer to go round, and it would be quite impossible to keep up the connection with different points of the coast, or serve the many parts whence produce should be sent to market. With a railway of some 23 miles a great catch of fish at any point could be run into Stornoway in about an hour, besides which the line would convey farm produce, butter, eggs, and other things requiring quick transit to market. The expense of maintaining the line would not be greater than that of keeping up a steamer. The Government have said that in the case of Lewis they are willing to give £15,000 for the purpose of improving roads, and I suppose the idea is that these might in some future time be used for a tramway. The District Councils will have nothing to do with this proposal, and rightly so. Anyone who knows the district will understand that this expenditure is useless. The road is not fenced now. Is it right it should be? In the first place, the expense of it would be comparatively enormous, and besides which cattle passing along the road browse on either side, resting as they go. The District Councils say they are willing to maintain a railway if it is made, and naturally they will do this, because a railway would enhance the value of the property, and the inhabitants could afford to pay the tax that might be
  1738
  necessary to meet expenses after the original outlay has been met by the State. In Lewis there are a great many crofters who are practically owners of their holdings, and quite apart from the fishing industry a light railway would make those crofts more valuable. This is what the people want, but the Government objection is that it will involve a large expenditure. Now, in the case of Lewis, a railway connecting certain points with Stornoway would cost about £3,000 a mile, and the capital sum required for, say, 46 miles would be about £138,000, and in Skye the distance would be about 45 miles, amounting to £135,000, so that the total cost would be £273,000, or £7,000 a year, as against the £7,000 or £10,000 which the recommendation of the Commissioners for a steamer would cost. Let the House bear in mind an outlay of this kind is not in the nature of a charitable grant. The fishermen have declared they would be quite willing to pay for the use of harbours for their boats, just as fishermen on the east coast of Scotland do; but it is obvious that with the number of boats they have a reasonable tax would not be sufficient to pay the cost of harbours. Though the Government would be spending a large sum of money in such works, it could not be said that individuals received any charitable assistance there from. They would pay for the use, just as the east coast fishermen pay. In the same way, in the Postal Service a letter is carried for 1d., but it may cost the Post Office 6d. to carry it. There is a loss to the Exchequer, but there is no charity towards the individual whose correspondence is carried; he simply enjoys the advantage of a system in common with the rest of the country. So will the people pay for the use of harbours and light railways as they do in other parts of Scotland. What the Government would do in this direction would be for the benefit of the district and the development of its resources for future generations. I am entitled to say that the West of Scotland requires that speedy access to markets which is possessed by the East at the present time. This involves the question on the mainland of subsidising one or more railways, making harbours which would be accessible to large boats, and connecting these with the capital of the islands where

  1739
  mail steamers would call. The distress in the West of Scotland is nothing more or less than the similar distress in the West of Ireland, due to the mountainous nature of the country, the sparse population, and the want of communication; and I contend that I am entitled to call upon a Unionist Government to treat the distress in Scotland in the same way as they have treated that in Ireland. Scotland pays £10,000 out of the Probate Duty towards what is really an Imperial matter, and it is not unreasonable that they should ask the Government to devote £30,000 a year towards the remedying of the present state of things and meeting an obligation on the Imperial Exchequer.
  DR. McDONALD: In seconding the proposals of my hon. Friend it is not necessary that I should again go over the ground he has traversed to such advantage. The hon. Member, in the earlier part of his speech alluded to the number of Commissions which have sat upon questions relating to the Highlands. We have had a great many Commissions which have dealt with the Highlands, some beneficial and some useless; but I think that nothing has approached the slovenly way in which this Commission did its work. The Commissioners scuttled from place to place; they went to Ullapool; they saw nobody, they went away, and express an opinion as to what should be done, and so on in other districts. I should go beyond the terms of the Motion were I to say much upon this, but I may say that great dissatisfaction exists in the Highlands as to the way in which the Commissioners performed their duties. There are some wise recommendations in the Report, but there are some that are very unwise. As to this recommendation of a steamer for the West Coast of Lewis, everybody knows, who has any knowledge of the Island, that it is stupid to talk about such a thing. I marvel that, even with their summer experience, they could recommend such a thing. It has on all sides been repudiated as ridiculous in the extreme. There are but three or four months in the year that a steamer could go there; it is one of the wildest places on the whole coast of Scotland. This one recommendation shows that the Commission did not go very fully into matters they were appointed to look
  1740
  into in the Islands. I quite agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend as to the necessity of doing something for the Western Islands. I do not say the need is greater this year, for want is chronic there. I do not think we are asking the Government to do very much if we ask them to consider these half-hearted recommendations of the Commission. Indeed, it is difficult to know when the Commissioners are in earnest, their recommendations are so qualified with "ifs" and "buts." But the Government have certainly been chary in accepting the recommendations, it is difficult to know what they intend to do; they have not shown their hand. We know that £10,000 a year is given to the Highlands; but who gets the benefit of it? It goes in support of the rates, that is, half to the landlords. Quite two-thirds goes to large farmers and owners, and about a-tenth goes to the crofter, and these have very little to be thankful for with £1,000 spread over the whole number. My hon. Friend talks of getting £30,000 from the Government and I shall be delighted if he succeeds. We see in the public prints that the Government are expected to do so much. Is it going to be an annual sum? If we are going to get it only while they are in office it may not be for a long series of years. My hon. Friend has spoken of the means of land transit in Lewis, and he has put the position wisely and lucidly. There is no use in landing the fish unless there is the means of conveying the fish away, and the only quick means of transit is by light railways. With regard to piers and harbours, I have over and over again been told by the people that they would be only too pleased to pay dues in any reasonable manner. They pointed out that really there would be little or no extra expense in this. Possibly it would be cheaper to pay harbour dues than to suffer the loss of ropes and chains, which on the coast of Lewis is considerable in the course of the year. I hope we shall have some information to-night as to what is going to be done. The people are anxiously looking forward to the Government proposals.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I think the hon. Member for St. Rollox Division is justified in his Motion, and I hope it may be successful in inducing the Government to deal with this matter in a liberal manner. We

  1741
  have had a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they are going to deal with it this Session, carrying out some of the recommendations of the Commission. For my own part I should have been satisfied to have accepted the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the hon. Member has shown a knowledge of the district, especially of Lewis, which is entitled to respect, and it may be that he has claims upon the Government that we cannot urge. He has talked of the duty of a Unionist Government, and, of course, it is not for me to say what the duty of the Party particularly is; but if they acknowledge the particular duty of giving heed to recommendations when backed by a supporter of their policy, then we are perfectly willing to accept his assistance. I can well understand the Government are entitled to take precautions that the money is really spent to carry out the objects desired. The hon. Member has said a great deal about piers and harbours, but I did not quite gather his views as to guarantees, whether they should be given locally as to construction and maintenance. This is an important matter, and I think the Lord Advocate will give me credit for saying that when the Local Government Bill was passed I foresaw the whole of this matter, and suggested that it would be a good thing if County Councils were given power to construct and maintain piers and harbours in Scotland. He did not see his way to accept the suggestion, but I think, in view of the grants that are going to be given, it would be a good thing if Representative Bodies like County Councils had the power of getting Provisional Orders passed by the aid of the Board of Trade, to construct and maintain these harbours. As to railways, I will not go over what has already been said, but I trust the Government will, in dealing with this branch of the subject, have regard to meeting the requirements of the West Coast. The people are scattered at irregular intervals along the western coast. It is not necessary to enter into the causes of this distribution; there they are, and I am content to accept the position, and I hope I may not be considered selfish if I press the claims of Sutherland in this respect. I do not quite know how much is comprised in the words of the Resolution—"the development of the material resources of
  1742
  the Highlands"—and whether the land, which is a material resource, is excluded. I do not want to embarrass the Government. I have my desire to be reasonable, and if they show us plans for developing the other material resources of the Highlands and Islands, I am willing to accept anything they may give pro tanto, but expecting more. The question has been gone into so fully that I should not be justified in detaining the House further, only I would impress upon the Government that they should not consider this question in a niggardly way. I know perfectly well the considerations that weigh with the Government in matters of this kind. I see the difficulty of dealing out money without a sufficient local guarantee that the money shall be spent in the best manner possible. I do not take the view that there is exceptional distress to be met in the Highlands. I do not put the claim on that ground. It is an attempt on the part of the Government to do a duty which should have been done years ago. It is a complement of the policy we have over and over again heard stated in the House and which was meant to be carried out in 1880. This is not to be considered in the sense of an eleemosynary grant. I hope the Government will try and be as liberal as possible in carrying out the recommendations of the Commission.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks which have been made by various hon. Members as to the state of Lewis and and the other Islands on the West Coast of Scotland. The Government have taken steps to inform themselves as to the condition of that part of Her Majesty's Dominions. It is not now proposed that they should do anything on the ground of distress, but that, as there is a portion of the country which remains undeveloped, assistance may be given to enable the inhabitants to maintain themselves in a condition of perfect independence. It was with that purpose the Government thought it right to appoint a Commission. The labours of the Commission have been spoken of in a very disparaging manner, but I think if hon. Members will look at the result, it will be found that the Commissioners devoted a large amount of time to their duty, and brought a great deal of

  1743
  knowledge to bear upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman asks us to state what the plans of the Government are. I think he will see that it would be exceedingly improper for us to do so. We are not now stating what we propose to do—as we shall state when we have very carefully considered the matter. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury have been engaged for many weeks carefully considering what measure will best promote the interests we all have at heart. The Government desire not so much to relieve exceptional distress, but, if they can, to raise the condition of that part of the country to a higher level than it has attained in the past. Undoubtedly means of communication are necessary, and so is the improvement of harbours, lights, piers, and landing - stages. Those are questions which have received the careful consideration of the Government; but, as hon. Member a must be aware, they are not matters to be arranged off hand, or by a simple decision on the part of the Government that it is desirable such works should be undertaken. Communications have to be made with the Local Authorities and with all persons who are locally interested, and I may say that I, for one, am exceedingly loth to undertake on the part of the Government the whole cost of the work to be done. I do not lay it down as an absolute rule, but I think that, if possible, it is most desirable that the locality itself should undertake to bear a portion of the expense, even if it is only a small portion of the work which is intended to be permanently beneficial to the district. I only indicate in a general way the views of the Government, and I say this much in order to show hon. Gentlemen that the matter has engaged our attention most seriously, and that, if we have made no proposal to Parliament as yet, time has not been lost. When the Government come to the House and ask for a Vote, I think that we shall be able to justify the course we have taken. I deprecate the view that any portion of the community should rely on the Imperial Parliament for everything that is necessary to it. I am aware, from my own personal knowledge and observation, that many parts of the West of
  1744
  Scotland, and, certainly, many parts of the Highlands and the coasts, are in a very bad condition indeed; that the means of the population are very small; and that we should, therefore, be justified in going further in affording assistance than we should in many parts of Her Majesty's Dominions. But, still, the principle is the same, and we have a right to expect the landowners and all interested in the districts to afford assistance and to help in carrying out the improvements we desire to effect. We know that the people are unable to help in carrying out the improvements; but their interest is so great that we think they will be able to find the means necessary to maintain the improvements when they are effected. Reference has been made to railways. They are no doubt valuable as means of communication, but care must be taken to see that the traffic which is likely to arise will be sufficient to maintain the lines, and to justify the Government in holding the belief that a railway will contribute to the resources of the country. It cannot be said that in some parts of Scotland this will be the case. It is only natural that a Member representing a county in Scotland should desire to see a railway not only pass through his county, but through a considerable portion of it. We are conscious of the condition of these districts, but we are also conscious of the duty that belongs to us of endeavouring as far as we possibly can to raise districts which have difficulties to contend with, from a position of distress to one in which they will be able to stand, and take their part in the struggle for life which every inhabitant of the British Empire desires to maintain.

  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I rise to call attention to certain Commercial Treaties in force between Her Majesty and Foreign Nations, and to the Report of the Trade and Treaties Committee of the Board of Trade. I wish to call particular attention to the Treaty concluded with Belgium on July 23rd, 1862, and to the Treaty with the Zollverein on May 30th, 1865. The Treaty with Belgium of 1862 contains this stipulation—
  "Article VII. Articles the produce or manufacture of Belgium shall not be subject

  1745
  in the British Colonies to other or higher duties than those which are or may be imposed upon similar articles of British origin."
  The Treaty with the Zollverein of 1865 contains a clause to a similar effect though not quite in the same words, and the Memorandum which was furnished in the Parliamentary Paper presented in 1888 contained the following:—
  "While these two Treaties remain in force the express stipulations above quoted are extended to all countries whose Commercial Treaties with Great Britain contain a mostfavoured-nation clause, and apply to British Colonies."
  I have gone through these Treaties carefully with the object of seeing whether they afford British goods any special favour, and I cannot find that they afford any special privileges whatever which are not shared by other Most Favoured Nations. So long as these Treaties remain in force it is quite impossible for this country to conclude any special commercial arrangements with Canada, Australia, or, in fact, with any of the colonies. These Treaties do not end, as many people suppose, in 1892, but remain in force until terminated by a year's notice. The attention of Her Majesty's Government has on frequent occasions been directed to the crippling power of these Treaties in any special commercial arrangement which the Mother Country might desire to enter into with the colonies or which the colonies might desire to enter into with each other. I have here an official copy of a Debate which took place in the House of Commons of Ottawa on the 21st April, 1890, and I find that Sir Alexander Galt, the High Commissioner for Canada, in London in 1882, called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to these Treaties, and was informed that neither the Belgian Government nor the German Government could permit the cancelling of the prohibitive clause. Lord Kimberley, at that time Colonial Secretary, wrote also to the Governor of Jamaica, saying that Her Majesty's Government could not sanction any arrangement that would involve the creation of Differential Duties in favour of Canada. This pronouncement was made in connection with negotiations which had been entered into with a view to the framing of a Special Convention between Canada and Jamaica.
  1746
  I do not bring the question before the House as one between Fair Trade and Free Trade, or as a question demanding a change in the fiscal system of the country; but because these Treaties are a distinct restraint on trade within the British Empire. The Government seem now to have departed from the view expressed by Lord Kimberley, and to acknowledge the right of the colonies to conclude special Differential Treaties with each other. The Mother Country is alone shut out, and this is an unfortunate and almost a humiliating position for the centre of a great Empire to occupy. The colonies themselves feel it to be so, and there can be no stronger evidence of the desire prevailing in Canada and the Australian Colonies for closer commercial relations with Great Britain than the fact that the Agents General of the self-governing colonies were, in January, instructed to represent unanimously to the Trade and Treaties Committee of the Board of Trade the pernicious effect of these two Treaties, and to urge their renunciation. On the same day this very view was represented to the Committee by a deputation of whom I was one. It was composed of all Parties, including, amongst others, the hon. Member for Battersea and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, and it was accompanied by General Laurie, who in 1890 brought the matter before the Canadian Legislature. It is an open secret that the matter was debated in the Committee, and, as the President of the Board of Trade stated, he received a Report from the Committee. We have already received the First Report of the Trade and Treaties Committee, and many Members of the House are anxiously awaiting the publication of the Second Report. There may be important reasons why this Report should not be issued at present, but I do earnestly hope, in spite of what the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade stated this afternoon, that before long he will see his way to the publication of the Second Report. Even if the Report of the Committee does not recommend the immediate renunciation of the two Treaties with Belgium and the Zollverein and the freeing of the hands of the British Empire, I do hope that Her Majesty's Government, especially having in mind what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the

  1747
  Leader of the House a few minutes ago, that they regard themselves as the guardians of the integrity of the Empire, will of their own initiative, whatever the Report says on the subject, strike this clause out of the two Treaties. I beg, in their connection, to call the attention of the House to the First Report of the Trade and Treaties Committee. It says in paragraph 8—
  "Not only have these minimum duties been raised generally to the level of the General Tariff of 1881, i.e., about 24 per cent. above the present Conventional Tariff, but more complicated classifications have been introduced, which will cause disputes, and, consequently, delay and friction, between the French Custom House officials and the importers. In many particular instances, the duties are raised much more than the above-mentioned 24 per cent., the extra rates for bleaching, dyeing, printing, embroidering, and generally for all processes which involve more labour as distinguished from mere material, being considerably increased."
  The Report goes on to say—
  "The effects would, no doubt, be injurious not only to British trade with Franco, but to our trade with the Continent generally, although the chief injury, we may assume, will be to the French people themselves. The extent of the primary losses to be inflicted on our own trade, apart from the more general mischiefs referred to in the previous paragraph, is naturally the subject of very serious complaint from the special interests concerned. In various trades, especially in the woollen, worsted, and other textile trades, the representations made to us are that the proposed tariff will, in effect, prohibit the export of certain articles of manufacture from this country to France, and greatly restrict the export of many others. A measure which can be described as having such effects is, as already indicated, an act of commercial hostility to the country affected; and this attitude towards English trade is, indeed, hardly disguised in discussions of the subject in France."
  I certainly do not see why the Trade and Treaties Committee should have gone out of their way to call attention to the possible effect of any legislation on the French people. The French people are quite capable of taking care of themselves. This is, however, an important expression of opinion on the part of the Trade and Treaties Committee which was presided over by my hon. Colleague the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. They say that the contemplated action in France will have a serious effect upon the woollen, worsted, and other textile trades of England, and will be, in fact, an act of commercial
  1748
  hostility to this country. I think, therefore, I am entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government what course they are going to take, under these circumstances, with America, France, Russia, Spain, Brazil, the Argentine, and other Foreign countries shutting out the goods of the United Kingdom by every conceivable means? I submit that the only sensible, the only practical, course is to consolidate the trade of our own Empire, to free ourselves from crippling engagements with Foreign countries, and to meet the colonies in this matter generously and with open hands. The feeling in Canada is represented in a letter received this evening from Toronto, a passage of which I will read—
  "This is the question of the hour with us in Canada now. We have just emerged from a dangerous situation with honour, Sir John Macdonald's majority being 35 in a House of 216 Members. Having rejected the proposal for Unrestricted Reciprocity or Commercial Union with the United States, the thinking people of our Dominion are in an attitude of expectancy with their faces turned to the Mother Country. What will she do to help the loyal majority here in their struggle to maintain the integrity of the Empire? "
  I do not hesitate to say that from the condition of things revealed by the General Election in Canada, from the announcement of Sir John Macdonald and the facts upon which the election turned, that it is all-essential for Her Majesty's Government to take a forward step in this matter, and to do everything they possibly can to consolidate trade within the Empire. Even if they do not take any active steps towards approaching the colonies, the least they can do is to free our hands from Commercial Treaties which so long as they remain in force prohibit any closer commercial union between the Mother Country and the colonies than that which prevails at the present moment.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am in accord with my hon. Friend in desiring to promote, if we can, a closer union and greater commercial intercourse with our colonies, but I fear I cannot agree with him as to the means by which he desires to achieve his end, because I think my hon. Friend's proposal would fail to have any satisfactory results. My hon. Friend considers that the promotion of a closer commercial union

  1749
  between ourselves and the colonies is seriously interfered with by the provisions of the Zollverein and Belgian Treaties to which he has referred. But what is interfered with by the provisions of those Treaties is the particular proposal which the hon. Member made to the House a short time ago for the adoption by this country and the colonies of a preferential tariff against foreign countries. That was the proposal which my hon. Friend made, but for which he has not yet obtained the sanction of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman himself admits that, so far as any arrangements of the kind he desired between the colonies themselves or between the colonies and foreign countries adjacent to them are concerned, the clause in the Belgian and the Zollverein Treaties does not prevent them. The hon. Member is aware that when these Treaties were entered into a Reciprocity Treaty between Canada and the United States was in existence, and since then has been passed the Act of 1873, which enables reciprocity arrangements of that sort to be made between our Australasian Colonies, and similar Treaties have been made in the last two or three years between our South African Colonies and the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. So it is perfectly clear that these Treaties do not prevent arrangements of that kind between our colonies or between the colonies and Foreign States. When the hon. Member asks us that we should denounce this clause in the Treaties he overlooks the fact that there are in the Treaties other clauses by which great advantages are secured to this country. For instance, the Treaty with Belgium secures to British subjects national treatment in respect of certain matters of commerce and navigation, and various other advantages of very great importance. It confers upon British subjects the right to enjoy Most Favoured Nation treatment in other matters, and there is a clause which exempts British goods from the payment of Transit Duties. The Treaty with the Zollverein conferred upon British subjects Most Favoured Nation treatment in the exercise of their Commerce and Trade, and there are stipulations upon other matters which are of great advantage.
  *MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Will you allow me to ask if France and other
  1750
  countries enjoy similar advantages in Belgium and Germany?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am now referring to the advantages which we enjoy under the Treaties, an important clause of which the hon. Member asks us to denounce. If we were to denounce one clause, that would necessitate the reconsideration of the other provisions of the Treaties. Before we take this course the hon. Member must induce the House and the country to accept his policy of adopting a Preferential Tariff as between this country and our colonies against Foreign nations. We have not as yet arrived at the point the hon. Member desires, and therefore he is putting the cart before the horse. From his point of view, what is the good of denouncing Treaties, which he admits confer other advantages, before we are prepared to adopt the policy which is prevented by the clause to which he objects? Let him propagate his gospel, and when he has converted the country to his policy, then he may ask the Government to carry it out.

  THE POST OFFICE AND THE MESSENGER COMPANIES.
  DR. CAMERON: I rise to call attention to the position taken up by the Postmaster General with regard to the electric call and boy messenger system, and would have moved, if the Orders would have allowed—
  "That this House disapproves of the Postmaster General's refusal to allow the establishment by private agencies in this country of the electric call system, which American experience has shown to constitute a great practical public convenience."
  I may briefly explain to the House of what this system consists. There is a little box, of which I hold a specimen in my hand, which the companies are ready to place in the house of any person wishing to have it without charging anything for the accommodation. The box is connected electrically with stations of the company throughout the town. By pressing one button a station is rung up and signalled to call a cab, and the cab is called. The next button gives the signal in case of fire, the third that a policeman is wanted, and the fourth that a messenger is required. The Postmaster General, being desirous to put these companies down, and constituting

  1751
  himself for the first time since he has held office the inexorable guardian of the public interest, says that these things constitute an infringement of the rights of the State, and proposes to institute a similar service. In this the right hon. Gentleman is progressing backwards; for in 1886, when a proposal was made to start such a company, he offered to grant it a licence for a royalty of 2s. 6d. per subscriber and one of £25 on the operations of the company. In 1887 the Boy Messenger Company was started, but without the system of electric calls, although it now desires to introduce them. It, however, availed itself of communication by telephone; and it contested the dictum of the Postmaster General, that the conveyance of written communications was any infringement of the monopoly of the Post Office. While the matter was still in this position, it might have been the right thing for the Postmaster General to have done to have had that question decided by a Court of Law; but a company arose which, disregarding all warnings as to postal monopoly, set up a system of electric calls and a service including the delivery of letters. They did not deny that in doing that there was an infraction of the postal monopoly, unless under a licence from the Postmaster General. On the question of delivering letters the second company offered a payment of 1d. on every letter. The Postmaster General has said that he intends to set up an alternative system and to keep a number of messengers at each post office, who are to carry express letters and parcels from one part of the City to another between 8 in the morning and 7 at night. Many people, however, live at some distance from a post office, and, moreover, the duty of the Post Office messenger is to be limited to carrying letters or parcels, and to 11 hours out of the 24. How, in the name of common sense, can the right hon. Gentleman contend that this covers the service offered by the private companies? The company offers, by means of their call boxes, to enable anyone to summon a messenger to his house. Now the Postmaster General makes no proposal of the kind. He tells us he is thinking of a call system; but, at the most, it would be in case a messenger is wanted to take a letter or a parcel, and unless he is prepared to put an electric call box into the
  1752
  house of everyone who asks for it, and to do this without charge, he will not serve the public as cheaply or as perfectly as the private companies. To show the range of work which these Messenger Companies undertake, I will read a list of some of them from a circular issued by one of them. From it, it appears that this company proposes to have boys on duty day and night, to take luggage to and from railway stations, to bring dress clothes to clubs, to deliver messages to tradesmen, to get doctors' prescriptions made up, to fetch parcels from the stores, to get cheques cashed. [Laughter.] That is a service which many hon. Members opposite might find would be a great convenience. ["Hear, hear!"] They also undertake to change books from the libraries, and that would probably be a service which hon. Members opposite might not so frequently call upon them to perform. Then they offer to assist in the house during an "At Home," or take dogs out for a run. That is a service which I think would appeal rather to the sympathies of the Ladies' Gallery than to hon. Members themselves. Moreover, they undertake to "clean windows and boots, and perform many other services which a smart, clean, respectable boy might be employed in." The company are responsible for those boys to the extent of £20. They further undertake to send cabs, fire-engines, and policemen. I have read a long article in the Times of this morning which contains the defence of the policy adopted by the Postmaster General, and a weaker case I have never read. The Postmaster General appears to be afraid that these companies would cut down the Public Revenue, which is derived from the Post Office; but that fear could not be well founded, seeing that the companies offer to pay a royalty of 1d. for each letter they carry. The writer argues against the adoption of a system of royalties, and quotes the case of the telephone. I might show how the Post Office stole the telephone, and I am sure no one can wonder if it never got much good out of an invention which it acquired in the most dishonest fashion. When Mr. Fawcett endeavoured to make reparation for that act of dishonesty he went further than justice required in the other direction, and gave the right of communication by trunk lines between large centres which enabled the private tele-

  1753
  phones to compete with the Post Office. I will not, however, go further into this; but, as far as the question in hand is concerned, namely, the carriage of express letters, I would suggest to the Postmaster General to take a big step which will be worthy of his Department, and he need fear no rivalry. Many years ago a Committee, presided over' by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, recommended that the Post Office should take the first opportunity of starting a pneumatic tube system of distribution similar to that which is carried out in Paris and Berlin. In Paris for a quarter of a franc one gets a card sent at once by express pneumatic tube, and for half a franc a letter. That is what the right hon. Gentleman ought to do for us. What the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do—namely, to refer the matter to legal arbitration—is quite beside the question, and his action may be characterised, as it has been in various quarters, as nothing better than that of the dog-in-the-manger.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): The lateness of the hour must prevent me from giving a detailed answer to the objections which the hon. Gentleman has taken to my conduct in this matter; and as I hope in a short time to obtain the decision of a Court of Law upon the main issues, it would be premature to discuss this evening what course I may be advised to take after that decision has been obtained. The hon. Member has very seriously misapprehended the action of the Department. The main question is one, not only between the Government and the District Messenger Company, but, in a much greater degree, between the Government and the Boy Messenger Company, which is simply an Express Service by means of boy messengers. The new service, of which the particulars appear on the Paper to-day, will be a far more efficient service. I would merely point out that the number of the stations will be at least double that of the Boy Messenger Company, and the number of boys employed ten times as numerous; the charge will be less, and, in fact, the new system will have every advantage which one system can have over another. I will only say that I should be very glad indeed if I could believe that I had no
  1754
  responsibility in the matter; but having before me the opinion of competent advisers, based upon Acts of Parliament, I am bound to believe that I should have so far a regard to the public interest that I must defend it against speculators whom I cannot allow to carry on a business which I believe is an invasion of the rights of the State. Having obtained the decision of a Court of Law, I shall be prepared to consider any proposal that may be made for utilising either of these schemes. I have been for a long time endeavouring to devise some such scheme which I might dovetail with a Department of the State; but until I obtained the assent of the Treasury to create a substitute Service, I did not feel myself justified in taking action as to which, if I had taken it at an earlier period, might have deserved the epithet the hon. Gentleman has applied to me. My desire is that the public should not suffer from any action the Government had undertaken, but I was was forced to act as I have done because I was threatened a fortnight ago by one of the clients of the hon. Gentleman with a mandamus to compel me to take action in the case. It was out of pure charity that I wished to utilise the boys in the service of the companies. I am sorry that the companies have refused, but the public will not suffer, because I am in a position to offer more efficient service. I am perfectly ready to consider any scheme which the public may expect advantage from as soon as I have established the right of the Post Office to exercise those privileges which are conferred upon it, not by me, but by many Acts of Parliament, the last of which was an Act passed in the first year of the reign of our present Sovereign.
  MR. CONTBEARE: So far as his main proposition goes, there is a considerable amount of reason in what the right hon. Gentleman says. Of course, he occupies his present position simply as trustee for the public, and I cannot for a moment, myself, complain of his doing his duty. It appears that the Post Office Act has been infringed, and, therefore I do not wish to complain of what has been done by the right hon. Gentleman. Still that does not "preclude the desirability of obtaining the decision of the Courts of Law as to one point of the operation of this company. But I take leave to

  1755
  observe that there is a good deal to be said on the general question of the convenience of the public at large.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 182.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Causton.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have one or two Amendments on this, and as I believe the Government are determined to press this Bill through to-morrow afternoon, when I may not be able to be present, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WERSTER,): I hope the hon. Member will allow this Amendment to be disposed of.
  MR. CAUSTON: I must press the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  MAIL SHIPS BILL.—(No. 163.)
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow at Two of the clock.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL. (No. 245.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow at Two of the clock.
  SLANDER OF WOMEN BILL.—(No. 150.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 6th April.
  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 160.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday, 7th April.
  STATUTORY RULES PROCEDUEE BILL.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry H. Fowler and Sir Albert Rollit. Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 260.]

  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howard Vincent, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Whitley, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. John Kelly.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 261.]

  COUNTY COURTS SITTINGS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return ordered—
  "Of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales in the year 1890, in the following form:—

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Circuit and name of Judge.

  Name of Court.

  Specific day or days in each month on which Judge or Deputy* sat in Court ring the twelve months ended 31st day of December 1890.

  Number of plaints returnable at each Court.

  Number of such plaints struck out in default of appearance of either party, or withdrawn, or not served.

  Number of such plaints in which the claim was paid into Court prior to hearing.

  Number of such plaints in which the claims were admitted, or the Defendant did not appear, inclusive of the cases under Section 86 of "The County Courts Act, 1888."

  Number of such plaints heard and disposed of by the Judge himself at each sitting.

  Number of which of such plaints the hearing was adjourned by consent.

  Number of such plaints adjourned for want of time.

  Number of matters heard by the Judge in Bankruptcy, or under Sections 65, 66, or 69 of "The County Courts Act, 1888," or under Section 17 of "The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1884."

  Number of hours the Judge sat on each day.

  Month.

  Day.

  By Judge.

  By Deputy Judge.

  *Where the Judge sat by Deputy, the fact to be stated, and the name of the Deputy.
  Totals of Circuits.
  Summary, with totals.
  (in continuation of Return presented to the House of Lords 5th August, 1873."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Lord Auckland—Petition of William Morton Eden Baron Auckland 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.
MARRIAGE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
An Act for the Amendment of the Marriage Act, 4 George IV., chapter 76—Was presented by the Lord Bishop of London; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 16th of April next. (No. 79.)
NEWFOUNDLAND.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Marquess opposite a question of which I have given him private notice, namely: What reply, if any, has been sent by the Government to the request of the Newfoundland Legislature that sufficient time should be given to that Legislature to send over a deputation from that country for the purpose of representing their views upon the subject of the Newfoundland Commission Bill?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the idea that we intended to hurry the Bill forward was obviously absurd. We should not have brought it in the day before the Recess if we had intended to do that. The Recess, which in this House, will last a considerable time, will furnish ample time for any representations which the Newfoundland Legislature may wish to make, and which we shall be very glad to consider thoroughly. We have informed them that the Bill will not come on in this House for Second Reading before the 15th of April, and could not possibly reach the House of Commons for Second Reading before the 23rd or 24th of April. There will, therefore, be the fullest time for consideration.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL.—(No. 70.)
Commons Amendments to Lords Amendments, and Commons reasons for disagreeing to some of the Lords Amendments, considered (according to order).
*THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I cannot help making a few observations upon some of these Amendments, though I shall confine myself to only those which appear to me to require it. I offer no remarks as to the possession clause; because I assume that it will be returned to the Commons in an amended form. I observe that the Commons have struck out the clause in which it was proposed by your Lordships that costs vexatiously or oppressively occasioned might be ordered by the Court to be recovered in the ordinary manner; and as I understand that clause was struck out by Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons, on the ground that it was contrary to an engagement which had been given that no money demand to be enforced under this Act should be personally recoverable, I cannot help expressing my great surprise, as well as regret, that so improvident an engagement should have been given on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The very words "vexatiously and oppressively" speak for themselves, and that the thing aimed at might happen is certain, because the power of the purse is great, and when certain motives concur with the power of the purse there can be no doubt that unnecessary costs, which would be both "vexatious" and "oppressive," may be incurred; and why upon any intelligible principle those costs should not be dealt with in the ordinary manner I cannot understand. I do not mean to ask your Lordships to dissent from what the House of Commons have done in that respect, because it was done in consequence of what I cannot help thinking was an unfortunate and improvident engagement on the part of Her Majesty's Government; but having thought it my duty to make that proposal in this House, I think it also my duty to accompany with a protest my acquiescence in what has been done. Then, the next point which I think it necessary to observe upon is this, upon

1643
which I will state what, for my own part, I propose to do. Your Lordships passed by amendment a clause which was not introduced originally in the House of Commons, to the effect that upon any application to the County Court for an order under this Act, the costs either of a solicitor or of a witness should not be allowed in any case where the amount claimed was paid without further proceedings; and, when notice of opposition had been given within the prescribed time, the costs of a solicitor should only be allowed for work done subsequent to the notice. That, I think, is reasonable and just, but the House of Commons has amended this clause by providing that on any application to a County Court for an order under this Act, no costs, either of a solicitor or of a witness, shall be allowed not only in any case where the amount claimed is paid without further proceedings, but also where notice of intention to apply for time to pay the tithe owner's claim has been given, except in cases where costs would be allowed by the Court on a judgment summons, which, I daresay, is right. At all events, I presume it would not extend to cases where application had been made, but payment had not, and further proceeding shad followed. But the words have also been put in—" Nor in any case where no notice of opposition has been given." I cannot help thinking that in putting in those words the difference has been entirely lost sight of between the operation of this Bill, and ordinary proceedings in the County Court. In an ordinary case in the County Court, if no notice of opposition has been given, judgment is passed and signed at once for the payment of the amount claimed, which is forthwith executed by the bailiffs of the Court, and there is an end of the whole thing. But, under this Bill, there will not be an end of the whole thing, and if the owner is not known, or, although known and served, does not choose to appear, that is only the beginning of further proceedings which must be taken to work out the special remedy provided under this Act by the appointment of a receiver; and then, when the receiver is appointed, various further questions may arise if difficulties are thrown in his way. Is it intended that in proceedings of that kind the tithe owner is not to be advised by a solicitor; and is
1644
he not to recover those costs although he is entirely in the right, and has only-taken his ordinary legal remedy for the purpose of recovering that money which the landowner might pay but does not pay, and does not come forward to defend himself? Is it intended to say that in such cases there should be an absolute rule against allowing costs which there would be no alternative but to incur; and that (as would be the effect of these words) to the very end of the proceedings, however protracted they might be, and however much the remedy might be obstructed? It appears to me not only absurd, but so absolutely unjust, that I feel compelled to ask your Lordships to disagree with that part of the Amendment of the House of Commons. As to the third point, I confess I think it is to be regretted that the House of Commons should have insisted upon retaining the definition of "owner" by reference to the Tithe Act of 1836, without any alteration or amendment whatever. My own opinion is that at least some direction, as to the cases of joint-ownership under the Act of 1836, was desirable; and that, without some such direction, there might be some difficulty in applying that portion of the interpretation under possible circumstances. I think, however, that the difficulty is not one which will be found practically serious; and, such as it is, it may be met by proper Rules. I do" not, therefore, propose to ask your Lordships to disagree with the Commons on that point, though I cannot but think that it would have been better if the matter had been left as it was.
Moved, to omit the words "nor in any case where no notice of opposition has-been given."—(The Earl of Selbome.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, undoubtedly the Government in the House of Commons felt itself bound by the pledge which the noble and learned Lord has referred to. He-may, perhaps, remember that I was myself in sufficient doubt as to the working of that pledge to tell him at the time that I was not certain that the clause would be adhered to. When he says he regrets that the pledge should have been given, I entirely concur with him in the regret that it should have been found necessary; but as he is no doubt aware

1645
there was a great deal of cross-voting upon this Bill, and it was not a Bill on which the Government could be absolutely certain that they could count with confidence upon the support of a majority in the House upon all occasions. It was necessary therefore—I presume they felt it necessary—to meet strong feelings where those feelings were expressed, and there was undoubtedly a very strong feeling against the enactment for the first time of any personal responsibility in whatever form it might be carried out. I regret very much that that should be found necessary, and I concur with the noble and learned Lord in thinking that the Act would have been much better if it had remained as it left your Lordships' House. But I do not think that the clause would, in that event, have been very widely required, because wherever there is sufficient rent to pay the tithe there will be probably enough to pay costs too, and they can always be levied for. It is only where there is no rent to pay costs that the possible occasion would arise which the noble Earl's Amendment was intended to meet. I do not think that will be an ordinary case, and therefore we may hope that no practical evil will result from a change in the Bill, which I quite admit is a change for the worse. With regard to the other matter I have no knowledge with respect to the cause why those words which the noble Earl referred to in the second place were inserted. I think it must have been without a due consideration of all the results to which they may lead, and I certainly shall not oppose the Motion of the noble Earl to ask for a reconsideration of that question. With respect to the main matter that we have to deal with, namely, the clause which gives power to issue a writ of habere facias possessionem, it certainly was the opinion of distinguished lawyers in the other House, that as the clause left us it would not have worked, and that the two processes—the procedure under the old Act and that instituted under the new—had not bean efficiently screwed together; and it is now proposed to revert to the process under the old Act, which we know by some 50 years' experience will at all events lead to results of some kind.
Amendment to the Commons' Amendment, agreed to.
On the consideration of the Commons Amendment, omitting the definition of "owner" inserted by the Lords,
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid: My Lords, I cannot forbear to enter my protest against this Amendment. It is a mere matter of definition and drafting, and I must say that, after the very careful consideration given to that point by my noble Friend Lord Thring, with all his experience, I very much regret that that definition has been omitted. I cannot help thinking that great difficulty will be experienced in the working of the Act without that definition.
On consideration of the Commons' Amendment disagreeing with the insertion of "rent-charge" after "tithe," in page 7, line 14, because unnecessary,
*THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid: I wonder whether there is any other reason? I confess it appears to me that it would have been much more accurate to retain the words "Tithe Rent-Charge Act" than "Tithe Act," though I do not think it is a point on which it is worth while to differ from the House of Commons, since that is their opinion. It seems to me that the only conceivable reason for adopting the form "Tithe Act of 1891," instead of "Tithe Rent-Charge Act of 1891," is to gratify those people who like to confound tithe rent-charge for some purpose or other with "Tithe."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I ventured to warn the noble Earl, when he put this in, that he was aiming at too high a standard of literary excellence.
Amendment agreed to.
Other Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, not insisted on and Bill returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Five o'clock.