Sitting of 4 April 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BIRMINGHAM WATER BILL SELECT COMMITTEE (by Order.)
  Mr. D. THOMASrose—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Before the hon. Member proceeds with his protest, I beg to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order, seeing that it now appears for the first time on the Paper in the hon. Member's name, it having stood before in the name of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. S. T. Evans)?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be hyper-criticism on my part if I were to take any objection, seeing that it is precisely the same Motion as on a previous occasion was deferred.
  MR. D. THOMAS: I rise, Sir, to move the Motion which stands in my name, and which, until a few moments ago, I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to. It will be remembered that the Bill was referred to a Hybrid Committee at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. Ellis), and, so far as I understand, it was the intention of the House in so referring it that on the Committee the interests of all the localities concerned should be represented. But, so far as Wales is concerned, that intention has not been carried out. The interests of Birmingham are well represented by an hon. Member whose name is on the back of the Bill (Mr. Powell Williams), and by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope), whose constituents are more or less directly concerned, while there is on the Committee a representative of the interests of London. But there is not a single Member who can be regarded as in any way representing the interests of the Radnor district or of Wales. I know that the House is jealous of interference with the work of Committees upstairs, but I would point out that we raise no question upon

  537
  the subject-matter of the Bill; the Motion has reference only to the constitution of the Committee, and, so far as I can gather, opposition to our Motion comes solely and entirely from those who are promoting the passage of the Bill. The Motion would, I believe, meet with general acceptance on both sides of the House but for the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). Now from what I understand, the intention is in the appointment of these Committees that the Committee of Selection shall appoint Members who are beyond all question impartial, and that the other Members should be appointed by the House as representing the different interests and localities with which the Bill deals, men who are more or less specialists in regard to the particular Bill. By way of illustration, I may perhaps be allowed to mention that a short time ago a Hybrid Committee was appointed to consider the Belfast Corporation Bill, and upon that Committee opposing interests were amply represented in the persons of Mr. Sexton and Mr. Knox, Mr. T. W. Russell and Sir Edward Harland. Now, I do not know on what the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham bases his objection. Possibly he may say the Committee has been sitting for some days and has taken evidence. But that is not our fault. But for his objection the two Members would have been added long ago. A Hybrid Committee in its rules of procedure differs materially from an ordinary Select Committee to which Private Bills are submitted. On an ordinary Committee hon. Members have to be present from the outset and to sit the whole time, but in the case of a Committee such as this, Members come and go as they please. More than this, I may say the evidence given so far has been to show the need of Birmingham for a better water supply, with which point we do not wish to deal, while we do wish to have on the Committee some Member who knows something about this area of 70 square miles affected by the Bill, and the interests of the people within that area.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the number of Members on the Select Committee be increased from nine to eleven, and that Mr. Thomas Ellis and one Member to be nominated by the Committee of Selection be added to the Committee."—(Mr. D. Thomas.)
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not understand my position in this matter. He seems to think I am opposed to the representation of Wales on the Committee; but I can assure him that is an entire mistake as I think I could show if I were to mention what has passed in private between myself and Welsh Members on this subject. But I do object very much to the Resolution, both the manner in which it is proposed, and the time at which it is moved. Will the House allow me to quote very briefly the facts of the case? This Bill is promoted by the Birmingham Corporation, and in an ordinary way would have been referred to the usual Select Committee. The Welsh Members desired a special Hybrid Committee, and the Corporation willingly consented to the demand. Accordingly, at the instigation of the Welsh Members, in order to satisfy the Welsh Members, a Hybrid Committee was appointed and constituted, according to the Resolution moved, of five Members nominated by the House, and four by the Committee of Selection. Now with the selection made of the Committee I, of course, have nothing to do, but as regards the nominations by the House, I say it was the business of the Welsh Members if they wanted the appointment of a particular Member, to make the representation usual in such cases to secure his nomination. If the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. Ellis) had been nominated, though he may be regarded as a strong partisan, he having moved the rejection of the Bill, still I would not have thought it my duty to make the slightest objection, and, indeed, I should be glad if he attended the meetings of the Committee, that he might see how groundless are some of the points of opposition he took. But hon. Members did not take that course. Not only did they fix the number of the Committee by Resolution, but when

  539
  the nominations were moved in the House they moved no Amendment—they made no objection to any of the names, or expressed any desire to substitute a name as we might have supposed they would have done if they had cared for the matter. This is an entire afterthought. I think the hon. Members are entirely out of court; the time for their action was when the Committee was being appointed, and is not now after the Committee has been appointed, has sat some days, and has taken evidence. Although I think that is really a sufficient ground for objection, and although I think this Motion now is extremely unusual, if not unprecedented, still if there is any strong feeling on the part of Welsh Members that they are not represented on the Committee as they desire to be, I make now the same offer in public I have already made in private, if they consider there should be an addition to the Committee, and if the Chairman of the Committee takes no exception—for really I think he is the person who ought to be consulted—if he makes no objection to the addition, I will not object provided I am allowed to nominate a Member to equalise the votes. That I think is perfectly fair. It is a monstrous proposition that Welsh Members should be allowed to pack this Committee by adding two gentlemen pledged and known beforehand to be hostile to the principle of the Bill. It is an extremely unfair and unreasonable proposition—
  MR. D. THOMAS: May I explain that we have no desire to pack the Committee? We propose that only one Member shall be nominated by us, and the other by the Committee of Selection.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is all very well, but what is the meaning of the second proposal of the hon. Gentleman?
  MR. D. THOMAS: The second Motion was put down to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very sorry there should be any misunderstanding as to my wishes, but the hon. Gentleman does not flatter me very much in supposing that I should accept these as impartial nominations. He gives me credit for little intelligence if
  540
  he thinks I could accept such a proposition. But we have now only to discuss the question of the nomination of the hon. Member for Merionethshire, and a nomination by the Committee of Selection. That is a Motion for the appointment of a gentleman who undoubtedly is a partisan. I do not use the word in any invidious sense; he has pledged himself against the Bill. Then another gentleman is to be appointed by the Committee of Selection who is to be a thoroughly impartial person. Well, I say that is not a fair proposition. If hon. Gentleman desire to appoint a partisan then at least there should be another appointed from the other side. Welsh Members have really a small interest in the Bill, and I am sure their constituents will be very dissatisfied if the Bill is lost in consequence of the action of their Representatives. One other objection I have and that is on the point of time when this Motion is made. The hon. Member says the delay is due to me, but that is not so at all. It is due in the first place to Welsh Members not making up their minds until some time after the Committee had been appointed, until it had actually met and received evidence. The first proposition was not made until the Committee had held two meetings, and the proposition had to stand over because it was out of order, and as you, Sir, ruled, it was a question not as between Welsh Members and myself, but as between Welsh Members and the House. Three of the Corporation witnesses have been examined and under the circumstances I think it would be extremely inconvenient to have new Members now added to the Committee. At all events unless the Members for Wales are willing to accept the suggestion I have made with a view to balance and harmony in the composition of the Committee that I should be allowed to select another Member after their nomination, I shall certainly oppose this Motion.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: The right hon. Gentleman says the interest of Welsh Members in the Bill is small, but I should have thought that if there was one part of the United Kingdom which ought to be represented on such a Committee it would be the locality from

  541
  which the water is proposed to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman has raised two objections. First, he says this Motion comes too late, but surely there he is hypercritical. His objection is a merely technical one. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman says that it is a partisan who is now nominated, but that is an objection that may be urged against any appointment to a Hybrid Committee of this kind. Birmingham is represented on the Committee by two partisan Members.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; the hon. Member for Wednesbury does not represent Birmingham.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: Well, all that is asked is that the Member representing Birmingham (Mr. Powell Williams) should be balanced by a Member representing the district in Wales from which the water is proposed to be taken, the hon. Member for Merionethshire with another Member not necessarily a partisan. The hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Kenyon), whose name is mentioned in the second Motion, has no interest in the matter any more than I have. It seems to me the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman is quite unworthy of him, and if he has any desire to cultivate the goodwill of Welshmen, in whom he has lately taken a special interest, he should be the last man to take objection to this nomination. If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) should have laid stress on the partisan argument. It is difficult not to feel that the right hon. Gentleman himself occupies a partisan position, and he has enormous power and advantage therein. The partisanship of the Welsh Members simply goes so far as the desire that the locality which is undoubtedly greatly affected by the Bill should have representation on the Committee, and that claim is, I think, founded on fairness and justice. The charge of packing the Committee does not apply to the present Motion; it would be more reasonably applied to the right hon. Gentleman himself, who desires that the House should place in his hands the right to nominate a Mem-
  542
  ber. If the expression can be applied at all fairly it applies to such a proposition as that. I can assure the House that we have no intention of packing the Committee, nor do we desire to introduce the Welsh question more than is necessary. We rest our case on the fact that a large district in the Principality is affected by the Bill, and that local interest should have direct representation on the Committee. The actual Member for the constituency in which the district is included is precluded from taking any active part in the proceedings because he is the son of a petitioner. The right hon. Gentleman says we should have made our proposal before the Committee met, and that we ought to have made our objection to the nominations by the Committee of Selection.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I said the proper course would have been to have made a representation in the usual way, and then the proper course would have been to have proposed an Amendment when the names were moved in the House.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: I do not know whether it would be in Order to refer to the course Welsh Members did take privately. In the sense indicated they did take steps they thought were right.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There should have been a nomination in the House.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: It is for us now to consider how the Committee is constituted. That is the question raised by my hon. Friend's Motion. Birmingham is directly represented twice over. Wednesbury is interested in the Bill. That town comes within the scope and purpose of the Bill, and thus two Members directly represent the interest of the promoters of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know what the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee is; but I have authority for saying that his personal opinion—I do not say the opinion of the Committee, which has not been ascertained or expressed—has all along been that it would be much better if a Welsh Member or two were appointed, and the Committee would be strengthened in its inquiry thereby. I hope we may come to an agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I did my

  543
  utmost to discountenance the cry of Welsh water for Wales when started in opposition to the Bill, and I asserted that any attempt to create a prejudice in the Principality against the withdrawal of water from Wales to meet the necessities of large populations in England would not find support from responsible Representatives of Wales. We are not here in a partisan position, but if it should happen that so large and important a scheme should be sanctioned by a Committee, upon which no representation of the area concerned had a place, there would be an unfortunate disposition to cavil at the decision of the Committee, which it is most undesirable to create.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY,): I confess I regretted to find that no Welsh Member was appointed to this Committee, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that hon. Members who desired that representation should have taken action when they saw the names upon the Paper, they should have proposed the substitution of a name for one of those agreed to. It is now proposed to add two more Members, but that, I think, is a most undesirable course to take. The more Members you add to a Committee the less responsibility there is on each individual Member. A Hybrid Committee has some advantages, but it has also this disadvantage—that there is not upon each Member that sense of responsibility in forming a judgment that there is on each Member of a Committee of four. I think it is extremely undesirable to add more Members and to alter the balance of the nominations by the Committee of Selection. But is it too late now to adopt the course which should have been taken in the first place? Is it possible to secure the services of the hon. Member for Merionethshire in substitution of some other Member? It has been said that the interest of the promoters is represented by two Members, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Powell Williams) and the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope).
  MR. D. THOMAS: That substitution has been refused.
  MR. COURTNEY: Well, it is not quite clear. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Wednesbury clings to the honour of appointment to the Committee. If he could be induced to retire then the difficulty would be at an end.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I do not represent Birmingham. There are other interests than those of Birmingham it is desirable to have represented on the Committee. I am not aware that any argument has been brought forward why those other interests should not be represented. I feel bound to say, having regard to my colleagues on the Committee upstairs, that every possible interest of the Welsh people in the district affected by the scheme will be carefully considered and safeguarded by the existing Committee.
  MR. COURTNEY: Well, then, I fear that my efforts at an arrangement will be unavailing. I do, however, strongly object to an addition to the number of Members on the Committee, and think there are serious reasons against it.
  SIR H. HUSSEY VIVIAN: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham should appear to think that Wales has a very small interest in this matter. I took occasion to address a few words to the House when this question was first considered, and I pointed out that this is a matter of vast importance to Wales, having in view the vast populations springing up who will look to the watershed of the Bristol Channel as their source of supply. I look forward with great dread to this abstraction of water from the watershed of the Bristol Channel. If the Birmingham Corporation wants another source of water supply, let them seek it where they will not infringe on the natural claims of another large population. I altogether take exception to the statement that Wales has a small interest in this matter. We have a very large and increasing interest in this water supply, and hereafter it will be of vast importance to our population. It cannot be denied that Wales has a right to representation on this Committee. I am sure the House desires to do justice in a matter of this kind

  545
  and will not be bound by what I must say is a technical objection on the part of the Chairman of Ways and Means. It may not be, in the ordinary course of business, quite regular to make the addition to the Committee now, but I cannot doubt that the House will recognise the justice of the demand that Wales should have representation on the Committee. This is not what the right hon. Member for Birmingham calls it—a monstrous proposition—it is simply a claim founded on justice. Whether the proposition should have been made earlier or not is a purely technical point I will not discuss. If there has been some lapse, some fault committed, I do not think we should therefore do an injustice when there is means open to avoid it. When we are to have 70,000 acres of watershed taken from Wales, can it be said that Wales, is not interested in the matter? No; I am quite sure that cannot be said. The wants of Welsh populations must be safeguarded, and in the most earnest manner I ask the House to grant our request that a Welsh Member may be added to this Committee. I do not know that I should be saying too much if I characterised the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham as a monstrous proposition that he should be allowed to nominate another Member of the Committee to balance the Member we desire the House to add. I do not know that in all my Parliamentary experience I ever heard an individual Member make such a claim, and I must protest against such an altogether new departure in our practice. This Hybrid Committee was resolved upon in order that all interests might be fairly represented. We have on the Committee a direct Representative of Birmingham, and another Member representing a constituency jointly interested with Birmingham in obtaining the water supply, and we have London represented. Why? Because London also sets up a claim to abstract water from Wales, a claim which I do most strongly protest against. Let them go where they will for their water supply, but not to the Bristol Channel watershed, which we want for our own population. We shall have in the
  546
  future all we can do to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing population of Glamorganshire, and I say "Hands off the Bristol Channel watershed." Indeed it will become a very serious matter. We may not live to meet the difficulty, but those who come after us will be astonished to think that we deliberately sacrificed the water supply we had at hand.
  SIR J. PULESTON: I supported the Motion for a Hybrid Committee because I thought that every interest ought to be represented on that Committee; but this cannot be said to be done when a large interest in the Principality is not directly represented on the Committee. I think it is hardly fair for the right hon. Gentleman to object to the nomination of the hon. Member for Merionethshire because he is a partisan, seeing that the hon. Member's Motion had support from both sides of the House. I quite supposed that the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. A. Morley) would have included the name of the hon. Member for Merionethshire or that of some other Welsh Member in the nominations for the Committee, and it was with considerable surprise I found the hon. Member's name was not included. I have received some seven or eight letters from the Principality commenting on the fact, and I thought it a little strange that the name of the hon. Member was not moved in the House. I hope the proposal to add two Members now will be accepted, and I do not think there ought to be great objection to that as a compromise. In the interest of a full inquiry I think there ought to be this representation on the Committee.
  MR. A. J. WILLIAMS: I do hope the House will deal with this question in a spirit of fairness and common sense, uninfluenced by any technical objection. What does it matter that through some inadvertence Wales has not had a Representative appointed on this Hybrid Committee? Here we have a remedy at hand for this inadvertence. Two important admissions have been made which go to support the Motion. My hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart Rendel) has told us that the Chairman of the Committee has expressly stated that it is

  547
  desirable that a Welsh Member should be upon this Committee; and I think it must be obvious, upon a question like this, affecting a large area and future water supply for Wales, that a Welshman should be there not as a partisan. I repudiate the idea that a Member who is appointed to a Committee goes to his duties as merely a servile partisan, and I am perfectly sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire would render the greatest assistance to the inquiry as a local expert. We have had also the admission from the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) that he thinks it is desirable that Wales should have representation on the Committee; but he is trammelled by the technical objection that it is undesirable, after the Committee has been struck, that we should make additions to it. But I cannot see how the convenience of the Committee can be detrimentally affected. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has no valid objection outside his special pleading and technical ground. I hope the House will not for a moment entertain the idea that the right hon. Gentleman should nominate another Member. I appeal to the House to deal with this matter as a question of common sense and fairness, to disregard the special pleading of the right hon. Gentleman, and to rectify an error which at the outset was committed in the nominations.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I can appreciate the reasons which induce the desire to have Wales represented on the Committee, but I cannot understand why this proposal was not made earlier. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has had no answer to that. Now, two propositions have been made to my hon. Friends, both fair ones; one that a Welsh Member should be substituted for a sitting Member, and the other that in addition to the hon. Member for Merionethshire, the Birmingham Corporation should have another nomination to preserve the balance. Now, although it has been said that my hon. Friend would not enter upon his duties on the Committee as a partisan, we are
  548
  perfectly well aware, and I am not blaming him for taking the course he thought right, that my hon. Friend has expressed an opinion against the Bill in the strongest possible way, by moving the rejection of the Bill when it was before the House. In that sense, therefore, he must be considered a partisan, and it is only right that if he becomes a Member of the Committee another Member in the interest of the promoters should be added. Why the proper opportunity was not taken to add a Welsh Member to the Committee I do not understand, but I am bound to say the proposal being made now cuts at the whole system of appointment of Hybrid Committees, and I must vote against the Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: As I understand, the reason why hon. Members for Wales did not move the appointment in the first instance was because they were under the impression that the Committee of Selection would secure the representation of all interests, and so they did not occupy the time of the House with any Motion on the subject. It has been urged that if a partisan Member is added from the one side then a partisan should be added from the other side. But is it not the fact that there are at this moment two Birmingham partisans on the Committee? In the first place there is the hon. Member who represents South Birmingham (Mr. Powell Williams), whose name is on the back of the Bill. That he is a partisan must be admitted. Then there is my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope). My hon. Friend claims that he is not a partisan for Birmingham; but let me explain what is the position of Wednesbury in regard to this Bill. By this Bill Wednesbury will have an option to take or not to take from this water which is to be brought from Wales to Birmingham. Of course, any community would be in favour of getting such an option for nothing, and my hon. Friend's constituents will naturally expect my hon. Friend to vote in favour of this scheme. I confess I was surprised at the conclusion of the speech of the Chairman of Committees. It seemed to me he began by being strongly in

  549
  favour of Welsh representation on the Committee, but he is going to vote against a Welsh Member being appointed because he says it is too late to make the addition.
  MR. COURTNEY: That was not my substantial reason.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman gave no substantial reason; that is what I complain of.
  MR. COURTNEY: I objected to the addition of partisan Members in undue proportion.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will vote in favour of this proposition, for he will observe there are two partisan Members in the interest of the promoters of the Bill on the Committee. All that is demanded is that a Member representing Welsh interests shall be appointed—a gentleman competent to look after the interests of the people in the district from which the water is to be taken. After all, though my hon. Friend from his knowledge of the subject may have an advantage over other Members on the Committee, he will only have one vote, and there will be always two against him. I really think that in this matter we should not allow technicalities to hinder us from what seems to me an act of justice to this Welsh district.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I think rather poor excuses have been offered for Welsh Members not making this Motion earlier. There was the opportunity when the Motion for nomination was before the House, and the substitution of one name for another could have been moved as an Amendment. The hon. Member for Wednesbury cannot be considered a partisan in favour of the Bill. The interests of Wednesbury are to a large extent distinct from and opposed to the interests of Birmingham; there is the interest of a large Water Company established. The partisanship unexpressed of the hon. Member for Wednesbury would not be a counterbalance to the hon. Member for Merionethshire, who throughout expressed his opposition to the Bill. It seems to me this proposal should have been made at the right time when the Committee was being formed. To make such an addition now will be to intro-
  550
  duce a most undesirable innovation in connection with the formation of Hybrid Committees. Moreover, the Committee has been sitting three days, and most important evidence has been given on behalf of the Corporation. It would be scarcely fair that an avowed opponent of the Bill should have a voice in the decision, he not having heard the strongest evidence in support of the Bill. Two fair proposals have been made to Welsh Members; one fails through the unwillingness of the hon. Member for Wednesbury to withdraw from the Committee; but the other still remains open—the proposal that with the nomination of the hon. Member for Merionethshire my right hon. Friend should have a nomination on behalf of the Corporation. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire admitted frankly that if a Welsh Member were put on the Committee he should be what the hon. Member called "balanced" in some way. This question is being argued as if Wales had a predominant interest in this matter. On precisely the same grounds all the counties from which the water supply comes should also be represented on the Committee. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. P. Stanhope) has declared that ample provision was made when the Hybrid Committee was appointed. We thought that provision would satisfy everyone; it satisfied the hon. Member opposite so that he withdrew all opposition. That provision was that all interests—Welsh as well as every other—should be fully represented before the Committee, and it was thought at that time that the promoters had given every advantage to the opponents of the Bill. But after evidence has been taken for three or four days before the Committee this extraordinary proposal is made. Wales, instead of being a sufferer by the works contemplated in the Bill, will be the greatest possible gainer, and the Welsh people all round the neighbourhood know that. I hope the House will remember that there is the interest of half a million of people to be considered who are threatened, at no very distant future, with a water famine, to prevent which this Bill has been brought forward. Every possible concession has been made to the

  551
  opponents of the Bill, every concession which we thought would conciliate them, and now we have this innovation, unprecedented in relation to Parliamentary Committees.
  MR. STOREY: I think it cannot be denied that this is an innovation, as my hon. Friend says. What are the facts? There is a conflict of advantage between Birmingham and Wales, or apparently so, and it is contended that Birmingham has one or two Members on the Committee who are likely to put the case as strongly as possible for Birmingham, and bring out all the facts in its favour. My hon. Friend below me asks that there should also be on the Committee one gentleman who will be so keenly interested that he will take special trouble to bring out the special facts advantageous to the district of Wales specially concerned. That seems a very reasonable suggestion, and one which the House might accept. I think there will be no objection to that, though some objection has been taken to naming a Member on the other side. I should be willing for any Member of the House—the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), or another—to nominate a Member whom they think would be a desirable Member of the Committee. If that would meet the objection that has been taken, and prevent the House further considering this matter, I may say, I think it would be satisfactory to the hon. Members concerned.
  MR. STUART RENDEL: I understand that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. James) is willing to allow his name to be withdrawn from the Committee for the purpose of allowing that of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. E. Ellis) to be added. I move that the hon. Member for Gateshead be discharged from the Committee, and that the hon. Member for Merioneth—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move that now; he must give notice of the Motion.
  MR. W. JAMES: I should be glad to be relieved from my
  552
  duties on the Committee, as I have many other engagements; but I accepted nomination, as I understood that the Chairman desired that I should serve.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should make no objection to that arrangement if it meets the approval of the House.
  DR. CAMERON: The hon. Member for Gateshead was nominated by the Committee of Selection, and can only be displaced by the Committee of Selection. The principle which regulates the action of the Committee of Selection is that while the House puts on partisans, the Committee of Selection puts on impartial and judicial men. It would be utterly impossible for a compact of the House to bind the Committee of Selection. If anything of that kind is to be done it would be necessary that the nomination should be by the House direct, and the Committee of Selection should be relieved from the necessity of filling up the place vacated by the hon. Member for Gateshead.
  MR. D. THOMAS: If I could have any guarantee that the Committee would nominate the hon. Member for Merioneth in the place of the hon. Member for Gateshead, I would have no objection to withdrawing my Motion; but as there is no such guarantee forthcoming I must press the Motion to a Division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 150—(Div. List No. 65.)
  MR. D. THOMAS: I beg to give notice that I shall to-morrow move that the hon. Member for Gateshead be discharged from serving on the Committee, and that the hon. Member for South Glamorgan be nominated in his stead.
  MR. SPEAKER: I look with extreme jealousy on the House interfering with the Committee of Selection by discharging a Member who has been appointed by that Committee. That Committee is specially deputed by the House to make choice of Members to serve; but perhaps an amicable arrangement can be come to between the House and the Committee of Selection.

QUESTIONS.

  THE WEARING OF EMBLEMS IN THE ARMY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet satisfied himself of the existence of a custom in the Northumberland Fusiliers of parading on St. George's Day, each man wearing, by order of the Colonel, a red and a white rose in his busby, and that Irish, Scotch, and Welshmen are obliged to comply with the order under penalty for disobedience; and whether he will either prohibit the wearing of all national and Party emblems, or allow soldiers of all nationalities to wear their respective favours on national festivals, subject to a General Order to the contrary, and for special reasons, by the Commanding Officer?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The red and white rose, as the hon. Member will see by the Army List, is one of the badges of the Northumberland Fusiliers, and I find it has been the custom since 1675 for all the members of the regiment to wear them on St. George's Day. The custom has no political bearing, and the Commander-in-Chief sees no reason for giving the order indicated in the latter part of the question.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman thinks the shamrock has any political bearing, and does he see any reason why Irishmen should not be allowed to wear it in the same way as the regiment referred to?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I see no reason when permission is given by the Commanding Officer.
  MR. MACNEILL: Does the Commanding Officer or the Field Marshall wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I do not know.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to give notice that on the Army Estimates I shall call attention to this matter.

  ACCESS TO STATE PAPERS.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Fitzpatrick, author of the recently published work, The Secret Service Fund under Pitt, had access to the State Papers in Dublin Castle; and whether there is any objection to allow Mr. Fitzpatrick to pursue his investigations, in order to give the history of the Secret Service Fund up to 1886?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): It is the case that the gentleman mentioned had access to certain State Papers under the Regulations of the State Paper Department, whereby historians are granted permission to refer to certain records with the permission of the Keeper of the State Papers. This permission is limited to records of the age of 50 years from the making thereof, and it would therefore not be possible to give the permission suggested in the second paragraph of the question.
  MR. MACNEILL: Are regulations given to the Castle officials for the preservation of State Papers?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): They are kept under the Records Act of 1877.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: If permission is limited to Papers 50 years old, how is it possible to get particulars of the administration of the Fund under the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. V. Harcourt)?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question for 50 years.

  TARGET FIRING AT SEA.
  MR. SEXTON(for Mr. FLYNN,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the Military Lands Consolidation Bill, whether he is aware that the Cork Harbour Commissioners have made frequent complaints to the commanding officer of Cork district of the danger caused to navigation in and off Cork Harbour by the practice of target firing from Forts Camden and Carlisle; and is he aware that complaints of the danger incurred from this practice have frequently been made by yachtsmen

  555
  and masters of vessels using Cork Harbour; and, if so, whether any special provisions will be introduced by the War Department in the Bill to prevent injury being done to the trade and other interests of Cork Harbour?
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Section 15 of the Military Lands Consolidation Bill raises questions of great importance to fishermen, coasting traders, and others, and that their grievances are being investigated by the Committee recently appointed to report on target practice seawards; and whether he will, under the circumstances, postpone the appointment of the Select Committee until he receives the Report of the Target Practice Seawards Committee?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: In answer to the hon. Member opposite, I would say that is a subject which will be fully considered by the Committee on Target Practice Seawards, and I would rather express no opinion on the subject till that Committee reports. In answer to my hon. Friend behind me, I am not aware how soon it is probable that the Committee on Target Practice Seawards will be able to report; but I am quite willing to postpone the Military Lands Consolidation Bill for a reasonable time, so long as we do not run the risk of losing it for the Session, as it is desirable in the public interest that the law should be made clear. Section 15 makes no change in the existing law, and in no way prejudices the inquiry upon which he is engaged.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under Clause 15 questions are raised affecting the coasting trade and fishing industry?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: That is one of the subjects referred to the Committee.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who compose the Committee, where it sits, and whether they will examine witnesses whom hon. Members of this House may think desirable?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The Committee was appointed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I cannot at once give the
  556
  names of all the Members. I imagine the places where they sit are selected by the Committee themselves.
  MAJOR BANES(for Major RASCH,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the Essex fishermen facilities for giving evidence before the Target Practice Seawards Committee, as their trade will be seriously affected by the proposed partial closing of the fishing grounds off Sheerness?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: This is a matter for the Committee itself to decide; but I have no doubt that the case of all fishermen said to be affected by acts of this description will be considered by them.

  A MISSING POST PARCEL.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a registered letter and a registered parcel, posted at Hucknall Torkard, Notts, in December last, and addressed to Mdlle. De Saint Belin, Roche Vilaine, Morbihan, France, have gone astray; and whether there is any expectation of recovering them; and, if not, will the owner be compensated?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The case of the parcel is under inquiry. The correspondent in the case makes no mention of a registered letter.

  MR. J. H. PAYNE'S ESTATE, BALLINHASSIG, COUNTY CORK.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. FLYNN): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of the tenants recently evicted from the estate of Mr. J. H. Payne, J.P., near Ballinhassig, County Cork; can he state what number of years' purchase of the valuation was sanctioned by the Land Purchase Commission; how many tenants have been evicted by the Land Purchase Commission since the purchase of the estate was sanctioned; and is he aware that the farm of one of the purchasing tenants was put up for sale in March, 1891, by the Purchase Commission, but that no one was found to purchase the tenant's interest;

  557
  and, if so, what steps do the Purchase Commission intend to take?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Irish Land Commission report that they are not aware of any evictions on the estate of Mr. J. H. Payne; but the question probably refers to the case of a tenant-purchaser named Daniel Kelly. This tenant held under a judicial rent of £30. His purchase money was £500, or about 17 years' purchase of the judicial rent, and the annuity payable in respect thereof was £20—i.e., a reduction of 33 per cent. as compared with the judicial rent he had previously to pay. This holding was put up for sale by the Commissioners on the 4th March, 1891, the tenant purchaser being in default for two instalments. There being no bidding the sale was adjourned; but in the following July the holding was sold for an amount sufficient to pay the arrears and expenses and subject to the annuity, which has since been regularly paid.

  STOPPED MONEY ORDERS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that several Post Office orders, amounting in all to £85, were issued in London in the year 1886 in favour of a Mr. W. J. Paine, on Auckland Post Office, New Zealand; that inquiry was made there by Mr. Alexander Cairns, to whom the orders were handed by the payee, to know if he would be safe in cashing same, and he was informed that they were "as safe as the Bank of England," but could not be cashed by him (the postmaster) before receipt of the advice note; and that in the meantime the hinds deposited in the London Post Office were withdrawn by the depositor; whether he is aware that Mr. Cairns lost the money which he had advanced on the faith of the Post Office orders issued here; and whether it is the practice to refund to the depositor on application, and without production of the Post Office order issued, the money so deposited?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The case referred to in the question is well-known to the Post Office, a question on it having been answered by my predecessor in 1890. The facts are these: A young man had been sent abroad by
  558
  his relations with £100 in £5 money orders, most of which, however, for reasons of their own, the relations took the precaution of stopping. On his arrival at Auckland the young man had information that all the orders but one were stopped and repaid to the remitter, and that he would receive remittances for subsistence. He went to Mr. Cairns's Hotel and lived luxuriously, giving 17 stopped money orders to Mr. Cairns, who does not seem to have been very careful in the matter, or he would have tested the validity of the orders before much harm was done. The official papers do not indicate that Mr. Cairns was told at Auckland the orders were "as safe as the Bank of England;" and, as a matter of fact, a money order is not a negotiable security, the remitters in all cases having legal power to control the funds until such time as the orders are paid. It is not known that Mr. Cairns cashed any of the orders, or whether he eventually recovered any advance he may have made, or the cost of the young man's maintenance. It is not customary to repay to a remitter without production of the orders, because such production is usually the best proof of the right to repayment. But in the case in point, the remitter was well-known at the Money Order Office to have deposited the funds, and the stopped money orders were not required in proof.

  THE REGISTRATION OF CHIMNEY SWEEPERS.
  SIR J. COLOMB, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any general record is kept at the Home Office of chimney sweepers in England who, by reason of employing "journeymen assistants or apprentices," are compelled to take out annual certificates under the provisions of 38 & 39 Vic, c. 70; if so, whether he can state the number of such certificated chimney sweepers, and what proportion that number bears to the total number of chimney sweepers in England who, by reason of not employing "journeymen assistants or apprentices," are not required to take out certificates; whether the police authorities have any statutory power to refuse to grant or renew certificates to

  559
  applicants who have been convicted of burglary, robbery, or theft; and whether he is aware that the United Chimney Sweeps' Protection Association strongly complain that persons convicted of burglary, robbery, or theft are allowed to pursue the trade or business of chimney sweeper?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): No general record of chimney sweepers who have to take out annual certificates is kept at the Home Office. The registers of certificates are, by the 14th section of the Chimney Sweepers' Act of 1875, required to be kept by chief officers of police. The register for the Metropolitan Police district is kept by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and shows that 190 chimney sweepers hold certificates, and that they employ 239 journeymen. In London the number of unregistered chimney sweepers is stated to be 984. The Home Office has no information as to the number of registered or unregistered chimney sweepers outside the Metropolis. It does not appear that the Act of 1875 enables police authorities to refuse to grant or renew certificates to any chimney sweeper who applies in proper form, pays the statutory fee, and has not been disqualified by a conviction under the Acts of 1840 and 1864, which were passed for the protection of young persons employed by chimney sweepers rather than of householders by whom chimney sweepers are employed. The complaint referred to in the third paragraph of the question has not been communicated either to the Commissioner of Police or the Home Office.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg, Sir, to postpone my question.
  MR. MACNEILL: Why? [Cries of "Put the Question!"]
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of persons now in prison in Ireland for offences under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," and also the number of persons in Ireland who are
  560
  at the present time wholly or partially boycotted?
  MR. JACKSON: On the 1st inst there were five persons in custody under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887. They were convicted of riot and unlawful assembly. There are no persons either wholly or partially boycotted in Ireland at the present time.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask, Sir, if the administration of the Act has been going on, if it has been left inoperative because it was proved to be useless for its main purpose—that of securing tenants for evicted farms?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman name any single struggle with reference to which prosecutions were instituted under this Act which are not at present going on just as before, or have not notoriously concluded as victories for the tenants?
  MR. MADDEN: I cannot argue the matter by way of answers to questions across the floor of the House. But in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Belfast as to whether this represents the usefulness or the uselessness of this Bill, I say unhesitatingly that it represents its usefulness.
  MR. MACNEILL: I should like to ask, Sir, if these figures have been specially prepared with a view to the General Election?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION OFFICE.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are at present upwards of 50 temporary clerks in the Irish Land Commission Office without Civil Service certificates, contrary to the Order in Council; whether it is contemplated to create these uncertificated clerks permanent clerks without any examination; why are not vacancies in the office of the Irish Land Commission filled from the Lower Division of the Civil Service; and why are not these clerkships thrown open to public competition, according to the practice adopted in filling up vacancies in clerk-

  561
  ships in the High Court of Justice in Ireland?
  MR. JACKSON: In addition to the permanent staff there are at present temporarily employed in the Land Commission one Second Division clerk, 19 registered copyists, and 25 temporary clerks; the latter were employed when the services of the other registered copyists were not available. It is not proposed to make any of the uncertificated temporary clerks referred to permanent officers. It is understood that the Treasury do not propose to recruit the clerical staff of the Irish Land Commission in future from the Second Division of the Civil Service. Section 45 of the Act of 1881, and Section 20 of the Act of 1885, which regulate appointments to the Land Commission, are still in force as regards appointments to the general permanent staff, and when clerks for temporary purposes are required applications will be made in the first instance to the Civil Service Commissioners for registered copyists.

  THE CASE OF MR. CLEARY.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Mr. Cleary, the official in the Post Office, Dublin, who committed suicide under distressing circumstances, has left a widow and nine children almost destitute; whether, after working for upwards of a year from twelve to fourteen hours a day, he made application to the Post Office authorities for payment for extra hours, which he estimated at a sum of £54, but that no money on account of this claim was paid to him; whether during his 20 years' service in the postal department there had been any record against him till after his application for payment for extra hours; whether Cleary, having worked for many years as sorter in the American mail train between Dublin and Queenstown, was offered an indoor post in the General Post Office at a salary of £50 per annum less than the salary of his original appointment, on the understanding that his acceptance of the post would tend to promotion, and that when vacancies arose in the positions of senior officers he was passed over, although recommended
  562
  by the senior superintendent; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will make some allowance to Cleary's family for his work over hours?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Mr. Cleary has left a widow and nine children, but, as I am informed, not destitute. As I have already stated, to three of these children employment has been given in the Dublin Post Office, and they earn between them 37s. a week. The remaining children are too young to be employed. There is no record of Mr. Cleary having worked twelve or fourteen hours a day, and there was no necessity for him to do so; but consisting as his work largely did of outdoor inquiries, the number of hours he took to perform it was very much in his own hands. In connection with this kind of work it is not usual to pay for overtime; and when, six years ago, Mr. Cleary asked to be so paid, his request was not complied with. There was no record against Mr. Cleary until June last, when he was censured for a trifling offence. Mr. Cleary was for several years employed as a sorter in the Dublin and Queenstown Travelling Post Office. In this capacity he received, over and above his wages, a trip allowance of 7s. a trip. In November, 1884, he was promoted to be overseer, when, as he ceased to make trips, his trip allowance ceased. As sorter his wages were 46s. a week, and as overseer he received wages of 52s., rising to 62s. The acceptance of this promotion by Mr. Cleary was optional, and of course there was no understanding or promise that further promotion should follow. In August, 1891, however, Mr. Cleary was promoted to the class of Clerks, and his salary was raised from 62s. a week (£161) to £170, rising to £190 a year. He appears to have expected promotion to the still higher position of assistant superintendent, but for this he was not recommended. There is no ground for making any retrospective payment on account of his service.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to give notice, Mr. Speaker, that on a future occasion I shall call attention to this cruel case.

  THE SASINE OFFICE IN EDINBURGH.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will cause arrangements to be made to obviate the delay that has been complained of in the registration of writs in the Sasine Office in Edinburgh at the Whit Sunday and Martinmas terms?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I have to inform the hon. Member that a proposal for obviating delay in the registration of writs at the money terms, by a temporary increase in the staff, is under consideration.

  THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what portion of the Parliamentary grant of £2,000 per annum to the Royal Irish Academy is devoted to the department of physical science, and what portion to that of national archæology?
  SIR H. MAXWELL (A Lord of the Treasury)(who replied) said: The Parliamentary grant to the Royal Irish Academy is now £1,600, and not £2,000. I am informed that the portion of the grant allotted to physical science does not exceed £100 a year. About £1,000 of the grant may be said to be devoted to purposes connected with archæology.

  HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have come to any decision as to the removal of the Platters Rocks, in Holyhead Harbour, as requested by a deputation which appeared before the President of the Board of Trade in August, 1888; and, if so, what their decision is?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Some time ago I suggested a plan which I thought might improve the accommodation in this harbour for the smaller class of vessels at a comparatively small cost; but this did not meet with sufficient support to justify the Government in proceeding with it, and I can only say that no definite
  564
  decision has been come to on the subject.

  SUB-CONTRACTS ON GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the contractor for the new sorting office at Paddington has sub-let a portion of the brickwork pointing; whether this subcontracting was done with the approval of the Board; and, if so, on what grounds; and whether the assent of the Board was asked previous or subsequent to the sub-contract being made?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The only portion of the work referred to by the hon. Member which has been sub-let is the pointing of the glazed brickwork. I approved of this on the ground that this is a special kind of work, requiring to be done by experts. The men were paid 10d. an hour, instead of the common rate of 9d. The contractor did not obtain my consent until he had entered into the sub-contract, as the amount of work was so trifling that he was under the impression that it was hardly worth a special reference. In this, no doubt, he was wrong, and I have called his attention to the matter; but I did not, on that account, think it necessary to withhold an assent which I would certainly have given had it been asked for beforehand.

  THE POSTAL TELEGRAPH FACTORY.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why it is that, while the arbitration agreement between masters and men of 19th November, 1891, fixed the working time for carpenters and joiners at 51¼ hours per week for 36 summer weeks and 47 for 16 winter weeks, the men employed at the Postal Telegraph Factory are expected to work 54 hours per week; whether he is aware that these conditions, and the other conditions of employment, prevent those carpenters and joiners who are members of trade unions bound by the terms of the arbitrator's

  565
  award from seeking work at the I Telegraph Factory; whether any complaints have been made to him on the subject, and whether two joiners were recently discharged because they refused to break the recognised rules of the trade by working longer hours; whether he is aware that the Board of Works, in a letter dated 24th December, 1891, have adopted for the men employed by them the working hours laid down in Rule 1 of the arbitrator's award; and whether he can see his way to follow the example thus set by another Department?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hours of work at the Telegraph Factory are uniform for the tradesmen employed, and not varying according to those worked elsewhere by those of similar trades in different circumstances. I am not aware that carpenters belonging to unions have been thereby debarred from seeking work at the factory, and no complaints on the subject have been received. The men referred to are believed to have been two of three who were parted with on the completion of a piece of work connected with the extra pressure at Christmas. Their discharge was not connected with the question of shorter hours. Having regard to the privileges of a fortnight's leave on full pay, and of an extra day at Christmas, which the carpenters in the factory enjoy in common with the other people there, their pay amounts to more than they would receive under the union pay rules, while the employment is steady and continuous. I believe that the circumstances of employment by the Board of Works differ from those in the Post Office Factory.

  CLERKS IN THE CENSUS OFFICE.
  MR. H. GARDNERfor Earl COMPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will explain why, although temporary clerks in the Census Office, appointed after open competition in February, 1891, were informed that they would be placed on the same footing as clerks of the second division as regards holidays and sick leave, towards the end of the year the Registrar General gave instructions
  566
  that pay during sick leave should be discontinued; and whether he will direct that the original promise to the temporary clerks, which was adhered to for about eight months, shall be fulfilled?
  SIR H. MAXWELL(who replied) said: In the printed conditions of the competition for temporary clerkships in the Census Office no mention was made of leave or sick leave; and the temporary Census clerks were not informed, either by the Registrar General or with his authority, that they would be placed on the same footing as second division clerks in the matter of holidays and sick leave.

  MR. JOHN CAREY'S PENSION.
  MR. HARRISONI beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the full rate of pension has been withheld from Mr. John Carey on his resignation of his duties as postman in and about Templemore, County Tipperary, owing to ill-health; if so, will he be prepared, in view of Mr. Carey's 24 years of faithful service, to recommend that he should in future receive the full rate?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Counting from the date of his permanent appointment—namely, the 11th of July, 1868, John Carey had served only 23 complete years, and in respect to this period he was granted the full pension of 23–60ths of his wages. Prior to the 11th of July, 1868, Carey served for about 13 months in a temporary capacity; but this does not count for pension.

  THE CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have received a resolution passed at a public meeting held in Sligo, and also one by the Grand Jury of the county, recommending among other things the establishment of a fish-curing station at Malaghmore, where a breakwater erected by the late Lord Palmerston exists; if the Congested Districts Board Inspectors have visited any portion of the county of Sligo, which has a coast line of about 60 miles, most of which has been scheduled under the

  567
  Act; if he is aware that most of the scheduled district contains a very poor population, who live mainly by fishing, and that no fishery pier of any kind exists along the coast; and if he will use his influence with the Board to put the Act in practical operation in the county of Sligo?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Congested Districts Board have received copies of the Resolutions referred to, and the recommendations made at the meeting mentioned shall be carefully considered by the Board. Local inquiries have been directed by the Board, who now await the necessary Reports.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE VOLUNTEERS.
  COLONEL EYRE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to give effect to the recommendation of the Volunteer Medical Organisation Committee, 6th November, 1888, in Section 42,
  "That the Medical Officers of the Volunteer Force should be placed on precisely the same footing as other Officers of the Volunteers regarding the distribution of honours and awards?"
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If the Volunteers ever take part in active service in the field they will be entitled to the same honours as the Regular Forces; but otherwise the only rewards now open to them are in consideration of long and efficient service in command of a corps.

  DELAY IN THE LAND COURTS.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why the case of James Perry, of Crieve, Barony of Cremorne, and County of Monaghan, whose originating notice was served March, 1887, to fix a fair rent, has not been disposed of; if he is aware that the case was listed for hearing January, 1891, when, after waiting four days, the tenant was told by the Court his case would be heard in a few days, which has been extended to the present time, and not yet disposed of; and if there is any redress for the delay, expense, and inconvenience he has been subject to?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners report that the originating notice in the case mentioned was dismissed by the Sub-Commission on 7th May, 1889. The tenant served a notice for re-hearing, and the case was listed in January, 1891, but the Commissioners were unable to reach it. The Commissioners point out that the tenant could not have been informed by the Court to the effect stated in the question, inasmuch as the sittings in Monaghan were arranged to continue for one week only. The case will be listed in due course for the first appeal sitting for the district; but no date has yet been fixed.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The tenants have great reason to complain of the manner in which legal costs are increased by the way in which cases are put at the end and held over.
  MR. MADDEN: We will do what we can to give facilities for the hearing.

  THE INNISMURREY ISLAND PIER.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what progress has been made with the pier that has been in course of construction on Innismurrey Island, County Sligo, and how much money has been expended on it; if it is intended to build a corresponding pier on the mainland to enable these poor people to land their boats; and whether he is aware that there is no place at present where they can land except the rugged coast?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: In connection with the relief of distress last year works were undertaken on Innismurrey Island for the making of a breakwater and clearing away boulders. The total expenditure there, including the making of some bridle roads, was £437. A further sum of £150 is being expended in completion of the clearing of boulders. The Government have no funds available for the purpose of building a pier on the mainland.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE MOUNTMELLICK UNION.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many labourers' cottages

  569
  have been erected, or are in course of erection, in the Mountmellick Union; how long is it since those now in course of erection were first applied for by the labourers and ratepayers; what has been the entire expense of the working of the Labourers' Acts in the Union since 1883, and how much has been paid in law costs and for fees to Clerks of Works; whether there are any actions pending against the Guardians in connection with the working of the Act; if so, by whom, and for what amounts?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Local Government Board state that they have received a Report from the Clerk of the Mountmellick Union, from which it appears that there are 24 cottages erected and ten in course of erection. (2.) It is over six years since the latter were first applied for by the labourers and ratepayers. (3.) The entire expenses of the working of the Labourers' Acts in the Union from 1883 to the present date is £5,162, of which £652 has been paid in law costs and £103 for fees to Clerks of Works. There are two actions pending against the Guardians in connection with the working of the Acts—namely. one by Clerk of Works for £416 18s. 9d. and the other by a contractor for £94 5s. There was also a decree given against the Guardians at the Quarter Sessions at Maryborough on Friday last for £8 and costs for damage to a young horse by a barbed wire fence inclosing one of the labourers' plots.

  PAPERS IN THE CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is a general Index of the Papers connected with the Chief Secretary's Office, by whom is it prepared and how checked, and what are the arrangements for transferring these papers from time to time to the custody of the Keeper of the Public Records in Ireland?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: "The papers in the Chief Secretary's Office are registered, and indexed from day to day by the Registry staff. They are subsequently removed from time to time to the Record Tower under the provisions of the Public Records
  570
  (Ireland) Act, 1867. When the records are 50 years old they are transferred to the Public Record Office.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I do not quite understand what is the check that prevents these papers from being destroyed.
  MR. MADDEN: They are registered in due course.

  EFFECTIVE SHIPS OF THE ROYAL NAVY.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table a Return giving a list of Her Majesty's ships fit for active service at sea, showing the dates at which they were respectively ordered, reported ready for sea, and first commissioned, together with the dates at which they have been paid out of commission and re-commissioned, and the stations and services upon which they have been employed down to the present time; also a similar list of ships which have been ordered during the last 25 years, and subsequently either sold, or broken up, or otherwise removed from the category of ships fit for active service at sea?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Return asked for would involve in its preparation very great clerical labour and considerable expense, nor is it quite clear for what object the Return is wished for. The hon. Gentleman will, however, find in Appendix 9 of the current year's Estimates particulars relating to the cost of every ship in the Navy arranged under the year of completion, and a further table giving the estimated annual rate of depreciation of the different classes of ships, and the annual amount of expenditure required for replacement.
  MR. PICTON: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that ordinary Members of Parliament find it quite impossible to trace the history of ships in the Navy; and whether he is aware of any method by which ordinary Members of Parliament can obtain the information they desire?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: As I have stated, the Return for which the hon.

  571
  Member has inquired would involve considerable time, trouble, and expense; but if the hon. Gentleman will come to me after the questions are over I will give him every information I can, and do whatever I can to meet his views.

  THE DEATH OF P. W. NALLY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is optional with Prison Governors in Ireland to allow or disallow prisoners to give evidence before a Coroner as to the cause of death within the prison and the prison treatment of a fellow-prisoner; and whether there is any precedent for the action of the Governor of Mountjoy Prison in withholding from the Coroner the knowledge that five witnesses were willing to give material evidence as to the cause of the death of the late Mr. P. W. Nally?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The hon. Gentleman, in the second paragraph of his question, requires information as to the ordinary course in such cases. I have not yet been able to obtain the information necessary to enable me to answer that question, and I must ask him to postpone it.

  THE CASE OF JAMES MURPHY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether James Murphy, now in Mountjoy Convict Prison, who was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude at the Winter Assizes of 1883 (Carrick-on-Shannon), is now entitled, according to the ordinary practice, to be released?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The General Prisons Board report that the convict referred to is undergoing a sentence of ten years' penal servitude imposed in December, 1884. In addition to this time he is also liable to serve a further period of 668 days, representing the remainder of a former sentence of penal servitude. Even if he had earned full marks (which he has not done), he could not become eligible for release under the rules for more than 18 months from the present time.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask whether a certain time is not taken off every
  572
  year for good conduct, and whether in that case this man ought not now to be liberated?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no doubt the proper calculation was made by the prison authorities, and I gather from their Report that the time has not yet expired.

  POSTAL SURVEYORS — PETITION TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, following the precedent in the cases of ten principal cities and towns in England, he intends to constitute the Postmasters of Belfast, Cork, and Limerick surveyors of their respective districts; and whether he has received from the United Kingdom Postal Clerks' Association a petition for reform of certain terms and conditions of employment in the service, and whether an answer has been given?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: (1) There is no such intention as is stated in the question. I may notice that the arrangement referred to applies only to three cities in England and one in Scotland. (2) With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, no such petition has been received, but I recently received a request by a second class sorting clerk asking whether I would accept a petition signed by the executive of the so-called association, and I replied that—
  "While ready to consider any petition that may be put forward by the sorting clerk in question, or by other Post Office servants in their official capacity and forwarded through their superior officers, I must decline to receive representations from an organised association not recognised by the Department."

  THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Mr. James Muir, Inspector of Poor, parish of Bothwell, who has in his charge two orphan girls, Rose and Mary Flannegan, now respectively 14 and twelve years of age, has removed the children from the Motherwell Workhouse, and refuses to inform their next-of-kin, namely, Mathew Flannegan, their uncle, and Elizabeth Flannegan, their grandmother, where the children are at present; and whether the uncle

  573
  and grandmother, being desirous to bring up and educate the children, are entitled to have the custody of them?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have not yet received detailed information as to the facts of this case, but I am informed that it is now under consideration of a Court of Law, and I am, therefore, precluded from giving the hon. Member any opinion on the subject.

  SUB-COMMISSIONS OF THE LAND COURTS IN COUNTY CORK.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the last sitting of a Sub-Commission for the hearing of fair rent applications took place in the County Cork, and when there will be another sitting?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners report that Sub-Commissions were continually employed in the County Cork from December, 1887, to the 22nd August, 1891. During this period there have been at times as many as six Sub-Commissions working in that county at the same time, and at no time less than two. No date has been arranged for the next Sub-Commission sitting for County Cork.

  THE RETIREMENT OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the limits, if any, to the operation of the rule whereby Irish Civil servants are compulsorily retired on attaining the age of 65; and what are the principles on which the Government has in some instances departed from the rule?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Bill referred to in the first paragraph of the question is, in its terms, unlimited as regards its operation. The Order in Council gives power to the Treasury, at the instance of a Department, to extend an officer's employment beyond 65 years on being satisfied that such officer's retirement at 65 would be detrimental to the interests of the public service, and in the few instances in which officers have had their employment extended
  574
  in Ireland this has been done solely on that ground.
  MR. MACNEILL: Would not the retirement of Sir Thomas Brady be detrimental to Irish fishery interests, and have not two Civil servants, Dr. Moffatt, of Queen's College, Galway, and Dr. Byrne, Divisional Police Magistrate in Dublin, declined to retire under the rule?
  MR. MADDEN: With respect to Police Magistrates I am not certain that the rule applies. At all events it does not rest with me. In the other case the question of the powers of the law has been raised, and a decision is pending.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Does the law apply to the Education Department in Dublin?
  MR. MADDEN: I believe it does.

  THE ARMAGH DISTRICT ASYLUM ARCHITECT.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the reasons for which Mr. John Boyd, C.E., who has been architect to the Armagh Lunatic Asylum for the past 24 years, has been recently suspended, and also the reasons for the appointment of Mr. Phillips, who is at present employed as architect to this Asylum?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: I am informed that the appointment of architect to the Board of Governors of the Armagh District Asylum is not a permanent one. Mr. Phillips was selected by recent resolution of the Board of Governors for the new works, and his appointment sanctioned by the Board of Control. The Inspectors have no means of ascertaining the motives which influenced the Governors either in appointing Mr. Phillips or passing over Mr. Boyd, who acted as their architect previously.

  THE OLPHERT ESTATE, FALCARRAGH.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Conaghan, the bailiff on the Olphert estate, at Falcarragh, in order to induce the evicted tenants to accept the landlord's terms, has gone round the estate protected by Sergeant Kenny and two

  575
  constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, threatening that he would pull down the roofs and raze the buildings made by the tenants, and from which they had been evicted, to the ground, if the tenants did not attend and accede to the terms offered by Mr. Olphert; that on Wednesday, 23rd March, Conaghan, with the assistance and under the protection of the police pulled down the houses of five tenants; and that when a man named Thomas M'Geever claimed as his property a spade and ladder found in Philip M'Cafferty's house, Sergeant Kenny took these articles from M'Geever, and handed them to Conaghan, by whom they were broken; and whether the police are authorised, not only in protecting Conaghan in this destruction of the tenants' property, but likewise in assisting and co-operating with him?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the bailiff referred to is under police protection. The protection party state that they did not hear the bailiff use any threatening language as alleged. The police deny that they gave any assistance in unroofing or pulling down houses, nor did they take or hand over to the bailiff the articles alleged.
  MR. MACNEILL: Were they protecting the bailiff and his companions when they were looting houses and burning them?
  MR. MADDEN: Certainly; I say they were protecting the bailiff.

  THE GARTAN ELECTORAL DIVISION.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will consider the propriety of including the Gartan Electoral Division in the list of congested districts in County Donegal, and also of establishing a creamery in some central place in the congested districts of the Letterkenny and Stranorlar Unions?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Congested Districts Board have received an application to recommend that Gartan should be scheduled as a congested district, and they are engaged in making inquiries as regards this and
  576
  many other electoral divisions. The suggestion that a creamery should be established at some central place in either the Letterkenny or Stranorlar Unions will be considered by the Board when they receive Reports of the inquiries that they have directed to be made with respect to the locality in question.

  THE GIBRALTAR SANITARY COMMISSION.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his statement as to the difficulty of securing influential ratepayers to serve on the Board of Sanitary Commission of Gibraltar, whether he will state what answers and reasons have been given by the gentlemen who have been asked and who have refused to serve on the Board under the Sanitary Order Amendment Order, 1891; and whether he will give the names of those who have been invited and have refused to serve?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS, Liverpool,): I think the House will agree with me that it would not be desirable in a case like this to state the reasons which weighed with these various gentlemen, at all events until their consent has been obtained; but if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to communicate with me I shall be happy to give him confidentially a statement of the reasons.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the names and occupations of the gentlemen who have been nominated by the Governor of Gibraltar as representatives of the ratepayers on the Sanitary Commission of the Colony?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The names of the gentlemen who have been nominated are Mr. Arthur Rugeroni and Mr. W. J. Sallust Smith, chosen from the list of Grand Jurors, Mr. Augustus Du Moulin from the list of Special Jurors, and Mr. Adolphe Van Andlau from the list of Common Jurors. Messrs. Rugeroni

  577
  and Du Moulin have resigned their seats on the Board. Mr. Van Andlau is the accountant of the Anglo-Egyptian Bank. The Secretary of State does not know what are the occupations of the other gentlemen.
  MR. SUMMERS: Are there two vacancies still unfilled?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Yes, they are; two gentlemen having resigned.
  MR. CAUSTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the nominations made by the Governor of Gibraltar of representatives of the ratepayers on the Sanitary Commission of the colony have been most unsatisfactory to the whole population?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No, Sir; I am not aware.

  THE CASE OF JOHN SWEENEY, JUNIOR.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with regard to the case of John Sweeney, junior, Kilgarvan, County Kerry, who was arrested on the 13th February, 1891, charged with the murder of Denis Harrington (a gamekeeper), Glengariffe, and who, having been 16 times remanded, was kept in custody for ten months, and ultimately released on his own recognisances, whether the Crown still retain a portion of his wearing apparel; whether he has applied to District Inspector Sullivan, Bantry, for the remaining portion of his clothes; and whether the Crown will restore him his property and compensate him for the injuries which he has sustained? The hon. Gentleman also asked what was the amount of the charge furnished to the Crown for the expenses of witnesses for the defence in the case of the Queen v. John Sweeney, junior, Kilgarvan, County Kerry, at the Cork Summer Assizes and Nenagh Winter Assizes last year, and what amount has been paid and when the balance will be discharged? The hon. Gentleman further asked whether in February, 1891, the police took possession of a gun and two dogs, the property of John Sweeney, senior, Kilgarvan; and, if so, by what right; whether they still retain possession of them,
  578
  and, if so, whether he will direct their return?
  MR. MADDEN: With the permission of the House, I shall now reply to the three questions of the hon. Member bearing on the same subject. The man mentioned was arrested on a charge of murder, was remanded twelve times, and was finally committed for trial at Cork Summer Assizes, 1891, where a true bill for murder was found against him by the Grand Jury. The man was subsequently released on bail at Cork Winter Assizes, 1891, to which the trial had been postponed, but at which it was not proceeded, with. The amount claimed as witnesses' expenses for the defence was £14 16s. 3d.; the amount found on examination to be admissible was £2 18s. 6d., which has been paid. The articles of clothing, the gun and dogs, were detained by the police as evidence in the case. The question as to their disposal is now being submitted to me by the Constabulary authorities.
  MR. SEXTON: What right have the Crown to keep the man's clothes which were so left?
  MR. MADDEN: They have a perfect right to take anything that they think may lead to identification, and it was on that ground that they were taken.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the man is compensated?
  MR. MADDEN: Oh, no, Sir; that is a very different story.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY OF SCARBOROUGH.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if the sheets containing the 25-inch Ordnance Survey of Scarborough are yet completed; and if not, if the work can be hastened in view of its urgency and importance to the municipal and sanitary authorities?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The sheets containing the Ordnance Survey of Scarborough on the 25-inch scale are not yet ready for publication, and I am unable to fix the precise date when they will be. But I am advised that in two months' time they will be suffi-

  579
  ciently advanced to supply tracings if necessary. The publication of these sheets shall be hastened as much as possible.

  MILITARY HEADQUARTERS, ENNISKILLEN.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it has been determined to remove for the future the military headquarters from the borough of Enniskillen to Londonderry; and, if so, will he state on what grounds?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The headquarters of the regiment will be removed from Enniskillen to Londonderry when barrack accommodation is ready, as being a preferable station on military grounds. A detachment will remain at Enniskillen.
  MR. JORDAN: I know very well that it is on military grounds, but that is a general term. I want to know on what grounds?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I can hardly be expected to give the hon. Member a full statement, but I will say that it is mainly because there is more suitable accommodation for barracks at Londonderry. A detachment will remain at Enniskillen.
  MR. JORDAN: How can there be better accommodation when there are no barracks built. I will repeat this question another time.

  MAIL SERVICE FROM DUBLIN TO WEXFORD.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that the mail train from Dublin to Wexford takes three hours and thirty-five minutes to perform a journey of 92 miles, and stops at 18 stations; if any other trunk line in the United Kingdom runs a mail train which stops, on an average, once in every five miles; if he is aware that numerous complaints have been made by the merchants and traders in the County Wexford as to the inadequacy of the present mail service; and if he is prepared to take any steps to improve it?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The statement as regards the running of the day mail train from Dublin to Wexford is correct. This is the less important of the two mail trains. There is one other trunk line upon which the mail train stops once in every five miles. Numerous representations have been made respecting the slowness of the Wexford service, and the Department has of late materially improved it by adopting special arrangements for sorting on the railway and employing additional force. Indeed, everything possible has been done to meet the complaints, made short of quickening the running of the train, and it is regretted that the additional outlay required for that purpose is far beyond what the circumstances would warrant.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will advise that any grant should be made, and, if so, to what amount?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am sorry to say there is at present a loss on the service, and it is impossible that more can be done to accelerate the time.

  NAVAL OFFICERS AND CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Exeter, as a Charity Commissioner, whether the Commissioners have yet come to any decision as to the claims of Naval Officers to have the customs continued by which a certain number of the children of Naval Officers were admitted to the foundation of Christ's Hospital by special presentation?
  SIR S. NORTHCOTE: The financial condition of Christ's Hospital during the present period of transition is not such as to admit of the imposition of any charges not authorised by the scheme lately approved by Her Majesty. When that period shall be expired the Commissioners will be ready to take the matter into favourable consideration.

  LORD CLANRICARDE AND HIS TENANTS.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Clanricarde at the beginning of last month seized a quantity of turf which belonged to another person who owed no rent to Lord Clanricarde on the holding of a tenant named Michael Gorman at Derryrulier, County Galway, without any order of a Court, but under a distress warrant issued by Lord Clanricarde's agent for rent due by Gorman; whether members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were employed to watch the turf for 14 days between the dates of seizure and sale; and whether, considering the danger to the public peace and the waste of property involved, he will refuse to have the police employed under such circumstances in future?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: I have nothing to say with respect to the action of Lord Clanricarde or his agent. I believe the police were not so employed.
  MR. CONDON: What were the police doing there?
  MR. MADDEN: They were engaged in their ordinary duties.

  SEIZURE OF A GUN BY THE IRISH POLICE.
  MR. ROCHE: (Galway, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give instructions to have Mr. Martin Egan, P.L.G., of Duniry, County Galway, paid the value of his gun, which was seized by the police in consequence of his licence having been revoked by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, or will he allow Mr. Egan to sell it to a holder of a licence?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: When the owner referred to surrendered his gun on 25th April, 1888, he asked to be allowed to sell it. This the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary at once assented to, on the condition that it should be sold to a duly licensed person. This permission still holds good.

  LOSS OF LIFE BY FIRES.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the loss of life by fire recently at Battersea, Fulham, Long Acre, and Westminster, he will consider the expediency of making it compulsory upon owners and proprietors of all business premises where employés sleep to provide adequate means of escape in case of fire; and whether, in view of the fact that there are simple and effective fire escapes, such as one Department of the Government have already adopted, and that "The Factory and Workshops Act, 1891," contains a clause for such provision where 40 persons are employed, he will take steps to extend this protection to cases where there are a lesser number of families and guests?
  MR. MATTHEWS: So far as the question of my hon. Friend refers to factories, I can only say that I have no information which leads me to think that the novel and special provisions against fire contained in the Factory and Workshops Act of last Session require amendment, or that the limit of numbers which was adopted by Parliament is not sufficiently low. I should not be prepared to introduce legislation making it compulsory on the owners of all business premises where employés sleep or upon the owners of private houses where persons sleep to provide, in case of fire, means of escape determined by Statute.

  THE IRISH CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that heavy loss is being inflicted upon farmers, cattle dealers, and Shipping Companies connected with Belfast and the County Antrim by the mode in which the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts are being applied in certain ports of Scotland; whether, in reply to the following question from Belfast—
  "Can cattle from this county (which is free from disease), accompanied by declaration and certificate, and landed from the steamer, at the Port of Ayr, into railway waggons, without trespassing on the shire or burgh of Ayr, and railed through to Fife, be admitted?"

  583
  the clerk to the Local Authority of Fife wired in reply, on Wednesday last, "No, cannot be admitted"; whether all the other ports used in the cattle trade from Belfast to Scotland are, like Ayr, closed against that trade at present, so that Irish cattle are shut out of Scotland because the Scotch ports are situate in infected areas; and what measures will be adopted in regard to a state of things injurious not only to the farmers of Antrim, who have a large surplus stock, with a scarcity of feeding, but also to the dealers, the Shipping Companies, and the farmers in Scotland?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am aware that loss—and I am afraid very serious loss—must have been inflicted on the various interests referred to in the first paragraph of the question, and I greatly regret it; but such loss is inseparable, I fear, from the measures which have been necessary to check the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. In reply to the third paragraph of the question, no port of either England or Scotland is closed against the Irish trade, but no animals of any description are allowed to leave one of the ports—namely, Glasgow—at present, because that city has recently been a dangerous centre of the disease, and I am advised that it would not at present be safe to open it; on the other hand, Irish cattle can be landed at Greenock, and passed through Glasgow without being untrucked to any other part of Scotland that is willing to receive them. I have no knowledge of the correspondence referred to in the second paragraph of the question; and if Irish cattle are not admitted into Fife it is not due to any regulations at the port, but to orders passed by the Local Authority, forbidding the entry of animals into their district for their own protection. It would be manifestly impossible for me to interfere with the discretion of Local Authorities in that respect, when, by doing so, I might be the means of introducing disease into their district. I am perfectly alive, however, to the immense importance of the Irish cattle trade; and I hope, if there should be no further outbreaks, the difficulties under which it is conducted at present will most of them disappear.

  H.M.S. "AURORA."
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the account in the Times of 1st April with reference to the breakdown of H.M.S. Aurora, is correct; if it is correct, who who were the designers and makers of the engines; whether the makers of the engines made any remonstrance to the advisers of the Admiralty, calling attention to the evident weakness of the piston rods to transmit the power; why were the piston rods renewed, and were they increased in sectional strength; and is there any clause in the contract with the makers of the engines making them responsible for any faults in the design of the engines, or are they relieved from any such liability?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The report in question is not correct. The facts are as follows:—During a recent full-power trial of the engines, certain defects were revealed which have necessitated an inquiry by the Dockyard officers. The Aurora has therefore been ordered home to Devenport, and will be replaced by the sister ship Narcissus. The size of the piston rods fitted in the engines of the Aurora was that proposed by the makers of the machinery, Messrs. Thomson of Clyde Bank, and was of a section equal to those fitted to engines of the same power which have been placed in four other vessels of the class. A piston rod was renewed in one out of the six cylinders in the Aurora to suit the new piston fitted at the Dockyard. The size was then increased one-sixteenth of an inch, but not on account of a supposed lack of strength in the original design. By a clause in the contract, the makers of the machinery were responsible for its efficiency for a period of twelve months from the date the ship was first commissioned.

  LEADING LIGHTS TO HARBOURS IN ORKNEY AND SHETLAND.
  MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what arrangements the Government have made for erecting in the course of the year leading lights to harbours in Orkney and Shetland, and particularly

  585
  at the entrances to Kirkwall Harbour, Scalloway, Vaila Sound, and Balta Sound?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I have to inform the hon. Member that the Board of Trade have given their sanction to a light being placed on Helliar Holm at the entrance to Kirkwall Harbour. The question of erecting the other lights referred to is now under the consideration of the Government, and it is hoped, if the necessary funds are voted by Parliament, to proceed so far as may be possible with the construction of the lights on the coasts of Orkney and Shetland on the lines recommended by the Commissioners.

  THE DEATH-RATE IN GIBRALTAR.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House what was the death-rate in the civil and military populations of Gibraltar during the years 1890 and 1891?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State has called for the information desired, and it will be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as it has been obtained. The death-rate for 1890 among the military population (including officers, men, women, and children) was 6·30 per 1,000. The particulars for 1891 have not yet been received.

  COMMISSIONER JOHNSTON AND THE SLAVE TRADE.
  MR. A. E. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Despatches have been received from Commissioner Johnston detailing his operations against the Slave Trade on Lake Nyassa both at Makanjilas and M'Ponda's Towns?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): No Despatches of the character referred to by the hon. Member have been received from Mr. Johnston. There is, however, reason to believe that two at least of his Despatches have miscarried, and not reached this country. Yesterday, however, a telegram was received at the Foreign Office from Consul-General Johnston, dated
  586
  Zomba, 8th March, to the following effect:—stating that he had just received further news from Mr. King at Fort Johnston (opposite M'Ponda's). His reason for attacking Zarafi was that the latter had recommenced slave raids against the people on the River Shiré, with the assistance of a large caravan of slaves from Kilwa on the East coast. One Zanzibari is reported killed and some of the Indian troops; Mr. King and six men were wounded. Commander Kean, of Her Majesty's gunboat Herald, had gone to take command at Fort Johnston, and reported on the 3rd March that all was well there, and that M'Ponda was thoroughly loyal. His orders were to remain only on the defensive. It appears that on Zarafi's side 32 men were killed, including seven or eight of the Kilwa traders, his brother Khamisi and his Swahili councillor Barghash. In spite of the fact that our men were repulsed, no attempt had been made by Zarifi to follow up his advantage, and he had retired to the hills. There was no trouble in the district anywhere, but at the south-eastern end of Lake Nyassa. Everywhere else there was peace, and trade was increasing.

  THE EAST AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.
  MR. A. E. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of Her Majesty's ships employed in the Slave Trade suppression service on the East Coast of Africa?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: All of Her Majesty's ships on the East Coast of Africa are in possession of warrants, and have full authority to act in the suppression of the Slave Trade. In the neighbourhood of Zanzibar and Pemba there are three third-class cruisers; on the rivers Zambesi and Shiré, two steamers; at Aden and the neighbourhood, one third-class cruiser; and in the Persian Gulf, one third-class cruiser. I may, however, observe that these vessels have other duties to perform besides the suppression of the Slave Trade.

  FRENCH AND SCOTCH STEAM TRAWLERS.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many

  587
  French and Scotch steam trawlers are now off the coasts of Galway and Mayo?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have not particulars at present available to answer this question, but are making inquiries. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would be good enough to defer it for a week.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I will repeat the question on Thursday.

  PORTAL VETERINARY INSPECTORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the responsible and important duties discharged by the Portal Veterinary Inspectors in Ireland, he is prepared to recommend the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to grant such a suitable superannuation allowance to these officers as is customary in other branches of the Civil Service?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The Portal Veterinary Inspectors accepted their appointments with the full knowledge that they were not entitled to either pension or gratuity on ceasing to hold office; and it is not proposed to alter the conditions of their employment.

  THE KENMARE FISHERY DISTRICT.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Griffin was fined at the Petty Sessions Court in Sneem early in March for removing gravel from the River Onreagh at Inchmaleega, in the Kenmare fishery district, a place from which the public have had the right for the past 50 years of removing gravel; and whether he can state on what grounds Griffin was fined?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: I am informed that the man named was fined at the Petty Sessions on the prosecution of the Conservators of the Kenmare fishery district for having removed gravel from the spawning beds of salmon. People are only prevented from removing gravel from these rivers during the close season for salmon.

  LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order that the House may be informed of the whole amount of taxation, local as well as Imperial, borne by the country, and of the distribution of the burden between real and personal property, he will arrange that a general statement on local taxation and debt, and on the increase and decrease of rateable values, shall be made this year in connection with the Budget; and, if not, whether, on some other occasion, a Ministerial Statement will be made on the growth of local expenditure and indebtedness, so as to afford the House a suitable opportunity of considering the subject?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have consulted my right hon. Friends most directly concerned on the subject of this question, with every desire to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend if it should be found practicable. But I understand that the great complexity of local expenditure, the very large number (28,000) of the Local Authorities from which accounts have to be obtained, and the length of time necessarily involved in auditing these accounts, make it impossible to present to the House the expenditure of Local Authorities for the year preceding the Budget Statement.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of my question—whether the Government will give the House an opportunity on some other occasion of considering this subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand it has been the practice in previous years to make some such statement as this upon the Second Reading of the Local Funds Bill; but that practice has been discontinued, and I am not aware that it met with any great favour in any part of the House.

  MINING ROYALTIES.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Woods and Forests Office to reduce the royalties on gold and silver in

  589
  Ireland to 1 per cent., as they have done in the case of the Welsh gold mines; what was the reputed value of the gold obtained by the peasants and landowners in the County of Wicklow about the year 1796, immediately preceding the Government taking possession of the mines; what was the value of the gold obtained by the Government after the mines were taken possession of and worked by the Crown; what was the amount of money expended by the Government in erecting barracks for the soldiers and for officers' quarters and works, which were burnt down by the residents and rebuilt, and then again burned down as a protest against the action of the Crown; and has any attempt been made from that time to this to open up these mines by the Crown or any other persons; have any leases been granted in Ireland to work for gold and silver (these metals being the property of the State), with an absence of conditions to work; and, if so, in how many cases and on what terms; and, if so, what area of land is owned by such lessees; does he intend to insert any provisions in the Bill which he has before the House for the management and regulation of the Woods and Forests Office which will deal with the administration of the possible gold fields of Ireland; and how many leases are now in existence for working gold and silver in Ireland, and what area of land do such leases embrace, and how many men are employed in the undertaking?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The hon. Member almost asks for an historical treatise to be given across the floor of the House. The arrangement for the reduction of gold-mining royalties to 1–100th only applies at present to the Morgan Mine. Where similar conditions are present, similar treatment will be given to mines in any part of the United Kingdom, but the case of each mine must be considered separately. As regards the historical questions in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, the hon. Member will find information with regard to the Wicklow Goldfield on p. 211 of the third Report of the Mining Royalties Commission, but I do not know that it would be possible
  590
  now to give some of the particulars for which he asks. The answer to the fifth and sixth paragraphs of his question is in the negative. In answer to the last paragraph, three leases are now in existence for working gold and silver in Ireland, embracing an area of 5,535 acres. So far as is known, no men are at present employed in working for gold and silver in this area.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the reduction of royalties promised by the Government from 1–30th to 1–100th in respect to the Morgan Gold Mine will apply retrospectively, so as to allow what has already been paid or charged in excess of one per cent. against any future royalties?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The reduction of royalties in respect to the Morgan Gold Mine will not apply retrospectively. I have stated that it was granted to secure a modus vivendi, and to avoid the alleged necessity for the dismissal of labourers, and not because the sliding scale previously offered was inequitable. I therefore see no reason why it should apply to the past. The company have themselves to blame if they did not accept a reduced scale of royalties earlier.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is within his knowledge that large quantities of auriferous and argentiferous ores from foreign countries are treated in Swansea and other places; whether the Crown can claim any royalty upon the production of gold and silver from such ores; and whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the productions of mines within the United Kingdom free competition with foreign productions?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The official Returns do not distinguish the imports of auriferous and argentiferous ores, but I believe that some gold and silver is extracted from foreign ores at Swansea and other places. The Crown is not the owner of this gold and silver, and, therefore, can claim no royalty upon it. I understand that by the last paragraph of his question the hon. Member expresses a desire for the abolition of royalties. I would remind him that

  591
  the whole subject is at present under consideration by a Royal Commission.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state what the difference is between the royalties in Wales and the royalties in Ireland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: There is no difference between the royalties in Wales and the royalties in Ireland.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government recognise the fact that the imposition of revenue upon mineral products in this country handicaps the producer?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think that is an argumentative question which must be left to the consideration of the Royal Commission.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the royalty is five per cent. in Ireland and one per cent. in Wales?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Considering that no ore is being extracted from minerals in Ireland I fail to see how that would be possible.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Neither is there likely to be as long as the present exactions in the form of royalties continue.

  THE CASE OF JAMES HANDLEY.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, in considering the case of James Handley, aged about 15, now under sentence of death for murder at Wicklow, will take into account the precedents for commutation, on the ground of youth, afforded by the reprieves of Constance Kent many years ago, and of George Davies, aged 16, reprieved in April 1890?
  MR. MADDEN(who replied) said: The case referred to is under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant. His Excellency will have regard to all the circumstances of the case before coming to a decision.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
  592
  whether he will inform the House what he proposes to do with reference to the suggestion that certain Police Courts, in the Metropolis should be re-arranged, with a view to the establishment of a Police Court in St. Pancras?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is my intention to refer to a Departmental Committee the question of the proper number and limits of the Police Court Districts of the Metropolis. It must not, however, be understood that this committee will be appointed necessarily with a view to the establishment of a Police Court in the St. Pancras area, where the Police Court business is not exceptionally heavy.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL FINANCE.
  MR. J. STUART: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury have recently refused to sanction a loan by the London County Council to the Holborn Board of Guardians, for a period of 30 years, repayable on the annuity system, and have stated that, unless the system of repayment by equal annual instalments of principal be adopted, the period of the loan must be reduced to 25 years; what other cases there have been in the last six years in which the Treasury have refused to sanction a loan by the Metropolitan Board of Works, or by the County Council, to a Board of Guardians, for buildings, or the acquisition of freehold sites, repayable in 30 years on the annuity system; whether it is the case that, during the three years of office of the late London County Council, 22 such loans were sanctioned by the Treasury for sums amounting in all to £201,200; and what is the reason for which the Treasury have made a new departure in the present instance, in connection with loans to Boards of Guardians?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The facts stated in the first paragraph of the question are correct. It is the case that a certain number of loans to Boards of Guardians on the annuity system for 30 years were sanctioned by the Treasury during the terms of office of the late London County Council; and I am not aware that any such loans were refused. The action of the

  593
  County Council, in endeavouring to adopt generally the annuity system, called the attention of the Treasury to the matter; and, upon careful consideration of the two systems, the Treasury came to the conclusion that, under similar conditions, repayment by annuity should extend over a shorter period of years than repayment by instalment, inasmuch as the annuity system throws a heavier burden on posterity, and, until the whole loan is repaid, affords no relief to future ratepayers concurrently with the imposition of the fresh burden which they will undoubtedly have to bear. The new departure to which the hon Member alludes was made in accordance with this conclusion.

  INSPECTOR BLACK, OF BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will by courtesy state, has Mr. Black, late Inspector of Police in Birmingham, had a writ issued against any newspaper for the publication of alleged defamatory statements concerning him?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by Mr. Black's solicitors that they are in communication with the proprietors of the newspaper with respect to the libellous statement made against their client; and that unless by to-morrow their client receives the satisfaction which he is claiming, a writ will be issued by them on his behalf for libel.

  THE GRESHAM UNIVERSITY.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to announce the names of the Royal Commissioners to whom the question of a teaching University for London (the Gresham University) will be referred?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is able to state the terms of the Reference to a Royal Commission on the question of University education in London, and the names of the Commissioners?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to be able to give a complete list of the names of the Royal Commissioners on
  594
  next Thursday, and I shall then give the terms of the Reference in the same statement.

  THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS(for Mr. J. E. ELLIS,): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when it is proposed the House should adjourn for, and re-assemble after, Easter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can give no explicit or satisfactory assurances on the question of the Easter Recess as to when, and for how long, the House will adjourn at Easter. The House will remember that last year they separated, I think, on the Thursday before Good Friday, and met again for the transaction of important business on the Thursday of Easter week, thus having only a week's holiday. I hope we shall not be so much restricted this year; but that, of course, must partly depend upon the course of business between now and then.

  THE QUESTION OF DISSOLUTION.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the precedents cited in May's Parliamentary Practice, page 678 (edition 1883), according to which it has been usual, in anticipation of a Dissolution, to take only part of the Estimates, leaving the remainder to be voted by the new Parliament; and whether, in view of these precedents, the Government will refrain from asking for more than half the amount of the Civil Service Estimates?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The practice to which the hon. Gentleman refers hardly appears, so far as I understand, to support the suggestion conveyed in the question. Several illustrations are mentioned by Sir Erskine May of special circumstances under which Votes on Account had been taken, and in four of these the Votes preceded the Dissolution, and in none of them would the facts afford a precedent appropriate to the present condition of affairs.
  MR. PICTON: I should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman does not remember that in three of the cases the Dissolution occurred after the date at which the House is now sitting, and

  595
  only half the Votes were taken before the Dissolution?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but in 1841, 1857, and 1859 the Government had been defeated upon a Vote of Want of Confidence before the Vote on Account was taken. But the hon. Member will have observed that that has not yet occurred.

  A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: On Saturday last a Special Report of the Select Committee on the Hours of Railway Servants, together with the evidence, was circulated to hon. Members, from which they will have seen that the Committee have reported that a certain railway servant, John Hood, was dismissed by the Directors of the Cambrian Railway Company mainly in consequence of charges arising out of the evidence which he gave before the Committee last year, and for which he was subsequently called to account and censured by some of the Directors and by the Manager of the Company. As Chairman of the Committee, I wish to give notice that it is my intention to call the attention of the House to that Report as a question of Privilege. Since that Report was presented the Committee have had before them two other cases in which it is alleged that certain railway servants belonging to the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants have been dismissed from their offices in that Society, or otherwise injured, on account of the evidence given before the Committee. The Committee are now examining these cases, and will, I hope, shortly decide whether or not they shall make a Special Report upon them. Therefore, I do not now name a day upon which I shall call attention to this first Special Report, because I think it would be for the convenience of the House and fairer to all parties that the whole subject should be considered together; but I hope there will be no unnecessary delay in the matter.
  MR. CHANNING: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Special Report already presented is not in itself an absolutely complete document dealing with the whole of the evidence relating to certain specific cases; and whether he is not aware that a Report of this
  596
  kind upon which a Motion of Breach of Privilege may he based, might, if indefinitely postponed, prejudice, if it did not oust, that Report from its position in the ordinary proceedings with regard to Privilege; and whether it is usual that a Report of a Committee such as this, which is admittedly complete and final in its character, should be indefinitely postponed on the chance of other questions which have been brought before the Committee being similarly reported on at a later stage of the Session? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to re-consider his decision; and whether, in re-considering his decision, he will not name the earliest possible day for dealing with the Report in accordance with the usual course in cases of Privilege?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I apprehend, Sir—but of course it is not a matter on which I can give an opinion—that no delay in dealing with the subject could oust it from its position as a question of Privilege; and that whatever time the House may decide to deal with it, it will still retain its position as a question of Privilege. On the other question of the hon. Member I will say this: The Special Report already presented deals with all the cases of alleged intimidation that have been brought forward by one side. The Committee are now engaged in considering and taking evidence upon other cases of the same kind which have been brought forward by the other side; and, as Chairman of the Committee, I think that both these cases should be considered together, instead of the House being asked to entertain the question of Privilege on two different occasions.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have been very much surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk of "sides" in this matter. It does not seem to me to be a question of "sides" at all. As I understand a breach of the Privileges of this House is supposed, or alleged, to have been committed by certain persons; and I see no reason why that matter should not be considered at once by the House without entering upon a question of recrimination between sides in the matter. It seems to me we ought as far as possible to avoid the consideration of what the right hon. Gentleman has called "sides"

  597
  on this question, and deal with it impartially as a matter relating to the privileges of this House. I do not know what your view of the matter is, Sir; but I have always understood that it is a fundamental Rule of this House that questions of Privilege should always be brought forward at the earliest possible moment, and for reasons that are perfectly obvious. I confess I see no reason why this case should be made an exception to that Rule, and more particularly on the grounds suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ROBERTSON: I should like to ask you, Sir, as a point of order, is it not a Rule of this House that no reference should be made here to proceedings before Committees upstairs until the Committee have reported to the House? The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a fact known to him and to the Committee, but not known to the House, as to certain proceedings now taking place.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Committee have reported upon a case which they think touched upon Privilege, and that they are now discussing another case, which might also be one of Privilege, and that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss them together. I know nothing of the special case before the Committee; but as to the question of Privilege there must, of course, be no undue delay in the discussion of such a question. The Privilege, however, will, of course, adhere to the question when it comes before this House.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not know whether I need put what I have to say in the form of a question, or that I need enter into the matters upon which the questions of Privilege arose. There is, however, a remarkable distinction between them, and that is, that one of them was brought forward and reported upon to the House before the other was actually started. I do not know whether that bears upon the question under discussion; but, considering the length of time which it took the Committee to deal with the first question of privilege, I think it is extremely probable that
  598
  several days, and possibly two or three weeks, will intervene, and that Easter will arrive before this second question, which was started after the other question, can be reported upon and dealt with by the Committee.
  MR. MORTON: May I ask you, Sir, whether it would be in order for any Member of this House to bring a question of breach of privilege before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Any Member can bring such a question before the House, but it would be for the House to decide whether it should be dealt with.
  MR. CHANNING: In regard to the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the questions put to him, I would submit that the proper person to act in these matters would be the Chairman of the Committee, and I still hope that he may re-consider his decision; but in consequence of his reply I shall have to consider with some reluctance whether I shall not put down a Motion that this Report be taken into consideration on Thursday [Several hon. MEMBERS: No; to-morrow] — well, then, to-morrow, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make a similar Motion himself, in which case I would of course most gladly give way to him. There seems to be no justification whatever for postponing the consideration of these questions of privilege, with which the House is in a position to deal without delay.
  MR. MORTON: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with you; and supposing that the Chairman of the Committee should neglect what you seem to consider to be his duty in this matter, I will bring the question forward myself, that is, of course, if the hon. Member for Northampton does not do so to-morrow.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: As one of the Members of the Committee I join with the hon. Gentleman in the expression of the hope that the Chairman of the Committee will move in the matter without delay. We have already presented a Special Report, which suggests that a breach of Privilege has been committed, and consequently I consider the time is now ripe for dealing with it. I would also venture respectfully to suggest that the

  599
  Chairman of the Committee would be the best person to deal with it.
  MR. M'LAREN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken into consideration the fact that, in addition to the cases he mentioned, another case was brought before the attention of the Committee which cannot possibly be inquired into until after Easter. There seems to be quite a vista of these cases coming before us.
  MR. PHILIPPS: I should like to ask why, as in the case of the forged letters to the Times, the question of privilege should not have been brought forward to be dealt with as soon as possible after the offence had been committed?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no sort of parallel between the cases.

MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (MORNING SITTINGS).
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)rose to move—
  "That so much of the Order of the 3rd of March as prescribes that Financial Business and proceedings on the Introduction of Bills shall be the principal business at Morning Sittings be rescinded."
  I think that the House will agree that, with the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) on the Paper, it would be useful to make some progress with it in Committee before we enter into the consideration of any other business. I therefore hope that the House will unanimously grant the Government the very small privilege for which they now ask. I ought to advert to the circumstances that when I first gave notice that I would bring forward a Resolution of this kind I had hopes myself, and I had led others to hope, that the first business we should take this evening was the Committee stage of the Small Holdings Bill; but, as the House knows, the Debate on the Equivalent Grant for Scotland on Thursday last took more time than was anticipated, and I was very anxious to meet the wishes of gentlemen from Scotland, who, I am
  600
  sure, did not wish to delay business by prolonging the Debate. I thought it was the general wish of the House that we should dispose of the Second Reading stage of that Bill before we proceeded with any other business. I am quite conscious of the fact that some small inconvenience may and must result to hon. Gentlemen who take a keen interest in the Small Holdings Bill, and who wish to proceed with it without delay; but they will see that in this case the Government have not the control of the time of the House. Those who are most anxious with regard to the Small Holdings Bill will agree as to the undesirability of leaving the Second Reading of the Equivalent Grant for Scotland Bill in suspension until after Easter. I hope this arrangement will assist the House in dealing with the business which is before it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That so much of the Order of the 3rd of March as prescribes that Financial Business and proceedings on the Introduction of Bills shall be the principal business at Morning Sittings be rescinded."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. MORTON: I entirely object to this Resolution. We understood when we gave up the Morning Sittings to the Government that the time should be used for purposes of Supply. I have no objection to parts of the days being taken for Supply, but if they are to be used for other purposes I shall oppose it. It is "the same old dodge" as has been played on other occasions. Supply is to be put off until the end of July—supposing the Government are then in office—and then it will be rushed through in the middle of the night. I want to see Supply taken as early as possible in the Session, and regularly, so that it may be properly dealt with. We have had the Ordnance Vote before us on one or two occasions, and, so far as I can see, the right hon. Gentleman does not care to have that matter properly discussed. I dare say there are some people who wish to hush up the Enfield scandal, or what may be more properly called the Enfield and Birmingham scandal altogether.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is the hon. Member in Order now in discussing the Ordnance Vote?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's argument is to the effect that Supply should not be postponed.
  MR. MORTON: That is entirely what I intended to show, Mr. Speaker. I will not detain the House now by further reference to the Enfield and Birmingham scandal. I will only say that unless the Government give way on the question of compulsion, the Small Holdings Bill will be a farce, and that I shall oppose this Resolution.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I presume that if the Resolution is agreed to, the Small Holdings Bill will be the only one that will be taken on Tuesday and Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will certainly not take any controversial Bill.
  MR. D. THOMAS: Would the right hon. Gentleman regard the Clergy Discipline Bill as of a controversial nature?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We shall not take that Bill.
  MR. SEXTON: I hope that the Irish Education Bill will not be sprung upon us.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will not be sprung upon the House; I mean that I will give full notice of when it will be brought before the House. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not here now, and I do not wish to say anything more with regard to it in his absence.
  MR. SEXTON: We should certainly object to its being taken at a Morning Sitting.
  MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask whether the Scotch Private Bill would be considered controversial?
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. .)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [31st March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. PROVAND: I consider that the answers given by the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General the other night in regard to the objections raised to this Bill were altogether meagre and inadequate. Therefore, I trust that they will this evening be properly dealt with. The only justification which the Government could put forward as sufficient for their own proposals was, that if the Scottish people had had a full opportunity to consider the measure and had made up their minds on the subject, this Bill represented their mature opinion. But Scotland has had no opportunity of considering it nor of coming to a final conclusion. It has been stated in this Debate that there had been a demand from Scotland for this money, and the Lord Advocate said he had weighed carefully the reasons placed before him by the Public Bodies in reference to the allocation of the money; but these statements come too late. There was no demand whatever from Scotland for any assistance to the local revenues from the Imperial Treasury. Not a suggestion has been made of this kind from Scotland, and these reasons which the Lord Advocate speaks of having carefully weighed were put forward by different bodies who already knew that they were to share in the money, and their only object was to obtain as large a share as possible. Of course, when £265,000 has to be given away claimants are numerous, and therefore Parochial Boards, Town Councils and County Councils, University reformers, and Secondary Education advocates have all put forward their demands, and I have observed that no inconsiderable part of the money asked for by the advocates of increased secondary education will be required for a pension scheme which has been proposed. The Solicitor General also told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received many deputations asking for this money, but here again these deputations were never heard of until it was decided to assist local objects from the Imperial Treasury. It is a repetition of the case of three years ago when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to set aside a large sum from the Treasury for turnpike roads. Not a word had

    603
    come from Scotland asking for this money until the proposal was made. Not even by those who would have benefited had any demand been made upon the Treasury for such assistance. Further than this, so far as I can judge of the feeling of the only public meeting held in Glasgow, the public there do not want the money applied as it is proposed to do in the Bill. At this meeting they considered the first demand on the money should be to free from fees the remaining schools in Scotland in which fees are still collected, and that a further sum should be used to supply school books to certain pupils under certain circumstances, and that the balance should be handed to the Councils with, in effect, a free hand as to dealing with it. The scheme has been attacked from this side of the House on many different grounds, and no adequate defence has been made to these attacks, nor has there even been any reasonable explanations given. An absolutely strong case has been made out that it is inequitable to relieve local rates, which are largely landlords' liabilities, from Imperial taxation, which is to some extent collected by duties on food and other articles chiefly used by the working classes; property being, therefore, under these circumstances, to be relieved at the expense of the poorer classes. Another omission has been the absence of any scheme dealing with secondary education. There are something like £200,000 per annum available in Scotland at the present time for this purpose, and we were clearly entitled to a complete statement respecting this amount, the particulars of which could not be so well collected by any private person as they could by the Government. We are told that the £60,000 to be given under this Bill for secondary education will be distributed by the Scottish Education Department according to a plan which will be laid on the Table of this House. But when will such plans come up for consideration? After 12 o'clock at night in a tired House when every Member is anxious to get away. There never has been an adequate discussion of any question of this kind which came up so late. The only satisfactory statement made was that a portion of the money will be
    604
    applied to evening continuation schools. Even the friends of this measure have criticised it adversely. The hon. Member for South Lanark (Mr. Hozier) has said that the Councils and other Bodies who are to receive the money approve of the scheme, but what could you expect from them but approval? Is there the smallest likelihood that those to whom the money was to be paid would object to taking it? The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Parker Smith) says that the allocation is one which he would not have made if he had had the disposing of the funds. This is a finance Bill and is far more the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than of the Lord Advocate, but not one word of defence or explanation has been offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to the objections that have been made to it. From what he has said on previous occasions we however gather that he believes in the principle that local improvements should not be altogether met by local assessments but should be assisted from the Imperial revenue. This principle is bad and would be repudiated by most financiers. Why should a person be taxed on food in London to assist the carrying out of a public improvement in Glasgow, or the other way about? Why should money raised by Imperial taxation in Scotland be applied to local works in London? The principle is a wrong one and all local wants and local improvements should be met entirely from local sources. I would also draw attention to the gross unfairness of the way in which the money is to be divided. The counties will get very nearly half of the whole amount, although the burghs represent about £12,250,000 out of the £15,500,000 which is the rateable value of Scotland. If the money was divided as it ought to be, the burghs should receive three-quarters of the whole amount instead of only half, and the counties should receive a fourth instead of the half. There is no doubt that the scheme is inadequate and that the rates are unfairly divided between the burghs and the counties. Another objection to this Bill is that it makes the settlement of the money permanent and disables the House from hereafter altering the

    605
    destination of the money without the consent of the House of Lords. Municipal and County Councils should have a free hand in disposing and applying money. I think the first charge on this sum should have been the freeing of those Board Schools in which fees are still collected. Altogether the Bill is unsatisfactory and I shall vote against the Second Reading; but if any hon. Member will propose a Resolution to the effect that for this year the money should be voted in the Civil Service Estimate, in order that further time may be given to the consideration of the question, I shall support the Amendment.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: Sir, everyone must feel that the Government will have very great difficulty in passing this Bill through Committee in its present shape. The objections of the Scotch Members are not whimsical or factious, but spring from a real knowledge of Scotch needs, and the very great interest they feel in them. I venture to think I see the root of this difficulty and how it can be met. There are many Members who see it, but who have not put it in definite shape. In the first place, some Members wish to have a great scheme of secondary education for Scotland. Other Members want to spend this money in the relief of rates. Most of the Members, perhaps all the Members, who want a great scheme of secondary education will vote against the Bill, and the Members who, like myself, think that the money is due to the ratepayers will for the most part vote for it; but with earnest representations to the Government that they should give careful consideration to what has passed in Debate, and that they should so alter the Bill as eventually to secure its being accepted with something like unanimity by the Scotch Members. I want to defend my position against those who sit behind and around me that this money is due to the localities in the same proportion as they pay rates. Have hon. Gentlemen considered this, that the Scotch ratepayer in his character of taxpayer contributes his share of the two millions of Probate Duty would goes to pay English ratepayers rates? Therefore, unless he gets his share of the Probate Duty as
    606
    a ratepayer he will first pay the Englishmen's rate and then his own, so that there will be a distinctly and undeniably differential tax upon the Scotch ratepayer. My hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen said the demands for relief of rates come from England and not from Scotland. I do not see anything in that argument, because, wherever the demands come from, the money which goes to satisfy those demands comes just as much from Scotland as from England. And when my hon. Friend in a beautiful figure said that the tempter held out gold, it is his own gold, gold which he himself contributed, and of which he ought to have the benefit. I have done with the controversial part of my speech. There is only one fair and just way of dealing with this money, and that is to give the whole of it to the people in the various localities to do with it exactly what they wish, and it is because this Bill establishes that in principle more than the proposals put forward on this side, and especially that this Bill can be easily altered to carry that out in practice, that I shall vote for the Second Reading; but I earnestly hope that after the Debate the Government will see their way to alter it. Now, Sir, it is proposed to give some £60,000 for the purpose of secondary education. That is either too much or it is too little. It is too much for those localities which do not wish to spend any of this money on secondary education. It is most unjust to cut out a lump sum of £60,000 for secondary education, and to cut out a lump sum of £30,000 for the Universities out of the money which a community like Glasgow themselves thought should be altogether given in relief of rates. And here, Sir, I wish to put in a protest most distinctly against what I regard is the most demoralising and the most unstatesmanlike proceeding of allotting a certain fixed sum of money to a locality and saying to that locality it must spend that money on one special purpose or not at all. That leads to bad administration, and it leads to extravagance. But, Sir, I say that this money is far too little from the point of view of those who want to have a system of

    607
    secondary education established which will be worthy of Scotland. I have gone into this question very carefully and although I will not go into details now, I should like to ask the House to take the case of Aberdeenshire which has been so well represented in this Debate. Under this Bill Aberdeenshire will get £3,300 for secondary education. What is that for a community of 300,000 persons and something like 90 School Boards. My right hon. Friend opposite me the Member for Berwickshire, informs me that in the county which he represents the endowments for secondary education do not amount to £100, and what a farce it is to offer Berwickshire £700 or £800 a year to set up a system of secondary education. The thing is in fact a mere sop; it is not a scheme. I have no doubt the original intention of the Government was to give the whole of the money to the rates; then they thought, and I do not blame them, they would be paying due respect to the general wishes of the Scotch Members in giving something to secondary education. I think, Sir, the sum is insufficient, but I protest against giving it to communities for secondary education when they do not desire it for that purpose at all. What should be done is to let Aberdeenshire have its £17,000 or £18,000 to spend either on secondary education or anything else that Aberdeenshire likes; to let Berwickshire have its £3,000 to spend on secondary education or anything that Berwickshire like. Now, Sir, I earnestly urge the Government to consider whether they would not be actually saving time if they brought in such a Bill for Scotland as was passed for Wales in the course of two or three Sittings. In the Welsh Act the County Council is authoritative, it gets all of the money, it appoints the Education Committee, and nobody is taxed for secondary education unless with the authority of the County Council. Counties can join in bringing forward a scheme, and the endowments of the county instead of being dealt with by a body of gentlemen at a distance are dealt with by the locality itself and afterwards submitted to the Charity Commissioners. Now, Sir, look at the advantages of that scheme; firstly, it
    608
    is left to the County Council to say whether they will spend this money: secondly, let the House consider the advantage that arises in the matter of endowments. Nothing works worse than the turning over of whole endowments in Scotland to secondary education, because these schemes are made in Scotland by a body of gentlemen living outside the localities concerned. When the schemes are presented to Parliament, the objections to them are noted down by gentlemen who probably were never within a hundred miles of the place to which they refer. Now, Sir, if the House passed a Bill like the Welsh Bill, the locality itself would deal with these endowments, and any scheme that they might propose would have attached to it all the weight and authority of local public opinion. This would be very valuable in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which do not want to spend this money on secondary education. In Glasgow they have enormous endowments already. Glasgow and Edinburgh would be very glad to have this power, naturally they each like to be mistress in their own household, and they ought to be so. They ought to be able to spend their money on exactly what they know to be in harmony with local wants. That being so, the Government should meet, what I do believe, after having carefully listened to the Debate, to be the wish of the Scotch Members, by putting, at least, £60,000 and the £30,000 from the Universities into Sub-section 5, and then enlarging the two last objects to which the money might be applied from merely local rates to secondary education, and to every object to which this windfall, as some hon. Members have been pleased to describe it, can be applied. Now, Sir, several hon. Members, and notably the Member for North Aberdeen suggested several of these purposes, among them parks, halls, art galleries, and public libraries, wash-houses, and so on. Now, Glasgow does all this already, and when you apply the money in relief of public rates you do apply it to these purposes. Besides, there are the public baths and wash-houses, which are greatly appreciated and much used: most admirable establishments for laundry purposes,

    609
    where, at a charge of 2d. per day a poor woman can wash her linen in a laundry that, with all the requisites and accessories, would, if belonging to a country house, would cost some £200 or £300 to provide. The gas and water are in the hands of the community, whilst the poorest of the poor have the immense advantage of having the passages leading to their homes lighted with gas free, and can get an abundance of excellent water in public places. You may call this socialism. If socialism means working for the good of society I do not object to the name. You may call it communism. If communism means spending money for the common welfare, then it is a most desirable thing. Glasgow and the other great cities in Scotland, by using so well the money they have already got, have shown the House that they will use well any money they will get under this Bill, and if you want to secure that that money is well spent you can only do it by accepting the great principle of letting people settle for themselves what their local wants are, and giving them absolute command over their own resources.
    MR. PHILIPPS: I have not heard anyone in this Debate attempt to answer the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, who showed to demonstration that indirect taxation comes very largely from the pockets of the poor, while taxation is paid by the rich. By this Bill the Government propose to take money obtained by the taxation of the poor and spend it in benefitting the rich. Now, Sir, no one Member of the House has attempted to answer, as I said, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, and I think on the whole it was wise, because the speech of the hon. Member was unanswerable. The Solicitor General for Scotland did attempt to deal with it in one small way. It was said by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen that a number of small ratepayers would under the Government scheme only get something like a few pence—something under 1s., and the Solicitor General said he objected to treat the question of the relief of rates in that way, protesting that you cannot measure benefits of that kind by
    610
    pounds, shillings and pence. But, Sir, whatever benefit a man may receive in the remission of rates, surely he is entitled to measure it as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, and in no other way. Hon. Members opposite who spoke in favour of the Bill, say they believe the Bill to be a popular one, and if we are to judge by the circulars received from the Local Boards and Local Authorities, it seems to be very popular indeed. But, I am sure, Parochial Boards do not represent my own constituency in this matter. It is only natural that Parochial Boards should like to spend money which they do not raise by taxation; but look at the extravagance which is sure to occur if we introduce this principle of giving Public Bodies money to spend which they do not raise by taxation. Unless there is a check there is sure to be extravagance and waste. Hon. Members opposite have expressed their gratification that they are on the popular side in this matter. The Member for South Lanarkshire and the Member for the Stewartry perfectly enjoyed the prospect of at last having got hold of a popular question; but, Sir, I am not by any means sure that their view is the popular view. It may be popular with those who do not understand that they are taxed on their whiskey, and their tobacco, and their tea, to get back these few pence on their local rates. I should like the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lanarkshire, when explaining this Bill to his constituents, to make a quotation from the speech of the Minister of Agriculture last year on the taxation of land. Here is what the Minister of Agriculture said—
    "The occupier pays a certain sum for the use of the land, and in that sum are included the rates as well as the taxes. If the rates are high he gets less rent, and if they are low he gets more rent, and I maintain it would not be difficult to show that ultimately the whole of the rates fall on the landowner and on nobody else."
    Sir, in view of that quotation it is established that the Conservative Leaders admit that the relief of rates benefits nobody at all except the landlords. But, Sir, the Minister of Agriculture went on to say—
    "I maintain if there is any question of altering the taxation of land, we claim with full justice, and can produce arguments

    611
    making good our claim, that we are entitled to a decrease rather than an increase of the taxation on land."
    Sir, that speech was made last year, and the Government are now trying indirectly to reduce the taxation on land. If money raised by taxation is given to the relief of the rates, indirectly the taxes upon land are reduced. I have no desire to speak for anybody except my own constituents, but I should say that if there is any one thing on which the great majority of Scotchmen are united it is this—that the taxation of land ought to be made heavier than it is at present. That is the view taken by a very large section of the Scotch public, if not by a very great majority; and yet the Government by this Bill are indirectly relieving the burdens on land and taking taxes off the land. The Solicitor General twitted us the other night with not trusting the Local Bodies in which we professed to believe. But, Sir, everybody on this side has said the money should be given to the Local Bodies, to the Town Councils, and to the County Council to be dealt with according to their discretion, and it is the Government and not those sitting on this side of the House who are either afraid or unwilling to trust the Local Bodies. Now, various uses have been suggested for this money that is dedicated to the relief of rates. There are, for example, free libraries, parks, recreation grounds, where they are required, and in my own constituency I would suggest another object—namely, the establishment of free hospitals for accidents, a most deserving public object to which the public might most justly contribute. Most of all I would have liked to have seen some portion of this money devoted to starting a scheme of national pensions. We are nearly all opposed to this Bill for paying over the money towards the relief of local rates, and I do wish the Government would even now accept our proposals, and would give this money to the Town Councils, and to the County Councils to be dealt with by them according to their discretion.
    MR. C. S. PARKER: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, at the beginning of his speech, complained that no answer had been made
    612
    to the speech of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. I confess, for my own part, I have regretted that throughout this Debate there has never been present the one person from whom that answer should have come—namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Bill raises two questions on the Second Reading, one a question of finance and the other a question of education. I think it very important that the House should understand from others, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here to say it for himself, what is the plain and unmistakable financial policy of this Bill. I take it that it rests upon this assumption, that the Imperial taxation of this country is, upon the whole, fairly distributed between the rich and the poor. If it is not so fairly distributed, certainly the fault lies as much upon this side of the House as upon that, because every year we have revised the taxation of the country, and always, in my recollection, in favour of the poor. But with that you have to combine the fact that local taxation falls exclusively upon land and houses, and that on the other hand the benefits of it do not accrue exclusively to the owners of land and houses, but to a certain extent to the general population. The policy of this Bill is to take money coming from taxes supposed to be fairly divided between the rich and the poor, and to apply that money so that the part of the community who pay nothing or next to nothing in rates shall as taxpayers contribute for local purposes from which they benefit. And when we remember that in England, Wales, and Ireland, money from the taxation to which Scotland contributes has been already so applied it is tolerably obvious why the money should be applied on a similar principle under this Bill. Scotland must have its share; the only question is in what form will Scotland take its share? Three years ago the position was much the same. Scotland was then about to receive her share of the grants in aid of local taxation, but the feeling throughout Scotland was so unanimous in favour of free education that both sides of the House agreed that the money, instead of being applied for relief of the rates

    613
    exclusively, should be applied for free education. If that was a right thing to do three years ago, may it not be a right thing now to meet the general wish of the people of Scotland by granting aid to higher education? Now I wish to add my appeal to the Government that they would consider in Committee on this Bill the giving of liberty to Local Bodies to apply this money at their own discretion. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Stirling Burghs intimated that if the Government saw their way to meet us on this point it might in some degree mitigate the objections to the Bill. And, in reply, the Solicitor General for Scotland I understood to say, without absolutely committing the Government—
    "The Government were very anxious to meet the wishes of Public Bodies, and, therefore, they would gladly consider any proposition which reached them from those Public Bodies for allowing a certain measure of elasticity in dealing with the money which was to be applied so the reduction of the rates."
    Secondary education, as defined in this Bill, might be another object besides technical education, and it might be a subject for consideration in Committee whether we should not include still further objects. Perhaps I might be allowed to say a few words on the subject of secondary education. For my part I congratulate the Government and Scotland generally on the fact that this Bill is at least one step in advance. It is true that the money under the Bill is quite inadequate for a general scheme of technical education; and it is left rather vaguely to an executive department to manage. But the Bill marks a step of progress which is of special interest to me, because I happen to be a Member of a Committee charged by the Government with an inquiry into secondary education. We had an opportunity two or three years ago of hearing exactly what was wanted by those most interested. We took a great deal of evidence, and ventured to make certain recommendations, and of these perhaps the boldest was that there should be Government grants for secondary education. In this Bill it is distinctly laid down that there should be Government grants for secondary education.
    614
    Also the one definite proposal in the Bill with reference to the expenditure of these grants is connected with another recommendation of the Committee—namely, that there should be Government examination of these secondary schools, and leaving certificates to certify the progress of these schools.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: Would the hon. Member allow me to point out that leaving certificates are limited to a very few schools.
    MR. C. S. PARKER: The question of extending leaving certificates to other schools is of course a definite question which I should be very glad to consider. The mode in which the Government propose to apply this new grant of £60,000 is very simple, it is by capitation grant to all schools which are willing so to make their arrangements that the average fee shall not exceed three pounds per head. But the Government evidently propose to retain, to a great extent, the fees at present payable, and which may be considered market prices as between the parents and the schools. And that leads to a difficulty more felt in this House than by those practically engaged in education, the difficulty referred to by the right hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs as to providing some free places. In the first place, I should like to know from the Government whether I am right in supposing that the free places they propose are such free places as were recommended by the Committee—namely, open to children educated in the ordinary schools, and who should be chosen according to their deserts. If that be so, I think it removes many objections that might arise if it were supposed that free places were to be given on the ground of poverty by Parochial Boards. The Lord Advocate mentioned the precedent of such schools as Eton and Winchester, where poor boys sit side by side with others who are paying full market price. But we need not look to England for precedents. Scotland has boys sitting side by side some of whom pay fees and others of whom do not. In old times it was the common practice for those who could afford it to pay fees, while others might attend school without paying fees at all.

    615
    And such is the practice in Edinburgh in the Merchant Company's schools and Fettes College, and in almost every large town in Scotland at the present time. I would appeal to hon. Members not to be dominated by an unpractical sentiment that it is against democratic equality that some children should be paying more and some less in the same school. If all the fees are high, the poor will be shut out; if all the fees are low, the funds of the school will be mischievously curtailed. I must express my satisfaction that secondary education is not to be recognised in secondary schools only, but also in rural schools throughout the country. But I see the Government do not propose to introduce it in every parish, and that they calculate on only 5,000 children in country schools. Nor have they said anything of secondary education in evening schools. In one thing it seems to me the Bill is most deficient—namely, organisation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton suggests how that might be met. But I am afraid his suggestion is not at the present time practical. He proposes that the whole money should be simply placed at the disposal of the County Councils and Parochial Boards, and that simultaneously there should be a Bill for Scotland on the lines of the Welsh Intermediate Education Bill. But what works the Act in Wales is the large Imperial subsidy, whereas in Scotland we should be dependent for funds on Local Bodies each in their own district. However, it might at least be an open question in Committee in what proporions the total sum is to go amongst these Bodies, and, further, the Bill might give County Councils and Parochial Boards a wide discretion, and especially powers to apply the money to technical and secondary education.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: The speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and the operation of microscopic balancing which he has been performing, somewhat resembles that experiment of which you, Sir, were a witness on Saturday morning with regard to the metric standard. No doubt the operation was exceedingly interesting; but the uninitiated mind of the
    616
    ordinary Member will be totally unable to discover exactly what the hon. Member wants to be at, or which side he intends to support.
    MR. C. S. PARKER: I am in favour of the Bill.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I am exceedingly glad to hear it, but I am not sure that any of my hon. Friends who sit around me would have arrived at that conclusion from the speech of the hon. Member. There has been considerable variance of opinion with regard to the attitude to be assumed as to this Bill. It has been said that Glasgow took a different view of this Bill to that taken by most of the Liberal Scotch Members of the House. We have recently had three speeches from Members for Glasgow, and I think a short examination of those speeches will show that the Government have little indeed to rely upon if they think they will get support in Committee from those hon. Members for Glasgow. There was the speech of the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Provand), who has not had his financial orthodoxy clouded by the savoury smell of the flesh pots of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has told us he would vote against the Bill, both on account of its principle and on account of its details. Then we had the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron), who stated that he objected entirely to the principle of the Bill—that it was not a question of a principle being violated, but a question of how certain money was to be distributed. I think that was a very unfortunate position to take up, because I always understood the Second Reading of a Bill was the occasion on which you should take up the question of principle, and that, therefore, my hon. Friend would have been amply justified in voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.
    DR. CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. I said this was a question of taxation and not merely a question of distribution.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: This Bill never would have appeared before this House if it had not been that a principle was violated, and the whole Bill hangs upon the violation of that prin-

    617
    ciple. Then the hon. Member for the College Division stated that he took exception to our criticism of the details of the Bill, because he said other Members talked a great deal about further aid to education in Scotland, but they in Glasgow did not want such aid because they had £800,000 of capital value of endowments in Glasgow. That, no doubt, is a very good argument so far as he is concerned; but I did not hear him follow that up by saying on the part of Glasgow that they repudiated their share of the £60,000. That would have been a very practical suggestion. But I should like to recall to the hon. Gentleman's mind the fact that in the year 1882, on the Educational Endowments Bill, he was one of a small majority of Members at whose instigation that Bill was considerably restricted, and who were the means of preventing the endowments attaching to certain districts in Scotland being made useful for Scotland generally; he took a parochial view of those endowments instead of a national view, and instead of doing something to make the endowments for education in Scotland available for the people of Scotland generally he did the reverse. I would call attention to a single Amendment in Clause 7 which was made, and which limited the scope of the section. The words were "to provide for higher education in Scotland," but the word "Scotland" was omitted, and the words "those localities to which the endowments separately belong" were inserted instead. Therefore, the scope of the Bill was much limited. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton took up a position diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member for the College Division, because, while condemning all the details of the Bill, he was absolutely the first Member who has spoken during these Debates who ventured to defend the relief of the ratepayer at the expense of the general taxpayer. He looked upon the ratepayer and the taxpayer as the same person, and said, "You are only taking gold out of the pocket of the taxpayer in order to give it to the ratepayer, therefore that is perfectly fair and honest." But that is exactly what we say is not a fair proceeding, and we find fault with this
    618
    Bill on account of it. We say you have no right to go to the taxpayer, who pays a certain proportion, and hand it over to a totally different body—namely, the ratepayers, from whom the money is levied in different proportions for different purposes. It is perfectly well known that to relieve the ratepayer must, to a large extent, relieve the landlord. Therefore, by a contribution from the general taxation of the country by this proposal—you are going to a large extent to relieve one particular class instead of the whole general body. For my own part, I have no hesitation in opposing this Bill, both on the ground of principle and on the ground of detail. The principle, I maintain, is a bad principle, and is bound to produce evil results. No Scotch Member, I am sure, can remember so much lobbying, log-rolling, and interviewing as there has been with regard to this particular Bill. We have been assailed by Parochial Boards, by School Boards, Town Councils, and County Councils; the Lobbies have been full of such deputations. Hon. Members opposite argue that that shows these various bodies are very much in favour of the Bill. I take leave to object to that idea altogether. As a matter of fact, there is only one matter that these various bodies are generally agreed upon, and that is, that the matter should be dealt with immediately, and that it should be made permanent. They naturally want to make sure of their money in a definite proportion from year to year. Then, with regard to other matters, so far from being united in one view, they are of many minds. School Boards, Parochial Boards, Town Councils, and County Councils have each wanted the money for their own purposes; it has been a general game of grab between these various bodies as to who should get the most money. I object to the Bill both on account of what is in it and on account of what is left out of it. This Bill actually confirms and stereotypes the existing state of things. Scotland, like England, ought to get ten shillings per head for her scholars, whether she gains or loses by such an arrangement, and not have her grant fixed by the number of attendances by

    619
    school children. Then there is the sum given for education of £60,000. That has been gone into at great length, but I think everyone agrees that that sum is much too small. There is the sum of £30,000 for the Universities — again a proper disposal of money, but not a proper disposal of this money, because we maintain that the Universities of Scotland are a national institution, and that it is from national funds these Universities ought to be supported. With regard to the £50,000 for Parochial Boards, we object to that sum, because we say Parochial Boards are not elected bodies, or are only so in a very small proportion, and that they are not bodies to whom the distribution of public money should be given. With regard to the £100,000 to Town and County Councils, we say it should not be confined to the relief of rates, but that Town and County Councils should have a free hand given them in the matter. I wish to point out that after all this gift of £100,000 to the Town and County Councils will not relieve the rates at all, but will only be the cause of greater expenditure. I pointed out on the First Reading how very small was the relief which would go to the individual ratepayer, and I was somewhat taken to task by some Edinburgh friends on the Corporation. They said they did not intend to apply the money to the relief of the rates, but to effect further improvements. That is not relieving the rates; it is putting money in the hands of various bodies to be used, doubtless, for proper purposes, but that will not relieve the rates. The general defence of the Bill by hon. Members on both sides does not rest on the merits; on the contrary, hon. Members have been most frank in saying that they dislike the Bill in most, if not all, of its details. The hon. Member for the Partick Division (Mr. J. P. Smith) made an excellent speech against the Bill, as did also my hon. Friend the Member for Peebles and Selkirk (Mr. Thorburn), who said if he had the distribution of the money he would treat it in quite a different fashion. But they all defended the Bill on the ground that it was the best that could be done, and that
    620
    it was in the nature of a compromise. It seems to me that to defend a Government Bill on the ground that it is a compromise is no great compliment to the Government that brings in the Bill. It is quite true that a compromise cannot be altogether perfect, but I maintain that this compromise is neither totus teres nor rotundus—it has neither perfection, smoothness, nor rotundity about it. If my right hon. Friend opposite really looks upon this as a compromise, I would suggest that he should be prepared to come to something like a compromise with us in regard to some of the details. If he will agree to some such compromise as I shall propose, he will find the passage of this measure much simplified and very much eased. There are, I think, three salient points to which exception has been most generally taken—first, the smallness of the sum for secondary education; next, the giving of public money to Parochial Boards; and, thirdly, the want of a free hand in dealing with the money that falls to them by the Town and County Councils. My suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should take the £50,000 which goes to Parochial Boards, and add that to the sum for secondary education, bringing the sum for that purpose up to £110,000; and that then—of course, I am not now going into the details of how the money is to be expended; that will require further consideration—he should add to the clause giving the money to Town and County Councils a rider which would leave those bodies free to deal with the money in such manner as they think fit. Or, if that were considered to give too much power to those bodies, it might be arranged that they should frame schemes for the use of the money, and that these schemes should be approved by the Secretary for Scotland. I make these proposals in all good faith, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that giving his assent to them would greatly facilitate the passage of the measure.
    MR. CALDWELL: The Bill deals with an annual payment to Scotland of £265,000, representing a capital sum of between seven and eight millions, and it also deals with the important

    621
    question of secondary education. A great controversy has arisen as to whether these questions should be dealt with by Bill or Resolution of the House of Commons. The argument in favour of proceeding by Bill is that the Local Authorities would have a feeling of permanency in regard to the grant made in the Bill. This £265,000 is paid out of the Imperial taxation, but hon. Gentlemen on the other side have spoken as if it were a windfall to be disposed of as the Scotch Members desire. The money must be raised annually by taxation, and the universal practice of Parliament has been, when grants are made out of money raised by taxation, that the grants should be placed on the Estimates, and a Vote taken annually on the purpose to which the money is applied. That was the course pursued with respect to the Road, Police, and Lunacy Grants for years, and no one doubted the permanency of the grants if the money were really required. If, therefore, there is any feeling of insecurity among the parties interested, it is because they fear being able to convince Parliament of the necessity of voting the money from year to year. By proceeding by Bill you stereotype the grant, as was the case with the Lunacy and Police Grants, which were made permanent and stereotyped in the Local Government (Scotland) Act. In the Estimates the sum voted was proportioned to the expenditure, but since the amount has been fixed it has become utterly inadequate, and, as the Lord Advocate has admitted, £25,000 less than it would have been if it had remained in the Estimates. It is a principle that the House of Commons alone should have the power of determining from year to year how the money raised by taxation shall be applied, and the intention of the Government by this Bill is to deprive the House of Commons of its undoubted right to criticise the expenditure of the money, and to give the House of Lords a joint interest—a veto as it were—in the allocation of this money by the House of Commons. I object to that principle. The Government also brought in the House of Lords in the allocation of the Probate Duty in the Local Government Bill, and the Government argue that they
    622
    are doing the same now as they did then; that is to say, that they are following their own policy. Curiously enough, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the first to introduce a Separatist policy with regard to finance. His policy has been to divide the Imperial accounts into accounts for England, Scotland, and Ireland in the proportion of 80 per cent. to England, 11 per cent. to Scotland, and 9 per cent. to Ireland. This money having been ear-marked for Scotland, the question is how is it to be applied? It is a hard thing to say that the Conservative Party, which has only 12 out of 72 Scotch Members, should claim the right to legislate and permanently allocate by Bill this £265,000 of Scotch money. The Government are a complete minority in Scotland on this matter. There are, it is true, 15 Liberal Unionist Representatives for Scotland; but, whatever their individual views, the question of the allocation of this money was certainly not one on which they are called on to differ from the Liberal Party. We shall find that the Government will carry the Bill, a purely Scotch matter, against the wish of the Scotch Representatives. I decline to support legislation which in any way controls the absolute right of the House of Commons to dispose of money raised by Imperial taxation. Another objection I have to the Bill is that it introduces the principle of grants in aid of local rates; but I shall only refer to that to say that Glasgow has just promoted a Bill to alter the incidence of taxation by placing part of an improvement rate on the owner, while this Bill proposes to relieve property at the expense of the people. The grants lead to extravagant expenditure, as the Local Authorities use them for purposes for which they would not care to assess the community. It has been pointed out that the Bill takes the money from the poorer classes and relieves the wealthier classes. The Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. A. G. Murray) said that as the money came from the Probate Duty it did not come from the poorer classes. It does not matter what particular part of the Imperial taxation you apply to the relief of local rates—the result is the same. If the money voted to the relief of rates were retained

    623
    there would be a surplus of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 a year in the National Exchequer, and the probable result would be that we should get a large reduction of taxation. The £265,000 a year is not, properly speaking, an Equivalent Grant for Scotland, but a grant from the Imperial Exchequer for the purposes of education; the object, therefore, of the Bill ought to be to encourage education. These grants have hitherto been capitation grants, and, as England gets 10s. per child in average attendance, Scotland is entitled to exactly the same treatment. The absurdity of the Government proposal is that in calculating the grant they did not take into account the school attendance at all, but they make the payment depend upon the amount paid to England, whether the attendance in Scotland is increased or not, and Ireland, which has more children to educate, gets only 9 per cent. as against Scotland's 11 per cent. Therefore Ireland, which is the poorest country and requires most help, gets the least help. The pecuniary result, so far as Scotland is concerned, will be the same whether we have 10s. per child or the Government proposal; but Scotland is entitled to be paid on results, and the greater the number of children the greater should be the grant, and the smaller the number of children the smaller the grant. There is also an unnecessary complication in the Bill, that which provides that any increment above the £265,000 is to go to the Local Authorities. I wonder the Government did not see the absurdity of introducing this complication, because the Parochial Board has to make up any deficiency in the school funds, so that if the sum be greater than £265,000 there will be just that amount less for the Parochial Board to assess. In consequence of the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom the Government have been forced to adopt a certain forward policy in England. In consequence of the claim of Scotland for free education England claimed it and the Government were forced to provide it. There are important principles in this Bill, which, if given effect to in Scotland, will be claimed by England. The first is that the Government ought to subsidise
    624
    secondary education, and the next is that you introduce the principle of popular representation in all schools which get the benefit of the Imperial grant. This proposal was strongly resisted in the English Bill, but if it be adopted now it will be impossible to resist its application to England. The question of secondary education can be better dealt with in Committee than now, but most of the speakers from Scotland, including the Lord Advocate, seem to have proceeded on the erroneous view, that education in Scotland is merely elementary and as if secondary education were and ought to be something distinct from it. I would point out that the parochial schools prior to 1872 were schools which had secondary education as their object and aim, and they were the feeders of the Universities of Scotland. When the Education (Scotland) Act of 1872 was passing through this House and the House of Lords hon. Members were very jealous for this secondary education, and in that Act the word "elementary" does not occur; but there is a special clause to the effect that the standard of education in Scotland shall not be lowered. It is admitted on all sides that secondary education has been on the decline in Scotland. What are the causes of it? The cause is not the growth of elementary education. The Scotch Education Department, instead of carrying out the law, and giving the larger grants to encourage secondary education, give larger grants to elementary subjects and in that way make it to the interest of the teacher to abandon secondary education and devote his attention to elementary subjects, from which more money could be derived. In that way the action of the Department, which was a violation of the Act of Parliament, caused this falling-off of secondary education. There is also another reason. The policy of the Department has been to drive private enterprise almost out of the field. In Glasgow, in a radius of four miles, there is a population of 800,000, and yet there are only 800 children whose fees are paid by their parents. If you take away the secondary department from the ordinary public school in Scotland, the effect will be that you will lower the tone of the

    625
    public school and the prestige of the teacher.
    DR. CLARK: I do not know whether the Lord Advocate intends to say anything in the course of this Debate, but I think we have a right to know why we are not having a real and proper equivalent. We were told last year when a large sum was voted for England that an equivalent should be given to Scotland. This is not an equivalent, for we lose by it to the extent of £5,000, and Ireland loses to the extent of between £50,000 and £60,000 a year. Why should we not get 10s. a head on the average attendance in the same way that it is paid in England? I object to the Bill on two grounds—first, because I do not believe that the eleven per cent. Estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is accurate. I will believe it when I see it in Committee; but when I find that for three Sessions running we have been promised a Committee and have not got it, I know that the Government do not want a Committee, and they do not want their facts examined. I say also that the Scotch Members do not accept this proposal as fair and accurate. We object that the less progressive country should determine the equivalent for the more progressive country. Scotland is passing on more quickly than England to the time when all the children who ought to be at school shall be at school, and we ask why should you tie the more progressive country to the more backward one? We want to know why we should be robbed of our £5,000, and why we should have our education retarded by the slower growth of England? We also want to know why you have adopted this system of valuation, and in that connection I will point out that in the northern counties of Scotland, where there are large districts of land which is not of much value, this will press very hardly, and they will not get a fair equivalent. For instance, if Caithness received this grant according to population instead of according to valuation, it would receive nearly 50 per cent. more I must also make a protest with respect to this grant of £30,000 to the
    626
    Universities. Three years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Bill by which for a sum of £42,000 yearly we were to give a full quittance for the maintenance of the Scotch Universities and you will find in the Vote this year this sum is put down as a full acknowledgement of the duty of the United Kingdom to Scotland for the maintenance of the Universities. I voted against that, and I shall vote against this, because there is a principle involved. When Scotland entered into the Union there were three or four special institutions which we wished to be preserved, and amongst them was the Universities. When the Scotch Members came here first they had only one vote more than the County of Cornwall, and they made a treaty on behalf of these special institutions. The Lord Advocate the other day declared that to maintain these Universities meant their extension. That may be a clever quibble but it is not a fair argument. You undertook to maintain them and now you say it is a bad principle. But we shall not accept the proposal, and circumstances will soon compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take that insult off our Estimates and to bear honourably and fairly the burden taken over at the Union. If you were giving up education in England something might be said in favour of the argument of getting rid of Scotch obligations, but you have been endowing Universities all over the country. (Cries of "Divide.") Some of my Liberal Unionist Friends are calling for a Division, but I would remind them that this a matter of great importance, and if they wish to preserve the Union they should take special care that the obligations which were entered into at the time of the Union are faithfully observed. We hold that the maintenance of the Scotch Universities is a burden which you took over with poor unfortunate Scotland and you must carry it out, and I consider that the attempt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get rid of it was mean and contemptible and dishonourable. With reference to the other provisions I object to them all. I object to the scheme of secondary education because it leaves out technical and scientific

    627
    education, and it refuses to give a single penny to continuation or night schools. This money will go to the middle-class schools. The hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) spoke of a way in which this Bill will affect Glasgow, and said that this money which he is most anxious to get will mean 2s. 6d. to every ratepayer in Glasgow. What are the real facts? The valuation of Glasgow is £5,405,000, and Glasgow's share of this money will be £14,203. That will be something like 1d. upon the valuation, but in Glasgow 76,435 of the ratepayers pay only one-tenth of the rates. That is because ratepayers below £10 only pay half-rates, and these people I have mentioned will receive only an average of 4½d. with a maximum of 8d. and a minimum of 3d. But those people who pay the rates will receive an average of 4s. 6d. which will begin at 1s. and go up to several pounds. To the landlords it will be a great boon, but to the working men who returned my hon. Friend it will not mean more than 4½d. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) is coming round on this matter, but I may say that in the county districts the proposal will not work at all. The people will be able to apply the money to the relief of taxes alone, and they wish to construct piers and harbours but cannot get the money. I do not wish to prevent the House going to a Division now, but we shall break down the conspiracy of silence when we get into Committee. The Front Bench now declines to say a word, but when we get the Bill into Committee we shall insist on full information being given.
    (9.45.) Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 169; Noes, 111.—(Div. List, No. 66.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL—(No. 183.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. COBB, in rising to move—
    628
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert clauses in the Bill creating Parish Councils by popular election for the purposes of the Bill, and conferring upon such Councils initiatory powers of acquiring, selling, letting, and managing land for small agricultural holdings,"
    said: I have purposely limited the issue in the Instruction I propose, so as to make it a very narrow one. I will not go into the question of compulsory purchase or of leasing, or other controversial points. I will deal with the simple question, Is it desirable to create popularly elected Parish Councils with initiatory powers of acquiring, selling and letting land for small holdings? It is obvious that the success of any measure having to do with small holdings, allotments, or any kindred subject must largely depend on the authority which has to carry out the powers given by the Act of Parliament. The question is, which is the best authority? There arises, too, another important question, whether that authority should have control over a large area or over a small one? In answering these questions we have some experience to guide us. We have the experience of the working of the Allotments Act, for, after all, the supply of allotments, so far as the area is concerned, is similar in principle to the supply of small holdings. In the electoral campaign of 1885 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said in one of his speeches that whether it was five acres, or ten acres, or 20 acres, or even more, it was only a question of degree: the principle was precisely the same. In fact, there is no magic in acreage, and I think everyone will agree with me in this—that if the Local Authority is fit to be trusted to take the initiative in regard to the supply of allotments, it is equally to be trusted in taking the initiative with reference to the supply of small holdings. As the House knows perfectly well, in the Allotments Act of 1887—and I am speaking now of absolutely rural and agricultural districts, with which I am far more familiar than with towns where there are County Councils—the authority is the Rural Sanitary Authority, or what is more generally known as the Board of

    629
    Guardians. I do not wish to raise tonight, in moving this Instruction, the question as to whether the Allotments Act has been a success, or whether it has been a failure—I have my own opinion as to that, and I have expressed it more than once in this House—but there is one thing that will be generally admitted, and that is, that the authority under the Allotments Act is not a satisfactory authority. I might quote the best opinion we have in this House upon that point, that is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I remember that on the Second Reading of the Allotments Act Amendment Act in 1890 he distinctly said that the Board of Guardians had been proved not to be a satisfactory authority for administering the Act; and indeed the whole reason why the Amendment Act was brought in was because it had been proved over and over again throughout the country that the Guardians had not done their duty in the administration of that Act. When the Allotments Act of 1887 was in Committee we, who are sitting on these Benches, repeatedly pointed out that the Boards of Guardians would be an inefficient authority, and why? We urged—and I think it has been proved since to be true—that Guardians coming from different parishes which are not near each other must be ignorant as to the interests of the parishes except of that from which they are sent. It is impossible for Guardians under such circumstances to be competent to administer the Allotments Act. It is essential in all matters affecting localities that those who have to administer any Act should have local knowledge; and my own experience has proved that there is no matter which requires more accurate and more special knowledge than that of supplying land for allotments and small holdings. The land is naturally of more interest to the people living in the villages than any other subject. The whole lives of the labourers have been identified with it and spent upon it, and they have for years and years been longing that the day will at last come when they will themselves benefit from the land which they have cultivated with their own hands, by either renting it or owning some
    630
    of it themselves. Now how is this to be done? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, in the speech which he made in December, 1889, in Manchester, used these words in answer to the question as to how you are to enable labourers to get land either for allotments or small holdings:—
    "You must go to the doors of the men who are immediately concerned. You must get from them, and from their immediate neighbours, the fullest advantage of local knowledge."
    I quite agree with that, and I say you will not get that knowledge from Boards of Guardians. It is not too much to say, without questioning the usefulness or non-usefulness of the Allotments Act, that it has proved that Boards of Guardians have not sufficient knowledge to enable them to carry out that Act of Parliament. In 1890 the hon. Member for Hornsey said, from the opposite Benches, whilst discussing the Amendment Bill which was brought in by the President of the Local Government Board:—
    "There is no disputing the failure of the Act of 1887. … The causes of failure are the large area of the authority and the remoteness of the meeting place."
    I entirely agree with that. It must be evident that the class which is really interested in getting allotments is not represented on such Boards. How much stronger then must be the objections to the larger area of the County Council? The President of the Local Government Board quite recognised that when introducing the Allotments Bill in 1887. The right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his speech:—
    "We think that the area of the county is too large."
    The hon. Member for Bordesley, in the numerous Bills he has brought in—and we thank him for the trouble and attention he has given to this question in past years, when it was not so popular as it now is—adopted not the larger authority of the county, but the authority of the Boards of Guardians, and where there might be District Councils he adopted that authority. Now, the District Councils would have the same area as Boards of Guardians, which has been proved under the Allotments Act to be too large an area. Therefore, we must have some smaller authority

    631
    for the purpose of administering the Acts, and it is clear that Parish Councils ought to be established. They could not be established in every parish, I admit. In one parish in my own constituency there is only one ratepayer and only five inhabitants, which consist of that ratepayer and his wife and children. It would be ridiculous to have a Parish Council in that parish. The question which will have to be decided one day, when a Bill has been brought in by a responsible Government for establishing Parish Councils, is, what shall be the minimum population which shall elect Parish Councils? Take the limit of 200 for the purpose of argument, although some think 300 would be better, and some would go higher than that. The hon. Member for Stamford (Mr. Cust), in an able speech which he made on the Second Reading of the Allotments Bill, compared the populations of parishes, and showed how difficult it would be to establish Parish Councils; but if you take the populations of other elective areas, the variations will be found to be quite as striking. Let me deal first with the populations in the Parliamentary areas for which there are only single Members. Cardiff has a population of 132,000, and there are many constituencies with populations over 100,000; but then there is Durham with only 15,200, Kilkenny with 13,300, and many others with populations under 20,000. The variations are, however, even more striking when we deal with the populations of Unions—that is, the areas presided over by Boards of Guardians under the Allotments Act. In the Union of West Derby the population is 444,000, whilst in Sedbergh it is only 4,000. Still more striking, as it affects this Bill, is the variation in the County Council areas. For instance, in Rutland the population is only 20,600, and in the Soke of Peterborough it is 36,200; whereas the population of the West Riding is 1,307,500, and that of Lancashire 1,768,200, and yet each of these elect a separate County Council. Therefore, taking the minimum as low as 200 for the Parish Council, there is no greater variation between the populations of parishes han of the counties which now elect
    632
    County Councils. In regard to this matter the hon. Member for Hornsey, in his speech in 1890, said—
    "The cry about the difficulty of small parishes is a mere bugbear."
    I will now deal with another objection which has been taken, as to the financial radius. It is quite clear that the Parish Councils in small villages would not be competent to deal with complicated financial arrangements, although I think the day will arrive when they will be just as competent as County Councils. It has not, however, been proposed, so far as I know, that they should do more than take the initiative in supplying allotments; the rating, borrowing, and financing should be done by the County Councils. The First Lord of the Treasury has said that it was not right that one authority should take the initiative in the supply of land, and that another authority should be called upon to finance it. These are his own words—
    "If the rating area is large you can hardly give the power of administration to a small area."
    But I ask, why not? What is there that is unfair in giving the initiative for taking the land to the smaller authority, such as the parish, and rating the area of the larger authority, if ultimately any deficiency is allocated and charged upon the rate of the smaller area? At the present time, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture will acknowledge, the County Council borrows on the County Rate under the Public Health Act for purposes the expense of which are ultimately borne by the parish; and under the Allotment Act the County Council or the Sanitary Authority can borrow on the Parish Rate. Now, why should not the parish initiate the taking of land, and the County Council finance it, and either borrow on the County Rate and allocate to the Parish Rate, or borrow direct upon the Parish Rate? This is a very complicated question of rating, and I will not go further into it until we get into Committee on the Bill. I have endeavoured to meet the two main objections to the establishment of Parish Councils—namely, the question of the variation of the population, and also the diffi-

    633
    culties with regard to finance. I should now like to ask why are the Tory Party so afraid of Parish Councils? Why does the Prime Minister go out of his way to insult the labourers of England by assuming that when they are asking for Parish Councils they are only asking for them as a means of recreation? He has said, in his sneering way, that he would recommend that, instead of their having Parish Councils, they should have parish circuses. I think that is not worthy of so great a statesman. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer sneers at Parish Councils. He seems to forget that in 1871, when he was supposed to be a Liberal, and when he made a great speech in this House, he stated over and over again that the parish was the proper unit for Local Government. The Bill he then introduced sought to provide the machinery for the election of Parochial Boards, which were exactly the same as Parish Councils. Again, while standing for Edinburgh in 1885, under the wing of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, he emphasised what he had said in 1871, and made it a great deal stronger. Now, however, that he is in the place where he ought always to have sat, only the last time he spoke of Parish Councils, at Cambridge in October, he said—
    "Parish Councils are one of the fallacies by which they" (meaning the wicked Radicals) "have beguiled the rural population."
    I think he will find, when the time comes, that the rural population are not so easily beguiled as he thinks. Then, too, the hon. Member for Stamford, in the speech to which I have already alluded, said that if there were Parish Councils there would be an excess of local knowledge, which would stir up jealousy and parochial feud, and produce Communism in the villages of England. The Tory Members of agricultural constituencies go about denouncing Parish Councils, and say that they are only held out to the people as a sort of bait in order to catch their vote, but this has only helped to prove that their real objection to our Irish policy is not to Home Rule in Ireland, but to Home Rule in the English villages. They do not like the idea of giving up
    634
    the rule of the landlords and squires, and clergy; and, therefore, in this Bill they would wisely, from their point of view, make the County Council the necessary authority. The great objection which has been urged to Boards of Guardians is that they have no proper knowledge of, and no sufficient sympathy with, the people for whom they would administer the Act, but that objection would apply even more to County Councils. I saw published in the papers the other day a list of chairmen of the County Councils. It showed pretty clearly what class they were. In 21 cases they were Peers, in ten Baronets, and most of the others were landowners. Well, that does not open up a very pleasant prospect for the labourer in obtaining small holdings. I believe that whenever the Bill comes to be administered the labourers will find that the County Councils are worse than the Board of Guardians for the purpose in question. Why cannot a Conservative Government learn by experience? Why will not they allow us to try and help them to make this a real and complete measure? Parish Councils are as certain to come as any of the reforms of the future. Why, then, make two bites of the cherry? Better swallow the whole thing at once and establish the Parish Councils now for the purposes of this Bill. It, will be sooner over, and in the end there will be less sacrifice of principle. Nothing would give more satisfaction than the establishment of Parish Councils. There is no subject which in the last few years has advanced more steadily in public opinion than that of Parish Councils. They have the support—I do not say for this purpese—but they are supported for general purposes by all those sitting on this side of the House, including the Dissentient Liberals. They have the support of a great many Gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House. I think it was in the discussion upon the Allotments Act that the Member for South-East Essex said—
    "Parish Councils are the ultimate solution of the allotment question."
    I have no doubt that is so, and that Parish Councils are the ultimate

    635
    solution of the small holdings question. They are supported by the Member for Midlothian, the Member for Newcastle, the Member for Derby, and by a gentleman who perhaps knows more about Local Government than anyone in this country — I mean Sir Charles Dilke. In 1885 he at Halifax, in speaking of the powers for acquiring land compulsorily for allotments or small holdings, said it was essential that power should be given to Parish Councils. Next day the Member for West Birmingham confirmed the views of Sir Charles Dilke, as part of the policy of the Radical Party and a plank in the unauthorised programme, and spoke of thoroughly popular Local Government in every village in connection with acquiring land. On the introduction by the President of the Local Government Board of the Allotments Bill two years ago, I moved a similar Instruction, which was only defeated by a small majority. I do not know what may be the result to-night, but since then the question has advanced more rapidly than any other question. I wish the Government would accept my Instruction; but if they cannot see their way to do so, let there be no mistake about the issue, which is whether Parish Councils shall or shall not be established for the purpose of giving the people in the villages a proper voice in the management of the most important of all their affairs, the acquisition for their own benefit of small portions of the land which they, by their labour, have rendered useful and productive.
    MR. BRAND: In rising to second the Instruction, I wish, as the Representative of an agricultural constituency, to say I am perfectly convinced that there is no question which exists among the rural communities of greater interest than the question of these small holdings, and of their local administration. In some counties like Norfolk the area under the control of the County Council for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1888, is far too large, and it is perfectly impossible for these County Councils to discharge the duties arising in connection with the provision of small holdings to the benefit of those whom this Bill seeks to advantage. It
    636
    is essential that the land to be taken for this purpose should be suitable; should be in a proper situation, and that the tenants who are to occupy it should be worthy men. I am perfectly certain that if this Act is administered through a central authority at a distance the work will not be as well done as it would be done by Parish Councils working on the spot and knowing the peculiarities of the locality. The large landowners and large farmers who are numerously represented on the County Councils are strongly opposed to this proposal; and if the administration of this Act is given to them they will certainly not do their best to give effect to its spirit. Whilst I am of opinion that the administration of this measure should in the first instance be with the Parish Councils, I am perfectly well aware it is necessary that there should be a right of appeal to the County Council. There is under the Allotment Act an appeal to the Local Government Board, and in the same way a right of appeal should be given from the Parish Council to the County Council. Sir, the whole tendency of Local Government at the present day is towards decentralisation; and what harm can there be in taking away from the County Councils those duties which obviously they cannot properly perform and giving them to local representative bodies? The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division, in his speech upon the Second Reading of the Bill, said we on this side were disappointed because the credit of initiating the measure could not be claimed by us. For my part, I cordially congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture in going so far as to propose to institute small holdings, and I hope his effort will be successful. Speaking on behalf of a constituency that has as good if not better land than any other in England, I hold that there is a fair field for small holdings, and I feel that they will be taken up with avidity and worked with advantage to the country at large. I beg to second the Instruction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert clauses

    637
    in the Bill creating Parish Councils by popular election for the purposes of the Bill, and conferring upon such Councils initiatory powers of acquiring, selling, letting, and managing land for small agricultural holdings."—(Mr. Cobb.)
    MR. LLEWELLYN: The hon. Gentleman, in moving his Instruction, concluded his speech with a peroration intended for consumption outside. He tried to make this House believe that the question involved in this Instruction is whether the House generally agrees with the principle of Parish Councils or not.
    MR. COBB: I said for the purposes of this Bill.
    MR. LLEWELLYN: If the hon. Member imagines for a moment that it is possible in this Bill to introduce the question of Parish Councils, he is imagining what is an absolute impossibility. We are not called upon to speak on that point now; but I know of many parishes where Councils could be formed to do good work—I mean in parishes of sufficient size. I have tried to get some indication of what size the parishes should be capable of electing Councils. There is work that, in my opinion, could well be left to these Councils. I should like, for example, to see the care of the outdoor poor given to the parish. But the practical point I wish now to discuss is the financial part of this scheme, and I would ask if there is anybody who imagines that the Public Works Loan Commissioners or any other body would lend money to small parishes on such slender security as they could give? The Parish Council would meet in the schoolroom; it would be attended by 20 or 30 labourers; clerks would have to be appointed, a paid treasurer, an overseer, and assistant overseers.
    MR. COBB: I said distinctly that I proposed that all financial matters connected with the scheme should be dealt with exclusively by the County Councils.
    MR. LLEWELLYN: I dare say the hon. Member did. We have many of us devoted our lives to this question, and it is absurd for other hon. Members to come here to talk in an amateurish way, and to retail second-hand what they are told by other people. I had the honour of a seat on the Committee which inquired into this matter,
    638
    and my opinion is that unless the Treasury advances the money straight away there is no other body possible than the County Council. They must, of course, go to those on the spot for information. Under the Allotments Act, the Rural Sanitary Authority does not move one finger without consulting the parish, because the parish has to pay. I agree with the hon. Member that in purchasing the land for small holdings you must be dependent upon the parish for information. But the Bill will be inoperative if you leave it with the parish to carry out financial arrangements. They would not have the credit to carry it out. Our object is to make this Bill a practical measure, and to pass it in such a form that those whose duty it will be to carry it out will be able to do so successfully.
    MR. LEON: As a new Member of the House, I ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes whilst I make a few observations upon a matter which is of great importance to a rural constituency. I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his remarks as to the question of finance, for I distinctly understood the hon. Member below me (Mr. Cobb) to say that the County Council would have the control of the finance, and that the Parish Councils would merely have the duty of obtaining land for the rural labourers and others requiring it. It is, Sir, because I represent a constituency which is peculiarly interested in this very important question that I desire to say a few words. Parish Councils should be elected not only for the purposes under discussion to-night, but for many other purposes, and more especially to take up this Land Question for the benefit of those who desire land. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the object of the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for Rugby is to show that the unit of local government shall be the Parish, and not the County Council, and it is because I strongly favour this view that I support the Instruction. A Parish Council would know the requirements of the parish better than the County Council, such as whether the application for small holdings was bonâ fide; whether to

    639
    meet the demand by purchase or by hiring; where land was most suitable, having regard to the landlord's preferences and the tenant's or buyer's requirements; the nature and value of the land and its recent cultivation, and it could more easily, more satisfactorily, and more equitably estimate the outgoing tenant's compensation. It would also know how much land each applicant could properly cultivate, and would be in a position to know whether the land, after it had been acquired, was being economically and successfully managed. It would, besides, be better able to prevent, owing to its local knowledge, the foisting of any poor, exhausted land upon the parish by impecunious landlords at a price beyond its market value; it would always be available on the spot to hear disputes and applications, and to determine the many points that will necessarily arise as to the management of the land. The applicants or holders of the land would have no hesitation in approaching their representatives forming the Parish Councils and telling them any of their grievances. These are the chief reasons why I support the Instruction of my hon. Friend. Now, Sir, I believe everybody in this House is in favour of passing this Bill into law, in order that the people may more easily obtain land. But, as a business assembly, let us, in the name of common sense, see that, in passing legislation, we are, at the same time, erecting machinery that is suitable for the purpose we have in view. I maintain that the machinery introduced by the present measure is not the best machinery for the purpose. And why? Because County Councils, as at present elected and chosen, would be overloaded with the work which really ought not to be put upon them. Their areas, as my hon. Friend below me says, would be too large, and it would not be possible for them to do the work. I will read to the House what the Spalding Commissioners said on this Small Holdings Bill on Friday week last. The Commissioners said—
    "They have decided to petition the Board of Agriculture and ask that the authority to enforce the Small Holdings Bill should be the Sanitary Authority in urban districts instead of the County Council, and the Board consider they would be better able to deal with the requirements of the town than the County Council would be."
    640
    I quite agree with that. It shows, at any rate, that there is a decided opinion against the County Council being the body to administer this Act. In fact, speaking for the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I may say that they would be one and all—at any rate those who think the same as hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House—be very much in favour of having Parish Councils as the unit. Why should this House waste its time in passing a Bill into law which would be of no more use after it had been passed into law than the present Allotments Acts? And I maintain that these Acts are practically, to all intents and purposes, useless. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) laughs. But that is no argument at all. Anybody can laugh, but that does not produce any effect upon individuals who are very much interested in this question. I have had some experience as a member of the County Council in Buckinghamshire as to the utility of the present Allotments Act, and the Chairman of the County Council on 11th February said—
    "The difficulty of carrying out the Act of Parliament became more apparent the more they tried to act upon it."
    Well, what is the use of wasting the time of the House passing a Bill which will have no more effect than that? Does the Government mean business or does it not? If it does mean business, at any rate let it try to meet the requirements of the people by giving those people who are going to benefit by the Act of Parliament power to put the Act of Parliament into force themselves, and not give to an almost foreign element like the County Council in some rural district, as regards the minor requirements of the villages, the ultimate putting of this Act into force. That is the first practical step, and because I desire good results from our labours I heartily support this Instruction.
    MR. GRAY: One remark of the hon. Member who has just sat down I quite agree with—namely, that the House should treat this question with common sense. But it appears to me, if we are to act in accordance with common sense, we must try not to put the cart before

    641
    the horse, but the horse before the cart. If we, in a Bill of this sort, go into such a difficult and intricate question as the appointment of Parish Councils, it will be a case of putting the cart before the horse. I appeal to my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and who values common sense so highly, to consider whether this is a question in which we should undertake to set up so far-reaching an authority as a Parish or District Council? The hon. Member told us the opinion of the County Council of Buckinghamshire. I remember a few weeks ago our Radical friends were trumpeting about the country the great victories they said they had gained at the County Council elections. Now we are told that these County Councils, which are formed so much of members of the Radical Party, are not to be entrusted with a matter of this sort, because they know nothing as to what should or should not take place in connection with country life and so on. But, surely, if the County Councils contain such a large number of thorough-going common-sense Radicals, hon. Members opposite might put more trust in these bodies than they seem inclined to give them this evening. I do not know whether the hon. Member who moved this Instruction has paid much attention to the provisions of the Bill, for it seems to me that there are great safeguards in this Bill for the interests of the rural population, or the labourers as they are called in the Bill, being properly attended to. In the first place, the County Council is popularly elected. No one can dispute that. I see from the Bill one or more persons can approach the County Council on the subject of small holdings. Do not you think that wise? If one or two of my neighbours can go to the County Council and request them to make a thorough inquiry as to whether or not there is a demand for action, I fail entirely to see that there is any just cause of complaint as to the machinery which is set up in this Bill. I would ask the hon. Member for Warwickshire how many people he would have approach the County Council on a matter of this sort?
    MR. COBB: I want the County Council to do something when they are approached.
    MR. GRAY: First of all I am dealing with the merits or demerits of the County Council, and I wish to say a word as to how the County Council can be approached. I would ask the hon. Member for Warwickshire whether he will find any fault with this part of the Bill which enables one or two men in any village to approach the County Council on the subject? Is that progressive or is it not? One villager or one labourer, however humble their positions, can approach the County Council on the subject. What fault have hon. Members opposite to find with that so far? I ask them again, is it not in accordance with common sense? And is there any reason to suppose that the County Council, having been approached by one or two labourers in this way, would hesitate for one moment to try and get all the local information they could get from the village or district whence those one or two persons came? I am not sure whether it would not be a fair amendment to bring before the House when we get into Committee that the County Council might have power, as to the Committee which is talked about in this Bill, to inquire whether or not that Committee must be entirely confined to members of the County Council. I am rather afraid, as the Bill now stands, the Committee which is talked about in this section must be confined to members of the County Council. But, whichever way that may be, it seems to me if any hon. Member, when we get into Committee, likes to move as an Amendment that this Committee, which is to be set up in certain circumstances should consist of one or more persons outside the body of the County Council, that, at any rate, would be a fair point of debate. But whether the County Council should do that or not, everyone knows that they could and would claim the advice of practical people living in the localities from which the demands came. Considering the formation of the County Council, considering that one or two persons from the village can go to the County Council and make a claim, considering that they can then set up a Committee to inquire into the demand, and considering that the County Council would naturally, before they said "Yes" or "No," get all the

    643
    evidence they possibly could from practical men and labourers in the district where the demand came from, is there any real and substantial grievance in the proposals of the Bill? I rather think that the real purpose of the Instruction is to enable the hon. Member who moved it and his friends to go down to their constituents and say—"We proposed you should have such and such powers, but, of course, the Conservative Party would not listen to it."
    MR. STANSFELD: The hon. Member who has just sat down appears to think that there has been a want of common sense and common honesty in making the proposal now before the House, and he says the object of it is to enable the hon. Member who moved the Instruction and his friends to go to their constituents and say, "See what we offered you and what the Conservatives opposed." I should not call that straightforward conduct—it is such conduct as I have never practised, and the imputation of which I should resent either as regards myself or the hon Member who moved the Instruction or his friends. I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member, and I will say why. I can understand why Members of the Conservative Party should sneer at the action taken by Members on this side of the House upon this question, for they do not want it to be mooted. But our contention is that the only thoroughly sound and permanently satisfactory method of dealing with this question of allotments is the completion of our system of local government by the constitution of minor and subordinate areas within which such a measure could be brought into operation. Whose fault is it that we have not got those areas? The Government brought in a measure of Local Government in 1888, and carried it by the help of this side of the House, and they would not have carried it by the help of that side of the House alone. Does any Member venture to dispute it?
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I do, distinctly.
    MR. STANSFELD: Very well, I will take the word of my right hon. Friend, but I recollect perfectly his
    644
    own words on that occasion. Whatever doubts there may have been in his mind at first, he had seen reason to abandon them and to admit, as the Leader of his Party admitted, that he had received assistance from this side of the House in carrying that measure, and that he was indebted to us for our assistance.
    MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir, I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there is a vast difference between that statement and the statement he first made. I acknowledged thankfully then, as I do now, the assistance which the Government got from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in carrying that Bill; but I never said, and was very far from saying, that we could not have carried it without their assistance.
    MR. STANSFELD: I never accused the right hon. Gentleman of saying anything of the kind. I expressed my own opinion in that respect, and I did not presume to quote the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. But I say, speaking my own opinion now, as I am entitled to do, that on those benches opposite there was very considerable opposition to the Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman admitted, as he says he did—and I do not mean to impute more—that he was indebted to us for our assistance in passing that measure. But as soon as he had passed the County Councils portion of the Bill, he dropped the rest, including District Councils, and all reference whatever to Parish Councils, or Parish Vestries, or any parish organisation. We appealed to him at the time to persevere and to have a little more patience and a little trust, saying, "We have supported you so far, and we will support you to the end;" but the right hon. Gentleman refused to do so. I am not blaming him for that, for these are questions of tactics, methods, and possibilities of time, and I have never doubted that he would have been glad to accept our offers of further assistance if he could have done so. As a matter of fact, however, he did not avail himself of them; and the Leader of the House at that time assured us that in the next Session, if possible, the subject should be taken up; but from 1888 until now—the last Session, in all probability, of this Parliament—no attempt

    645
    whatsoever has been made by the Government to complete the scheme of Local Government. I say that, under these circumstances, the hon. Member for the Rugby Division was perfectly justified, and more than justified, in bringing forward this question; and it is not fair to say, and there is no ground for saying, to him that this is a clumsy and awkward way of dealing with the subject by introducing the creation of popular Councils into an Allotments Bill, because he has been forced to the adoption of that method by the fact that the Government have not redeemed their promises, and have not created a Local Government hierarchy which would have been sufficient, in his view, for the purpose. Mr. Speaker, permit me, in order that there may be no mistake so far as I can prevent it, to state what are our views, and I believe I can interpret them with fair accuracy, upon this subject generally. We hold that the County Council is the wrong authority for administering a Small Holdings Act, and I therefore cannot agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that the County Council is the right authority, if you can have a choice of authorities in this matter. I am a member of a County Council. My County Council in Sussex is a thoroughly business Council, and I have a high respect for it; for we do not waste our time in speeches, but devote it to the transaction of business. I believe that Council would itself feel that it was not the fittest body for the administration of such an Act as this. The distance of the place of meeting from the outlying parishes of the county is a very serious fact, and want of local knowledge is another. It is perfectly true you may get that knowledge by deputy, but that is not the best way of getting knowledge, or of applying it. Is it not evident that the best way of dealing with the subject is to begin with the small area, and constitute an authority for the small area if you can, so that you may have the initiative based on local knowledge of the wants of the people, the character of applicants for small holdings, and the nature of the soil and its adaptability to the wants of the people who wish to occupy it, and the price which ought to be paid for it? Such a body should take the initiative, and leave
    646
    the higher authority of the district, or the County Council, to judge of the financial proceedings. An hon. Gentleman sitting opposite to me said that the parish would have no credit; but I cannot admit that proposition, because a parish has credit and does raise loans.
    MR. LLEWELLYN: I was speaking of poor parishes.
    MR. STANSFELD: In that I should entirely agree. We all agree that the smaller parishes should be amalgamated, and I have always said that some of these parishes would be too small for representative bodies, and I should prefer open Vestries, with power of appointing committees if the work would be better done by committees than by the Vestries themselves. I say, therefore, that you should take the Parish Council as the unit of local authority, and give it the initiative in dealing with this subject of allotments. It is stated that it must be financed by the County Council, but the County Council would hesitate to finance it if it had got no credit. Has that never occurred to the hon. Gentleman opposite? I do not believe that it would be felt to be the duty of County Councils to finance small and poor parishes which have no credit. Well, suppose you begin with the parish, largely interpreted as I have endeavoured to interpret it, there are certain things which must be borne in mind. There must be, first of all, an appeal for those who want allotments when the Parish Authorities refuse to obtain them; and there must also be an appeal for the landowner or farmer to some superior County Authority against the Parochial Authority. If the Parish Council from personal or Party motives should make victims of the landowners or the farmers, and take land from them when land could be taken elsewhere with greater fairness which was as fit for the purpose, I should say that would be an ill deed on the part of the Parochial Council, against which there ought to be an appeal to some superior County Body. All I maintain is that the principle should be accepted that the small area is a fit area for the administration of the Act, and, therefore, I hold that my hon. Friend has done good service in bringing this question before the House. The true remedy, in my opinion, and in our

    647
    opinion on this side of the House, is the completion of the system of Local Government. As soon as you have a hierarchy including the parish, the district, and the County Council, you will have no difficulty whatever in taking the initiative steps, and you will have no difficulty in securing an appeal from the Parish Council, it may be, to the next grade, or straight to the County Council. At any rate, you will have the whole arrangement devised, constructed, and existing under which you may proceed with the greatest facility. We have been told it is impossible and absurd to attempt to set up Parish Councils in this Bill. I do not say it is easy; but again, I ask, whose fault is that? As I said before, it is not the fault of my hon. Friend, who makes the best of circumstances, and proposes to devise Parish Councils for this purpose. I do not believe you will say that it would be impossible to do so, and I do not think it would be very difficult to do so. It only requires patience to discuss clauses to carry it out, and that patience would not be wanting on this side. I think it is a fair proposal which might well be considered by the Government. I hope I have succeeded in showing that we have had a ground for the course which has been taken, and that the best possible method would be the perfection of that system of Local Government towards which we have been looking vainly for so long, and that, if practicable, it would be well worth while, even at this moment, to attempt an instalment of that future perfection by the construction of Parish Councils, which should have the administration of these allotments.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I rise, Sir, for the purpose of pouring oil on the troubled waters, and I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman displayed somewhat unnecessary heat with regard to the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Gray), who said nothing to deserve the attack made upon him. The right hon. Gentleman complained altogether of the authority which is proposed for the purpose of carrying out this Bill. He says that an authority presiding as it does over so large an area is quite unfit for
    648
    the purposes and duties with which it is to be entrusted. That, of course, Sir, is an opinion which the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to hold; we are also entitled to ours; and having given some thought to the subject, we have arrived at the definite conclusion that, under present circumstances, the County Council is the proper authority. But the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with that; he proceeded to attack my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie), because these authorities were not already in existence; and "whose fault was that?" said the right hon. Gentleman, shaking his finger at my right hon. Friend. My recollection is that the Local Government Bill which my right hon. Friend introduced made ample provision for the creation of Local Authorities other than County Councils; and if the right hon. Gentleman will carry his recollection back to the torrent of eloquence on every conceivable subject from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side during that Session, I do not think he will find much difficulty in discovering the reasons which compelled my right hon. Friend, towards the close of the Session, greatly to his regret and to the annoyance of the Government to which he belonged, to drop these clauses for the purpose of carrying his Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman is treading on somewhat dangerous ground when he asks whose fault it is that these authorities are not in existence already; for, unless my memory greatly deceives me, the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a most distinguished Member year after year, and three years in succession, announced its intention, in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, to introduce and carry measures for this purpose, and I am unable to recollect that it ever took a single step to give effect to that promise. Now, Sir, I pass from the right hon. Gentleman—I hope I have said nothing unfair in reply to his observations—to the subject more immediately before the House.
    MR. STANSFELD: Nothing unfair at all. But if I may be allowed to correct the right hon. Gentleman, the only part I had in the matter was the

    649
    passing of the first of an intended series of measures—a Rating Bill. I had no chance of doing anything more.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government which at that time made the promises and failed to carry them out.
    MR. STANSFELD: No; I was not a Member of that Government at all.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Then I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman; I thought he was a distinguished Member of every Liberal Government since I have been a Member of this House. I think it is unnecessary to point out to the House that it did not even need the speech of the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion to show quite clearly to the House what its effect must necessarily be. It deals with a question which I acknowledge is extremely important, but a question which is entirely separated from the measure immediately before the House. What the hon. Gentleman proposes and asks the House to embark upon at this moment is another and a most important step, a further and large development of local self-government. That is a question on which everybody knows the views of the present Administration, because my right hon. Friend at the Local Government Board has on one occasion—and, I think, on more than one occasion—in this House announced the intention of the Government, on a proper and fitting occasion, when opportunity arises, to deal not only with the question of District Councils, but the question also of parochial reform. But I think it must be evident that the Government, whether it be Liberal or Tory, must decide, and they alone, what is to be the order of their business, and which kind of business is to take precedence over the other. As regards the Instruction of the hon. Member, I am bound to say it is not a question which ought to be tacked on as a kind of offshoot to another proposal entirely different from it, such as that which I have had the honour to introduce to the House, and which would, in my judgment, if we accepted the Motion, be entirely swamped by it before the end of the Session. I am not going to make any reflections on the hon. Gentleman or his intentions,
    650
    but it must at least be evident to the House that he knows perfectly well that the subject with which he asks us to deal and to tack on to this measure is one of enormous dimensions. We have absolute proof of his views before us at this moment, because he has himself introduced a Bill on the subject. I have looked at this Bill, and I see that the acquisition and sale of land in small portions is dealt with; but the hon. Gentleman found it so large and intricate a subject that he has been obliged to devote 41 or 42 clauses to the consideration of the subject. The Bill which I have introduced to the House for the provision of small holdings is, comparatively speaking, the most modest measure in the world; it contains only 18 clauses altogether. Then the hon. Member, by way of lending most able assistance in the matter which I have so much at heart, comes forward with his proposal which involves the addition to my Bill of a measure containing no less than 40 clauses. The hon. Member has not had a very long experience of this House, but he has been a Member long enough to know that the way to get a Bill passed through the House is not to encumber it with an enormous addition of that nature. As to what may be the hon. Gentleman's views with regard to the Small Holdings Bill I offer no opinion; but it is a measure which I am sincerely desirous and anxious to pass into law, and on that ground alone I am afraid I must oppose the proposal of the hon. Member. As to the merits of the question of Parish Councils being more appropriate for dealing with such a measure, it is not necessary now to enter, but my hon. Friend behind me spoke of some difficulties connected with finance. The hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Cobb) proposes, so far as I understand, that the County Council should finance the Councils and raise money on the county or parish rate just as they please. How much are they to raise? Does he agree with the limit of one penny which is proposed in the Bill, or is he prepared to go a good deal further? I think the ratepayers of Warwickshire will probably be glad to know something more of the hon. Member's opinion on this point. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that a penny

    651
    rate on a parish would be utterly use less for carrying out the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to go to the extent of an addition of 1s., 2s. 6d., or even 5s. to the parish rate—
    MR. COBB: May I point out that, after all, it is only the deficiency which will have to be made up out of the rate at all?
    MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member forgets the rate is to be given as the security. I expect the ratepayers of Warwickshire would have a great deal more to say on the subject if I were to accept the Instruction of the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman opposite expressed the opinion that the true remedy, and the only real remedy, for the position in which we are placed, and of which he complains at the present moment, is to complete the whole system of local self-government throughout the country. Does he wish us to postpone this measure till that is done? That is the real question we have to decide to-night. The right hon. Gentleman evidently thinks that this Bill, which has been read a second time, ought now to be laid aside, and that we should embark on fresh legislation for the purpose of completing the system of local self-government. That is his view and opinion, shared, I suppose, by hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him. Our opinion on this side is exactly the opposite. We say that we have introduced this measure, and we fully intend to carry it through before the end of the Session. I most earnestly desire to see it carried to a successful conclusion, and I must, therefore, absolutely resist the proposal, which, if we accepted it, would have only one effect—perhaps not so openly, but quite as effectually—to utterly destroy the chance of passing the Bill.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) said he rose with the object of "pouring oil on the troubled waters," but I think he must have exhausted his stock of that article in the rural conferences he has recently been attending. I see that when he spoke at Ely he said that there was a difficulty in discovering any difference of view between the two political Parties on this subject of Parish Councils. We are beginning, however, to find that after all there is a very considerable
    652
    difference. I complain of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented—if I may say so—the whole meaning of the Instruction of the hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Cobb). He will find, if he reads it, that my hon. Friend does not mean anything of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested. He desires that solely for the purposes of this Act some parish authority shall be created to co-operate with the County Council in carrying out the Act; and if hon. Members will refer to Clause 16 of the Bill they will find that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to deal with the Commissioners for Scotland he actually does go a considerable way towards meeting the very demand which we now make. So far as rural England is concerned, any parish authority or any parish right of enforcing or administering or even of initiating the Act is conspicuous by its absence. But the moment he deals with Radical Scotland and finds he has to go a step further he give a little more scope to popular authority, and there it is provided that the Committee of the County Council appointed under this Bill shall necessarily, not merely permissively, consist of the County Councillor representing the division, two other members of the County Council, and two independent persons who are not members of the County Council, but are elected by the district in accordance with the regulation. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, in his desire to pour oil on the troubled waters, to concede something as liberal to England as he gives to Scotland. If he had one that he would have gone a long way to meet the wishes of Members on this side of the House. We warned the Government over and over again over the Allotments Act that Boards of Guardians were utterly useless to carry out any legislation for the labourers. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very fond of telling us that we know nothing at all about this question. I see that the Times of this morning congratulates hon. Members opposite on having all the knowledge on this rural question, while we on this side of the House, I suppose, are carpet baggers, and know nothing about it. We may have lived all our lives in the country,

    653
    and be merely transplanted in our old age to London; our whole lives may have been spent in observation of agricultural questions, but if we are not large landowners, with large rent rolls, we are told that we know nothing about the wants of the agricultural labourers and agricultural questions. The Government scoffed at our warning when we told them that the machinery of the Allotments Act was useless, and they have had to change it. We warn them now that though the County Councils are a better machinery than the Boards of Guardians, yet that they must somehow or other get into touch with the parish, and if you do not accept our warning you will assuredly have to come to Parliament (if you are still on those Benches) for power to alter your authority. If you have all the knowledge you have no excuse. You know what the people want. You were told that at the Ely and Shrewsbury conferences. You had it dinned into your ears over and over again that the people want Parish Councils.
    MR. CHAPLIN: No, no!
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I will undertake to find in the newspapers the records of half-a-dozen agricultural labourers, who got up and said boldly, undeterred by the Peers and landowners, they wished for Parish Councils.
    MR. CHAPLIN: What about the other side?
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I do not know about the other side. I am speaking of the utterances of the few genuine agricultural labourers whom you imported into your conferences. We have told you frequently that we will never be satisfied until there is an initiative in a popularly elected Parish Council, and if you choose to leave with us the task of crowning the edifice, which you are so worthily beginning, it will be to our Party advantage, and to your Party loss. No one has ever suggested that Parish Councils should have the power of borrowing public money on their own initiative. It is only suggested that they should have the power to lay before the County Council their requirements, and the Council, if they approve, and after full examination, should borrow the money, and that, I think, is perfectly safe and
    654
    reasonable. But we are continually told that we have got Parish Councils; that there are the Vestries who will be able to approach the County Council on the matter. Approach; yes, you can call spirits from the vasty deep, but will they come? You must remember that the County Councils are told by your Bill to decide in the first instance whether the Act is to be put in force at all in their county or whether it is not; and if a County Council decides that it will have none of your Act, what then becomes of the approach of the parish, with whom we wish the initiative to lie? What guarantee have we that the County Councils will not take this course? I think from what we already see the inference is that some of them will. I do not agree that this Instruction of my hon. Friend raises the whole question of Parish Councils. We shall raise it before long, but we do not raise it to-night. We are most certainly going to raise the whole question in the near future, but all we ask you to do to-day is to take Clause 16 of your own Bill as your model, and give us some authority other than the County Council which should make use of the knowledge, and give utterance to local aspirations and local needs of the poor labourers for whom you say your Bill is intended.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The question we have to consider is what will be the best for the rural population in carrying out this Bill. Then we have to consider whether the proposition of the hon. Member for Rugby can be carried out with safety to the passing of this Bill, and whether if carried it will be good or bad for the rural population whom this Bill proposes to benefit. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) spoke very warmly about the completion of county government, but he knows the time that that subject will take, and I wish to know whether he would postpone this Small Holding legislation till this great scheme is completed? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) made one statement which made me think he had not studied the Bill. He stated that a County Council would charge a parish for the sums spent in the parish and debit it to a small area.

    655
    The Bill expressly says that the cost shall fall on the entire community, and if hon. Members wish this Instruction for Parish Councils to be carried out and with it the financial liability, they will strike a great blow at the poorer districts. I was agreeably surprised to find that Her Majesty's Government has been so liberal. They are more liberal than Members on this side of the House; they are not creating a sort of Newcastle programme, but a practical measure. I think a feature of this Bill, which calls for special commendation, is that which uses the credit of the whole county for the benefit of the poor districts. If they relied on their own credit they could not get the money, and I would ask the hon. Member for Rugby how he could expect to borrow money if he said he was only liable for the deficiency. I am astonished at the crude proposals of the hon. Member for Rugby, and it seems to me that the 9th clause provides, at all events, something of what he wants. I think, first of all, it is impossible if we do carry this Bill through that such great proposals can be embodied by means of a few clauses in a Bill dealing with an altogether different question; when we know by this Debate, and by the Debate of last year, what a complicated difficult question it is. And then, forsooth, we are to take that difficult question and graft it by means of a few clauses on a Small Holdings Bill. Therefore, the hon. Member for Rugby said, "Let us but consider what the issue is." According to his mind it is for or against Parish Councils. But let us also see what the issue is. The issue is a Small Holdings Bill or no Small Holdings Bill; the issue is whether we shall take this Small Holdings Bill with the only authority available at the present moment, or whether we shall seek to introduce clauses which cannot possibly be carried; and so by a side-wind to kill the Bill. And I venture to say with all respect—I say it with great respect, because I am anxious in the interests of the labourers to get this Bill—and I say, what the hon. Member for Rugby will not deny, that if this Instruction is forced on the Government, I challenge any Member on this side to deny that the Bill will have to be dropped for this Session at least. Even if it were to be carried, I suppose
    656
    a Boundary Commission would have to be set to work to re-arrange the parishes, and the County Councils would take at least a couple of years before that could be done. Altogether it is a separate, a distinct, and a great question, this county government; but a question altogether separate and apart from the question we are considering. I have always been for Parish Councils for certain things which I know perfectly well they can do; but there are certain things which I know it is impossible for them to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax will admit that Parish Councils are not good for sanitary matters; the area is not large enough. I have studied closely Communal Parochial Councils as we may call them, and the result of their sanitary arrangements has been such that it can only be paraphrased as the nastiest business that you can find in all Christendom. Only last year I was in Switzerland where I saw two parishes in one of the Communes at law. One of them positively stopped up the whole of the outlet of the drainage of the neighbouring parish; and there was no possible exit for it until the question between the two parishes was settled. I am aware that there are a number of things which could be appropriately managed by Parish Councils, but sanitary matters are not of the number. If you wanted a warning you might take the School Boards. If you want to find defective schools, where the Board of Management have only one idea, that of keeping down the rates, and where they care nothing for education, go into the School Boards of small parishes, and you will find there that it is an area too small for the management of that particular business. As sanitation, so education, and I venture to say if there is one question more than another that is not for the benefit of the number to be benefited, that is not suitable for the small area of parishes, it is the question of small holdings. Allotments are different things altogether, because you only want a few acres of land for allotments. Here you want large areas to cut up into farms up to 50 acres in extent, and therefore it is in a very different category. I am very anxious for the sake of the labourers that we should not

    657
    create this difficulty in the way of the carrying out of this Bill. Take the size of the parishes; take the hon. Member's own county of Warwick. There is one Union, and I notice that of 22 parishes 13 of them are under 500 inhabitants, nine under 300, and five under 100, and some of them as low as 58 persons. Well, the rateable value in some of these parishes is under £500, whereas the rateable value of the whole Union is above £100,000, and I want to use the credit of the wealthier area for the benefit of the smaller areas. If you take Wilts, for instance, you will find in one Union, where there are 30 parishes, 18 are under 500 population, 14 are under 300 population, and four under 100 population. And so, if you go through all the agricultural counties, you will find the same result. Now, I do not anticipate that there is a difficulty in grouping parishes, but if you group them sufficiently you come into District Councils, and there is no difference between the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. What he has alluded to is the avowed object of the Government, which I hope, in the interest of county government, will be carried out; but if we have to wait for this plain and simple Small Holdings Bill till we see that carried out, why we shall have indefinitely to postpone the realisation for a Small Holdings Bill at all. I am anxious to get a Small Holdings Bill, and I will tell my hon. Friend why: Because if we do not get it now, I am not sure when we are going to get it. I am pretty certain we shall get reform in county government complete in itself, some time, but I am not sure when we shall get a Small Holdings Bill. There is no doubt this Small Holdings Bill will disappear if this is fastened on to it; and all the country will see how impossible it would be to carry through a great Bill if something foreign to it is to be fastened on to it. Therefore, I am anxious this Session to see passed this Small Holdings Bill. After waiting so many years for this legislation, now that we have got it at our doors I am afraid hon. Members are so fond of it that they are going to smother it in their embraces. I am aware that the wish for Local Government, District Coun-
    658
    cils, and parochial reform, which is in the immediate programme of the Government, could have been realised last year or the year before; but that has not been done, and it is evident, if we listen to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who are in such a hurry for a Dissolution, we shall not be able to get it this year. But the Members of the Government have already announced their intention, and it has not been carried out. With regard to the previous Government, for three several years the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, the House will remember, had a Bill down for the reform of county government; and he was unable to find time to do anything with it. The present Government, at any rate, has done the big frame work—the top and most important part of it—that is a very good beginning; call it foundation if you like. But it seems to me that it is the very biggest measure of administrative reform that we have seen in this generation. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Rugby, and I think my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Winterbotham), and one or two other speakers, criticise these County Councils, and say they were not going to do anything—that they were not going to adopt this, that, and the other. What has become of your popular representation, your household franchise, and vote by ballot? The complaint really is that the people do not return the men that hon. Members would like. In the interest of the labouring population, and for the sake of getting this Bill, and being anxious not to see it defeated by a side wind, while being quite in favour of Parish Councils for doing the work for which Parish Councils are fitted, I shall vote against this Resolution.
    SIR W. FOSTER: Some of us are equally anxious, with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that this Bill should be made into the best possible Bill for the rural population; and when the hon. Member asks the question what good the introduction of parishes into this Bill could do, I have no hesitation in answering him that, in my opinion, the introduction of parishes in some form

    659
    or other would be the best thing that could be done for the labouring poor in the rural districts. We believe that the parishes would know a larger amount about the needs of the population, about the character of the applicants, and about the lands that they would be placed upon, than any body sitting at a distance such as the County Councils. We do not propose by this Instruction to force on the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of the Bill, the re-organisation of the whole structure of parish government. But we do ask him to have some power given to the parishes in the initiation of the working of this Act; and my hon. Friend who has moved this Instruction has specially put in the word "initiatory," in order that it may indicate that it has been our wish that the parish should perform nothing more than an initiatory act in introducing benefits which this Bill was intended to confer on the labouring population of the rural districts. The hon. Member has also referred to this Motion as one intended to postpone or retard the passage of the Bill. It seems to me to be better sometimes to postpone or retard the passage of a Bill than to pass a Bill that will not work when it is passed. The House may recollect that in the case of the Allotments Bill the same kind of language was used in the same quarter. Then the question was: an Allotments Bill or no Allotments Bill? We got the Allotments Act, and what was the result of it? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had to bring in another Act to try and make the first Act work. We do not want the Small Holdings Act to be in the same position. We want to have it put in the best possible form at the earliest stage, in order that we may be in a better position to bring home to the rural population the benefits contemplated in the Bill. In this Bill the House has an important extension of the Allotments Act. The best portion of the Bill is that which creates the holdings from one to ten acres. What I am most anxious about is that this Bill should be made as effective as possible in the interests of the rural population, and to accomplish this the body to be charged with the carrying out of the Bill should be
    660
    in sympathy with the rural population. The Rural Sanitary Authorities have shown their unwillingness to carry out the Allotments Act. It is for this reason that we desire to bring the parishes into the working of this measure, and it would become far more acceptable and useful if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the present Instruction. It is, we believe, the only way in which the Bill can be made workable.
    Question put.
    (10.48.) The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 178.—(Div. List, No. 67.)
    MR. STEPHENS, in rising to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have powers to insert Clauses in the Bill providing that, on the petition of any Urban Sanitary Authority, or of the Vestry of a rural parish, or of Vestries of two or more rural parishes jointly, to the Council of the County within which the district of such Urban Sanitary Authority, or such rural parish or parishes, is or are situate, such County Council may make an order empowering such Urban Sanitary Authority, Vestry, or Vestries, to exercise powers of acquiring, selling, letting, and managing land for Small Agricultural Holdings by voluntary arrangement with the owners thereof, subject to approval by the County Council,"
    said: My Motion is a very different one to that which has just been decided, and it is of a much more modest character. For some days past there has been on the Paper a new clause which set forth fully and precisely the machinery by which I propose to carry out my Instruction. The object I have in view does not go beyond the scope of the Bill, and the machinery to carry it out does not displace any portion of the arrangements of the Bill as it now stands. My suggestion, if adopted, would merely provide additional resources to those existing in the Bill; the machinery to give effect to it would be wholly at the discretion of the County Councils to adopt, reject, or ignore as they think best. It seems to me that the machinery of the Bill is placed on the top, whereas, in my opinion, it should be incorporated and developed more symmetrically throughout its framework. The authority of the County Council is too remote. My own experience of the Middlesex County Council is that, although there are a large demand for allotments, it

    661
    has been only lately that an Allotments Committee has been formed. The Committee has not yet met, and there has not been any application made to it on behalf of the labourers. Therefore, I submit that there should be an authority of some kind created which would enable the inhabitants to take counsel together, to shape their proposals, and to gather confidence, an element which is essential for the carrying out of the important proposals contained in this Bill. There are many of the inhabitants whose life-acquired knowledge will be available, and that will go far towards facilitating and cheapening the arrangements that would have to be made under the Bill. We know very well that this measure has proceeded from an anxiety to arrest the depopulation from the rural districts. The Bill has been described as an experiment; but it is the kind of experiment having for its object the providing of land for the rural population and the arrest of the rural depopulation; and unless we are successful on this occasion, there will no doubt be throughout the country a strong feeling of despondency. My proposal is, shortly, this: to enable parishioners to meet in Vestry; then they would make a proposal to the County Council, which the County Council would consider; and if they thought the proposal was reasonable in itself and a business-like proposal, they would delegate it to the Urban Authority or the Parish Committee. Then the Parish Committee would shape the scheme definitely and would bring it up to the County Council, where it would be considered at a meeting, notice of which had been given by advertisement 21 days previously, so as to invite objections and to secure these objections being properly considered before the County Council gave its sanction to the scheme. That would be a complete safeguard to the persons affected, as the whole thing would be relegated to the County Council for their sanction and approval; and, after hearing them, the County Council would sanction and confirm. Then, Sir, I provide that if the Parish Committee did not acquire the land within twelve months, or if in any way they did not appear properly to carry out the duties entrusted to them, it is reserved to the County Council to revoke their Order, and that
    662
    any property acquired shall revert to the County Council themselves. And I propose—and this is one of the chief points of difference between myself and the hon. Member for the Rugby Division—I propose that the County Councils should be elected by an open meeting of the inhabitants interested. I am most impressed with that form of Local Government not only as having endured longest, but as having been the most successful of any which this country has seen. Another point of difference is, that I think the Parish Committee should not be elected for a fixed term, but only until their successors are appointed. In a small parish, where everybody knows everybody else, it is preposterous that the parishioners should be asked to surrender their discretion, their judgment, their rights, and their liberties to the Parish Councils for the long term of three years. I think that great danger would be likely to arise, especially in small parishes, from the arbitrary nature of the control that might arise. This is the most important, as it ought to be one of the most popular, of the safeguards. But they would have a great deal of unpaid service and service on the spot without circumlocution, which would surely enable them to do the work cheaper, and they would be able to do much of it more efficiently and with greater satisfaction than a distant authority which must act through a large number of officials who would have no direct interest, whereas the inhabitants of the parish would have an immediate interest. In time the County Council might become a large landlord of petty holdings. By my plan no doubt the parish would have to pay, but it would get something in return for the payment. In the scheme as it stands under the Bill parishes will have to pay, but they will get nothing in return for the payment. The parishes themselves will do as they used to do in olden times—seek their own connection from those natural conditions which incline them to seek to act together. It has been said that with a penny rate very little could be done. But, as the money can go further, the parish, so far as its resources are concerned, will get more for its money.

    663
    The average rateable value of a parish in Lincolnshire is £4,000, and a penny rate will supply 20 labourers with an acre each, or 40 with half an acre each. As the object of the Bill is to arrest the depopulation of the rural districts, I submit that the best way to arrive at that end is to fix the labourer upon the soil as a freeholder. It is only by diffusing the benefits of the Bill as widely as possible amongst the labouring population that the desired end can be obtained. I beg to move the Instruction which stands in my name.
    CAPTAIN BETHELL: In seconding this Instruction I would like to say that my hon. Friend who has moved the Instruction is not sufficiently sanguine. He suggested that the President of the Board of Agriculture is not likely to accept the suggestion, but I still hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to do so. My primary object in supporting the proposal is, I believe, somewhat different from that of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I look forward primarily to this; if we can create some machinery by which parishes can acquire small quantities of land, a time not in the very distant future, will come when parishes will become possessed of the fee-simple of the land, and where the land will become a property which the parish can use for the benefit of the inhabitants. Objection has been taken that the parish will not be able to manage the financial part of the arrangement, but I am inclined to think there is no reason why the parish should not be able to manage its own finance. At the same time, I think the action of the parish should be submitted to the County Council for approval. Secondly, I think that the parish, ruling as it does over a smaller area, would be a body much more fitted for taking over and dealing with small quantities of land. I wish it to be understood that this is merely a supplemental proposal. The County Council will retain its concurrent power. I certainly entertain a sanguine hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture will be disposed to view this proposal favourably.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert Clauses in the Bill providing that, on the petition of any urban sanitary authority, or of the vestry of a rural parish, or of the vestries of two or more rural parishes jointly, to the council of the county within which the district of such urban sanitary authority, or such rural parish or parishes, is or are situate, such county council may make an order empowering such urban sanitary authority, vestry, or vestries, to exercise powers of acquiring, selling, letting, and managing land for Small Agricultural Holdings by voluntary arrangement with the owners thereof, subject to approval by the county council."—(Mr. Stephens.)
    MR. W. B. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member who submitted this Instruction to the House was prudently anxious—and I find no fault with him on that account—to clear himself from any suspicion of complicity with those who sit on this side of the House in reference to the present Bill. He stated that his proposal was a more modest one than the proposal which had just been rejected, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member that his plan is quite distinct from our plan, for we reluctantly have arrived at the conclusion that no plan can be made thoroughly effective without introducing into it the element of compulsion. The hon. Member does not introduce the element of compulsion in any form into his plan, and he therefore vindicates his own character and his political orthodoxy by showing that he is not in the ranks of those dangerous politicians who sit on this side of the House. The question I now have to ask myself is not whether we can give up portions of our own distinctive plan in order to agree with the hon. Member, but whether, supposing our plan to be rejected, the Bill will be improved by the adoption of the plan of the hon. Gentleman. Now I have in my mind the melancholy anticipation that our proposition will be rejected by one of those commanding majorities such as was announced a short time ago. Therefore it is our duty as men of sense, if we have any sense, to look this question in the face, and to consider it as a man does when he has presented to him the alternatives of half a loaf or no bread. The hon. Gentleman fairly offers us half a loaf. I see no objection to the introduction of the voluntary plan of the hon.

    665
    Gentleman. The proposal I think does credit to him, and so far as I understand the development he has given to it in the clauses appearing on the Paper it fully sustains the spirit of the proposal itself. If we adhere to the principle of compulsion, it is not for any love of compulsion—it is from the somewhat sorrowful conviction that there are so many landlords in the country who are absent, who are ignorant or indifferent, or who are opposed to the objects we have in view, that we do not see that we can dispense with it. I, for one, entirely meet the hon. Gentleman on the ground that, so far as the voluntary principle will carry us, by all means let us act upon it. Now let us look at the proposition of the hon. Member. As I understand the matter, there are three points which are considered to be of vital importance by the great bulk of those who occupy these Benches. One of these is the establishment of Parish Councils, meaning by Parish Councils Councils which are essentially local bodies—essentially local—and having local information, as contradistinguished from bodies acting for the entire county. The second element in our plan is the point of compulsion, and the third point, and perhaps the most important of the three, and certainly in my view not the least important, is the introduction of a tenure less than a freehold. Now the hon. Member adheres to the voluntary principle, but distinctly he introduces two points for the attainment of which we on this side of the House are most anxious, and I cannot help cherishing the hope that to these points Her Majesty's Government may not be inclined to entertain any vital objection. The first of these is that there shall be some description of initiatory power given to bodies who shall be on the spot and well acquainted with the circumstances of the spot, so as to know who are the persons needing small holdings, who are the persons most competent to take them, and qualified by honesty, solvency, and character to make a good use of them. That is a knowledge which can only be possessed by persons on the spot, and the hon. Gentleman frankly makes us this offer by saying that the County Council may, on the application of the Sanitary Autho-
    666
    rity or Vestry, authorise the putting in motion such bodies possessed of local information and local experience. Then the hon. Member not only does this, but he adopts our view in all its breadth that a tenure inferior to freehold must be introduced into the Bill if it is to be made a Bill of any real value. As a Bill for the creation of a class of small freeholders I understand and appreciate it, and within its narrow limitations it will be of some value. I do not in any way desire to depreciate it in that direction, but it is not a Labourers' Bill. It should be called a Small Freeholders' Bill, not a Small Holdings Bill, for it contemplates no other small holders than freeholders. Let it not be supposed that we in any way grudge this creation of small freeholds, but these freeholds are unattainable to the great mass of the labouring population. Attainable they may be to certain favoured individuals in a village community—the village carpenter, the blacksmith, or other tradesman; the head keeper, the head gardener, or other head servants of the neighbouring landlord. To all of these the offer of a small freehold may be valuable, but to the labourer struggling to maintain his family from week to week upon the wage of the week the offer is almost illusory unless some inferior tenure to freehold be introduced. The hon. Gentleman proposes that the County Council may give power to an Urban Sanitary Authority or Vestry to acquire, sell, let and manage land for small agricultural holdings, so that under the ægis of the voluntary principle the hon. Member offers us these most valuable, most essential objects, and why should these objects be opposed by Her Majesty's Government? Surely they must agree that what we want is to give a personal and profitable interest in the land to as many as possible of the rural population who are solvent, respectable, and capable of using small holdings to their own advantage. Why should Her Majesty's Government object to the proposal? Had it come from us I admit it might have been considered open to suspicion; but coming as it does from their own supporters who have both recommended it in speeches couched in a spirit of comprehensive intelligence, I cannot

    667
    abandon the hope that Her Majesty's Government will be inclined to entertain the proposal with favour. Though the hon. Gentleman has expressed a desire that his proposal may not be associated with that which has been made by us, I venture to assure him that I shall certainly give a hearty vote in favour of his Motion, and I would cordially advise anyone who is at all inclined to listen to me to do the same.
    MR. CHAPLIN: If I had been more favourably disposed to this proposal than I am, I own that my suspicions would have been at once aroused by the extreme cordiality with which it has been received by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not quite understand why he dwelt so much on the new form of tenure he says the Instruction will import into the Bill. I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman there. I do not think he is correct in saying that; because, although it is true that the Instruction refers to the power of acquiring, selling, letting, and managing land for small agricultural holdings, that power of letting is not excluded from the Bill now before us. One of the main objects of the Government has been to create an additional number of freeholds, and we adhere to that; but in regard to the letting of land, that is also provided for by clauses in the Bill, and whether it is desirable to extend those clauses or to keep them as they are is matter for consideration in Committee. I listened closely to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Instruction, and, as I understand, what he proposes is this: that a County Council shall be enabled to give power to an urban Sanitary Authority, to a Vestry or Vestries, to exercise powers referred to by voluntary arrangement with the owner of the land. But I am bound to say I fail to perceive exactly what it is the hon. Member expects to gain, what advantage he expects will be derived from these additional powers. Anybody in any county can petition the County Council for a small holding, and thereupon the County Council is bound, if it supposes the Petition is made in good faith, to appoint a Committee, and that Committee is bound to make inquiry into the merits of the question. The hon. Gentleman said, from his experience, that these Committees
    668
    authorised under the Allotments Act had never been appointed; but, if I remember rightly, the power in those cases is entirely permissive; but here in this Bill it is laid down distinctly that the County Council shall appoint a Committee and shall cause an inquiry to be made. The hon. Member says it is not the right way to go to work; but I question exceedingly whether the procedure he recommends will be any benefit at all in that direction. The hon. Member gives power to a County Council to delegate its powers to an urban Sanitary Authority or to a Parish Committee, a Committee for a parish or a group of parishes to be elected by the Vestry; but I do not remember that there is any machinery provided for this election. But if the powers to be conveyed to the Committee are not used, if the land is not acquired, all these powers are to be immediately revoked. On the other hand, if the powers are used, if the land is required, the County Council, if it thinks fit to so, has the right to declare that they shall not be put in force. It does seem to me that we make no progress by this scheme—that nothing is gained in the interest of those who desire to possess small holdings by the incorporation of such provisions into the Bill. In the Bill as it stands at present, part of the powers of the County Council are delegated to a Committee which will be partly composed of members of the County Council and partly of the allotment managers in the parish where the land is situated, and all the powers of the County Council may be delegated to that Committee, with the exception of the power of acquisition. When you come to the power of acquisition of land by these Parish Councils which the hon. Member desires to see introduced into the Bill, we are met at once with precisely the same difficulty we should have had had the Motion of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb) been accepted.
    MR. STEPHENS: The right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say there is the greatest possible distinction between my proposal and that of the hon. Member for Rugby. I have never advocated Parish Councils. I have simply had recourse to the old authority of open meeting of the inhabitants in

    669
    Vestry assembled by whom the Committee would be appointed.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Quite so; I understand that; but I was about to point out the difficulty which would result if the parish proceeded to the acquisition of land. Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Bethell) proposes that the limit of the rate should be 4d., that does not seem to be the view of the hon. Member who moved the Instruction. If the rate is to remain, as I think it ought to remain, at a penny, which is amply sufficient for the purpose of making the experiment we desire to make, then I do not see how it would be possible for any parish authority to give anything in the nature of real effect to the Bill. They would not be strong enough to do it; they are entirely inadequate to the acquisition of land, and no matter what the delegation of power in their hands the Act would become, in my opinion, a dead letter. The proposal is open to another objection which would make me extremely sorry to see it incorporated in the Bill, it is open to the objection pointed out by the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings), that it would involve the admission of causes of delay. I cannot look with any approval on the proposal of my hon. Friend, and I hope he will not think it necessary to carry his Motion to a Division.
    Question put.
    (11.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 174.—(Div. List, No. 68.)
    MR. SPEAKER: The only other Instruction standing on the Paper is unnecessary. What it proposes can be done in Committee without Instruction, so I now proceed to leave the Chair to complete the proceedings begun before midnight, and in pursuance of Standing Order No. 51.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [Lords.]—(No. 228.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) EXTRACTS BILL.—(No. 119.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CALDWELL: I hope the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading. It makes no alteration in the law, but in a very simple manner saves much time and expense. It has the approval of legal authorities, and the Government offer no opposition to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 229.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HOWELL: If the House will now consent to take the Second Reading of the Bill, I undertake that ample time shall be allowed before taking the next stage.
    COLONEL HILL: The object of the Bill is of such a character that I am afraid I cannot consent that the Second Reading should pass sub silentio.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

    GAMING ACT (1845) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords.]—(No. 247.)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: This Bill only consists of one clause, and its object is to remedy a defect in the Gambling Act. Under that Act, all debts payable on account of bets made and lost are void and irrecoverable at law. That was the state of the law for many years until within the last few years, when it was decided that such debts are recoverable when made through agents, and not as made between principals. Obviously this is a scandalous state of the law, and never intended; discreditable alike to the law and the Judges who have to administer it. The Bill has gone through the House of Lords without any dissent. Its object is clear, and I hope the House will not think it needs discussion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 188.)
    Read a second time, and committed for Thursday.
    MAGISTRATES IN POLICE BURGHS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 108.)
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION.
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Statistical Tables relating to Emigration and Immigration from and into the United Kingdom in the year 1891, and Report to the Board of Trade thereon."—(Sir M. Hicks Beach.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 134.]

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Birchington, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno, Penarth, and Plymouth, ordered to be brought in by Sir M. Hicks Beach and Sir John Gorst.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 256.]

    WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PURCHASE) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bill for authorising County and Borough Councils to purchase Franchises of Weights and Measures, ordered to be brought in by Sir M. Hicks Beach and Baron Henry de Worms.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 257.]

    SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Edward Birkbeck, Bill to amend the Law relating to Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries, ordered to be brought in by Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Majoribanks, Sir Reginald Hanson, Colonel Cornwallis-West, Mr. Dillwyn, and Sir Thomas Sutherland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 258.]

    GROUND GAME BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. George Lambert, Bill to give further facilities to occupiers
    672
    for killing Ground Game, ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Lambert, Earl Compton, Mr. Brand, Mr. Barclay, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Thomas Ellis, and Mr. Halley Stewart.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 259.]

    STATUTE LAW REVISION.
    Lords Message [25th March] considered.
    Select Committee of Five Members, to join with the Committee of Five Lords (as mentioned in the Message of the Lords of the 25th day of March last) on Statute Law Revision, nominated of,—Mr. Ambrose, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Coghill, Sir Horace Davey, and Mr. Solicitor General.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

    QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I think it may be convenient for the House if I state the course I propose to take in reference to the question of privilege which was raised early this evening. I intended, as I stated to the House, to ask the House to postpone consideration of the question until the Committee had decided other parts of the subject which are before them at present. I understood that was the desire of the whole of the Committee, with the exception of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing); therefore, I was not a little astonished when two Members of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division (Sir G. Trevelyan) and the hon. Member for Newington (Mr. Radcliffe Cooke), expressed a contrary opinion in the short conversation which followed. Since then I have communicated with other Members of the Committee, and I understand it is their wish that this matter should be dealt with as soon as possible. I wish, therefore, acting as their Chairman, to give Notice that it is my intention to call the attention of the House to the subject as a question of privilege tomorrow.
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl of Minto after the death of his father.
FIRES &c., ON PASSENGER SHIPS.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I wish to give notice that after the Recess I propose to call attention to the subject of fires on board passenger ships carrying inflammable substances, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether any measures can be adopted, either through the Board of Trade, or otherwise, to afford greater security to life and property, especially with reference to transatlantic steamers.

PRIVATE BILLS—STANDING ORDER No. 133.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment to Standing Order 133 which stands in my name. Under the present Standing Orders Local Authorities, and Corporations, are absolutely precluded from working tramways constructed within their Municipal areas. The House of Commons have already passed such a Standing Order as I propose your Lordships should pass to-night; and the reason of it is simply this: that where Corporations are extending their tramways beyond the most populous parts of their boroughs, it is found that where they have already tramways existing in the boroughs worked by companies under lease from them they are at the mercy of those companies in respect of the extended tramways; the Tramway Companies practically being able to impose their own terms upon the Corporations. Your Lordships will see that there are in the Standing Order I propose ample provisions to prevent the Municipalities in ordinary cases from working tramways, and I think your Lordships will agree with me that that is quite outside the ordinary business of a Municipality. With these safeguards I ask your Lordships to pass the Standing
526
Order of which I have given notice, and which has already passed the House of Commons.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 133 be amended as follows, namely:—

STANDING ORDER NO. 133.
(No powers to be given to local authorities to run carriages and take tolls upon tramways.)
No powers shall be given to any municipal corporation, local board, improvement commissioners, or other local authority to place or run carriages upon any tramway, and to demand and take tolls and charges in respect of the use of such carriages.
Amendment moved,
"Provided that where any tramways have been constructed or acquired, or are authorised by the Bill to be constructed or acquired, by the local authority, the Committee on the Bill may, if they think fit, under the special circumstances of the case, insert a clause to following effect:—
If the local authority are unable to demise the tramways upon such terms as in the opinion of the Board of Trade will yield to the local authority an adequate rent therefor, the Board of Trade may grant a licence to the local authority to work such tramways, and the local authority may thereupon work the same, and may provide such plant, materials, and things as may be requisite or convenient therefor; and in such case all enactments relating to the working of the tramways and the taking of tolls and charges therefor shall extend and apply mutatis mutandis to and in relation to the local authority: Provided that if at any time during such working by the local authority any company make to the local authority a tender in writing to take a lease of and to work the tramways for such period (not being less than seven years, unless the local authority shall otherwise agree) at such rent and upon such terms and conditions as shall, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be adequate and proper, and such company at the same time offer to purchase the horses, cars, engines, and fixed and movable plant of the local authority not included in such lease, at a price to be fixed, unless otherwise agreed on between such company and the local authority, by a competent valuer to be appointed by the Board of Trade; then upon payment of such price the local authority shall demise the tramways to such company at such rent and upon such terms and conditions, and the powers of the local authority to work the tramways shall cease and determine.—(The Earl of Morley.)
Motion agreed to.
Standing Order amended accordingly.
THE EARL OF MORLEY: The second alteration I would ask your Lordships to make in the Standing Order is to enable Railway Companies, whose Bills are now passing, to adopt

527
some one of the schedules of rates which have already been passed under Provisional Orders for neighbouring lines. This will enable them to obviate the necessity and expense of having separate Provisional Orders for each Bill. I believe that no injustice or injury can be done by this change; it will be a great convenience, and save a considerable amount of time and expense to the Railway Companies concerned. I beg leave to move the same.
Moved, "That it be an Instruction to Committees on Bills of the present Session for incorporating Railway Companies that they be at liberty, if they think fit, to omit the clause required by Standing Order 123A in any case where they shall be of opinion that rates and charges in respect of merchandise traffic can be conveniently and properly fixed by reference to any schedule already sanctioned by a Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Act."—(The Earl of Morley.)
Motion agreed to.

TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL [H.L.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, before the question is put that the House resolve itself into Committee, I wish to say that I am, of course, most anxious to meet the criticisms and suggestions of noble Lords opposite; but it seems to me to be a matter requiring some consideration, and would, I think, be much better dealt with before the Standing Committee; therefore, if it meets your approval I should ask your Lordships to let the Bill pass through this stage, and I will take care to put down Amendments to meet the views of my noble Friends before it comes on in the Standing Committee.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill.—(The Lord Macnaghten.)
  Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 2.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I understand from what has just fallen from the noble Lord introducing this Bill that he wishes all discussion, or Amend-
  528
  ments, to be postponed till the Bill comes before the Standing Committee. At the same time, by way of preparing to call the attention of the Standing Committee to this Bill, I beg to say one word about this second clause, which enumerates the kinds of schools for which the land is proposed to be sold or given, either by compulsion, or by agreement,—and land in settlement without, apparently, even the consent of the remainderman. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) pointed out that defect in the Bill, and I believe the noble Lord who introduces the Bill has promised to meet that objection in Committee; but I venture to ask generally, why is this Bill to deal differently with this class of schools from the law relating in the same way to ordinary elementary schools—why should not elementary schools be in the same category as the schools enumerated in this second clause, for which this Bill proposes to give such facilities for getting land? If there is anything in this Bill which is intended to give this class of polytechnic schools greater advantages than the School Sites Act gives to elementary schools, then I think elementary schools have a fair claim to have those additional privileges themselves. Schools for the poor have the first claim upon the public, and upon legislation of this Government. If, therefore, this gives a preference to technical schools over elementary schools, I think that is wrong, and that the additional advantages should be given to the elementary schools above that which they have under the School Sites Act, 1849. If, on the other hand, there is nothing more proposed to be given for this class of schools than is now given to elementary schools, what is the use of this long Bill? A Bill of one clause would be sufficient to say that the provisions of the School Sites Act of 1849 should apply to this class of technical schools. There is no reason why the two should be different; on the contrary, I think nothing can be more mischievous than a number of Bills for the same provisions for different kind of schools. I think the noble Lord who introduced the Bill stated in his introduction that he had in his mind one particular case.

  529
  It seems to me that there is nothing more dangerous than making a general Bill to meet a particular case, which might have been met by a Private Bill. Merely to save the promoters the expense of a Private Bill a Bill is introduced with the possibility of extension and application generally to all schools of that kind throughout the Kingdom. I think that is a thing in itself extremely objectionable; therefore as it is proposed to postpone discussion, or Amendments to the Standing Committee, I give this notice, that I shall call the attention of the Standing Committee to the question which I have now raised relating to this second clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): My Lords, I confess I think there is a good deal of principle involved in this Bill; but I think the more convenient stage to discuss it would be when it has passed through the Standing Committee and your Lordships see what changes have been made in its form. I entertain the strongest possible objection to any power for one man to give away what does not belong to him; and I think the proper course that ought to be pursued would be that if the tenant for life chooses to give away what is his, that is his own life estate, he should be permitted to do so provided it can be done without injury to the remainderman. If it was thought that there was some difficulty about it, I should think the difficulty might be met in cases where the Lands Clauses Act might be applied, where the tenant for life might waive any claim for his life interest, and then the remainderman, if he desired it, would have his interest valued and sold, and the entire fee-simple obtained for the property in question. But I confess I should look, and do look, with very great jealousy upon any system by which it was possible for one man to do what may be to the injury of another, and which he has by law and in justice no right to do. And I protest against the notion that my noble and learned Friend suggested about the impropriety of the Reverter Clause. I think it is a most proper clause, and for this reason: a man may be disposed to give land because he has an interest in
  530
  a particular institution,—it may be charitable, or religious, or what not. If it is to be turned afterwards into something entirely different, not only are the terms of the gift abandoned, but, besides that, it may be turned into something which may be very injurious to the property; and it appears to me that the Reverter Clause was devised for the express object of preventing that perversion of what you have intended. I have only said this for the purpose of giving my noble and learned Friend notice that, although I said nothing upon the Second Reading, and although here I abstain from doing anything in the nature of attempting amendment, I shall wait to see how this Bill comes out of the Standing Committee, and I reserve to myself the right to form a judgment then whether it ought to pass into law or not.
  LORD MACNAGHTEN: I am much obliged to my noble Friends for their warning, and I hope when the discussion comes on I shall be able to satisfy them that there is nothing either dangerous, or wrong in the Bill.
  Bill reported without Amendments, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ALLOTMENTS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, there is a slight verbal Amendment I shall ask your Lordships' permission to insert in this Bill. In order that there may be no misapprehension regarding the effect of the "acre" referred to in this Bill as the Statute acre I propose to insert the word "Statute" before "acre" at the end of the Bill. The only other remark I wish to make is with reference to some observations which were made by at least one noble Lord on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, when some apprehension was expressed lest it might turn out to have an undesirable effect in the matter of increasing the evil already existing in many parts of Ireland as regards congested districts. I wish to remind the noble Lords that the principal

  531
  Acts which govern this Act make ample provision against sub-letting, or conacre or any other process which would have the effect of defeating the object of the Bill in the matter of allotments and overcrowding. With these few remarks I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I see this Bill has come up from the other House of Parliament, and therefore I conclude it comes up with the sanction and approval of Her Majesty's Government. If I am not mistaken the Irish Boards of Guardians are to be the bodies to set this extension of the previous labourers' allotments legislation into action. The fact of the Bill coming up to us with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government is not with me quite conclusive as to its prudence in leaving too much to be dealt with at the discretion of the Irish Boards of Guardians. I remember a few years ago protesting earnestly against giving the Boards of Guardians (whose action I know something of, and have had personal experience of upon my property in Ireland) too much discretion and power in providing dwellings for the labourers. I predicted that there would be, in spite of the sanction which was required from the Castle at Dublin, instances of jobbery, of favouritism, and of spite. Well, my Lords, I am far from saying that all Irish Boards of Guardians are capable of such conduct as that; but some, certainly, have been; and the working of that Act in those respects has not been encouraging I think to the Legislature to place more in their hands than is absolutely necessary. In the case of a slight extension of the amount of land to be taken for allotments there will not be the same facilities for jobbery, or partiality, of which in the more serious undertaking of providing dwellings we have seen various instances. I do not want to oppose this measure, but I take this opportunity of recording my profound distrust of the fairness and honest dealing of certain members of the Boards of Guardians of Ireland.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with Amendments; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  HARES BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
BILLS OF SALE BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Bill of which I have to move the Second Reading has but one object,—that is to ascertain more precisely what the law is upon the subject of those instruments which are known as bills of sale. It happens somewhat curiously that your Lordships' House has been judicially engaged the greater part of the day in determining that question; and the difficulty that has arisen, which is sought to be cured by this Bill, is to make the different definitions in the earlier Acts appropriate to the intended objects of those Acts. There have been three Acts of Parliament passed with totally different objects, in 1854, 1878 and 1882. The object of the first two Acts was to protect execution creditors against the fraud of their debtors, and, accordingly, the Legislature with great foresight provided that in order to protect the rights of such creditors the goods should pass out of the hands and out of the apparent possession of their debtors. That was a very wise and useful piece of legislation. In 1882 another Act was passed having a totally different object, which was to preserve impecunious and illiterate debtors from the machinations of the money-lenders. With that object the Legislature provided that any instrument which was given to secure a loan should be in a particular form, which was intended by the Legislature to be so clear that any person executing it would understand what it was and to what property it applied; and any instrument executed with that object in a different form was to be absolutely void. Your Lordships will see at once that those were totally different objects, but unfortunately the draftsman of that Act thought proper to apply the same provisions to the whole code of legislation, without having regard to the particular Acts of Parliament or to their different objects. The result has been an amount of liti-

  533
  gation and confusion which it is impossible to exaggerate. The object of the Bill is not to alter the law but to make clear which set of provisions should apply to each particular class of instruments. The Bill is divided into two parts; the first part deals with bills of sale generally, while the second part relates only to bills of sale intended as security for money,—so as to ascertain and make more clear and render it possible for the Courts to come to something like a unanimous conclusion as to what is the meaning of the instrument and what its legal effect shall be, having reference to that which ought to be the key to all instruments, namely, the intention which the parties actually have when they execute such instrument. That is the main principle of the Bill, and I think your Lordships will consider that if it is properly arranged and defined in the Bill it will be a useful addition to present legislation.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I know nothing of this Bill; but I only want to address myself to one particular expression the noble and learned Lord has used, namely, that it was the fault of the draftsman who put these Bills together that any confusion has arisen. I have not the slightest wish to defend the Bill; but, my Lords, I submit that under no circumstances is the blame to be thrown in this House upon the draftsman. The draftsman is not here to defend himself; he is instructed by the Minister; and I say deliberately that every word in a Bill which is brought in here, down to the dotting of the "i's" and the crossing of the "t's," is done upon the responsibility of the Minister and not of the draftsman who drew the Bill. The draftsman is the servant of the Minister, he receives his instructions from the Minister, no discretion is given him, he is not allowed to make any alteration except under the superintendence of the Minister, and I say that the Minister who brings in the Bill is responsible for the faults of the Bill. He may of course blame the draftsman if he does not follow his instructions, but the draftsman, I repeat, is not responsible to this House or to the other House in the slightest degree.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say to my noble and learned Friend that he appears to have in his mind some particular draftsman who has been assailed by the words I used, and that that person occupies some kind of official position. The noble and learned Lord is entirely mistaken. When I spoke of the draftsman I did not mean the Government draftsman; as a matter of fact the Act that I have most reason to complain of was introduced by a private Member, and when I spoke of the draftsman I used a convenient phrase for the purpose of referring to the person under whose superintendence it was drafted and whose drafting was deficient. I have no doubt that the Government draftsmen are extremely useful; some of them have invented an ingenious system, to which I think my noble Friend at the head of the Government referred the other day when he said that it rendered legislation more expeditious,—I am not convinced that it is to the benefit of the Houses of Parliament that they should not always understand the legislation that they pass, although I admit that it facilitates legislation,—whether it improves it or not is another question. I only rose, however, to assure the noble Lord that I was not speaking of any particular draftsman,—the author of the Bill would be equally good for my purpose; and I assure the noble Lord that what I said had no personal application to any particular draftsman.
  LORD THRING: My Lords, I did not for a moment imagine that the noble and learned Lord was attacking the noble Lord now addressing your Lordships; on the contrary, I have never experienced anything but the greatest courtesy from the noble and learned Lord. Far be it from me to think that he would condescend for a moment to attack me. But what I did say and what I again repeat is, that it has been the custom of late years to say that the draftsman has done so and so,—and whether you use the term "the draftsman" or "the author" of the Bill it is immaterial. If the noble and learned Lord means by the author of the Bill the Minister in charge of the Bill then it is right; but if he means by the author of the

  535
  Bill the subordinate gentlemen, one of whom I was, who drew the Bill, I say it is wrong. I recollect some 25 years ago Sir Cornewall Lewis said in the House of Commons when the draftsman was attacked, what ought to be said on every occasion: "I do not know what you mean by the draftsman; he acts under my orders and I am responsible for every word he draws." But, my Lords, I had not the slightest idea that the noble Lord intended to attack me—such a thought never entered my mind.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a Bill which practically is a Statute Law Revision Bill, although it cannot go to the Statute Law Revision Committee, with the purpose of which your Lordships are now familiar. It is a Bill to collect together in one Act, and where necessary to amend, a very large number of Statutes which at present exist for the protection of persons exercising powers under the law which may sometimes expose them to be the subjects of litigation afterwards. I need hardly say more in recommendation of the Bill than this, that the titles of the numerous Statutes upon the subject actually occupy more than eight folio pages, and that the effect of all that eight pages is comprehended in two sections of the Bill. That is a very desirable thing to do if it is properly done, and I hope at a later stage of the Bill to satisfy your Lordships that it is properly done. That is the sole technical operation of the Bill, and if it accomplishes the object with which it is designed your Lordships will probably think that that is a sufficient explanation of its provisions.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at Five o'clock.