Sitting of 13 June 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL—(by Order.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the case of the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: In regard to this Bill, I, on behalf of the London County Council, have to say that some clauses which I understood were agreed to have been accidentally omitted; but I am assured by the promoters that they will be considered in another place, and, accepting this assurance, I offer no opposition to this proposal.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  (Queen's Consent signified) Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the case of the London County Council (Money) Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Objection taken.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: If the objection has reference to the notice of a new clause "As to Sewage of West Ham," standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Fulton), I think, Sir, you will rule that it is not in Order; and under the circumstances, and at this period of the Session, I hope the Bill will now be allowed to go through.
  MR. SPEAKER: The new clause, of which notice has been given, is quite irrelevant to the Bill, and cannot be moved.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

QUESTIONS.

  DUNDALK RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce have suggested the suitability of the Red Barns range, near Dundalk, as a military range for the new magazine rifle; and whether, considering the convenient situation of Dundalk, the exceptional railway and steamboat services, and easy communication with all parts of the country, the War Office will adopt the suggestion?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I am not aware of any communication from the Chamber of Commerce of Dundalk relative to the Red Barns rifle range. The present Red Barns range answers very satisfactorily for military purposes, and no necessity is felt for increasing it. I shall be very glad to consider any representations on the subject.

  IRISH EDUCATION GRANTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN ((for Mr. BLANE,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it
  892
  has been the usual custom to give one-third of the grants for education to the assistant teachers; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government would recommend an additional grant of £70,000 to enable the Commissioners of National Education to pursue their usual rule of distribution?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The Commissioners of National Education report that it has not been the custom to make any such proportional distribution of the grants to assistant teachers as is indicated in the question.

  ENLISTMENT UNDER AGE.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Martin O'Donnell, at the date of his enlistment in the Connaught Rangers at Galway, was under the prescribed age for recruits; and whether, having regard to the fact that this young lad of seventeen years of age is the only support of a widowed mother, who has eight other young children, he will order O'Donnell's discharge?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: Martin O'Donnell enlisted last February, and gave his age as eighteen years. He is five feet nine inches high, weighs one hundred and forty-five pounds, and has a chest measurement of thirty-five inches. An application for his discharge was made, but as he was well over the standard measurement the general officer commanding in Ireland did not feel justified in permitting it; a further reason was alleged that he is the sole support of his mother, and on this subject I am making further inquiry.

  IMMIGRATION FROM THE CONTINENT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the continued increase of the emigration from Continental Europe to the United Kingdom, amounting last month to 22,295 persons, an addition of 8,868 over the same month in 1891, of whom 3,793, or 1,215 more than last

  893
  year, had no intention of endeavouring to enter the United States; and if he has observed that while May, 1891, brought only 166 aliens to Hull and Grimsby, 674 landed last month at these ports of the manufacturing districts of Yorkshire and Lancashire, notwithstanding the serious depression and lack of employment for the home population in the hardware and textile industries; and if he is now able to name a day when the contemplated measure on the subject of this foreign invasion will be introduced, having regard to the fact that unless it is dealt with in this Parliament it must continue unchecked throughout the winter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir. The figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend correctly give the number of immigrants who were actually stated to be en route to America; but I have reason to think that many of these aliens subsequently leave this country. Of the 674 aliens who landed at Hull and Grimsby in May, 1892, 186 were seamen. My hon. Friend will find that the increased immigration for the whole of this year comes mainly from Gothenburg, Christiania, and other ports, and not from Hamburg, which is the port whence the destitute aliens are likely to come. Hamburg has this year sent 5,993 immigrants more than in the corresponding period last year—a number not sufficient to cause alarm or to constitute a case of immediate urgency. I am not able to name a day for the introduction of the measure dealing with this subject.
  MR. FENWICK: Have any steps been taken to ascertain how many of these immigrants were the descendants of British parents?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, I am not aware of that.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of those who are en route for America, how does he draw the distinction? Are these persons required to show their through tickets?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is so. Those having through tickets are described as being en route for America, and others not having through tickets leave for destinations unknown.

  VOLUNTEER INSPECTIONS AND THE GENERAL ELECTION.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Volunteer Corps whose inspection have been ordered for the period between the receipt of the writ and the election in a constituency may be allowed to parade, having regard to the inconvenience and expense of postponement, provided that such date is not the day of the poll, and particularly if musketry practice may be allowed to continue?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The existing regulation—Article 377 of the Volunteer Regulations—is intended to prevent commanding officers from assembling their regiments during the period between the receipt of the writ and the election. But if an inspection or a camp is arranged with the authority of the War Office, the fact that it falls within the period indicated will not bring it within the regulation.

  VOLUNTEER REGIMENTS.
  MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any record is kept by the commanding officers of Volunteer regiments as to the usual occupation of men joining; and if he can state the number of officers deficient of the proper complement in the entire force, and if any means are being taken to supply such deficiency?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The muster-roll book of a Volunteer corps contains a column in which the occupation of a Volunteer at the time of joining is shown. There are at present 1,579 officers deficient in the Volunteer Force; and I have already stated by what means it is hoped to make the Service more attractive.

  LOCH SWEEN FORESHORES.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests have

  895
  recently sold or leased the foreshores, or any portion of the foreshores, of Loch Sween; if so, to whom and on what terms; and if the Commissioners have had regard to the undertaking of the Government that sales of such Crown rights would not be made?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)(who replied): No sale or lease of any portion of the foreshores of Loch Sween has been recently made. In June, 1891, the Board of Trade granted to Colonel Malcolm, M.P., and Major Campbell, the undertakers of an oyster fishery in Loch Sween, established by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament in May, 1891, a lease of the Crown rights in the soil comprised in the fishery—about four thousand acres—below water mark. The lease will be valid during the time the Order is in force, but not longer than for sixty years; and the annual rent is for the first three years £3, for the next six years £7, and for the remainder of the term £12. I am not aware of the undertaking to which the hon. Member refers, but the Fishery Order established by Parliament could not be efficiently worked without full possession of, and control over, the soil of the area of the fishery.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS IN INDIAN NATIVE REGIMENTS.
  SIR GUYER HUNTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the rank of medical officers, mentioned in Article 267A of the recent Royal Warrant, as carrying "precedence and other advantages indicated by the military portion of the title," has been infringed by a recent ruling of the Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army, relative to the position, at mess, of medical officers organically belonging to native regiments in India, in which it is declared that the senior combatant officer present takes military precedence on all occasions; and, if such ruling be valid, what is the precise nature and scope of the "precedence" set forth in the Article quoted of the Royal Warrant?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The Secretary of State has not seen the ruling referred to; but such ruling would be in accordance with paragraph 66, Section 7, of the Queen's Regulations for the Army. The latter part of the question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

  NAVAL OFFICERS AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES.
  MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what inducements, if any, are held out to the junior officers of the Navy to acquire foreign languages, and if periodical examinations are held; and if he is aware that French officers who visited England last year expressed surprise at the deficiency in this respect of the English naval officers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Admiralty attach great importance to the knowledge of French and other foreign languages, and have in the last few years done much to encourage its acquisition by naval officers. In the competitive entrance examination for the training ship "Britannia," 250 marks are allotted to French out of the total 1,150 marks allowed for the compulsory subjects. A naval cadet receives instruction in French throughout the four terms of his course in the "Britannia," and twice a year prizes are awarded for proficiency in that language. Every year junior officers afloat are examined in French and other subjects, at which certain prizes are offered for special attainments in foreign languages. Arrangements have been made to secure the services of French teachers for the junior officers of certain large ships, when lying for considerable periods in certain foreign ports, and also those naval officers who are interpreters receive remuneration for teaching junior officers. In addition various inducements are offered to naval officers to qualify themselves in foreign languages, after they cease to be junior officers, such as extra pay as interpreters and opportunities of studying on full pay abroad.

  BELFAST POSTAL STAFF.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the surveyor for the Northern District of Ireland refused to forward a Petition from the postal staff of the Belfast office because the Petition was a printed one; whether there is any rule which directs that Petitions should be in manuscript; and whether any English surveyor has refused to forward a similar Petition on the same ground?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): I am informed that the surveyor refused to forward a Petition on the ground that it was a printed one; but on being again asked to forward it he referred to Dublin and was told he might do so. There is no rule in the Post Office prescribing that petitions should be in manuscript, though there might be some reason in one. No English surveyor, so far as is known, has refused a Petition on the same ground.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the commencing salaries of Civil Service writers, who have been recently promoted to abstractorships, assistant clerkships, &c., were calculated upon their average earnings for the previous twelve months; and, if so, whether he will direct that all Civil Service writers who have been promoted to similar appointments within the past year be granted the same terms?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I am not aware that the commencing salaries of copyists appointed to abstractorships and similar places have been calculated on their average earnings for the previous twelve months. The pay of these posts is fixed in each case upon consideration of the circumstances, and I see no reason for laying down any general rule in the matter.

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that, although the Regulation 10 (d) of the Science and Art Directory states that—
  "Graduates of any University of the United Kingdom, whose degrees cover the subjects they propose to teach,"
  are qualified to earn payments on the results of science instruction, Masters of Arts of the University of Aberdeen are not recognised by the Science and Art Department as qualified to earn payments on the results of their teaching of science Subject 23 (Physiography), although the examination for the degree covers natural philosophy, including statics, dynamics, hydrostatics, pneumatics, theory of heat, electricity, magnetism, and acoustics; natural history, including zoology in all its branches; geology, including physical geography so far as bearing on geography proper, physical dynamical geology, and historical geology, comprising an account of the characters, divisions, and succession of the geological formations of Great Britain, &c.; whether he can state the reason why trained teachers who have successfully passed examination in those subjects are not recognised by the Department as qualified to teach the elementary stage of physiography in rural schools; why exception is made in the case of Aberdeen University; and, whether he will cause the disqualification to be removed?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The Department cannot consider a graduate of Aberdeen University qualified to earn payment on results in physiography without further examination, because, according to the calendar of that University, chemistry, magnetism, electricity, and physical astronomy are not included in the junior class, which is the only one imperative for the degree. A qualification is never given to teach the elementary stage alone, and it would be undesirable to do so for obvious reasons. There is no special exception in the case of Aberdeen University. The degrees of several other Universities do not cover

  899
  the subject, and are open to like disadvantage.

  PATENT FEES.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the promised consideration of the subject of reduction of patent fees in the cases of persons who have already applied for and obtained patents has yet resulted in any decision?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): In the cases of persons who have already applied for and obtained patents the payments will be reduced in accordance with the new scale as soon as it comes into operation.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the new scale will come into operation?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot give the exact date. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask me to-morrow.

  SEIZURE FOR COUNTY CESS, CARRICKMACROSS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the cow of a labourer named Michael Traynor, of Creerylake, near Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, was seized on the 4th instant by a bailiff named Henry Stubs when trespassing on an evicted farm on the Shirely Estate and impounded, and that Stubs detained the animal for three days, and charged the owner £3 before releasing it; and what was the charge of £3 for, and was it a legal charge?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no official cognizance of the subject matter of this question, but I understand the seizure referred to was made by a sheriff's bailiff in respect of a sum of £3 due for county cess, and that on the payment of this sum by Traynor the animal was released.

  ACCIDENTS IN BELFAST WEAVING FACTORIES.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it has been brought to his
  900
  knowledge that, on the 5th February last, Catherine O'Toole, a weaver, had one of her eyes destroyed by a blow from the shuttle of a loom beside where she was working in the weaving factory of the Belfast Flax Spinning and Weaving Company (Limited), Waterford Street, Belfast; that another weaver, named Lizzie Boyd, had one of her eyes destroyed in the same way in the weaving factory of the York Street Spinning Company (Limited), Belfast, on the 3rd May; were those injuries caused by the neglect of the employers or their superintendents to have suitable screens erected at each end of the loom so as to prevent the shuttle flying out in case of accident; and whether the Government, having regard to the frequency of such accidents, will cause to be appointed, as Inspector of Factories in Belfast, a tenter or other person recommended by the Belfast Trades Council, and having practical knowledge and experience of the working of such looms?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir, I have received a Report from the Inspector as to both these accidents. I am informed by him that in each case the loom was protected by a guard. As to the cause of the accidents I ought not to express an opinion, as I understand that proceedings are pending under the Employers' Liability Act. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, I may say that the Inspector in whose district these accidents occurred had, prior to his appointment, practical knowledge as a weaver from early life, and is fully acquainted with looms and weaving machinery.
  MR. SEXTON: Having regard to the great importance of this question to trade in Belfast, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the appointment of an Assistant Inspector there, recommended by the Trades Council; and I may mention that the Council entertain a strong opinion on this subject?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have had no complaint of inefficient inspection, and I may remind the hon. Member that in regard to the shuttles no sufficient guard has yet been discovered.

  INDIAN EXHIBITS AT THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether India is to be represented at the Chicago Exhibition; and, if so, whether the Government of India proposes to give a grant in aid?
  MR. CURZON: After very careful consideration the Government of India have come to the conclusion, in which they have the support of all the Indian Chambers of Commerce, that it is not necessary that India should be officially represented at Chicago, either directly or through the British Commission; or that any grant in aid should be made. The Government is, however, supporting the Calcutta Tea Association in the establishment of an Indian section at the Exhibition.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
  BARON DIMSDALE(on behalf of Mr. KENYON,, &c.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether since 1890 the agricultural statistics have been furnished by the officers of Excise without extra remuneration; and whether it is contemplated to remove the work to another Department, or to vote an extra sum to the Excise Department for the performance of these duties?
  MR. GOSCHEN: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I beg to refer him to several answers which I have recently given on the subject. No change in the system is at present in contemplation.

  AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General the exact date and hour of the arrival of the Orient steamship "Orotava" at Naples last week, at what hour the mails left Naples for London, and the cause of the delay in their arrival here; whether he is aware that this steamship, the "Orotava," arrived at Plymouth from Adelaide on Tuesday last, the 7th instant, one day before the Australian mails were due overland from Naples; and whether he has inquired what sum of money the
  902
  Peninsular and Oriental and Orient Companies would require to bring the Australian mails all the way by sea under the present contract time?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The "Orotava" reached Naples on the 1st, being four days in advance of contract time; the mails were forwarded by the first train and reached London at 6 p.m. on the 4th, having been delayed, as reported, by the heating of an axle of the train in Italy. The "Orotava" reached Plymouth on the 7th. I have not inquired for what additional payment the companies would accelerate their contract service by three or four days and continue it to an English port. It would doubtless be heavy.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS.
  MR. CRILLY(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE,): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when an official reply will be sent to the Petition of the Supervisors, Officers, and Assistants of Inland Revenue, forwarded to the Board of Inland Revenue for transmission to the Treasury on 27th May, 1891?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: In reply to this question I can only refer to the answer given on the 3rd instant.

  AUXILIARY POSTMEN.
  MR. CRILLY (for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the Memorial, forwarded in February last by the auxiliary postmen, has reached his hands; and, if so, when a reply to it may be expected; and if it is a fact that the auxiliary postmen have not participated in the benefits granted recently to the established postmen; that they have to work as hard as the established postmen, while they are paid far less; that no allowance is made to them for stripes, or for boots, or Sickness, or medical attendance; that they are given no annual leave, or extra pay for work on Sundays and bank holidays; and that no pension is given to them, no matter how long they may serve?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The Memorial referred to has been received. Extensive inquiries, however, had been already commenced and are still being

  903
  made respecting the rates of payment for auxiliary duties throughout the country, and until these are completed it will not be practicable to send a reply. The benefits mentioned as having been recently granted were specially authorised for the regular established postmen, who perform the full duties and give their whole time to the service. Auxiliary postmen perform shorter duties, and do not give their whole time to the service; indeed, it is a condition of employment that an auxiliary postman should have another occupation as well. It is not the fact, therefore, that they work as hard as the established postmen, but the reverse. When qualified, however, they usually succeed to vacancies in the establishment in their turn.

  INDIAN OFFICIALS AND THE NATIONAL CONGRESS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Pall Mail Gazette of 10th June, from Mr. W. S. Caine, stating that Mr. Oudh Behari Lal, of Allahabad, who had been nominated for a Government appointment in the North-West Provinces, was refused the appointment by the chief of the department, because he had publicly advocated the views of the Indian National Congress, and was the honorary secretary of the Allahabad branch of the Anglo-Indian Temperance Association; and whether it is the intention of the Government of India to disqualify for Government service those Indians who identify themselves with the Congress and Temperance movements?
  MR. CURZON: The Secretary of State has seen Mr. Caine's letter, but has no further information on the subject. There is no such intention as that spoken of in paragraph 2, so long as applicants for official employment, whether natives or Europeans, do not identify themselves with movements of the nature of those mentioned in a manner which would be inconsistent with the proper discharge of official duties.
  MR. SUMMERS: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the case mentioned in the letter?
  MR. CURZON: The question and my answer to it will be sent out to India, and attention will thus be drawn to it.

  MOUNTJOY PRISON ENCLOSURE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a street of cottages situated outside of Mountjoy Prison and tenanted by the officers of that establishment is enclosed at either end by massive iron gates, that these gates are locked by the Governor's orders every night at 10.30, and the gas in street and houses shut off, and that any officers or members of their families who happen to be out after that hour are excluded from their homes for the night; whether he is aware that this rule is regarded as a great hardship by the officers who are on duty within the prison from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and are then practically imprisoned in their own homes under this rule for the remainder of the twenty-four hours; and if he will consider whether these restrictions might be abolished?
  MR. JACKSON: The street of cottages occupied by Mountjoy Prison officers, and which is part of the prison premises, is not, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, inclosed by massive iron gates, but is separated from the public street by a low light-barred gate, and has a low wooden gate adjoining the prison. These gates are locked at 10.30 at night for the safety of the premises, and the gas, except when specially permitted to remain, is turned off after that hour. No one need be excluded from his home for the night, as a key remains with the occupant of the cottage adjoining the gate for the use of the residents after 10.30 o'clock if required.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the object of closing the gates if they are opened when required? The premises are outside the prison walls. Why not let the people go in and out as they like?
  MR. JACKSON: As a matter of safety, I suppose. I know no other reason.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Safety for whom?
  MR. JACKSON: For the occupiers.
  MR. O'BRIEN: They can take care of themselves.

  BIRMINGHAM CANAL RATES AND TOLLS.
  MR. RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the determination of the schedule of maximum rates and charges of the Birmingham Canal; and whether the schedule can be dealt with by Parliament next year?
  MR. SMITH-BARRYhad notice of the following question: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether legislation in regard to the rates and tolls of Canal Companies is so far advanced that it is likely to be brought before Parliament in this or the next Session?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Perhaps the hon. Member for Huntingdon will allow me to answer his question at the same time. Although much progress has been made with the inquiry into the schedules of rates and tolls of the six principal Canal Companies, including the Birmingham Canal, it will not be possible that the inquiry can be so advanced as to enable a Report to be presented within the probable length of the present Session. Under these circumstances, as the law stands, it is doubtful whether legislation could be introduced next Session, but, looking to the advance which has been made in the knowledge of rates, I think the Board of Trade should now be empowered to introduce a Provisional Order at any time after they have presented a Report to Parliament, and I propose to introduce a short Bill of one clause to give effect to this suggestion. Should this Bill become law, Provisional Orders could probably be introduced next year.

  HIGHLAND RAILWAY EXTENSIONS.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Highland Railway Company have offered to construct, work, and maintain a line of railway from Culrain to Lochinver, on the west coast of Sutherland, at a cost of
  906
  £250,000, on condition that the Treasury will guarantee a dividend of three per cent. for thirty years; whether the Duke of Sutherland has offered to give the necessary land as his share of the stock of the proposed railway; whether the Government intend to take advantage of this offer, and give the required guarantee; and whether, in the case of the Mallaig Railway, the Government had such, or any, facilities of a local character offered them?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Offers, which are in substance correctly described in the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, have been made to the Government. The proposals in connection with this and other lines are under consideration. In the case of the Mallaig line, the negotiations for which are nearly completed, certain local facilities are to be given, and the local guarantees required by the Government are forthcoming.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: Can the right, hon. Gentleman say what these local guarantees are?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I could not describe them off-hand, but the position is such that no risk whatever is involved to the Government. If the hon. Member wishes for detailed information, perhaps he will repeat his question to-morrow.

  THE BRITISH EAST AFRICA COMPANY.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the War Department has sold, lent, or given any arms or ammunition to the Imperial British East Africa Company, or if any officer has inspected arms or ammunition for the East Africa Company?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: The Company have been allowed to purchase some rifles and carbines, with ammunition for them; but inspections have not been made on their behalf.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Attorney General if the Charter of the Imperial British East Africa Company confers on them the power of conferring military commissions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): The Charter of the Imperial British East

  907
  Africa Company does not confer any power of conferring military commissions.

  GRIEVANCES OF ARMY PURCHASE OFFICERS.
  GENERAL SIR CHARLES FRASER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will now appoint the Committee of the House of Commons that he promised in this House on the 25th June, 1891, to investigate the cases of alleged grievances of certain purchase officers of the Army, a classification of their cases, drawn up in view of that pledge, having been under his consideration for a considerable period?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I am, of course, ready to do what I have already indicated. I have always declined to re-open the principles upon which the purchase system was abolished, and which were fully considered and settled at the time; but I added that, if there appeared to be any class of cases as to which there was substantial doubt as to the mode in which these principles have been carried out, I should be ready to agree to refer it to a Select Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend has submitted a number of cases setting forth alleged grievances, many of which simply indicate a desire to re-open the whole purchase question. I have replied to him very fully. It will now be for him and his friends to show whether in the case of any of these classes a reasonable case, within the lines above indicated, can still be put forward.
  SIR CHARLES FRASER: Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate his promise to refer the grievances of these officers to a Committee of this House?
  *MR. STANHOPE: No, I entirely adhere to it; but I decline altogether to allow the principle on which purchase was abolished to be re-opened. I can only consent to the class of cases I have mentioned being investigated.

  LABOURERS COTTAGES IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been and are being taken to provide labourers cottages and allotments for
  908
  labourers in and around the village of Kill, County Kildare; whether the majority of houses occupied by labourers have been condemned by Sanitary Authorities for years past as unsanitary and incommodious; and whether he is aware that the main opposition to allotments and erection of such cottages proceeded from the local landowner; and, if so, whether steps will be immediately taken to provide the required plots and cottages?
  MR. JACKSON: The Guardians of the Naas Union have been authorised to provide one hundred and twenty-three cottages. Of these ten are in the Kill Electoral Division. The Local Government Board are not aware whether the majority of the existing dwellings in the village have been condemned, or whether the case is as stated in the last paragraph. But it is to be observed that lands can be compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the Act where the circumstances warrant it.
  DR. TANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local landowner, a noble Lord, is the main impediment to labourers getting their dwellings?
  MR. JACKSON: No, I have not heard that.
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause an inquiry to be made, and will he send a Local Government Inspector to insure these dwellings being provided, they having been pressed for during the last eighteen months?
  MR. JACKSON: There is no power on the part of a local landlord or anybody else to stand in the way. The Board of Guardians can frame a scheme and go with it to the Local Government Board.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are any, and, if so, how many cottages built in the Ballyvaughan Union, County Clare, under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; whether such cottages are urgently needed in the Union; and whether any, and, if so, what steps the Government propose taking to remedy the alleged want?
  MR. JACKSON: No cottages have been built in the Ballyvaughan Union under the Labourers Acts. It appears that some time ago the Guardians had under consideration the question of erecting such cottages, but did not proceed further with the matter. If there is any necessity for such cottages, it is open to the ratepayers or the labourers interested to bring the subject again before the Guardians.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cottages have been provided under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts with allotments in the Counties of Armagh, Fermanagh, and Antrim, respectively, and how much land granted in allotments?
  MR. JACKSON: No labourers cottages have been authorised in the Counties of Armagh and Fermanagh. In the County Antrim eighteen cottages have been authorised in the Ballymena Union, and twelve of these have been built. The quantity of land taken for each of these houses is half an acre. Eight houses have also been sanctioned for the Ballycastle Union. The proposed allotment for each of these houses, including the site, is two roods and five perches.
  DR. TANNER: Will it be possible, in new schemes promoted in County Antrim, to get land to the extent of one acre?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think it would be possible to secure that, but as the hon. Member knows an Act has been passed empowering the Guardians to allow that.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken to obtain a site for a cottage under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in the parish of Doneraile, County Cork, near Oldcourt graveyard, and if he is aware that a site was chosen by the dispensary committee, approved by the engineer to the Union, but obstructed by a local tenant farmer; and whether, in view of the fact that the provision of this cottage has been repeatedly asked for by the people of the locality,
  910
  the Local Government Board will take steps to settle the matter?
  MR. JACKSON: The site first selected for the proposed cottage referred to appears to have been objected to by the occupier of the land on the ground that the site was demesne land. The Guardians have now before them a scheme which includes a representation for a site for this cottage about one hundred yards distant from the former proposed one.
  DR. TANNER: Can no pressure be brought to bear—no steps taken—to meet this urgent want?
  MR. JACKSON: I have already said a scheme is before the Board of Guardians to secure a site one hundred yards distant from that mentioned in the question.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken in the Mallow Union to carry out Scheme 6 under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and, if not, for what reasons?
  MR. JACKSON: The preliminary proceedings of the Mallow Board of Guardians in connection with the Scheme No. 6 referred to were informal. This was explained to the Guardians by the Local Government Board, and it is understood that the houses proposed in that scheme will be included in a further scheme the Guardians are now framing.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board will reconsider their decision as regards the fifth scheme for labourers cottages in the Mallow Union; whether the Guardians of the Union received notice of the inquiry into the said scheme; whether Colonel Spaight, Local Government Inspector, refused to adjourn the inquiry when the Guardians did not attend; and whether the proceedings under this scheme cost the Union upwards of £200?
  MR. JACKSON: The matter referred to in this question was disposed of two years ago, and the Local Government Board are not aware of any reason for re-opening it. Public notice was

  911
  given of the proposed local inquiry, and it was specially pointed out to the Guardians that they should be prepared to produce at the inquiry the necessary evidence in support of the scheme. Nearly all the Guardians absented themselves, but the other parties to the case being duly in attendance, in pursuance of the notice, the Local Government Inspector did not feel himself in a position to adjourn the inquiry. The Local Government Board have no information as to the cost incurred by the Guardians in connection with this scheme.

  COMPULSORY EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed that the Pembroke Township (Dublin) Commissioners have passed a resolution protesting that there are no funds at their disposal for the purpose of defraying the cost of compulsory education in the township; whether he is aware that the proposal to charge upon the ratepayers of Irish towns the cost of a system imposed upon them without franchise to the inhabitants or discretion to the Local Authorities, meets with emphatic disapproval; and whether he has any reason to anticipate that the compulsory system will be worked and paid for in those cities and towns in which the Local Authorities have already protested against the continued exclusion of the schools of the Christian Brothers from the primary system and the free education scheme? I also wish to repeat the question I put the other day whether right hon. Gentleman has considered the statement submitted to him by the Mayor of Waterford, on 14th April, on behalf of several Municipal Corporations in Ireland representing that the Education Bill, as it stands, will do violence to the religious convictions of the people, and whether he will grant the interview asked for on behalf of those Corporations?
  MR. JACKSON: First, with regard to the question on the Paper, I believe it is true that the Pembroke Township Commissioners did pass a resolution somewhat in the form stated in the question. I have been advised, how-
  912
  ever, that the Bill as drawn would confer upon them power to levy a rate, but if there is any doubt about that it is very easy, by putting a couple of additional words in the clause in Committee, to make it perfectly clear that they have the power. With regard to the other questions, I did receive a communication from the Mayor of Waterford, who stated that he represented a good many Corporations of Ireland in making such a protest. I do not agree with the view expressed by these bodies, nor do I agree that there would be any difficulty in carrying the law into effect.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet given the Irish Corporations, who will have to work this Act if it passes, that interview for which they asked in March last, and for which they have been pressing ever since; or does he propose to proceed with the Bill without giving these bodies that interview?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, I do not think it necessary to delay the Bill in order to afford that interview. I have been in communication by correspondence with them, and I have expressed my views in answer to their Memorial. I have also stated that if they still desired to have an interview I would afford them such an opportunity, but I could not hold out any hope that even if the interview took place that the opinion I have already expressed could be altered as regards the Christian Brothers' Schools.

  GOVERNMENT PAINTING CONTRACTS IN DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the contract for Government work in the painting trade in Dublin is presently to be determined for a period of three years; and whether the Board of Works will take care, in framing the advertisements and conditions relating to this contract, to embody the terms laid down in the recent Resolution of this House, especially with regard to fair wages, in order to secure that the contract shall be executed in accordance with those terms?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The contract for Government work in the painting trade in Dublin referred to in the ques-

  913
  tion will not be made until November of the present year. The Board of Works have not yet framed the conditions of the contract, but when doing so they will not lose sight of the Resolution of the House referred to.

  THE "ALBERT EDWARD" COLLISION.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can inform the House how many boats and the number of people they would accommodate were carried by the steamer "Albert Edward" at the time of the recent collision on the passage from Boulogne to Folkestone; and how many passengers were on board the steamer at the time of the collision?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I understand that, on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, the "Albert Edward" carried four boats, capable of accommodating seventy-three persons, in addition to life belts and life buoys for four hundred and sixteen persons. Life-saving appliances were therefore supplied for four hundred and eighty-nine persons, whereas those on board consisted of three hundred and sixty passengers and a crew of twenty-three.

  DESTRUCTION OF FISH FRY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Irish Fishery Inspectors that wholesale destruction of salmon fry and eel fry is going on in the Shannon and its tributaries at Limerick, and that nothing is being done to protect the fry by the Limerick Fisheries Board or their staff; and whether he can yet fix a date for the promised inquiry into the condition of the Limerick fisheries?
  MR. JACKSON: It appears to have been alleged that there has been a destruction of salmon fry and eel fry in the ponds or reservoirs of the Limerick Water Works. The Inspectors of Irish fisheries have called for a Report in the matter.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Why has there been this long delay?
  MR. JACKSON: I have already stated in answer to a question that the delay is in consequence of the fact that at present we have only two Fishery Inspectors, and that they have been called upon to perform very arduous duties; but I hope we are now within a very short time of having the question settled by the appointment of a third Fishery Inspector.

  THE DYNAMITE COMPANY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can explain how Mr. W. Doveton Smyth, who defended two men named William Norman, alias Lynch, and William Ansburgh, who were charged before London Magistrates on the 6th and 12th April, 1883, with connection with dynamite conspiracies, got access to those prisoners, by whom was he engaged to defend them, and whether the cost of their defence by Mr. Smyth was paid by the Crown; and, if so, out of what fund; whether Mr. Smyth got access to Dr. Gallagher or any of the other prisoners except Norman and Ansburgh; and whether they were afforded opportunities for engaging a solicitor to represent them at the Police Court on the dates when Norman and Ansburgh were represented by Mr. Smyth?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Doveton Smyth had access to Norman and Ansburgh at their own request. Norman was admitted as Queen's evidence and was not tried, and Ansburgh was acquitted. There is no reason to believe that the cost of the prisoners' defence was paid by the Government of the day. Mr. Smyth in the first instance had access to Gallagher as his solicitor at that prisoner's request, but subsequently Mr. Smyth retired from the defence, as Gallagher applied to be defended by Mr. de Tracy Gould and Mr. Morris. Mr. Smyth had access to the prisoner Wilson, but I am informed, as in the other cases, at the prisoner's request. The prisoners were both afforded every opportunity at the Police Court and while awaiting trial to engage any solicitor whom they pleased to represent them.
  MR. O'BRIEN: How could Norman, who had never been in London before, have known to ask for Mr. Smyth?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer to that question.

  SATURDAY POLLING.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government will take care that at the Dissolution the Writs reach the Returning Officers of boroughs on such a day that it shall be possible for them to fix the election on a Saturday?
  THE FIEST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): If the hon. Member will allow me, I shall answer his question when I make my promised statement on Public Business to the House.

  THE NEW FOREST RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he has come to any decision as to Mr. Pelham's Report on the proposed rifle range at the New Forest?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: I have considered Mr. Pelham's Report on the New Forest range, and I have come to the conclusion, independently of any other consideration, that the peculiar circumstances of the New Forest render it practically impossible to compensate the commoners without further legislative process. If, therefore, it should be decided to proceed in another year with any site for a range in the Forest it will be submitted in the ordinary way for Parliamentary sanction. In the meantime, I will cause further inquiry to be made as to any possible alternative sites which have been or may be suggested.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am under an engagement to make a brief statement to the House with regard to the position of Public Business, and the prospects of proceeding rapidly towards the termina-
  916
  tion of the Session. As the House is aware, we have already either passed, or are on the brink of passing, the following important Bills:—Small Holdings Bill, Education and Taxation (Scotland) Bill, Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill, India Councils Bill, Bank of England Remuneration Bill, and the Clergy Discipline Bill. These, I think, were all Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech. There is another Bill mentioned in the Queen's Speech which, no doubt, may require some further consideration—I allude to the Irish Education Bill, which has been read a second time, but which still remains to be dealt with in Committee. Some conversation occurred across the floor of this House last Friday between the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and myself, but nothing that has occurred leaves me in doubt that that Bill also may be counted ultimately among the measures which we shall see passed during the present Session. It will be extremely disastrous, I think, if that were not so, because practically upon that Bill depends the passing of the Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of education in Ireland. Then, Sir, there remain two important Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech which I should not wish the House to consider at this stage of our proceedings. These are the Irish Local Government Bill and the Private Bill Procedure Bill. The Irish Local Government Bill, as will be recollected, was passed on the Second Reading by a very large majority. I know—perhaps not in this House, but elsewhere—many persons formed from that majority a very confident expectation that the Bill would be finished. But I think it will be evident to everyone acquainted with our proceedings that a Bill of that kind, if it be strenuously opposed, is not one that can by any possibility be passed into law except after very prolonged discussion. The English Local Government Bill, although it was not opposed on the Second Reading, and although, on the whole, its provisions met with favour on both sides of the House, occupied an amount of time corresponding to six weeks before it passed the stages after the Second Reading of the Bill; and we are informed, I have no doubt rightly, that

  917
  the Irish Local Government Bill will not receive such favourable treatment as the English Bill, and that six weeks would, I presume, be extended into eight or twelve weeks, and in these circumstances I feel it would be absolutely impossible to ask the House further to consider the question. With regard to the Private Bill Procedure Bill, that has not yet passed the Second Reading. It is a Bill which, although valuable and important, it is impossible to ask the House to accept without very full discussion, dealing as it does with some important prerogatives of this House, and it also must be abandoned. Now, Sir, I pass from those which I may describe as first-class measures to other measures which are important, but still cannot be placed in the same rank. We did a good deal of business on Friday, and cleared the Orders of a large number of non-contentious measures; but there still remain to be dealt with the following practically unopposed Bills. The Naval Knights of Windsor, Poor Law Schools (Ireland), Land Commission (Ireland), Civil Bill Courts (Ireland), and the Casual Wards Bill, which my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is going to introduce, and which I believe will meet with very general approval in every quarter of the House. In addition to these, which are Government Bills, there are four Bills hitherto in charge of private Members which I propose to "star," following the suggestion thrown out the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). At his instance the Government entered into a pledge to oppose after twelve o'clock the passage of any private Member's Bill; but as a set-off against that, and as a means of to a certain extent enabling the House to deal with private Members' proposals which were generally accepted, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should "star" certain Bills of importance. The Bills to which I propose to accord that special privilege are the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Bill, the Witnesses Protection Bill, the Coroners' Deputies Bill, and the Public Health Acts Amendment Bill. In addition to these Bills there are a certain number not yet before
  918
  the House, but either of a formal character or the discussion of which is already proceeding in another place. There are the Fishery Board (Scotland) Bill, a Bill which I believe in principle is accepted by all parts of the House; the Canal Rates Bill, which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes to introduce, so as to obviate certain difficulties that must arise by the premature termination of the Session, and the Bank Charter Bill. It is usual, when the Session is cut short by a Dissolution, to pass a measure to prevent the promoters of Private Bills from suffering pecuniary loss, or any greater loss of time than is absolutely necessary by the fact of the conclusion of the Session. We shall bring in as usual a Bill to enable the promoters of Private Bills to resume the proceedings which have to be prematurely cut short without repayment of the fees, and at the stage at which they were left during the present Session. In the same category of Bills of a more or less uncontroversial character which are not yet before the House I may mention the Local Loans Bill and the Statute Law Revision Bill. There is also a Bill for enabling my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to expend in Ireland for the extermination of pleuro-pneumonia a sum of money allocated by Statute in England, but which is not required for English purposes. As the House may recollect, £160,000 a year was voted to the President of the Board of Agriculture for dealing with this disease. Through his efforts the disease has been practically stamped out in England. He has some funds available which are urgently required in Ireland, and I am sure the House will accept that proposal. There are two Colonial Bills of which I only heard to-day, but which are more or less of a pressing character. The first deals with the great calamity by which Mauritius has been visited. It is proposed, in accordance with precedents on similar melancholy occasions, to enable the Colony to borrow £600,000, with the privilege of a British guarantee. That would be, of course, an immense saving to the Colony, and would, I am informed, involve no danger to the Imperial Exchequer; and

  919
  I think probably the House would feel some consideration is due to the inhabitants of this Colony, who have suffered so cruelly from this visitation. The other Colonial Bill deals with crofter emigration to British Columbia, £150,000 was guaranteed by the Treasury under the British Columbian Guarantee for the purpose of facilitating crofter emigration. That proposal was made some six months ago to the Colony. They have, however, for reasons with which I am not acquainted, reserved their final decision on the subject till a comparatively recent period; and I understand that within the next few days a gentleman will come over empowered by the Colony to deal with the Exchequer of this country. The British Columbian Parliament passed an Act, and I think it would be unfortunate if the whole of their trouble and the whole of our trouble should either be wasted or, at all events, that the fruition of our labours should be delayed for a twelve-month. That finishes the Bills which have yet to be brought before the attention of the House, and I think the House will agree that they are of an important and at the same time of a non-controversial character. The Telegraphs Bill, the Superannuation Bill, and the Criminal Evidence Bill are now before either a Select or a Grand Committee, and I have hopes—confident hopes—that all those Bills may pass into law. In addition to these I have to note the Military Lands Consolidation Bill, the East India Officers Bill, and the Public Elementary Schools Bill—and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) reminds me that I ought to have mentioned the Galway Infirmary Bill. The Military Lands Bill, the East India Officers Bill, and the Public Elementary Schools Bill are measures which I should be unwilling to drop, but I cannot hope to pass them into law if any very great length of time is required for their discussion, or if they meet with any serious hostility. The Access to Mountains Bill, the House will remember, was brought in by the Government in consequence of a Resolution passed by this House on that subject. I am given to understand that the measure we have prepared meets with very little favour from hon.
  920
  and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They think that the limitations and the safeguards we have introduced are of too stringent a character. I am bound to say that such further investigation as I have been able to give to the subject leads me to a somewhat opposite conclusion, and I am inclined to think that we have not sufficiently safeguarded certainly the rights which will be seriously menaced if the Bill passes into law in its present shape. I have therefore to recognise that a Bill which is thought by one Party to go too far and by another Party not to go far enough, is not a Bill which, at the present stage of our proceedings, is likely to pass into law. I think I have now gone through all the measures which we hope to pass; and I come, therefore, to the period which would be required to pass them, and upon that, of course, I can offer no confident prophecy. Much will depend upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and his friends. No doubt some of the Bills are such as may very properly require some consideration by the whole of the House. I have also to recognise that we have to pass the whole of the Irish Estimates, that we have to pass the Report of a certain amount of Supply which we got on Friday, and the Report of the Supply which we have yet to get. We have also to consider that it is not merely the business which this House has to do, but the business which the House of Lords has to do must be taken into account before we can speak with confidence as to the special day of Dissolution. The Dissolution can only take place, of course, when the business has been completed by both Houses and the requisite Councils have been held which are necessary to give legal formality to this step. I am not very familiar with the process myself; but I understand that two Councils have to be held—one for the Prorogation, and the other for the Dissolution—and it is not always easy to find a day which will be convenient for holding those Councils to carry through these necessary proceedings. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart) asks me whether I can so fix the day that it shall be possible to have the election on a

  921
  Saturday. I am no great adept at Election Law; but I think the hon. Gentleman will see that, as I am unable at present to fix a day at all, I cannot give a categorical answer to the question. I see this further difficulty in giving an answer. He requires me, on behalf of the Government, to say that, in our opinion, the election should not take place except on a Saturday. He requires me to say that, in the opinion of the Government, the returning officers should so use their discretion that the election must take place on a Saturday. No indication of that duty on the part of the returning officers has been given in the Act of Parliament, and I think it would be highly inexpedient if the Government were to declare that, in their opinion, the discretion of the returning officers should be used in such a way. I think, therefore, while the House will see that I am not in a position to say definitely within what twenty-four hours the Dissolution will take place, we may say, with some confidence, that it is very unlikely to take place before the end of the week beginning with Sunday, the 19th, and most unlikely to occur after the middle of the week beginning with the 26th. That leaves a very narrow margin of doubt. I hope the House will be satisfied with the statement I have made.
  MR. SEXTON: I have consulted with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Londonderry (Mr. Justin McCarthy) as to the Irish Education Bill; and looking to the declaration which has been made to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to the Christian Brothers' Voluntary Schools, looking also to his contemptuous treatment of the Irish Public Bodies, which, during the past three months, have been in communication with him in reference to the Bill, and looking also to the failure of the least indication of his respecting the views of the Irish Members and of the Irish people, I have to give notice that the Irish Education Bill, in all its further stages, will receive the most strenuous opposition.

MOTION.

  BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.
  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I beg to move for leave to introduce a Bill for making further provision respecting certain payments to the Banks of England and Ireland, and, availing myself of the privilege which is sometimes given, to make the shortest possible explanation of this Bill, I may remind the House that there are four positions in which the Bank of England stands to the Government. It is the issuing bank, giving a portion of the profits of note-issue to the Government; it is a creditor of the Government to the amount of eleven millions sterling; it manages the National Debt, and it is the banker of the Government and custodian of the public balances. The scheme which I have to propose leaves the arrangements between the State and the Bank of England as regards issue undisturbed, so that, if a future Parliament should think fit to make any changes in that respect, nothing in the present arrangements would have tied its hands. With regard to the amount of eleven millions which the Government owe to the Bank, the Bill proposes to reduce; the rate of interest from three to two and three-quarters per cent., by which an economy of £27,500 will be secured. As to the management of the Public Debt, there will be a change made in the payments, by which there will be a saving of £9,400. The charge of £3,000 for assessment of Government Stocks to the Income Tax will be no longer made by the Bank, so that on the management of the Public Debt there is a total saving of £12,400. In its capacity of custodian of public accounts the Bank will no longer make charges on the Government, which amount to £6,300; and will also make some concessions with regard to interest on deficiency advances, making a total saving of £9,300. There are some counter items, but the change will

  923
  effect a total saving of about £45,700. The case of the Bank of Ireland has also been taken into consideration, and in regard to that the total saving is £7,800. On the whole arrangement, the total saving to the country is £53,500. Legislation will only be necessary with reference to the management of the National Debt and the interest on the Debt, because the arrangements with regard to other matters have been made by agreement with the Treasury. Hon. Members will see the exact particulars of the proposed change when the Bill is in their hands.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for making further provision respecting certain Payments to the Banks of England and Ireland; and for other purposes connected with those Banks."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir John Gorst.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 406.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 208.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move that the Bill be re-committed in respect of Clause 2. The sum of £265,000 is given to Scotland as an equivalent for the ten shillings per head paid on the average attendance of children in England, and we find, on looking at the Estimates for this year, that there will be 567,000 children in Scotland requiring to be provided for. That means that we shall get £18,500 less than if we received ten shillings for every child attending school. If the Bill pass in its present form Scotland will therefore have only nine shillings and fourpence per head instead of ten
  924
  shillings, as in England. This may seriously affect the School Boards in Scotland, and it may be necessary to increase the education rate. I can see no reason at all why we should not have ten shillings per head per child, as they have in England. If the Bill pass in its present form we shall lose £18,500 this year, and probably larger sums in future years.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to add the words "recommitted in respect of Clause 2."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): It is the case, as the hon. Member has mentioned, that 567,000 children appear in the estimates for this year, but from that figure a certain deduction must be made in respect of children over fifteen years of age, because the average attendance of children in Scotland does not square with the average attendance in England. That, to a certain extent, reduces the magnitude of the objection stated by the hon. Member. I believe that in England about 32,000 children are deducted from the calculation on the ground that they are over fifteen years of age. The Scottish Education Department allow for a certain increase year by year, and I believe the increase allowed for this year is three and a half per cent. Last year the increase was unusually high; but according to experience of the past, the increase next year will be rather under than over the average, and if that is so it would very seriously affect the figures which the hon. Member has laid before the House. It cannot be taken as certain that the increase which appears in the estimates will be maintained. If the increase turns out to be less, and if the ten shillings per head is adopted, the difference will have to be surrendered. On the other hand, the English Education Department have only allowed for an increase of a little over two per cent. for this year, and if a Supplementary Estimate is rendered necessary

  925
  the result will be that that Supplementary Estimate will go proportionately towards increasing the amount due to Scotland. That being so, I think the hon. Member may well leave the matter as it is. The figures which the hon. Member has laid before the House are not anything like sufficient to induce the Government to change the basis of calculation; and that calculation, so far as we can forecast the future, will not lead to the consequences which the hon. Member has shadowed forth. On this ground I would ask the hon. Member to be content with the protest he has made against the basis of calculation, and allow the Bill to be read a third time.
  MR. CALDWELL: I must protest against Scotland being treated in this case as a separate nationality, instead of as an integral part of the United Kingdom. The proportions in which the three countries receive the grant are eighty per cent. for England, eleven per cent. for Scotland, and nine percent. for Ireland; and the Government are seeking to stereotype these percentages before they have demonstrated their correctness. The question which, of course, arises is: what is the amount which Scotland should receive? Hitherto Scotland has been treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom; but in this case, while ten shillings is allowed per head for the children attending school in England, Scotland is reminded that it is no longer part of the United Kingdom, and that its children are not to get ten shillings per head. If, however, ten shillings per head is given for the children in England, you ought in fairness to give ten shillings per head for the average attendance of children in Scotland. What is the effect of this policy of treating Scotland as a separate nationality? We lose £18,500. Even if a deduction is to be made for the children over fifteen years of age, we shall still lose £16,000 a year. I think we are entitled at least to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a great mistake in dividing the United Kingdom into three separate nationalities in this matter, and in giving to Scotland less than its proper proportion of the grant. There is no
  926
  reason whatever why Scotland should not be treated as an integral part of the United Kingdom, and why it should not be allowed ten shillings per head in respect of the average attendance of children, instead of being defrauded to the extent of £16,000 a year.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (, &c.): I do not wish to lengthen the Debate at this stage. The facts of the case are perfectly simple and plain and do not think anyone could dispute the justice of the claim which we make on behalf of Scotland in regard to this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set up, during the last two or three years, a fantastic method of dealing with these so-called international money payments, and in order to suit our system to this arrangement the sum to be given to Scotland is made to depend upon the number of children attending school in England. That in itself would be enough to condemn it; but beside that, we find, on looking into it, that our original suspicions are more than confirmed, and that we in Scotland will be losers by the arrangement to the extent of £18,500 a year. The Lord Advocate makes some deduction from that sum on account of children over fifteen years of age, but even then we still lose £15,000 or £16,000 in consequence of this fantastic arrangement. I think that is quite enough to justify our protest against the proposals of the Bill, and I hope my hon. Friend will therefore go to a Division in order that we may express our opinion on the subject. The Lord Advocate may say, and has said, that the figures quoted are only estimates. But that is all we have to go upon. We have no information other than the estimates; and seeing that the estimates, of which we were not before aware, amply corroborate all our ideas and suspicions on the subject, we are still further convinced that the proposal is unjust to Scotland, as it is undoubtedly inconvenient and unreasonable in itself. And on those grounds, besides the lofty ground from which the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) based the opposition—the ground of maintaining a decent union between Scotland and England—I hope

  927
  my hon. Friend will go to a Division against the Bill.
  MR. CHARLES PARKER: I shall certainly support this Amendment. To me the question of the estimates appears to make very little difference, because the money will not be paid according to the estimate, but according to fact when the fact is ascertained. I support the Amendment not alone on the ground of the proposal being the deprivation to Scotland of many thousands of pounds, but I support it also on the ground that it is a very undesirable mode of conducting finance. I wish to point out that from first to last the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I believe, been consistent in this—that he has always absented himself whenever we have been discussing these financial arrangements. Member after Member has appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but what is the use of appealing to him when he is not present, and when only one Member of the Government answers such appeals? I think it is rather disrespectful to Scotland that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should absent himself during the discussion of this Bill, which is financial as well as educational in character, and thus preclude us from obtaining information we desire.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charles Parker) who has just sat down has thought it necessary to attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not being present during the discussion of this Bill. But the hon. Gentleman must be aware of the calls made upon the time of Ministers, and that occasionally public business, urgent in character and which cannot be avoided, makes it absolutely imperative for a Minister to absent himself. On the merits of this question I do not propose to say very much, except that I think hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have greatly underrated the complexity of the problem with which we had to deal. If in Scotland and England you had a similar state of things calling for precisely similar treatment, then it would be perfectly unnecessary to go to the kind of
  928
  division of the relative contributions of the three countries my right hon. Friend has had to adopt in settling the amount of this equivalent grant. But where you have systems so different as the English, Irish and Scotch systems in matters of education, you cannot go upon similar principles. It is absolutely necessary to find some other principle by which equity and justice can be done. I think it was the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Caldwell) who appeared to call in question the equity of the proportion of eleven per cent. which is given to Scotland. Well, Sir, I will not go into that; but I know that the calculation was made by the Treasury and based upon all the information at their disposal, and I do not believe that any of the criticisms to which it has been subjected have shaken it in any important degree. It is clearly convenient to allocate the money between the three countries in the manner we have observed, otherwise we might give much too little to one and too much to another. Education in Scotland costs, I believe, more per head than education in England, and education in Ireland costs very much less; and it seems to me that where the cost per head is so different as in this case, and where the system is so different, it would not be statesmanship but mere pedantry to apply the hard and fast rule of ten shillings per child in all cases. We have, therefore, had to fall back upon some other principle, and the only other principle at once clear, intelligent and equitable was the principle adopted by the Bill of giving Scotland in respect of the equivalent grant precisely a proportionate share of the amount given to England for carrying out similar objects. As a matter of fact that course, which I think justifiable in itself, was rendered almost necessary by the historical development of the whole subject; because, as the House will recollect, education was freed in Scotland, not out of the fund which is now going to be devoted to that subject, but out of quite a different fund, and therefore the whole subject was finished in Scotland before the ten shillings was fixed in regard to England. That, however, I admit is not a ground which ought for all time to necessarily regu-

  929
  this matter, and I do not think that for all time the present arrangements must necessarily hold. But I do say that there are great difficulties, not present in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in dealing with a system so different from the English system as the Scotch system of education; and if you cannot deal with it in precisely the same manner, it is only natural and equitable to fall back upon the simple and obvious plan of giving to each country a proportion of its general contribution to the Imperial Revenue.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I cannot help thinking that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were founded upon a misconception of the case. It is not a question of difference in education. It is a question whether Scotland's share of this money should be limited to the average attendance in England. It is well known that children attend very much better than in England, and it is a question that the money should be allocated upon the attendances made by Scotch children themselves. To put the argument upon any other grounds is, I think, to attempt to confuse the issues. My hon. Friend will be perfectly justified in dividing this House upon the question.
  Question put.
  (5.12.) The House divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 70.—(Div. List, No. 183.)
  Main Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. BRYCE: As this Bill is now going to leave the House, I should like to take the opportunity of saying one word about it, and to repeat the expressions of regret which I have made on every occasion, and which I know are shared by a great many Members of this House, that an opportunity has been lost of conferring great benefits upon Scotland—an opportunity that may not return in our time. I thankfully admit that the Bill has been improved during its progress in the House. We have had the appointment conceded of a Departmental Committee, which it is to be hoped will render the plans for spending money
  930
  on secondary education better than those which were shadowed out in the Memorandum presented to the House. And we have had from the Government the concession of powers to the County and Town Councils to apply the sum of £100,000 which is given to those Councils not merely for the relief of local rates, but to other objects of public utility which the Councils may propose. In these respects the Bill is certainly better than when it entered the House. But, at the same time, we view with very great regret the gift of no less than £50,000 to the Parochial Boards being spent by them upon the relief of the rates which they levy. We consider that is a substantial relief to the wealthier and better class of ratepayers, and that being taken out of the general taxation of the country, the larger proportion being paid by the poor, it is pro tanto not a relief of the poor. It is a measure framed for the benefit of the better and not the humbler class. We still more regret that since this sum is being applied to local purposes its destination should be one which, so far as I can see, has no promise of permanent improvement either in the addition of power or administration of Local Government in Scotland. I make these remarks for the pupose of calling attention to the fact that a very large number on this side of the House do not consider the present Bill is final. Indeed, the First Lord said a few moments ago, in defending the Government proposals with regard to the allotment of the money, that the proposals made in the Bill were not to be considered as to endure for all time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was referring to the particular allocation of money.
  MR. BRYCE: I quite understand that, and so I intended to convey. But I desire to extend the scope of his remark beyond that allocation, and to say that in our view the loss of this opportunity is one which we should try to repair at the earliest possible time. We look upon this as a tentative step, and we shall endeavour to reverse the policy in this Bill, and endeavour to submit those questions we have argued in Committee here, and upon which we have been

  931
  defeated by an English majority, to another Parliament, and, if possible, to secure the devotion of the money to other purposes.
  MR. BALFOUR: On behalf of the Government I will only say that in framing this Bill we have endeavoured to consult local opinion in Scotland; and though we are far from suggesting for a moment that the various representatives from Scotland do not discharge their duties as Members honourably and effectively, we cannot admit that they are the sole exponents of Scotch opinion, or that we are precluded from going beyond them in order to obtain the opinions of the various Local Bodies which have to administer the money. Having taken such measures to secure this opinion as were open to us, we believe that in determining the allocation of the money we have fixed upon a plan which generally, and speaking broadly, meets with the approval of the people of Scotland.
  DR. CLARKrose to address the House—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
  MR. HUNTER: There is one concession to which the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has not referred. I think it is desirable that public attention should be drawn to it, because it certainly is the most important concession we have been able to obtain from the Government by our opposition to this Bill. As this Bill was introduced, it proposed to give £100,000 per year to the County and the Town Councils in relief of local rates. Now, as the Bill leaves the House, discretion is given to the Local Authorities to apply the money, not in relief of local rates at all, but for the payment of any obligations which they may now incur, and also for any scheme of public utility framed by them, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. That is an important concession, because this is a Bill for the relief of local rates. It is a Bill which places the money absolutely at the disposal of the Town and County Councils; they may apply the money to technical education, continuation schools, public libraries, or for any object of public utility which may be sanctioned by the Secretary
  932
  for Scotland. I also regard the concession as important, because if the working classes allow this money to be used in the relief of the richer classes, then the blame will fall upon them and not upon us. I regret that while the Bill has been improved in this direction, the Government have missed the opportunity of removing one of the greatest blots on the educational system in Scotland. They have given ninety thousand pounds per year for higher education; but they have so done it as to make that education synonymous with the education of the richer class. It was in their power, by applying the fifty thousand pounds for the relief of the poor rate, to supply the people of Scotland with a sum—insufficient, I agree, yet far from contemptible, for the creation of bursaries and exhibitions, which would enable a large number of the sons of working men to reap the advantage to the extent of secondary and University education. I regret very much that the Universities in Scotland are no longer the Universities of the poor to the extent they used to be. The tradition that the Scotch Universities were open to the sons of working men is, I am sorry to say, becoming more of a tradition than a reality, and that is due to the simple fact that in former days the distance between the elementary schools and the Universities was not so great as to prevent a considerable number of boys passing from elementary schools to the Universities. But owing to an improvement in the standard of the Universities, an improvement which I heartily approve of, that distance can only be bridged over by four or five years' education in a secondary school. How are sons of working men to go to these secondary schools, the fees of which are enormously increased? When I was at the Grammar School at Aberdeen the fees were 10s. a quarter, a sum which an ordinary working man would have no difficulty in providing. And when I look back I find that it is not the boys who came well dressed from the West End of Aberdeen who have most distinguished themselves in the world, but the boys who came with patched trousers. Now, Sir, if we are to retain the old traditions of

  933
  the Scotch Universities, and to keep the doors of these seats of learning open to the poorest class, it is absolutely essential that a very large sum should be expended in providing exhibitions and bursaries to enable them to attend the secondary schools. When I tested the opinion of this House on this question, I was happy to find that I was supported by a majority of Scotch Members. We were, however, overruled by an English majority. I think that is very hard lines. After having expended their own money in their own way, surely the English Members might have abstained from interfering and frustrating the desires—and what I am sure no one will deny are most laudable desires—of the majority of the Scotch Members. And what makes it all the more cruel is that this £50,000 a year which is given for the relief of the poor rates will only to an unappreciable extent find its way into the pockets of the working classes. The 630,000 persons in Scotland who live in a house under £15 rental will get only £1,442 out of this £50,000; whereas if this money had been applied in the remission of the duties on tea, or of other taxes which press with equal severity on the poor and the rich, this same class of people, instead of receiving only £1,442, would have got £40,000. But by this ingenious plan—which has been patented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of raising money by taxes on commodities and distributing it for the relief of the rates, £40,000 is kept out of the pockets of eighty per cent. of the occupiers of Scotland. Out of the remaining £40,000 the sum of £25,000 goes into the pockets of owners of property, and £15,000 into the pockets of the richer ratepayers—those with a rental of over £50 a year. Now, Sir, this Bill is the crowning edifice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the short time he has held office he has increased the grants in aid in Scotland from £300,000 to a million. I will let the House into the secret why money is raised on this lavish scale by Imperial taxation, to be expended in the relief of rates in Scotland. If this million of money were applied in the remission of taxation, how would the matter stand? Why, eighty per cent.
  934
  of the occupiers in Scotland would receive a benefit which could be hardly less than three-quarters of a million. How much do they receive by the relief of rates? £80,000 only, so that the working classes, and all those whose rental is under £15, lose annually by this operation £670,000, of which half a million goes straight into the pockets of the owners of landed property, and £170,000 to those ratepayers whose rental is in excess of £48 a year. In other words, the money which is now being expended in local taxation in Scotland gives a relief of half a crown to eighty per cent. of the population; but if it had been applied in remission of taxes—in giving a free breakfast table, and in reducing the tax on tobacco—these same people, instead of receiving half a crown by way of relief in rates, would have benefited to the extent of 24s. in the relief of taxation. By this means nine-tenths of the people of Scotland lose—less perhaps, certainly not more, than one-tenth of the population of Scotland gain. Now, Sir, that is the crowning of the edifice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may boast that he has done for the Tory Party what the Tory Party never had the wit to do for themselves—that whereas he found this system of grants in aid, this ingenious system of robbing the poor man in order to increase the riches of the rich, at the moderate figure of £300,000 a year, he has raised it to more than a million a year. And on the epitaph of the right hon. Gentleman may be inscribed the fact that never was any Chancellor of the Exchequer so ingenious as he in the art of fleecing the poor and adding to the luxuries of the rich.
  *MR. WALLACE: I only rise to protest against the doctrine put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury to the effect that in a matter of this kind Local Bodies, such as Town Councils or Parochial Boards, are to be considered as representing the opinion of Scotland more than the Parliamentary Representatives of that Kingdom. Both on constitutional grounds and grounds of fact, I think that is a mistake. The Town Councils and Parochial Boards are not elected for the purpose of representing the

  935
  people of Scotland on such a matter as this. They are elected on totally different grounds, and on the question as to whether this money should be given for the relief of rates or for the encouragement of education they have no authority to speak, and to attempt to set aside the opinion of the Scotch Representatives in favour of the opinion of these bodies is, I venture to say, insulting to Parliamentary institutions and inconsistent with the real facts of the situation. None of these Parochial Boards or Town Councils have been elected within the time that this subject has become a matter of public consideration in Scotland, and I venture to state in my place here, with a full sense of my responsibility, more especially as I shall soon have to meet my constituents, that they—and they are a fair specimen of the people of Scotland—are entirely out of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters in the way that has been so well and so truly and statistically, if so repeatedly, described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter).
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  read the third time, and passed.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 230.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th May.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 383.
  MR. BARCLAY: The Amendment which stands in my name, and which I now rise to propose, is that the words "in equal proportion" be added after the word "assess," in page 134, line 23. The object of the proposal is that the rates shall be equally divided between the occupiers and owners of property in the burghs. I move this Amendment, not only upon its own merits, but also upon the precedents which Parliament has established in regard to such matters. During the last twenty years the rates that have been imposed in Scotland by Parliament have been uniformly divided between the owners and occupiers. Several days have now elapsed since
  936
  this question was mooted in the House, and in the meantime the people of Scotland have had an opportunity of expressing their views upon it. The Town Council of Glasgow has, by a majority of two to one, voted in favour of it, and every burgh in my own constituency is, I believe, also in favour of the Amendment which I now submit to the House; and, so far as I can gather, I am of opinion that the whole of Scotland, generally speaking, approves of it. That is shown by the fact that when the police burghs have the opportunity of rating under different Acts they prefer those which give them the power to divide the rate between the landlord and the tenant. I do not think the Lord Advocate opposes this proposal on its merits; I believe he will say that this is not an opportune time for dealing with the question. But it seems to me that this is exactly the time for dealing with it. This Bill is intended to replace the Bill passed in 1862, under which the whole of the taxes have been placed upon the occupiers. Since 1862 the House of Commons has frequently given expression to its opinion on this question, and on every occasion its decision has been in favour of the rates being divided between the occupier and the owner. I contend, therefore, that this is the proper time for fixing the incidence of taxation under this Bill; because if it is allowed to pass now without the adoption of this Amendment, there is every probability that the question will not again be dealt with for an indefinite time. For these reasons I urge the favourable consideration of this Amendment upon the Government.
  Amendment proposed, in page 134, line 23, after the word "assess," to insert the words "in equal proportion."—(Mr. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. CLARK: I suppose we are going to be opposed on this point by the Government, although the other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a public meeting stated that the division of the rate between the owner and occupier was as much the object of the Unionists as of the Gladstonians. If the right hon.

  937
  Gentleman was correctly reported, I take it that the other side of the House are in full agreement with us on this matter. The only question, therefore, that remains is whether this is the proper time to deal with it. This Bill has been before the House for nine years, and we hope to see it passed before the termination of this Session; and if the Government are as anxious as we are to effect a division of the rates, now is their opportunity. I should like to hear some reason given by the Lord Advocate for not accepting the Amendment.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): The only reason why I did not reply at once is that I have on previous occasions expressed my views on this question when it has been brought forward. I have, however, no objection to remind hon. Members of what I then said. This Bill preserves the status quo as to assessment, and therefore it is vain for hon. Members to say that we are proposing by it to do anything contrary to the existing law in Scotland with regard to the general assessment for police burghs. The lines upon which the Bill proceeds are those of the police assessment as laid down in the Police Act of 1862, and it is remarkable that the only burgh which has been mentioned as having come to any adverse conclusion is a burgh to which this Act does not apply. I received only to-day a letter from one of the burghs situated in the county the hon. Member represents—the Burgh of Arbroath — urging that the Bill should be allowed to pass, and that it should not be delayed for a moment by this question. That, I think, justifies me in saying that it is not expedient to raise this whole question at the present time, as it would be impossible to deal with it in the present Parliament. The analogy of recent legislation with regard to counties entirely fails unless a great deal is added to the Amendment. Let me remind the Committee that so far as the owners are assessed in counties, they have representation upon the assessing bodies quite different from that in the assessing bodies in towns. Another difference that suggests itself is that the police in burghs
  938
  are in a different situation from the police in counties, the benefit being much more directly in favour of the occupiers in burghs than in the counties. On all these grounds the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment, and I am in hope the hon. Member will not press it.
  DR. CLARK: It is evident from the speech of the Lord Advocate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds different views from himself. If the status quo had been maintained by the Bill I should not have minded so much, but you are relieving the landlords of their liabilities. The change will not be made, because the late Lord Advocate, who gave a binding pledge on the subject, is not here, and the present Lord Advocate takes a different line. The position now is that we are not going to have the changes that we desire, and we are going to retain things as they are, although all the changes that have been made in this Bill have been made in favour of owners. This policy of the Government will assuredly help us during the General Election, and I hope my hon. Friend will press this matter to a Division in order to show what the Scotch Members think.
  MR. HUNTER: The Lord Advocate has given two reasons why we should not have this division of rates in the burghs. In the first place, he says it is because of the status quo, which is not to be altered. It is precisely that status quo to which we object and which we say should be altered. Then he says that if we were to alter the status quo, so as to do more justice to the burghs, the Bill would not pass. How does he know that the Bill is going to pass? My own impression is that if the Government would make the changes we desire it would very much facilitate the chances of the Bill passing. I am not at all of the same opinion as the people who have written to the right hon. Gentleman. I think this is a bad Bill, and I would rather that the Bill were lost than that it should be carried without amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has discovered a new argument. He says that the functions of the police in the burghs are different from the functions

  939
  of the police in the counties. That is a somewhat delicate subject for a Tory Lord Advocate to enter upon, and I was not surprised to see that he clothes his statement in ambiguous language. I fully admit that there is a great difference. In the burghs the police are employed for the protection of persons and property; in the counties they are employed as preservers of game and to catch poachers. That is, to my mind, a work of supererogation, and is no part of legitimate police duty, and we say that that circumstance ought to be taken into account in determining who shall pay the rate. If we lose this opportunity of dealing with the question no one knows when another may arrive, and I tell the Government it will be vain for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to the country and say that he is in favour of equal division of the rates between landlord and tenant, when in two or three minutes the Government Whips will be sending Members into the Tory Lobby to vote against the equal division. This is all the more unjustifiable, because we are only asking that the burghs may be put in the same position as the counties were placed by a Conservative Government. If now they obstinately refuse to adopt this Amendment they must not be surprised if the electorate judges them by their deeds rather than by their language.
  Question put.
  (6.10.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 131.—(Div. List, No. 184.)
  DR. CLARK: The next Amendment that stands in my name is intended to place one-half of the rates upon the owners. This is a different Amendment from the one just moved by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay), because it provides for the paying of the rates whether the premises are occupied or unoccupied. Unoccupied houses require to be watched, &c., and yet at present they do not contribute one farthing to the rates. The system in London is that the owner pays half the rates and the occupier the other half, and thus when the houses are empty the authorities get something to recoup them for what they are obliged to spend.
  Amendment proposed, in page 134, line 23, after the word "burgh," to insert the words "and owners of unoccupied lands and premises within the burgh."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: It is quite true that this Amendment has not been disposed of, but it differs very little in principle from the one on which we divided just now. The law as it at present stands is that the owner shall not bear any part of the rates for unoccupied premises. As owner he is exempt, and the reason is that the basis of the assessment is occupied property. We cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment, because it is inconsistent with the present basis of assessment.
  MR. BARCLAY: The right hon. Gentleman has given no reason why the basis of the assessment should not be altered. A number of changes have been made by this Bill; but they are all for the benefit of the owner, and none for the benefit of the occupier.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Government always refuse to consider alterations that are submitted in favour of the occupiers, and you can hardly wonder that the people in Scotland look upon them as a Government of landlords. I fail to see any reason why the Government should not alter the assessment basis, so as to divide the rates equally between the owners and occupier.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): Order, order! That is not the point raised by this Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  DR. CLARK: The object of the next Amendment is to bring Feu Duties under assessment for local purposes. Those duties now escape taxation altogether. The latter portion of the Amendment deals with another class of property, and it proposes that this class shall be assessed at not exceeding four shillings in the pound on four per cent. of the capital value of the said land. A few minutes ago the Lord Advocate repudiated the Chan-

  941
  cellor of the Exchequer when he declared that his right hon. Colleague was mistaken in supposing that the Unionists were in favour of equalising the rates. Now, he may repudiate a more important Member of the Government, the Marquess of Salisbury. The Prime Minister was a Member of the Committee, several years ago, on the Housing of the Working Classes, and he attached a special Memorandum to the Report of the Committee, in which he recommended the proposal which I am now making—that is, to have taxation of capital value. The present basis of taxation is annual value, but that means anything. I am taxed for my little house in London at a much higher rate than the large castles. What we want to get is what Lord Salisbury thought a fair method of taxation. He recommended four per cent., and I advise that; and the only point on which I go further than Lord Salisbury is that I would allow the owner to declare what is the capital value, and the capital value must surely be best known to the owner. Of course, as everyone knows, there is a vast difference between the agricultural value and the feu value; and if the landlord has declared the agricultural value, it would be open to the Local Authority to purchase the holding at the value declared by the owner, and thus secure for the ratepayers the difference between the agricultural and the feu value. At present the Feu Duties entirely escape taxation.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 135, at the end of the clause, to add the words—"The Commissioners shall also assess all feu duties or ground rents, and all owners of land within the burgh. The owners of feu duties or ground rents shall pay an assessment not exceeding four shillings in the pound on the feu duties and ground rents received by them for all land within the burgh.
  The owners of unfeued land, or land occupied for agricultural or other purposes, shall pay an assessment not exceeding four shillings in the pound on tour per cent. of the capital value of the said land. If any difference should arise as to the capital value of the said land, the owner or owners of the land shall fix and determine the said capital value, and it shall be lawful for the Commissioners at any time, on giving six months' notice to the owner or owners, to take possession of the said land on payment to the owner or owners of the capital value fixed and determined by him or them."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: This is a very wide question, and one which, in my humble opinion, it is quite impossible to discuss at this time. We are now merely dealing with a Police Bill, and the hon. Member has raised a question which could only be properly introduced in a large measure dealing with assessments generally. The first part of the Amendment, with respect to the taxation of feu duties and ground rents, is charged with fallacy. It is fallacious to say that feu duties escape taxation at the present moment. That question was carefully considered in the Town Holdings Committee, and the fallacies were so obvious that I do not think a single Member of the Committee which considered the matter was of opinion that they escaped taxation, or that in touching them you would touch a new source of revenue. The fact that they escape direct taxation does not prove that they escape altogether. This Amendment would alter the whole basis not only of taxation, but also of valuation, and it is one which the Government cannot accept. With respect to the second part of the Amendment, it is apparently hopeless to convince the hon. Member that the proposal is not legitimate. What the Amendment means, or how it could be carried out, I do not know. I know what the object of the hon. Member is, but his proposal would be an impossible excrescence upon a Police Bill. To say that the owners of unfeued land in the burghs should be taxed on capital value is opposed entirely to the whole valuation system; and if it is considered at all, it must be on a large measure dealing with the system of valuation, and not on a measure for the regulation of the burghs. The proposal that the valuation should be by the owner himself may or may not be a good one, and may or may not be feasible; but it would be introducing a new principle of taxation into the Bill, and on that ground alone I cannot agree to it.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Lord Advocate forgets that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a new principle of taxation when he made the grants

  943
  in aid of local taxation. Local rates were levied on rent alone; but now those who contribute to Imperial taxation contribute to local rates. The working classes, therefore, contribute to local rates far and above the rates on their rental, and it is only fair that other persons should be asked to contribute also. In Glasgow the value of feu duties has increased enormously during the last fifty years, owing to the increased prosperity of the City, brought about by the expenditure of local rates. We are, therefore, entitled to ask that owners of feu duties and ground rents, who reap the benefit of the increased prosperity of the City, brought about by the expenditure of local rates, should contribute towards those rates. The proposal is that you should not tax them above four shillings; but in fifty years the feu duties have increased in value more than the capitalised value of four shillings, so that you will simply be taxing the increased value given by the community. Besides, feu duties are heritable property, and it is more legitimate to tax heritable property than to tax individuals.
  DR. CLARK: I shall, of course, press this to a Division. This is the first opportunity we have had of carrying out the recommendations of the Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, the opinion of which is of more value than that of a Select Committee. I am trying to put into legislation what the Commission recommended, and we shall be able to see if hon. Members are prepared to go as far as the Commission, or think the recommendations of the Commission too revolutionary.
  Question put.
  (6.40.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 124.—(Div. List, No. 185.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 388.
  DR. CLARK: I hope this is one of my Amendments which the Lord Advocate will accept. Under the law as it stands, when a house is let for less than twelve months the owner can be taxed for that period. The Bill changes that, and provides that where an
  944
  occupier takes a house for, say, the last three months of the year, the previous occupier having gone without paying his rates, the former shall be liable for the rates for the whole year. I want to hear some reason for this change. At present the owner is responsible, and that is the best way, when the house is let for less than twelve months and he can arrange to cover it in the rent. To say that an occupier should pay not only his own but the previous occupier's rates is absurd. My Amendment is to leave the law as it is at present, under the provisions of the Police Act of 1862.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 136, line 20, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "year," in line 21, and insert "the owner of the said lands and premises."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MCDONALD CAMERON (, &c.): I desire to support the Amendment, as I think it is hard that a new-comer should be charged with the unpaid rates of his predecessor. I think the Amendment is a fair one under the circumstances. The landlord you have always with you, but you are never certain of the tenant. It is the landlord who derives all the benefit from the property, and he should be responsible to the locality for the rates.
  MR. BARCLAY: The clause will lead to serious grievance if a man who comes into a house for the last three months of the year has to pay for the whole year. I have an Amendment dealing with the question, and I propose that the tenant shall only be charged a proportion of the rates corresponding with his occupancy, leaving the Police Commissioners to recover the remainder from the previous occupier. Thus the new tenant will only be responsible for his own tenancy.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to the effect of the clause. This is one of the Amendments which were discussed in Committee upstairs, and I cannot find that the clause was passed as it stands otherwise than unanimously. It would be a serious thing to alter the clause in the way

  945
  proposed unless some substantial reason could be given for doing so. The present law is that the occupier is bound to pay his assessments, but if he fails to do so, the law says in such a case the owner shall be liable. The proposal of the hon. Member is that the owner and not the occupier should be liable. The way the clause works out, as I understand it, is that where premises are let for less than one year the occupier is personally assessed; but if he cannot be found the owner has to pay. This is merely a power given to the Commissioners, when the occupier cannot be discovered. When a new occupier comes in, and is found in possession at the moment of assessment, it seems hard that he should have to pay for his predecessor; but that is just one of those things which the occupier who comes in will look to when the law is known. The Select Committee have settled this clause, and I think we should be incurring a great responsibility if, without a grave reason, we set aside the clause as it stands.
  MR. HUNTER: This clause involves a principle which many Water Companies have tried to get into their Acts—namely, to make one man pay another man's debt. That is monstrous; to make the innocent occupier liable. The Lord Advocate said that when the law becomes known a new occupier will refuse to enter on premises until he has seen the receipts for the rates of the other tenant. When will the law become known? Did one ever listen to such insensate nonsense? At the end of ten or twenty years you will not find one lawyer in a hundred who will be aware of the clause. It is a maxim of law that everybody knows the law. But how do we know the law? By exercising our common sense and our sense of common honesty. No one would imagine that a person taking premises at the end of a year would have to pay the rates which the previous tenant had gone away without paying. That is against common sense, and should not be sanctioned by the House. It is inconsistent with the ordinary transaction of business that any human being taking a house should be called upon to inquire into the debts of his predecessor,
  946
  and whether or not he had paid his rates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. and learned Friend has expressed the general view that he could not depart from the unanimous finding of the Committee.
  DR. CLARK: That is a mistake. The question was postponed for the general rating question. Nothing was done. There was no decision at all taken.
  MR. BALFOUR: My right hon. and learned Friend was not a Member of the Committee, and was only informed of the fact. However, I confess I think it would be rather hard if the incoming tenant should have thrown upon him all the debt which his predecessor should have paid, but I do not think the best way out of that is simply to tax the owner and leave him without any remedy against the person who ought to have paid the debt. The person who ought to have paid the debt is the outgoing tenant, and the person who is made to pay according to the Bill is the incoming tenant. So far as I can see, the equity of the case would be met if we introduced words, either on this stage or on Report, which would make the owner liable for the debt of the ex-tenant, but with a remedy against the ex-tenant. That, I think, is not the Amendment of the hon. Member, but I think it carries out the object for which he contends. My right hon. and learned Friend will, on Report, bring up words to carry out that object.
  DR. CLARK: I have no objection to that course being taken. This is a very important point. In Scotland a house is taken from Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide. A tenant may be in for six months or three months, and then bolt, and another tenant comes in, and at Martinmas the rates for the year must be paid by the owner or the occupier under the present Act. The consequence is that under the Bill you take away the liability from the owner altogether. A man may come in for the last three months of the term and pay a special price for the tenancy. Under the old law the Burgh Magistrates could go against him or the owner. Generally they went against the owner; sometimes they did not.

  947
  This Bill proposes to do away with the right of going against the owner, and puts the burden on the incoming tenant. I have no objection to postpone the matter till the Report stage, on the understanding that you will draft a clause on the lines to meet both cases, where property has been unlet, and where property has been occupied, but the occupier has gone away without paying rent or taxes.
  MR. BALFOUR: According to the Amendment to be introduced, each occupier will be liable for the time which he occupies, and for that time alone; and where the occupier makes default then the landlord will be liable.
  MR. BARCLAY: If the Local Authorities neglect to get the money from the previous tenant by the powers they possess then it is their own fault, and they ought to suffer for it. If this Amendment is withdrawn, I shall move a subsequent Amendment which deals with this matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of Mr. BARCLAY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 136, line 22, leave out the words "the whole," and insert the words "a proportion."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 136, line 22, to leave out from the word "except," to end of Clause, and insert "corresponding with the period of his occupancy."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: These two Amendments put together meet one of the cases raised by the hon. Gentleman, but they do not meet the other case.
  MR. BARCLAY: My Amendment meets both cases.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words, "corresponding with the period of his occupancy," inserted.
  On Motion of Dr. CLARK, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 136, line 24, leave out from "assessment," to end of clause.
  MR. BARCLAY: I beg to move in page 137, line 19, after "Acts,"
  948
  insert "or under 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.'" This is an Amendment which I believe the Government will accept.
  Amendment proposed, in page 137, line 19, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "or under 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ageed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Clause 401 is not one of the postponed Clauses.
  Clause 402 agreed to.
  Clause 403.
  MR. HUNTER: I wish to ask the Lord Advocate whether the omissions were considered? My hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron), who had an Amendment down to leave out Clauses 403 to 406 inclusive, is not here.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: Yes, they were considered.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 404 to 406 agreed to.
  Clause 415.
  SIR JOHN KINLOCH: I beg to move, in page 147, line 3, after Sub-section (5), add—
  (Amendment of S. 5 of Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, regarding special drainage and water supply districts.)
  Where any parish shall be partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction of a town council and of police commissioners or trustees and of a parochial board, or any two or more of such bodies, and the Board of Supervision shall have in such case and under the powers of "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," determined that the parochial board shall be the local authority within the whole limits of such parish, and the parochial board have in consequence of such determination, and as such local authority, formed special drainage districts or special water supply districts prior to the passing of this Act, and levied assessments in respect of the same: Be it enacted that if and whenever the Board of Supervision shall under the powers aforesaid and after the passing of "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," recall their determination, and the police commissioners of any police burgh shall become the local authority under "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867." for any such special district, the assessments in respect of the drainage and water supply shall be levied in the same manner as regards the liability thereto of owners and occupiers respectively as they were before the recall by the Board of Supervision of their determination as aforesaid."
  The object of this new clause is to remove a rating grievance which fell on the burgh of Coupar Angus after the passing of the Local Government Bill. It was the only police burgh in Scotland which was placed in the position in which it stands. Before the passing of the Local Government Bill, the local authority of this burgh was the Parochial Board; and the Parochial Boards in Scotland put the assessment half on the occupier and half on the owner. The Parochial Board introduced new drainage and water schemes, and the assessment was put half on the owner and half on the occupier; but on the passing of the Local Government Bill the Police Commissioners became the local authority, and the whole of the assessment was put upon the owner.
  Amendment proposed, in page 147, line 3, after sub-section (5) add:—
  (Amendment of Section 5 of Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, regarding special drainage and water supply districts.)
  "(6.) Where any parish shall be partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction of a town council and of police commissioners or trustees and of a parochial board, or any two or more of such bodies, and the Board of Supervision shall have in such case and under the powers of 'The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867,' determined that the parochial board shall be the local authority within the whole limits of such parish, and the parochial board have in consequence of such determination, and as such local authority, formed special drainage districts or special water supply districts prior to the passing of this Act, and levied assessments in respect of the same: Be it enacted that if and whenever the Board of Supervision shall under the powers aforesaid and after the passing of 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889,' recall their determination, and the police commissioners of any police burgh shall become the local authority under 'The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867,' for any such special district, the assessments in respect of the drainage and water supply shall be levied in the same manner as regards the liability thereto of owners and occupiers respectively as they were before the recall by the Board of Supervision of their determination as aforesaid."—(Sir John Kinloch.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: This is rather a dry matter of detail. When the Local Government Act of 1889 was discussed in this House in the shape of a Bill the matter came up for discussion as to whether the change
  950
  that was made in the Local Authority should carry with it a change in the arrangement which had theretofore been entered into in reference to schemes under the Public Health Act; and the limit fixed by Parliament at that time was this—that those burghs in which schemes had been carried out before the date appointed for the commencement of that Act should be in one position, and those in which they had not should be in another position. In order to clear the field, if I may say so, for the application of that Act, the Board of Supervision recalled all the determinations made theretofore in reference to the Local Authorities of the areas to which those schemes applied; and the result of that was that in almost all the cases a change took place. In the case of Coupar Angus, the scheme was not within the words of the Act. I have not heard anything to lead me to think that if what the hon. Baronet has just said had been stated to Parliament then they would have come to any different conclusion from what they did; and, therefore, I do not see myself that there would be any propriety in accepting an Amendment which really is not appropriate to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, but an Amendment of the Local Government Act, and thus altering the verdict come to on the Local Government Bill in 1889. I have very carefully considered the question with the assistance of the information which the hon. Baronet was good enough to give me, and I am not able to see sufficient reason for accepting this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 422
  DR. CLARK (for Dr. CAMERON,): I beg to move, in page 150, line 12, after "liable," insert "on conviction before the Sheriff." I think these are very serious offences, and the penalties should not be imposed by the magistrates, but by the Sheriff Substitute, who is a trained lawyer.
  Amendment proposed, in page 150, line 12, after the word "liable," to insert the words "on conviction before the Sheriff."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I think it would be an unfortunate thing if trial for these offences should be withdrawn from the police magistrates, and laid upon the over-burdened shoulders of the Sheriff Substitute. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
  DR. CLARK: I will not press it at the present stage; but I think that persons charged with these serious offences should have the protection of a trained lawyer, and should not have magistrates, who have sometimes been guilty of disgraceful conduct on the Bench in Scotland, trying them.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 424.
  DR. CLARK (for Dr. CAMERON): I beg to move, in page 158, line 31, leave out "sixty," and insert "six." I think this is a new crime and a new penalty; and the proposal of my hon. Friend is to limit the penalty to thirty days. After a man has been convicted of drunkenness twice in the same year, on the occasion of the third offence he is by the Bill to get sixty days extra. My hon. Friend proposes to limit it to another month instead of two months. I propose that it should be "six" days.
  Amendment proposed, in page 158, line 31, to leave out the word "sixty," and insert the word "six."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. HUNTER: I think this is the most absurd thing I ever met in the way of legislation. For the most serious crime of theft and other crimes of that character a penalty of sixty days is usually awarded in Scotland; but here it is proposed to give a man sixty days' imprisonment at the option of the bailie for being drunk. Now, a man who is drunk no doubt injures himself, but, as a rule, he cannot hurt his neighbour. I must remind the Committee that these cases would be decided occasionally by very rabid teetotalers on the Bench, who would
  952
  consider that they were doing a good service by inflicting the largest penalty possible upon any unfortunate drunkard who might be brought before them.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: The hon. Member appears to think that the offence referred to here is that of drunkenness alone. That is not so. It is an offence which is a good deal heard of in police burghs—it is the offence of being drunk and incapable. It is not the case of a man being in drunkenness, or even aggravated or habitual drunkenness, but it is the case of a man being a danger, not only to himself, but to other people, and giving the police infinite trouble. When that occurs more than three times in twelve months I do think it would be perfectly ridiculous to give him six days. I am prepared to accept "thirty" days, which I understood was the Amendment which the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow proposed.
  MR. HUNTER: I do strongly protest against this absurd kind of legislation. If a man who is drunk and incapable does give the police a little trouble in carrying him in a conveyance to the police office, that is a damage which might be repaired by the payment of five shillings. As a Scotchman, I feel ashamed that such legislation should be passed.
  MR. BARCLAY: I wish to put before the Government the question of the expense of keeping these drunkards in prison for a month or two months. I think six or ten days would be quite sufficient punishment.
  DR. CLARK: The man who is punished may be married, and in that case the effect of his imprisonment may be to send his wife and children to the workhouse. I think the penalty proposed is rather drastic, and I think the matter should be considered by the Government on Report.
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I wish to point out that the penalty will be in the discretion of the magistrates. Thirty days is the maximum penalty. It is "not exceeding thirty days." The maximum penalty would be very rarely imposed, and the ordinary penalty would be just the ordinary few days which the hon. Member desiderates. As to the penalty being additional, that

  953
  is one of the reasons which induces me to assent to the substitution of thirty days for sixty days as the maximum.
  MR. HUNTER: I have appealed to the reason and common sense of the right hon. Gentleman in vain, and now I beg to give him notice that I shall examine this Bill more carefully than I have done, and that I shall put down a sufficient number of Amendments on the Report stage to compel the Government to adopt, at all events, such very reasonable and moderate proposals.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to ask your opinion, Sir, whether it is in Order for a threat to be made to the House of moving Amendments, which would not have been put down in different circumstances, for the purpose of extorting other Amendments, so that this House is to be compelled by the mere waste of time to accept Amendments which would not otherwise be proposed?
  THE CHAIRMAN: At present it is merely a threat. If it were carried into action, it would doubtless be met by other action.
  (7.35.) Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BALFOUR: I move that "fourteen" be there inserted.
  Amendment agreed to.
  (7.38.) Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 426 added to the Bill.
  (7.39.) Clause 470.
  DR. CLARK: I think there must be some misunderstanding with reference to this and the next half dozen clauses, because it was practically agreed they would not be kept in the Bill. Clauses 470 to 476 are all of a similar character, dealing with public health, and it was agreed that they should be struck out, as it was thought there should not be one public health law in one part of the country and a different health law in another.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I understood that Clauses 470 and 471 were to come out, but that the remaining clauses—472 to 476—were to remain in, as they were a recognition of clauses of the Act of 1862. Probably in order to carry out the understanding it would
  954
  be better that I should assent to their deletion, leaving myself free to restore on Report any of those I should find left unprovided for in other Acts.
  Clause omitted.
  Clauses 471 to 476, inclusive, omitted.
  Clause 479 agreed to.
  Clause 535.
  DR. CLARK: This is a clause which the Lord Advocate agreed to amend. It is a preposterous thing that a man whose child has committed an offence, and who is ordered to find caution for it, should be sent to prison if he does not find it.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I think my Amendment will meet the case.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 197, line 14, to leave out from the word "that" to the word "the" in line 16, and insert "no parent or guardian shall be liable in terms of this section either to imprisonment for failure to find caution, or to forfeiture of the caution when found, if such."—(Sir C. J. Pearson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 548.
  DR. CLARK: This clause gives power to the Magistrate to inflict a fine of £20, or to send a person to prison for three months. I wish to limit the powers of the Magistrate to imposing a fine not exceeding £5.
  Amendment proposed, in page 201, to leave out lines 31, 32, and 33.—(Dr. Clark.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 201, to insert, in lieu of the words struck out, "exceeds £5.… two months."
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I beg to move—
  Page 201, line 34, to leave out after "nothing," to end of clause, and insert "in this Act contained restricting the amounts of fines or periods of imprisonment shall apply to or affect the prosecutions authorised or the penalties enforceable under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts, 1828 to 1887, or to the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, or to any Act other than this Act under which the Magistrate has jurisdiction to impose fines for greater amounts or imprisonment for longer periods than those of this Act."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  DR. CLARK: What is the object of the Amendment?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: At present the powers are those exercised under the Public-houses Acts alone. Under these Acts there are certain offences of such a nature that the Magistrates can give as much as six months or a very heavy fine for them. There are various Acts not specified here where the Legislature has given larger powers to the Magistrates, and it was thought that while the restriction to sixty days should operate within the limits of this Act, it should not operate to exclude the larger powers which the Magistrates have already.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I beg to move the following new clause:—
  (Form where sum recoverable as civil debt.)
  "Where under this Act a sum is awarded which is declared by the Act to be recoverable as a civil debt, the forms to be followed in the recovery thereof shall be those provided for enforcing decrees pronounced in the Small Debt Courts of the Sheriff, and there shall be added to the finding of the Magistrate in such case a warrant for execution in the following form:—'And the Magistrate decerns and ordains instant execution by arrestment, and also execution to pass hereon by poinding and sale after a charge of ten free days.' Any officer by this Act authorised to execute the warrant of a Magistrate may carry out the procedure authorised by this clause."
  Perhaps it may be remembered that on Clause 101 of the Bill the hon. Member for the College Division, I think, took exception to certain penalties imposed upon persons for accidentally breaking street lamps, and that I consented to delete that part of the clause which imposed penalties, and to merely leave it upon the Magistrates to assess the pecuniary damage, which might be sued for as a civil debt. It has been found that that leaves considerable uncertainty as to the mode of recovery, because there are several modes of recovering civil debts, and it was thought right that there should be a clause inserted dealing with that matter; and I may just say that the mode selected is the form for recovery of debts in the Sheriff's Small Debt Courts. It seems to me that that would be the appropriate Court for the recovery of
  956
  small sums, for in most cases they will be only a few shillings, and the clause so enacts and adds the form in which the Magistrate is to give his decree for the money, so that there shall be no mistake as to how it is to be done. The new clause is really consequential upon Clause 101.
  Clause brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.
  *MR. JOSEPH C. BOLTON: I beg to move the following clause:—
  (Exemption of railway companies' buildings.)
  "The provisions of this Act, except with respect to drains and other sanitary arrangements, shall not apply to the railways or stations of any railway company or buildings connected therewith other than dwelling houses."
  This clause is intended to prevent a conflict of opinion between two Government Departments. As the law stands at present the Board of Trade has to be satisfied with the building and arrangements of a station before it can be opened; but if the Bill remains as it is without this clause, that same power will also be given to the Local Authority or the Dean of Guild Court. It is quite clear that the public have been very well satisfied with the action of the Board of Trade, as is shown by the fact that a number of Police Bills referred to them during the past few years have all contained clauses identical with or similar to this one, and that the Glasgow Police Bill of the present Session, which is now, I think, an unopposed Bill, contains a clause in the very words of the clause I have put on the Paper. I trust, therefore, the Lord Advocate will be disposed to accept this clause.
  Clause brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  DR. CLARK: It seems to me that my hon. Friend goes very much beyond what he tells the Committee he desires. I have no objection, if it simply affects the Dean of Guild Court; but if it is for other purposes I think we should have to give it some consideration.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: This clause has been considered carefully, and the exemption of drains and sanitary arrangements is obviously necessary. But with that addition it does seem to me that buildings used for railway purposes, other than dwelling houses, may fairly be regarded as within the railway system, and buildings which ought not to be interfered with by the Magistrates. There being other means of dealing with those buildings, the Magistrates' interference might, in conceivable circumstances, be detrimental to the safe working of the railways. I have looked into the precedents on this matter, and I find that in several instances, notably in the case of Glasgow, a similar clause has been introduced, and also that a similar clause to a certain extent is in the English Public Health Act. The railways are there exempted as regards buildings, other than dwelling houses, which are used for railway purposes; and I have satisfied myself—I believe on sufficient information—that the clause is a reasonable one.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move the following clause:—
  Remissions.
  "The Commissioners may, on the ground of the poverty or inability of any person liable to the police assessment under this Act, remit, in whole or part, payment of the said assessment by such person in such manner as the Commissioners shall, in their discretion, think just and reasonable, but upon no other account whatsoever."
  This clause follows the wording of the clause in the old Act, which, by some means or other, is not in the new Bill.
  Clause brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I only desire to say a single word on this clause. I had this under consideration some time ago, and I have not been able to discover why a similar provision intro-
  958
  duced in the Act of 1862 has been dropped out. It does seem to me reasonable for the purpose of obviating cases of extreme hardship that the Magistrates should have this discretion of remitting assessments. The only suggestion I would make to the hon. Member is that, inasmuch as poverty is the only recognised ground for exemption, the words "or inability" should be struck out, so that poverty may remain, without any qualifying term, as the real ground for exemption, or that it should run "inability through poverty."
  DR. CLARK: I am not responsible for the wording of it. I have merely taken the clause out of the 1862 Act. I have no objection to your changing it if you like.
  MR. BARCLAY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the clause. I can assure him that this clause in the old Act has caused great annoyance to the Police Commissioners. A great many applications are made for remission of taxation upon very insufficient grounds, and I wish to point out to the Lord Advocate that in the case of people who occupy houses of £40 and upwards their taxes are paid by the landlords, and I do not see that there is any reason why exception should be made in their case. The matter is a very great cause of vexation to the Police Commissioners.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (, &c.) (for Mr. FINLAY,, &c.): I beg to move, in page 150, after Clause 421, to insert the following clause:—
  (Saving of Local Authorities Loans Act.)
  "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the provisions of the Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Act, 1891."
  MR. SHIRESS WILL (, &c.) (for Mr. LYELL,): I beg to move, in page 205, after Clause 563, to insert the following clause:—
  (Saving rights of Renfrew and Lerwick.)
  "Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the proviso in section thirteen of 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889,' with respect to the burgh of Renfrew, and the police burgh of Lerwick."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I may remind the Committee that the two places named were dealt with under the Local Government Act of 1889. I accept the principle of the Amendment, but I would propose to bring up on Report a proposition applicable to these two burghs. On that understanding I hope the hon. Member will consent to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHEDULES.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3.
  MR. BARCLAY: I beg to move the following Amendment:—Page 209, line 14 (column 3), leave out "1." The object of the Amendment is to abolish the right possessed by the Town Council of Inverness to levy "petty customs" in certain parts of the town. Such duties would be objectionable if applied to the whole of the burgh, but they are especially objectionable when applied only to a portion of it. The result is that a shopkeeper in one part has to pay half as much again as a shopkeeper in another part of the town. The existence of such a state of things surely cannot be defended. It is, moreover, an improvident arrangement, because the cost of collecting the taxes is thirty-five per cent. of the amount collected. It would be more satisfactory to levy taxes on the whole burgh. Therefore I hope that my Amendment will be agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 209, line 14, to leave out the figure "1."—(Mr. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the figure '1' stand part of the Schedule."
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: This and the next five Amendments are practically meant to effect the same
  960
  purpose, and may be dealt with together. The petty customs of Inverness are by no means peculiar to that place; it is a well-known means of levying taxes in several burghs. It may or may not be an economical way of raising money, but the Government cannot agree for one moment to select one burgh for the purpose of putting an end to such a custom in it alone. Of the fairness or unfairness of the tax I say nothing. I will only mention that the question was not raised before the Committee upstairs, and that it is a wholly new point. I am, moreover, informed that these petty customs realised some £2,000 or £3,000 a year.
  Hon. MEMBERS: No.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: Whether it be hundreds or thousands the principle is the same.
  DR. CLARK: It was £1,370 last year.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: Very well. It is proposed to wipe that out without inquiry of any kind, and without consulting the people with regard to it. Now, I do not think that can be agreed to. These are matters of general policy touching all burghs in which the custom obtains; and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is a strong feeling on both sides of the question.
  DR. CLARK: Our position is this: We wish to get rid of these petty customs in Inverness, and you desire by this Schedule to maintain them. I am glad to say that Inverness is one of the most progressive parts of Scotland, its population having in a few years increased from 74,000 to 89,000. But there are duties there on almost everything, and it is time that these absurd petty customs were removed. The financial position of Inverness is such that the Town Council may well consent to their abolition, for they are vexatious and unfair in their incidence. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  MR. MCLAREN: I am sorry that the Lord Advocate has not been able to accept the Amendment. I am well acquainted with the town of Inverness, and I would like to see these petty customs removed. They are all the more ob-

  961
  jectionable because they are levied on only a part of the town. I believe that the majority of the people of Inverness would approve of their abolition. The town would then be put on an equality with the rest of Scotland. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The objection to the Amendment does not rest upon any special belief in the virtue of this particular mode of local taxation, but on the consideration that this Bill does not deal with the question at all. There is no evidence that the inhabitants generally desire to see the tax abolished. On the contrary, I understand that the town has ample power to abolish it if it so desire without coming to Parliament at all in regard to the matter. As it has not done so, I presume it is because the people there desire that it should be maintained. Whatever their opinion may be on the subject, we could not do anything towards abolishing the tax without giving them the opportunity of laying their views before a Select Committee, and hearing witnesses on both sides of the question. For these reasons I hope that the Amendment of the hon. Member will not be agreed to.
  Question put.
  (8.25.) The Committee divided:—Ages 22; Noes 59.—(Div. List, No. 186.)
  On Motion of Sir C. J. PEARSON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 210, line 13, leave out "sections 7, 8, 9, and 11," and insert "section 1 and sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Order thereby confirmed."
  On Motion of Mr. LYELL, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 210, line 15, column 3, add "section 2, so far as it determines the number of councillors."
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 4.
  DR. CLARK (for Dr. CAMERON,): I beg to move the following Amendment:—Page 213, line 37, after "arrangements," insert "and house drains." The object of this Amendment is to make the Schedule apply to house drains.
  Amendment proposed, in page 213, line 37, after the word "arrangements," to insert the words "and house drains."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: I accept the Amendment, as well as the next one.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  DR. CLARK (for Dr. CAMERON): I now move, in page 213, line 40, to leave out sub-section (16.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules 5 to 7 agreed to.
  Schedule 8.
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: The Amendment I move is simply to secure that a list of witnesses on either side who are examined should be inserted in the record of procedure. There was such a provision in the previous editions of this Bill, but unaccountably it has been struck out.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 226, line 15, after "absence," to add "where the following witnesses were examined in support of the complaint, and the following witnesses were examined in exculpation."—(Sir C. J. Pearson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules 9 to 11 agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  DR. CLARK: I think the understanding was that in the Preamble the word "health" should be left out.
  THE CHAIRMANleft the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
  MR. MCDONALD CAMERON: When will the Government take the Report stage?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose to reply.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to point out there is nobody in the Chair.
  House resumed.
  DR. CLARK: There have been great changes in this Bill. Dozens of clauses have been excised and dozens have been amended. Before the Report

  963
  stage is taken we should like to see the printed Bill, in order that we may look through it and learn how it now stands.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: For that I think the hon. Gentleman would require four days. I should be sorry to defer the stage so late as that, and it would be convenient to the general business of the House if we could take it to-morrow. But I quite recognise that if that course is not convenient to hon. Members I cannot press it.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will it be taken before the Irish Education Bill?
  MR. BALFOUR: I am pledged not to take the Education Bill till Wednesday, and therefore to-morrow we could complete this Bill if hon. Members would agree to that course.
  DR. CLARK: I should prefer seeing the Bill in print, in order that we may learn what has been done. It could be printed to-morrow, and perhaps one day would be sufficient for us to read through it.
  MR. BALFOUR: I will put it down for Wednesday.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I wish to point out that with regard to this Education Bill we have been buffeted about. It has always been simmering, but we never knew where it was; and now in the last moment I should like to know what will be done.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot discuss the Education Bill now.
  MR. BALFOUR: I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that I do not pledge myself. I will put it down for Wednesday.
  DR. TANNER: If this Bill is put down for Wednesday, would it not block the Irish Education Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 408.]

NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL. (No. 359.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  DR. TANNER: The other night I expressed a feeling that as certain Members were away who desired to speak against the Bill it should be postponed. I believe the Bill is a bad one and confers unjustifiable powers on the Admiralty; but as the gentlemen to whom I have alluded are not in their places, I shall not oppose the Bill any further.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES, 1892–3.

  CLASS I.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. £162,105, to complete the sum for Public Works and Buildings, Ireland.
  Notice taken, that forty Members were not present; Committee counted, and forty Members being found present,
  DR. TANNER: I think it is a most unprecedented and extraordinary thing that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is not present on the discussion of the Irish Estimates. It will be very difficult to make good progress with the work before the House if the Government behave in this unbusinesslike way. It does not follow, because we have shown a desire to get through the Estimates as rapidly as possible, in order to hasten the great event which we are all thinking about, that Irish officials should take advantage of our lenity and absent themselves from the Debate on those Estimates with which they are mainly concerned. I want to know, Mr. Courtney, what right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench is prepared to answer any questions in connection with this Vote which may be asked? I noticed that the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir John Gorst), when he came in just now, opened his box; but, as far as I understand, he is not capable of answering all the questions which may be asked with respect to public works in Ireland. I hope we shall have some explanation of the absence of the Chief Secretary, and be told what Minister present will take his place on this occasion.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I may point out to the hon. Member that this Vote is connected with the Department which I have the honour to represent, and I will do my best to supply him with any official information he may seek for.
  DR. TANNER: I have no desire to postpone this Vote. The only point I wish to clear up is whether the Government intend to attend to their business, or are going to allow it to go on in the haphazard and slipshod way to which they have accustomed us during the last few evenings? Now, Sir, on this Vote, I want an explanation of the items relating to the police barracks in Phœnix Park, in connection with which there is a contract for £2,000 for alterations, &c. As far as I can get information these police barracks, like the Royal Barracks not far from them, are always being repaired. Nothing is done satisfactorily, and the consequence is that year after year complaints are made about these buildings, and money is spent upon them. (Mr. JACKSON entered at this point.) At last we are happy. We have now the illustrious Chief of the present Irish Administration, I will not say at our disposal, but come to our assistance. I should like to ask him whether this £2,000 is final, or whether it represents only another piece of this patchwork administration that has been going on so long? If this system of patchwork is to go on to the tune of £2,000 a year, the best thing to do is to pull the barracks down and rebuild them. At any rate, let us have an end of the present system, which is nothing more nor less than a waste of money. As far as I am personally concerned, I have no wish to delay these Estimates, although there are hundreds of points that could be raised upon them. At the same time, there are points to which attention should be called, and I think the matter I have alluded to is one of them, and I should like some explanation of it.
  COLONEL NOLAN: There is just one point on which I want some information. I notice there is an item of £23,000 down for the Suck drain-
  966
  age, a work of which I entirely approve. Last year the amount for the same thing was £20,000, and the question I have to ask is, was the £20,000 which was voted last year spent? It appears to be the custom of officials appointed to control Irish matters to put down a good Vote for Ireland for certain items, and yet not spend all the money. With regard to the item for the Congested Districts Board, I should like to know on what principle we get a Report from them each year. Then I see a Vote down for a chemical laboratory for the College at Belfast. This is a very useful work, and I have no objection to Belfast having a laboratory, but I want to know whether the other Colleges in Ireland, notably Galway, are to have laboratories. Of course, I recognise that you cannot give all the Queen's Colleges a laboratory at once, but I should like to have an assurance that Galway is to be placed in the same position as Belfast.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): There is already a laboratory at Galway.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Yes, but is it as good? Then I notice there is a sum of £30,000 for schools, but only a miserable £300 for teachers' residences. I think there should be some explanation of that item. Then on the subject of the Naval Reserve, I see there is an item down for Galway, and I should like an assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that efforts will be made to spend the whole of that money in Galway this year.
  *SIR JOHN GORST: With respect to the criticism of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I should like to point out that the money that is voted is not necessarily spent within the year. Provision is made for a certain amount of work, and the Government have no wish to prevent that work from being done; but the hon. Member cannot wish to encourage the Treasury to spend the money unless the work is properly done. The question of the Suck drainage is all regulated by Act of Parliament, and a sum of £50,000 will ultimately be spent on that work. In the present year provision has been made for the spending

  967
  of such a sum of money as may reasonably be expected to be required. It would be very unfortunate if too little money were voted, and the work had to be stopped because there was no money to pay for it. The usual plan is to vote the sum of money which would be required under the most favourable circumstances, and though I cannot make any pledge, I hope all this sum may be spent on the drainage works. With respect to the chemical laboratory, I may say that there is one already in Galway, and the reason of this Vote for Belfast is that the number of students rendered it necessary that improvements should be made in Belfast. Galway shall be treated as fairly as Belfast, and if there is such an increase in the number of students as to render a new laboratory necessary, arrangements will be made. The reason why so small a sum is spent on teachers' residences in Ireland is because the residences are built from loans, whereas the schools are built out of the Votes. With respect to the Naval Reserve Station at Galway, the Government will do their best to urge on the work, and to secure that the money is rapidly and economically spent. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Cork (Dr. Tanner) on the subject of police barracks, I may say that the police headquarters are being concentrated in Phœnix Park. There are already two barracks in the Park, and the enlargement of the central building is the reason of this Vote. The final result will not be any large expenditure for police purposes.
  DR. TANNER: I think we ought to have some better explanation than this. There are no barracks in connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary in Phœnix Park situated in Dublin, and the right hon. Gentleman has got into the foggiest fog imaginable. I wonder when we shall get the Phœnix Park Barracks out of the perpetual condition of bricks and mortar. We are anxious to have these things done, because when in process of time we take over everything as a going concern, we shall not want to have to finish the work. Then, with respect to the Suck drainage, we have had an altogether insufficient explanation. We
  968
  have had no recent reports, and we have no means of knowing how this work is going on. The Government seem to think that if they vote money for Ireland and keep on paying it out it is all right, and does not matter on what it is spent. That is not what we want. We say that the works which have been approved should be pushed on as far as possible, and that the money, when voted for them, should be spent on them. With respect to the chemical laboratories, I should like to say that application has been made over and over again for a new laboratory for the Queen's College at Cork, because the present one is quite inadequate. But we know that we shall have great difficulty in securing the expenditure of this sum of money, which is so easily obtained by our Northern friends. Then there is this matter of patching up the Dundrum Lunatic Asylum, which the Government have been engaged on since 1884. Now the house is nearly as bad as the staff, and both are a disgrace to Christianity. But this year you are asking for £3,400, whereas last year you only asked for £1,000; and I should like to know what is being done. I think we ought to congratulate the present Chief Secretary (Mr. Jackson) on the fact that there is a decrease in the charge for his lodge and gardens in Dublin, more especially as he has occupied them this year, whereas the late Chief Secretary did not occupy them. When they were untenanted they cost more money. I should also like to point out, as I have pointed out for several years past, that a very large sum of money is being wasted on the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham, and I think one of the most expensive luxuries we can have is the patching up of old buildings. There are other discrepancies with respect to which some explanation should be given.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I do not think the discrepancies between this year and last are more than can be explained by the varying conditions of public works.
  DR. TANNER: There is a discrepancy of something like £2,400 at Dundrum Lunatic Asylum.
  SIR JOHN GORST: That is for sanitary works which are going on there.
  DR. TANNER: But it is nearly the same in every Vote. At the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, there is a discrepancy of about £400.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The sanitary works at Dundrum are explained in the Estimates, and that is the increase in the Vote. It is expected that the works will be completed during the present year.
  DR. TANNER: Then what about the lavatories in connection with the Congested Districts Board?
  SIR JOHN GORST: The Congested Districts Board must have lavatories, and these are for the office in Dublin.
  DR. TANNER: Do the Congested Districts Board require anything else besides lavatories?
  Vote agreed to.
  2. £47,371, to complete the sum for Railways, Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I understand that the contract for the Galway and Clifden Railway expires on the 31st December, but I do not know whether it will be completed by then. But I admit that the work has been pushed forward at a reasonable pace, and that a fair amount of employment has been given locally. What I want to know is whether the line can be opened for a portion of the district, say to Oughterard, which would be a great convenience? Then there is another railway, the Collooney and Claremorris, which affects my constituents, inasmuch as it will give them access to the North of Ireland. I see that a very much less sum is to be spent here than was spent last year, and I should like to know the reason of the hitch.
  MR. JACKSON: With respect to the Galway and Clifden line, as the hon. Member says, fair progress has been made, but there are two reasons why you should not get on too fast. In the first place, it is very desirable that as much of the work as possible should be done by local labour; and, in the second place, it is very undesirable that you should employ a large body of men for a short time and turn them off all of a sudden.
  970
  It is desirable rather that you should proceed a little more slowly with the work. With respect to opening the railway as far as Oughterard, I may say that depends altogether upon a bridge just outside Galway. This is very heavy work, but if it is accomplished, I see no reason why the railway should not be opened for a portion of the distance. When I was over there some time ago good progress had been made at Oughterard, and I hope it will not be long before trains, are run as far as that place. With respect to the other railway, there has been some unavoidable delay. A difference arose between the Treasury and the Company as to the construction and maintenance of the line. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is no doubt aware that the line is in two sections, and that the Claremorris portion is guaranteed by Mayo and the Collooney portion by Sligo. That introduced complications, but the difficulties have now been overcome. I hope before long the work will be resumed and that there will be no further delay.
  DR. TANNER: I want some information about the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway. This has been a bad practical joke in Ireland, for the passengers are occasionally called upon to get out and push the carriages up an incline up which the engine cannot draw them. I want to know what is being done with regard to this tramway. I see that the sum guaranteed is £57,000, and that upon which the claim is based is £2,850. In regard to the Cork and Muskerry line, the claim is £2,050, though the former line is only fourteen and a quarter miles, and the latter is eighteen and a half miles. The present Chief Secretary has taken some interest in these lines, and I hope that will have some effect in overcoming the troubles which have beset them. Then there is the question of the Westport and Mulrany line. As I have before pointed out, the line runs along a quay, with deep water on one side and a tramway on the other side, and this is also the main coach-road. This is a very inconvenient state of things. I have taken some

  971
  interest in the Achill extension, which I am glad has been adopted, and I see that the estimated expenditure for 1892–3 is £20,000. I should say, therefore, that the line is approaching completion, and I want to know how it is getting on? On the Killorglin and Valencia line the expenditure up to 30th November, 1891, was £45,085, and the estimated expenditure for 1892–3 is £15,000. I want to know the condition of that line also.
  MR. JACKSON: With regard to the last line to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I believe it is making good progress. The contract was made with the Great Southern and Western Company; and although there may have been a little delay at first, they are now making good progress, and the work is proceeding satisfactorily. The Treasury is, of course, responsible for the guarantee for the Schull and Skibbereen line, under the Statute. The guarantee was given under the contract, and the Treasury has to bear its proportion. It has been a very unsuccessful line, and practically earns nothing. One reason for that, I believe, was that the line terminated at the top of a hill. My predecessor, in the course of the relief works, sanctioned an expenditure of £2,000 for the purpose of continuing the line so as to bring it to the water's edge. That, I believe, was beneficial to the district and to the original undertaking as well. I believe the Company is going to obtain an Order in Council to enable it to take the new portion of the line that has been made.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Have not the Grand Jury taken over the whole line?
  MR. JACKSON: Notice has been given for taking it over. The position in which it stands at present is that the Company are taking steps to take the new piece added at the Schull end of the line.
  MR. HEALY: My question did not relate to the extra bit of line, but to the whole line. Is it a fact that the Grand Jury have had to take it over?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know if the taking over has been completed,
  972
  but notice has been given, and it remains to be seen if the Grand Jury can work it more satisfactorily and cheaply than was done by the old Company. It has been an unfortunate affair from the very beginning, and whether the extension to which I have referred will change that remains to be seen. It cannot do any harm, and I believe it will be a practical benefit.
  MR. MORTON: I see there is an expenditure of £12,000 for lines not brought under the Act. Is that expenditure legal?
  MR. JACKSON: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? One of the lines not brought under the Act is the Collooney and Claremorris line, and the other is the Achill extension. Both these lines were undertaken without Parliamentary powers, and practically without authority. They were practically undertaken as relief works, and since that time steps have been taken to protect the promoters by obtaining an Order in Council, which will bring them under the Statute. The need of employment was so urgent in the district that they were undertaken without waiting for Parliamentary powers, as it was thought well to spend the money on that which would be a permanent benefit to the district.
  MR. MORTON: Under these circumstances, will the expenditure of the money be legal?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir.
  DR. TANNER: The right hon. Gentleman quite forgot the Achill extension, and I also referred to the Courtmacsherry extension, and I should like to know if the ballasting at Timoleague Junction is satisfactory? Many of these light railways had insecure embankments, and the Board of Trade Inspector condemned them again and again, and consequently a great deal of money has been lost.
  MR. JACKSON: The Westport and Mulrany is, I believe, making good progress. The work is very heavy, but everything is being done as well as it can be done.
  DR. TANNER: I asked about the Mulrany end of the line and the Achill extension.
  MR. JACKSON: I understand very good progress is being made, and completion may be expected about the same time as that of the other line.
  DR. TANNER: Courtmacsherry?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know anything about that; it was done before my time.
  DR. TANNER: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman getting up and saying that he knows nothing about this line. I ask for information on what is of considerable local importance. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know more about it, he need only go back to the answers he has given to me on the subject during the last month. Those answers were not satisfactory, but the right hon. Gentleman hoped to be able to give more satisfactory replies on the Estimates. I am very sorry for the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance of the matter, but I hope an answer of some kind will be given.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS II.
  3. £2,764, to complete the sum for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
  MR. MORTON: Under ordinary circumstances I should have opposed this Vote, as I consider the expenditure a waste of Imperial funds which ought not to continue. There is a cost of £4,764 for the household, as well as £20,000 out of the Consolidated Fund for the Lord Lieutenant. Then there is the Chief Secretary. We give a much smaller sum to a similar officer in Scotland, and yet Scotland is much better ruled than Ireland. I do not see why the Lord Lieutenant requires all these attendants—State steward, chaplain, reading clerk, organist, and so on—and I do not see why they should be paid for at the cost of the British taxpayer. I hope the time will speedily come when it will be put an end to.
  DR. TANNER: Nobody can help thinking that this office is simply a gorgeous sham, and, as a matter of fact,
  974
  all these gentlemen who draw salaries in connection with the office of Lord Lieutenant are at this moment congregated in a small area in the West End of London. They were brought to London under the personal guidance of the gentleman who has for a long time held the office of Master of the Horse to the Lord Lieutenant. I have nothing to say against this gentleman; in fact, they are all very nice gentlemen; but from the Private Secretary down to the Keeper of the Chapel, the establishment is a fraud, a delusion, and a snare as regards government. What is the object of keeping up the Chapel in Dublin Castle? The total cost is £335; and though I would say nothing against the present chaplain, of whom everyone speaks well, the Chapel is a fraud, and ought to be done away with. If some of these long salaries of gentlemen who do not want them could be curtailed and the money given to the poor we should be beginning at the right end and doing away with what ninety-nine sensible people out of a hundred consider to be a fraud.
  Vote agreed to.
  4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £29,060, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the thief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I see in this Vote there is a sum for the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries. I believe they are responsible for the keeping of the Deep Sea Fishery Laws. Since the fishery laws in Scotland have prohibited steam trawling within a certain distance of the shore, there has been an exodus of the steam trawlers to the coasts of Ireland. I do not say that is a bad thing when they do not come sufficiently near the shore to injure local inshore fishing. What I would like to know is what is the machinery by which the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries control those new boats that have arrived. I asked a question on the subject about six weeks

  975
  ago, and was told that about twenty of these boats had arrived. I want to know what is the machinery by which the Chief Secretary, through the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, sees that they do not poach within the limits? I really think the Chief Secretary ought to bring in a Bill assimilating the Irish law to the Scotch law, but that question does not arise at present. I want to know if there are a sufficient number of gunboats employed—are they sufficiently at the disposal of the Inspectors of Fisheries, and have they any other machinery for seeing that these large boats do not fish too close to the shore in certain places? The Chief Secretary, I know, might give these large boats a licence to fish in certain places of the kind. That is the Scotch and French law. I have no objection to these large boats, except where they are injurious to local fishermen. I do not think there is any necessity for the employment of large gunboats there. A gunboat with fifteen or sixteen men would be quite large enough for the purpose. The second question I have to ask has nothing whatever to do with fisheries—it is with regard to the Veterinary Department. The Veterinary Department is one of great importance in Ireland, and affords the greatest scope for the display of veterinary skill or administration. The fact is that through Ireland generally the veterinary work is very well done. There is extremely little pleuro-pneumonia through the whole of Ireland. I believe in that respect Ireland is better off than the greater part of England; but there is one district which requires very careful watching, and that is the Dublin scheduled district. I wish to know who is the veterinary officer advising the Government, and how much he is paid? He ought to be a first-class veterinary surgeon, and one who has shown some capacity for administration; because this is not a question of veterinary science alone, but a question of administration.
  MR. SEXTON: In accordance with the usage of Parliament this Vote affords every year a constitutional opportunity for challenging the policy of the administration of the Government in Ireland. We
  976
  have used the opportunity on every occasion in recent years, and we have learned by sad experience the futility of such challenge and the uselessness of any appeal to the House of Commons as at present constituted. During the past five years since the present Government came into power, the Constitution of Ireland has been destroyed, and every right of the community and of the individual has been violated, invaded, and suppressed. Time after time we have discharged our functions, as the Representatives of the Irish people in this House, in calling attention to the excesses and abuses of which the Government and their subordinates in Ireland have been guilty. We have been encountered by a very simple and very effectual system. When we complained of the action of any official from the highest to the lowest the truth of our charge was denied; the word of the peccant official was taken as conclusive in regard to the charge against him. All redress was denied to us—all inquiry refused. The complainants were advised to betake themselves to a Court of Law; and when they did betake themselves to a Court of Law the public purse was employed by the present Government to dispute not only the merits of the case, but to take advantage of every technical point of law against them. Our unbroken experience from year to year has been that the mechanical majority of the Government came in from other parts of the building to vote down Amendments which they had not considered, and to discountenance complaints which they had not taken the trouble to listen to. I think it must be obvious that it would be useless for me or for anyone to attempt to give any practical or serious character to the proceedings now before the Chair. If we were disposed on the present occasion to enter into details of the Irish Government we could usefully occupy at least, I should think, a week, so far as usefulness can be supposed to attach to the truthful exposure of the shortcomings and misdoings of the Government in Ireland. The effect would be that we should delay the Dissolution by a week. We have learned from the First Lord of the Treasury this afternoon that the date of

  977
  the Dissolution would depend upon the completion of certain business which had to be discussed by the House. I do not desire to delay the Dissolution by a week; I do not desire to delay the Dissolution by a moment. I desire to hasten the Dissolution, and to bring it about at the earliest possible date. I am convinced, as I have said before, of the futility of appealing to the House. Under these circumstances, so far as in my power lies, I shall facilitate the despatch of business and the appeal to the people in what I think is the most practical way I can—namely, by addressing no further observations to the House, either on this Vote or on any other Irish Vote in the Irish Estimates for the year.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway asked me some questions about the Irish Fishery Department and about the Veterinary Department. With reference to the Fisheries, it is no doubt true that the Fishery Inspectors are charged in a general sort of way with the care of all the fishing industry; but I do not know that they are specially charged with such interests as are indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Not with trawling?
  MR. JACKSON: They have to make regulations, and they see as far as they can that they are carried out.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Who looks after trawling? Nobody?
  MR. JACKSON: Somebody. Of course any vessel that transgresses the regulations is liable to a penalty. We have in Ireland one or two gunboats, and we have recently sent over gunboats to carry out the regulations that have been made. With regard to the Veterinary Department, the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me who was the adviser on these important questions. The Chief Inspector is the adviser, of course, on these important questions. He has a thoroughly competent staff to assist him. There is no doubt that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not in the least exaggerate the very great importance of this subject; and I may say
  978
  that since I have been in my present office I have been moved with the most grave considerations as regards dealing with the question of pleuro-pneumonia in the Dublin scheduled district. Everything is being done that skill can devise. We have been kept in constant touch with the Agricultural Department in England. I have had the advantage of the assistance of the Minister of Agriculture and of his advisers in conference over and over again. I have arranged a system under which I receive every morning telegraphic information as to whether there is any fresh outbreak, or any fresh news, or whether there are any fresh instructions to be given. We have not succeeded even yet in stamping out the disease in the Dublin scheduled district. I am sorry to say that yesterday we had notice of an outbreak; and two or throe days ago we had one. But we are doing everything we know in order, in the first place, to try and confine the disease to one district, and, in the second place, to try and stamp out the disease. On this point I may say there have been complaints made about the sanitary condition of some of the dairy yards in Dublin. The Corporation, who are the Sanitary Authority, have been hampered for some time by a decision which was given, and which seemed to cast some doubt upon their power. On appeal that decision has been reversed, and now I am glad to say we are receiving from the Corporation active assistance in order to try and improve the sanitary condition of those cowsheds and dairy yards; and I assure the Committee that this is a matter of the utmost concern to me. I recognise to the full that Ireland depends for its prosperity to such a large extent upon its cattle and the freedom of exporting its cattle, that we should be seriously wanting in our duty if we failed to take advantage of every opportunity and every means to try and stamp out this disease. My hope is that we may be able to keep the disease within the Dublin scheduled area; my hope is that day by day we are making progress, and that there will be a final stamping out of the disease even in that district itself.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I think the Chief Secretary is impressed with the extreme importance of the questions I have raised, especially the latter. But he did not answer the question I asked, as to who is the Irish veterinary adviser?
  MR. JACKSON: Do you mean the name?
  COLONEL NOLAN: No; I mean what position does he hold?
  MR. JACKSON: I mentioned the Chief Inspector in Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Is he a Veterinary Inspector? It does not follow that an Inspector at a port is a veterinary surgeon. I do not think the Chief Secretary attaches quite enough importance to fixing responsibility with regard to trawling. His answer to me seems to indicate that everybody in general might look after trawling.
  MR. JACKSON: The Coastguards look after it to a certain extent.
  COLONEL NOLAN: What is looked after to a certain extent is everybody's business, and what is everybody's business is generally nobody's business. If it be advisable to enforce this law somebody should be responsible, and they should have machinery to enforce it.
  DR. TANNER: It was with a certain amount of surprise, and not with satisfaction, that I heard the expression of the Chief Secretary that somebody looked after the trawling in a general sort of way. That is the way in which the Irish business is carried out. The Veterinary Department consists of three gentlemen. Who are these gentlemen? What are their ages? I ventured to bring the matter forward the other day in the form of a question, when it was pointed out that one of these gentlemen was pitchforked into the position. You have got pleuro-pneumonia raging in Dublin; you have got the most unsatisfactory state of affairs announced by the First Lord of the Treasury in consequence of the failure of this Veterinary Department. You have got two young nincompoops, and you have got a kind of a naval man or sailor, who could not be expected to
  980
  know anything about the diseases of cattle. I say two of these three gentlemen are young boys. How they got into this responsible position nobody knows. How this naval man was pitchforked into the position nobody knows. I must say from all I have heard from responsible authorities in Ireland that there can be no doubt that the officers of the Veterinary Department are incompetent to deal with the questions that arise, and it is altogether a disgrace to the Department and the Chief Secretary that they should hold their present positions. With regard to the inspection of lunatic asylums, I have raised the question of the Board of Control of the Cork Lunatic Asylum, and I want to know if anything has been done on that question? The Governors of the Cork Lunatic Asylum do not represent the ratepayers there. I would also point out that the abolition of the office of visiting physician in Cork is, in itself, a shame and a scandal. I believe the matter ought to be looked into by the Government, and if it is looked into I believe we shall have a visiting physician appointed again as he was heretofore. There is yet another question which I feel it necessary to raise. I called attention to the difficulty of dealing with the Irish fisheries in consequence of the inroads made on the mackerel and hake fishing on our Southern Coast. The right hon. Gentleman did not think on the last occasion when I raised the matter that I was thoroughly correct in what I said. I have here, accordingly, a cutting from the Cork Daily Herald, which is the only paper in the South of Ireland that deals with the case of these fisheries. It says:—
  "The attention of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries and of the Government has been directed to a practice which, if permitted to continue unchecked, must have most serious consequences for the fishing industry on the Southern Coasts. Briefly stated, it is caused by boats engaging in the herring fishing at an unseasonably early period of the year. The result of this is that with the herring captured there is annually destroyed an enormous quantity of immature mackerel and haak. The ultimate result must be the practical annihilation of the mackerel and haak fishery on those coasts on which the herring fishery is being pursued under such destructive

  981
  conditions. The people of Kinsale seem to have become fully alive to the importance of this matter to that well-known fishing port, and the apprehensions to which they give expression appear to be entirely warranted by the facts. Off their fishing grounds the killing of young fish, as an incident of the herring fishery, has developed to an alarming extent, with the natural result of serious deterioration in the larger and more lucrative industry. And what makes the grievance the more galling is that those who carry on the destructive trade most vigorously are not local fishermen at all, nor even are they Irishmen. There are at present fifty Scotch boats engaged in herring fishing off the Kinsale coast, while there are but a few, possibly half a dozen, from Kinsale or any Irish port. So that the Kinsale people have the mortification of seeing the great industry on which they so largely depend year by year suffering deep and lasting injury through the cupidity of strangers. Of course, the bad example of the Scotch invaders is apt to prove contagions, and local fishermen may well be tempted to take their share of what is going, regardless of the consequences, when they see the havoc wrought by others in order to secure a very moderate amount of gain. But the present position of Irish fishermen in reference to the matter is excessively unsatisfactory. For it appears that as the law stands there is no legal remedy whatever for their grievance, and that no action can be taken to prevent the scandalous and ruinous operations of the Scotch fishermen. But, unfortunately, the Inspectors feel that they have no power to deal with the matter, and, indeed, venture the opinion that the Government can do nothing under existing legislation. The herring fishery is in operation at places from six to twenty miles from the shore, and the jurisdiction of the Fishery Commissioners extends, as everyone knows, no further than three miles. It would, therefore, appear that, unless some further legislation be enacted, the Scotch fishermen remain masters of the situation, and the practices which the fishery inspectors describe as 'most injurious' will go on unchecked. The Government is prepared to go any lengths to maintain the seal fishery in Behring's Sea, and the Newfoundland lobsters have almost cost England a colony. Surely it is not too much to expect that the Ministry will not find any insuperable difficulty in controlling the operations of a Scotch fishing fleet on the Irish Coast. But if the Government should decline to interfere or to hold out a hand for the protection of an important industry so seriously threatened, the people of Kinsale may be driven to considering whether they are wholly helpless in the matter, or whether they may not be able to put those who are inflicting injury on them to such considerable inconvenience as to induce them to desist."
  These last remarks certainly deal with the French fishermen. There is no use beating the air—at the same time it is well to bring these points forward in
  982
  order that we may have some little expression of opinion upon them. One of the most recent appointments as Inspector is that of the Rev. Mr. Green, a Protestant clergyman from Cork. I am at a loss to know why he was appointed. In Ireland the Government always try to fish out some Protestant to the exclusion of Catholics, and usually some supporter of their own in opposition to the national feeling of nine-tenths of the population. ("No!") Who says "No?" It is perfectly true Probably it was the hon. Member for South Hunts (Mr. Smith Barry), who will soon go to the House of Lords. We can afford to pass these expressions by.
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has spoken about the Veterinary Department; and I can only repeat what I said the other day, that I think the highest praise is due to the Veterinary Department for the energetic and active steps they have taken in order to—
  DR. TANNER: Spread pleuro-pneumonia!
  MR. JACKSON: In order to deal with pleuro-pneumonia. The hon. Member has referred to the sanitary condition of some of the cowsheds; but I have already stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Galway, that the most active steps are being taken, and I am glad to have an opportunity of saying that the Corporation are actively seconding our efforts. I hope the result will prove a great improvement in the sanitary and general condition of the district. The hon. Member asked for the names of the Inspectors. I take it there are certain duties to be discharged at the port by any individual who follows his instructions. That has nothing to do with the Veterinary Department, which is responsible for dealing with this question, not only in Dublin, but in every other part of Ireland. I can say from my own personal knowledge that for some months past the Department has put on enormous pressure in endeavouring to deal with the work that comes to its hand.
  DR. TANNER: One of the three gentlemen appointed to inspect horses, and cattle is a naval gentleman.
  MR. JACKSON: I am quite sure they are thoroughly competent for their work, and discharge their duties in a most efficient manner. They are now working day and night most loyally, and efficiently discharging their most important duties, and it is a very bad reward for the extreme efforts they are making that such a moment should be selected to make such remarks. The hon. Member referred to the Fishery Inspectors, and to the question of the catching of immature mackerel by herring nets at Kinsale. The question has been before me in many ways, and I think it is desirable that the date at which herring fishing begins should be reasonably late, to prevent, as far as possible, the killing of immature fish. There has been some improvement made in that respect.
  COLONEL NOLAN: What police have the Fishery Inspectors?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know the name of the gunboats, but they have one or two. The hon. Member for Cork referred to the Fishery Inspectors, and slightingly of one Fishery Inspector, than whom I venture to say there is no man more competent and more enthusiastic in his work in the world.
  DR. TANNER: I never spoke slightingly of the Rev. Mr. Green, but this much I say: that in Ireland I think it is a mistake—and I say it as an Irish Protestant—to select an Irish Protestant clergyman, when you have such a vast field of Irish Catholics to select from.
  MR. JACKSON: I am glad to have drawn from the hon. Member even that acknowledgment. I believe it is the universal opinion in Ireland, Protestant and Catholic alike, that there is no man in the whole of Ireland who knows more on the subject and devotes himself more assiduously to his duties than the Rev. Mr. Green. I have had an opportunity of seeing something of his work, and during the last six months, when the Fishery Inspectors have been shorthanded, his duties have been largely increased. He is a member of the Congested Districts Board; he is one of the Fishery Inspectors; he has undertaken personally to conduct the most successful and important experi-
  984
  ment that has been made in Galway, and I say the highest praise is due certainly from every Member of the Irish Government to Mr. Green for the great services he has rendered. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more than that, but I certainly think so much is due to Mr. Green.
  COLONEL NOLAN: With regard to this question of gunboats, I would ask the Chief Secretary if he would give me a promise to have these fisheries looked after as much as the Scotch Office look after the Scotch fisheries, and to have a few fast gunboats placed on the station?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no hesitation in promising the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I will do everything in my power to try and protect the interests of the Irish fisheries.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think it is unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to charge the hon. Member for Mid Cork with having spoken slightingly of the Rev. Mr. Green. I certainly understood that he has done nothing of that kind. So far as my information goes the Rev. Mr. Green has discharged his duties in a very efficient manner, and I only wish the Government would fill their appointments with gentlemen who are as efficient as Mr. Green. We hear that Sir Thomas Brady's place is to be filled by Mr. Cecil Rhodes. If Mr. Cecil Rhodes is a specimen of the Irish Catholics you have got to fill positions of this kind, all I say is, give me Irish Protestants like Mr. Green. Of course, I do not intend to continue the discussion on this point; but I may point out that the Government three years ago, I think, passed an Act giving English Local Bodies very extensive powers for the management of sea fisheries, and created Fishery Boards around the whole of the English Coast. I wish to support what has been said with regard to Irish fisheries. There is, however, another matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the abolition of the office of visiting physician to Irish lunatic asylums. There is something like an agitation all over Ireland in regard to this question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to

  985
  make some statement with reference to it. The Irish people were very much surprised to learn that this change had taken place without any demand for it so far as they were concerned. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that twenty years ago a Royal Commission reported in the strongest manner as to the advisability of continuing the office of visiting physician to Irish lunatic asylums. No one is in favour of its abolition, so far as I can see, except the managers of such institutions. It appears to me to be absolutely necessary that such inspection should be continued in order to provide against abuses. I do not suggest that the managers of the asylums are not men to be trusted, or that any impropriety takes place in their institutions, but abuses may arise unless there is some outside inspection. As the medical profession are against the abolition of the office of inspecting physician, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will make some statement on the subject.
  MR. JACKSON: No doubt the question which the hon. Gentleman has raised has created some amount of interest in Ireland. There has been a good deal of inquiry into the subject, and not very long ago a Committee which was appointed reported that the whole system of visiting physicians was not the best form of giving protection to the patients in the asylums. I cannot, however, say that the question is closed, because it is, in fact, still under consideration. So far as I have been able to judge, the balance of evidence is in favour of calling in specialists to deal with particular cases as they arise. The Committee may rest assured that we shall endeavour, as far as possible, to arrive at the best solution of the difficulty, and that no definite action will be taken except on the strongest evidence.
  DR. TANNER: I have listened with some curiosity and interest to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The medical superintendents of such institutions should not have the power of calling in whom they please. It would not be to the advantage of the asylums or the inmates, and it would entail more expense than the
  986
  present system of visiting physicians. The right hon. Gentleman showed a great deal of common sense when at the Treasury; but since he has undertaken the office of Chief Secretary to Ireland, he has not gone into the matter in such a rational way as formerly. He ought not to have taken advice from the authorities at Dublin Castle upon this subject. He should at once have seen that it would not be advisable to supersede the visiting physicians, or to leave it to the medical superintendents of the asylums to call in whom they pleased. I must now say a few words with regard to the Rev. Mr. Green. I have the honour of knowing him, and I wish to say that I had no idea of speaking slightingly with regard to him. I had heard various criticisms about his appointment, and I simply laid them before the Committee. I would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman attempted to ride off upon this side issue? There were no less than fourteen competent veterinary surgeons to select from, and yet the Rev. Mr. Green was chosen as Inspector. That is the way in which business is being done in Ireland. I say that the money to be spent in stamping out pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland will be largely wasted for lack of competent advice, of which there is plenty to be had if only the Government would avail themselves of it.
  MR. MORTON: It appears to me to be somewhat extraordinary that the Rev. Mr. Green should have been selected as an Inspector in Ireland. In this country we consider that ministers of the Gospel are not qualified to act as Inspectors of Fisheries. We hear of them as being sometimes well-qualified in regard to hunting, racing, and sporting generally, but not to act as business-like officials. I should have liked to have had a few hours for the purpose of discussing this Vote, with regard to the actual expenditure itself; but as there is no time for doing that, I will only say that there is an immense waste of money going on under the present Government. I wish now to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to Mrs. Montagu. Her case is one which has created some little feeling

  987
  in this country as well as in Ireland. I am aware that it could be considered on the Prisons Vote; but still we know very well, especially in regard to Ireland—
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): This subject can be properly considered under the Prisons Vote.
  MR. MORTON: I wish to complain of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct. The account of the Prisons Board really—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That must be discussed under the Prisons Vote.
  MR. MORTON: Very well. Then I will discuss it under the Prisons Vote. I will only say that in regard to this other Vote that it is particularly extravagant. There appears to be an immense sum wasted in Ireland, which I hope, in the interests of the taxpayers, we shall before many months elapse have an opportunity of considering and reducing.
  DR. TANNER: The Chief Secretary just now attempted to answer what I advanced against one of his Inspectors. He told me that he was a Port Inspector. On page 181 there is additional illustration of what I attempted to point out. I am in a position to prove that the Inspector is a traveling Inspector at a salary of £300 per year. I really must complain of the attitude taken up by the Chief Secretary, who evidently has attempted to mislead the Committee by telling it—a
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: I certainly say he was in error. I do not say he misled the House wilfully.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman should try to express what he means.
  DR. TANNER: Certainly. I am expressing exactly what I mean.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: I say that one of these two travelling Inspectors is a Navy man, who draws a salary of £300 per year. The Chief Secretary told us that he was an Inspector at ports, which he said was a sort of duty for
  988
  which naval men were competent. In that way he mixes up two offices which are entirely distinct. The gentleman whose salary I drew attention to is a travelling Inspector; and in order to emphasise that fact, I beg to move a reduction of £300.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item K, Veterinary Department, be reduced by £300."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  5. £1,297, to complete the sum for Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
  6. £103,792, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board in Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLAN: There are a couple of points to which I should like to draw the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland. There is one matter in connection with the workhouses that we feel anxious about—and that is the bringing up of the children in the workhouse. Everything else in connection with Irish workhouses is admirably well done. In Ireland we do our best to bring the children up well, but I doubt whether the atmosphere of the workhouse is a good one. It is not that they become immoral children; it is that they do not like work, and are fond of returning to the workhouse. I think the Government might allow the workhouses to admit children into the industrial schools. Of course, all children cannot be committed to the industrial schools, but I think that many of those who stay in the workhouses until they are thirteen or fourteen years of age might be admitted. I think the form of committing an offence as a ground of committal might, in regard to workhouse children, be dispensed with, and the children admitted for a small contribution. There is another point I wish to ask the Attorney General to recommend to the Chief Secretary; and I think it is one ripe for consideration. It is in regard to the fees charged by medical officers in Ireland, and there is also the question of pensions. We get half the salary, but we do not get the pensions. I think if

  989
  the Government would take into consideration the possibility of paying half the pensions, we should be more inclined to pension the medical officers off. As to the fees charged by medical officers. Up to two or three years ago the doctors used to charge £1 for a few visits. On the other hand, a man moderately well off, by getting a red ticket from the workhouse authority could compel the doctor to attend for nothing. In England you have sixpenny, one shilling, two shillings and sixpenny, and five shillings doctors; but in parts of Ireland up to three or four years ago these were almost unknown. The Local Government Board ought to initiate some system by which the workhouse authorities could by the issue of tickets secure that the fee should be two shillings and sixpence or five shillings.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is one which has from time to time engaged my attention during the last few years. I have always thought that the system under which children who are inmates of workhouses are transferred to industrial schools is not a satisfactory one, and is capable of improvement. It is a matter I shall be glad to consider, but there are statutory conditions to be dealt with. As to the other two matters referred to, they will not require legislation. I may say that I will take the earliest opportunity of conferring with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary upon these questions.
  DR. TANNER: One other matter to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee on this Vote is that of labourers' cottages. I have addressed to the Chief Secretary a series of questions on this subject, as I find that is a far better plan for getting information than on the occasion of a Vote of this sort, which is taken at twelve o'clock at night. I should like to know how it is that there are only 72 labourers' cottages built in the whole Province of Ulster? I have a whole batch of communications here from that province complaining of this
  990
  state of things. In reply to one of my questions, the Chief Secretary told me that the Ulster landlords behaved so well to their labourers that there was no trouble whatever with regard to labourers' cottages. Well, Sir, I have numerous letters from County Antrim, South Tyrone, North Armagh, and from other places, stating that a more gratuitous insult was never offered to the Irish labourers. As a matter of fact, in the Ballymena district there are upwards of 350 labourers who are not properly housed. To substantiate my statement I refer to Reports of the Medical Inspectors, who state that many of the cottages occupied by these people are unfit for human habitation. If we do not try to remove the wrongs from which these men are suffering they will by organisation do so themselves. They are already doing something in this respect, as many Ulster Members will find to their cost before long. I do hope, whether the tenure of office of the present Chief Secretary is short or long—and the shorter the better for those poor people—that an investigation will be made into this matter.
  MR. MADDEN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the initiative in this matter does not rest with the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board, however, have power to send down an Inspector to institute inquiries; and in cases where the Local Authorities responsible have not, in their opinion, responded to any reasonable request for the erection of labourers' cottages, the Act can then be administered by the Local Government Board. I will communicate with my right hon. Friend on this matter, and. I am sure he will inquire into any case in which it appears the Boards of Guardians have failed to do their duty in this particular.
  DR. TANNER: I shall take the earliest opportunity of putting the Chief Secretary in possession of facts relating to the necessity for the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland.
  Vote agreed to.
  7. £4,001, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office, Ireland.
  8. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,539, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c., and the Expenses of Collecting Agricultural and other Statistics in Ireland."
  *SIR JOHN GORST: I am going to move the reduction of this Vote by £3,000, because the officers entrusted with the Irish Census have carried out their duties in so admirable a manner that the Returns will be completed in a shorter time than was expected. It was thought that the staff would be employed on the work till October of the present year; but I am informed that their labours will not extend beyond the 30th June. A saving of £3,000 will, therefore, be effected on the Estimate; and it is in order to mark publicly the valuable service thus rendered I move the reduction of the Vote by the amount I have named.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a reduced sum, not exceeding £12,539, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir John Gorst.)
  MR. SEXTON: I think the course proposed is not only unusual, but it is very objectionable. The item to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is for incompleted service. The work does not expire till September, and it is impossible at the present moment to say what will be the expenditure. What justification is there for the proposed alteration? A more reasonable course would be to let the Estimate remain as it is, and if there is a surplus let it go into the ordinary channel. I see no justification for the proposal.
  *SIR JOHN GORST: I am sorry I failed to make myself clear to the hon. Gentleman. When this Estimate was prepared it was supposed that the work would be completed on the 30th September this year, and the salaries to the temporary clerks and others engaged were calculated on that basis. It is now definitely and officially stated that the work will be completed by the 30th June, and therefore there is in the Estimates a quarter's salary for all these temporary clerks,
  992
  &c., that will not be wanted, and this makes a reduction of £3,000. If we had had in January last the knowledge which is now in our possession the Estimates presented would have been £3,000 less. I am only asking the Committee to pass the Vote for the sum of money which is necessary for the purpose for which it is designed. The hon. Member for Belfast says, Why not vote more money than is required—
  MR. SEXTON: I never said anything of the kind.
  *SIR JOHN GORST: But if we vote more money than is required we are simply taking money out of the pockets of the taxpayers. It would be utterly indefensible for us to take £3,000 which is not required. The hon. Member says that if this money is voted and not spent it would go into the surplus in the ordinary way. But if the money is voted and not spent and goes into the surplus, it will be applied to the reduction of the National Debt; and I maintain that we have no right to ask for a sum of money which we know will not be wanted, in order that it may go into the surplus.
  MR. SEXTON: Do I understand that the officer in charge of the Department is satisfied that the money will not be required?
  *SIR JOHN GORST: I understood that I stated that.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman did not by any means make that clear in his first speech. If it is merely a question of not paying a quarter's salary to some persons who will be disengaged, I raise no opposition.
  DR. TANNER: I suppose the work has been completed earlier than you thought, because of the policy of emigration and extermination which has been pursued by the Government. The Census shows that there are a quarter of a million fewer persons in Ireland, and this is owing to the abominable policy you have pursued in our country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Vote agreed to.
  9. £5,237, to complete the sum for Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.

  CLASS III.
  10. £46,236, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland.
  11. £78,609, to complete the sum for Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments in Ireland.
  12. £44,000, to complete the sum for Irish Land Commission.
  13. £86,325, to complete the sum for County Court Officers, &c, Ireland.
  DR. TANNER: There is, perhaps, no object in worrying the Government, because we shall have a better way of dealing with them before long. But I should like to call attention to a recent prosecution which was conducted before a Resident Magistrate named Byrne at Macroom. This man was absolutely kicked out of a common lodging house in Cork for improper conduct, and yet we find him sitting on the Bench and convicting two respectable gentlemen of taking drink in an hotel after hours. These gentlemen had gone to the hotel to see two friends from Cork who were staying there. It turned out subsequently that the two gentlemen were teetotalers, and had never had anything to drink in their lives, and the prosecution was cancelled, but I think it is most objectionable that they should have been left to the magisterial care of a man of the disreputable character of this Magistrate.
  Vote agreed to.
  14. £66,767, to complete the sum for Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  15. £832,655, to complete the sum for Constabulary, Ireland.
  DR. TANNER: I may mention in connection with the prosecution to which I referred just now, that the head constable at Macroom has been a kind of agent provocateur in connection with the whole business. Night after night he has been spying about, and this prosecution was the result of his watching. I have before raised the question in regard to the same constable, and I hope the Government will see their way to remove him to some other place,
  994
  where he will not be such a centre of local disturbance.
  Vote agreed to.
  16. £87,018, to complete the sum for Prisons, Ireland.
  17. £56,457, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland.
  18. £4,044, to complete the sum for Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

  CLASS IV.
  19. £499,801, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLAN: In the discussion on the Irish Education Bill we were told, if we wished to bring any fresh classes under the Bill, we ought to deal with the matter on this Vote. The Bill is a vanishing quantity, and the First Lord of the Treasury is constantly putting if off. It has been pushed off in many ways, so that I would like now to say a few words on an important question which is agitating the minds of the Irish people—the question of the rules of the National Education Board under which the Christian Brothers are excluded from any share of the grant. The Chief Secretary has been absent from the House for some time, but I would like an explanation from some other Member of the Irish Government, or from the First Lord, of why they are excluded, and why steps have not been taken to include the very best schools in Ireland. It is admitted that the Christian Brothers give the best primary education in Ireland, and yet the Government insists on excluding them from this Vote. In England, schools of a similar character get grants; I do not say in every case. In Ireland these schools are excluded, because the Christian Brothers will have certain religious emblems in their schools; but I think a fair compromise might be arrived at by the introduction of a Conscience Clause in all those schools where the Protestants have no school of their own persuasion to which they can send their children. In the majority of cases, however, there are excellent Protestant schools where the Christian Brothers have schools, as

  995
  in Londonderry, Dublin, and Cork, and in these places any money given to the Christian Brothers would be spent on Catholic children, and would not affect the Protestant children in any way. It may be said that such a course would be against the original policy of the national education system. It was originally a proselytising system for turning Catholics into Protestants, but that was resisted by the late Archbishop of Tuam, with the result that now it is no longer a proselytising system, but varies with the people who work it. It might be worked as a proselytising system; it is largely worked as a denominational system, and in some cases as a secular system. It depends very much on the Commissioners and the Government as to how it is worked, and I think the Government might now see their way to a compromise, and to so modify the rules that the Christian Brothers should have the grant extended to them. The chief objection has been that they will have a crucifix and the statues in the schools, but many Protestants do not object to them. I do not think Ireland is in a fair position compared with England so long as the best schools are excluded from the grant. There is another point. I am informed that in consequence of the introduction of the Education Bill, the Government are making reductions in the allowances to teachers, and I would like to ask if that is the case. The reductions are small, cheese-paring economies, which are injurious to the teachers; and I should like to know if they are being made on the ground that the teachers will benefit by the Education Bill?
  MR. JACKSON: There is no connection, so far as I am aware, between the reductions which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to and the Education Bill. As regards the other question, it is one, no doubt, of considerable interest; but as I suppose we shall have a discussion on the Education Bill, it is hardly worth while going into the question now.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I will be satisfied with that answer for the present, on condition that the right hon. Gentleman will not throw the question over on a future occasion.
  MR. CONWAY: I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to follow the precedent set in England in regard to higher grade schools, and establish in Ireland higher grade schools, under which system of higher grade schools the Christian Brothers might very well come in, taking advantage of the primary grant, and also taking advantage of the intermediate education grant.
  Vote agreed to.
  20. £605, to complete the sum for Endowed Schools Commissioners, Ireland.
  21. £1,700, to complete the sum for National Gallery of Ireland.
  22. £3,028, to complete the sum for Queen's Colleges, Ireland.

  CLASS VI.
  23. £2,213, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.
  24. £9,224, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Charities, Ireland.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES, 1892–3.
  Resolutions [10th June] reported.
  Resolutions 1 to 16 agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICES, 1892–3.

  CLASS, V.
  17. "That a sum, not exceeding £219,747, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for the expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions abroad, and of the Consular Establishments abroad and other expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. LEGH: Upon this Vote I should like to obtain some information in regard to our Legation at Bucharest. Last year, when Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was appointed to this post, the salary was increased from £2,500 to

  997
  £3,500, and we were told the Mission was created one of the first class. The explanation of the circumstances given by the then Under Secretary was that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff's salary was raised on account of his distinguished services; though, for my part, I am unable to recollect any specially distinguished services rendered by that gentleman. The salary was raised on account of the increased importance of the Legation. But now I observe the salary of our Minister there has been reduced by £1,000, and that, I think, the House will agree with me requires some explanation. Does the post continue a first-class Mission? Are the services of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff really worth more by £1,000 than those of any other Minister succeeding him at Bucharest, or are our relations with Roumania of less importance now that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff has left that post? Of course, if that is the case, I have nothing more to say; but it does appear to me that an undeserved slight has been passed upon our Minister, Sir John Walsham, who succeeded Sir Henry Drummond Wolff at Bucharest, and who was lately our Ambassador to China.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I wish I could satisfy the hon. Member, but, unfortunately, this is the first notice I have had of his intention to raise this question at this stage of our proceedings, and, therefore, he must not think it extraordinary if I am unable to reply in detail upon the point he has raised. The hon. Member is in error, I think, in assuming that the salary of the Minister in Roumania is reduced. If he will look at the Vote, Class V., page 397, he will observe that the salary attached to the post is exactly the same this year as last year—namely, £2,400. There is, therefore, no slight east upon Sir John Walsham or any other gentleman appointed to the post of Minister to Roumania. The hon. Member has stated that when Sir Henry Drummond Wolff was appointed he received an extra £1,000 a year. I had not at the time the honour
  998
  of holding the position I now do, and, therefore, I am not able to state when the question is sprung upon me the reasons which induced the Secretary of State to increase the salary attaching at that time to the post at Bucharest; but if I may venture to conjecture, it was probably due to the fact that Sir Henry Drummond Wolff had suffered considerably in health during his residence in Persia, and the extra salary was a purely personal one, attaching to him during his residence in Bucharest. That may be the possible explanation on the point upon which the hon. Member desires information. But if my hon. Friend will put a question on the Paper for to-morrow, or a later date, I shall be glad to inquire whether the reason I have given is correct, or whether there are any other reasons in reference to the matter upon which he inquires.
  MR. BRYCE: I take the opportunity to ask the hon. Gentleman for information upon two points—first, whether it is intended to lay before the House any Papers in reference to Madagascar, and the various negotiations which have been going on with the Governments of Madagascar and France; and, secondly, when it is proposed to give us further information in reference to the Persian Tobacco Monopoly and the dealings of Her Majesty's Government therewith.
  MR. LOWTHER: I can only reply with the permission of the House. I do not think there is any intention to lay Papers with regard to Madagascar. The communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government have been few in reference to this matter. With regard to Papers on the Persian tobacco question, I can only repeat what I have already said, that as soon as an arrangement has been arrived at between the Persian Government and the Corporation, Papers will be at once presented; but so long as negotiations are pending it is impossible to produce Papers. They are in a forward state of preparation, and as soon as a definite

  999
  arrangement is come to they will be presented.
  COLONEL NOLAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman does he still adhere to the statement he made the other night that a message may shortly be expected from Captain Lugard at Uganda? This he said six or eight days ago; has he still reason to hope that a message will shortly be received? I have to-day seen in the Press a statement that there is reason to suppose despatches have been lost or intercepted; but can the hon. Gentleman say now if we may expect to get despatches from Uganda giving us some explanation as to the reported extermination of the Catholic Mission there?
  DR. TANNER: I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman can give us any information as to the truth of reports published tonight of fresh outrages upon missionaries in China. The reports come by way of Shanghai and San Francisco—
  "Of renewed outrages upon European missionaries in the Fo-kien province, in Eastern China, and in Se-chuen, 1,500 miles up the Yangtse-Kiang."
  The telegram says:
  "On April 27, the house occupied by missionaries of the Church of England at Chin-ho was attacked by a mob, which had been assembled by the leading military men of the place. After being exposed to insults for three hours, Messrs. Johnson and Newcombe were rescued by a mandarin and taken to the Yamen. Evidence is not wanting pointing to the complicity of the mandarin in the riot. On May 11 the little mission hospital and dispensary at Kienning were attacked and wrecked by a mob of hired ruffians in the pay of a leading literary man of the city. Dr. Rigg narrowly escaped death."
  Last year and this year we had discussions in relation to the outbreak last year, in which a great number of unfortunate people lost their lives. Can the hon. Gentleman give up any information? The movement against the missionaries in Se-chuen is said to be inspired by the Viceroy, and supported by the leading inhabitants of the district.
  MR. MORTON: I should like to know if we are likely to have Papers upon the Persian Tobacco Monopoly before the Dissolution? I have to thank the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Legh) for men-
  1000
  tioning the Roumanian Legation. I took occasion when the Government were proposing to pay an extra £1,000 to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff without the consent of Parliament to characterise it as a job, and now the time gives it proof. The £1,000 was given not to the office, but to a political friend. This mode of spending the taxpayers' money cannot be too strongly condemned. This affords proof of the truth of what I have said on other occasions, that the Government do spend public money upon purposes of which we have no knowledge, and to which Parliament has not given assent. No explanation was given last year, and we find no explanation in the Votes, why this extra money was given. Of course it is of no use attempting to argue the matter now, but I do utter my strong protest against this manner of dealing with public money—bestowing it as a reward for political services rendered by a friend in former years. I hope the country will endorse the protest against giving public money for merely Party services.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution agreed to.
  18. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,313, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for Expenses in connection with the suppression of the Slave Trade, and the Expenses of the Maintenance of certain liberated Africans."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  COLONEL NOLAN: On this Vote, I should like to ask if the Government have advanced any money to the East Africa Company for the survey of any territory over which the Company has any control? Of course, questions in relation to Uganda are so mixed that it is difficult to say under what head they come; but I ask the question on this Vote. Has any money been advanced for land survey in East Africa?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I did not reply to the previous question, because I should have been out of Order in doing so. I should be equally out of Order in replying to questions in

  1001
  reference to Uganda upon this Vote, because it only asks for money for the maintenance of Africans in the West Indies and at Zanzibar.
  COLONEL NOLAN: East Africa?
  *MR. LOWTHER: At places not within the jurisdiction of the East Africa Company.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Resolutions 19 and 20 agreed to.

  CLASS VI.
  Resolutions 21 to 24 agreed to.
  CLASS VII.
  Resolutions 25 to 29 agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  Resolutions 30 to 33 agreed to.
  Resolution 34 postponed.
  Postponed Resolution to be considered To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 279.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, considered.
  An Amendment made.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 26, after the word "satisfaction," to insert the words "Provided always, that no ship shall be detained whose owner or agent has given notice to the Board of Trade of the probable date of the ship's sailing, and of the warehouse or place from which the stores, other than water, will be supplied, in sufficient time to enable the officer to inspect and mark the same stores in such warehouse or place, unless defects be found therein, and duly reported, and not remedied, before the date of sailing."—(Sir Richard Temple.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I must ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. As the clause now stands, there is no reason to suppose that the inspection will delay the sailing; and even if the ship is delayed, the owner has a remedy against the officers of the Board by an action for damages, as in the case of other detention without sufficient cause. Such actions have been brought and damages given, and much care is
  1002
  taken not to detain a ship unnecessarily. I can assure my hon. Friend there is no such danger as he wishes to guard against.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 379.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."
  MR. BRYCE: I have just a word to say upon this Bill. I am sorry the Government have abandoned it, since they would not allow my hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) and myself to go on with our Bill. Although we could not accept this Bill in the form in which it stands, we should not have despaired of convincing the House if we had had the opportunity that many provisions might have been omitted, and the Bill might have been reduced to a shape giving satisfaction to the people of Scotland. I was sorry also to hear the First Lord of the Treasury express regret that the Bill had been brought in in its present form. It is a pity that the Government, having taken heart of grace, and recognising the right of the people to enjoy their own scenery, should be unable to sustain the not very high level they managed to reach, and I do not think their friends the landlords and sporting tenants will find they gain anything by this delay.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The hon. Gentleman appears to be under some misapprehension. He expresses regret that the Bill should be withdrawn, and I can assure him that the Bill is withdrawn mainly because I have received information from authentic sources that the hon. Gentleman and his friends would by no means permit the Bill to pass in its present shape. Under the circumstances, he cannot be surprised that we do not think it is worth while to attempt to proceed with the measure. As to the hon. Gentleman's criticism on

  1003
  my statement that I think the Bill ought to be still further safeguarded, I do not wish to argue the merits of the Bill now, but I cannot agree with his statement of the question. It has nothing to do with the rights of the public, who have no rights in this matter; it is a question of privileges to be granted, and the persons whose rights I am anxious to safeguard, and which are not adequately protected by the Bill as it stands are not those whom he has indicated, but sheep farmers in many districts of Scotland.
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 143.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I must object, in fulfilment of the pledge given by my right hon. Friend, that other than Government Bills should not be proceeded with after twelve o'clock.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I understand that the President of the Local Government Board is quite willing that the Bill should go through, and there is no opposition to it.
  DR. TANNER: The Government might concede a little to one of the leaders of the Liberal Unionist Party, a Party which has been such a useful crutch to a decrepit Government.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 341.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 339.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 368.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 369.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 25.)
  Return ordered—
  "Respecting application of Standing Order No. 25 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1892 (in same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper, No. 0. 166, of Session 1891)."—(Mr. John Ellis.)

  STATUTE LAW REVISION.
  Report from the Joint Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 258.]

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1892, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of Witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also, the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of, and in the same form as, Parliamentary Paper, No. 0. 141, of Session 1891)."—(Mr. John Ellis.)

  POOR LAW SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 276.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 401.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 402.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 174.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  RECREATION GROUNDS BILL. (No. 201.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  CATHEDRAL CHURCHES BILL. (No. 146.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  MILITARY LANDS CONSOLIDATION BILL.—(No. 184.)
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, and an Appendix [Title amended.]
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 259.]
  Ordered, That the Bill, as amended, be printed. [Bill 409.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  VOTERS' REGISTRATION BILL. (No. 155.)
  Order for Second Reading To-morrow read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Ordered, That, in the case of the London County Council (Money) Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.
  Bill considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 13) BILL.
  Ordered, That Standing Order 236 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

  TELEGRAPHS [ADVANCES].
  Resolution [10th June] reported.
  "That it is expedient to authorise (a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole £1,000,000, as may be required for the purposes of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1889, and of any Act of the present Session to make further provision respecting Telegraphs, and (b) the creation of terminable annuities, for providing such sums, payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."
  Resolution agreed to.

  RAILWAYS (GENERAL REPORT).
  Copy presented,—of General Report of the Board of Trade on the Capital, Traffic, and Expenditure of Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1891 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Copy presented,—of Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom in each of the last fifteen years, from 1877 to 1891, 39th Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (COLONIES).
  Copy presented,—of Statistical Abstract for the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom in each of the last fifteen years, from 1877 to 1891, 29th Number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Copy presented,—of Return as to the Capital, Traffic, Receipts and Working

  1007
  Expenditure, &c, of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1891 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (COLOUR TESTS).
  Copy presented,—of Report upon the Colour Tests used in the examination of Candidates for Masters' and Mates' Certificates of Competency and others in the British Mercantile Marine, with Appendix (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, C. 6437) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES (1890–91.)
  Returns presented,—of Shipping Casualties which occurred on or near the Coasts or in Rivers and Harbours of the United Kingdom, from the 1st July, 1890 to the 30th June, 1891, &c., with Charts and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES (POLICE, ROADS, GAS, AND WATER).
  Copy presented,—of Return of Rates of Wages paid by Local Authorities and Private Companies to Police, and to Workpeople employed on Roads, &c., and at Gas and Water Works, with Report thereon [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Annual Local Taxation Returns for England for the year 1890–91, Part I. (Poor Rate Return and Valuation for Poor Rate), and Part II. (Accounts of County Councils and Pauper Lunatic Asylums) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCIENCE AND ART).
  Copy presented, — of Thirty-ninth Annual Report of the Department of Science and Art, being that for the year 1891 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (OPIUM).
  Address for—
  "Return showing the consumption of Opium and its Preparations in British India during 1890–91 (in continuation of the Table given on page 20 of the Return [C. 6,562] of Session 1892)."—(Mr. Lewis Fry.)

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (IRELAND) [GRANT].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of an increased grant for the purposes of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts in Ireland (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Jackson.)

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1890–91.
  Committee to consider the Savings and Deficiencies upon Navy and Army Grants for 1890–91, and the temporary sanction obtained from the Treasury by the Navy and Army Departments to the Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, To-morrow.—(Sir John Gorst.)
  Ordered, That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy and Army Departments which were presented upon the 16th and 18th days of February last respectively be referred to the Committee.

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (FIRST SENTENCES).
  Order [6th July, 1891] for Address for Return relative thereto read, and discharged.
MOTIONS.

  BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bill for making further provision respecting certain payments to the Banks of England and Ireland, and for other purposes connected with those Banks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir John Gorst.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 406.]

  NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Gorst, Bill to amend "The National Debt Act, 1870," ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 407.]

  TELEGRAPHS BILL COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That Mr. Shaw Lefevre and Sir Richard Temple be added to the Select Committee on Telegraphs Bill.—(Sir James Fergusson.)
  It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Earl of Clonmell: Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Thomas Charles Scott Earl of Clonmell to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.
George Douglas, Duke of Argyll, K.G., K.T. in the Peerage of Scotland (Baron Sundridge in the Peerage of Great Britain) having been created Duke of Argyll in the Peerage of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
DISTURBANCES IN UGANDA.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD HERRIES: My Lords, I wish to ask a question, of which I have given private notice to the noble Marquess at the head of Her Majesty's Government, with regard to certain atrocities that are said to have been committed in Uganda under the protection and with the assistance of officials of the British East Africa Company and officers in Her Majesty's Army. I do not wish to express an opinion on the subject without further information, but I think it is most desirable that that further information should be given as soon as possible. It seems very strange that when a great part of Europe is ringing with the accusations brought against certain officials of the British East Africa Company, and accounts have been read in all the newspapers of these atrocities which are said to have been committed, no information has, as yet, been received from those people who are supposed to have assisted in these atrocities. I, therefore, would ask the noble Marquess whether he can give us any information on the subject, and in any case whether he will be prepared to send out to that country some Commissioner qualified
  826
  to make a special report on the subject, who shall make inquiries on the spot, and let us know what really has happened and what is the state of the case. My Lords, I think the honour of England is at stake, and that this matter must be cleared up sooner or later. It seems almost incredible—I hesitate to believe that English officers should have been guilty of such conduct; and, therefore, I say as an Englishman that I wait with the greatest anxiety for some further information. And I would remind your Lordships that the information which the Company may give to us must be considered as ex parte statements, and that we shall require something more; what we require is that some independent person shall be able to give us information of what has really happened; and I would ask the noble Marquess whether he can give any assurance that means shall be taken to acquire that information?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, just before I came down to the House I received a telegram from Mr. Portal, of Zanzibar, which bears upon this question, though it does not entirely answer the questions of the noble Lord, and I will read the effect of it to the House. It reports the receipt of letters from Muanza, a place near the southern end of Lake Victoria Nyanza, dated 31st March; the arrival there of Captain Williams, one of the officers in the employment of the British East Africa Company, who brought the news that the fighting in Uganda was ended, and that hopes were entertained of coming to terms with Mwanga and his adherents; and that the English missionaries were in Uganda, and nineteen missionaries in the Bukoba district. From the concluding words of the message, which are not quite clear, it appears that they were all safe and well. I hope that that at all events will diminish the acuteness of the anxiety, which has been very naturally felt, at the reports which have reached this country. I can assure the noble Lord that we have felt the deepest sympathy with the self-devoted men, who appear to have been exposed to great danger and it

  827
  may be to great suffering; and, if I believed for a moment that any British agent had been guilty of the violence which the noble Lord suggests—had been guilty of attacking Roman Catholic establishments, or taking any hostile action against the subjects of other European Powers, I should join heartily with him in the language of condemnation he has used; but I do think that we owe it to British officers that we should not condemn them before we have heard what they have to say. Though I have no personal acquaintance with Captain Lugard and Captain Williams, I have seen the reports of the former now for several years, and I am quite convinced that nothing could be further from his thoughts than any action of a propagandist character, or than the use of the force at his disposal for the injury either of those of another religion or those of another nation. All his reports breathe a spirit of the utmost impartiality and loyalty, and I am convinced that when we know the facts we shall know that he and his coadjutors have acted as becomes British soldiers. But that does not diminish in the least the deep regret with which we have heard of the sufferings of the missionaries on Lake Nyanza. I hope, from the telegram I have just read, that the reports are exaggerated. We know from experience that reports coming across from the interior to the coast are liable to be very much disfigured on the road, and therefore we cannot at present speak with confidence. The noble Lord asks us to make immediate inquiries by means of a Commissioner. I think the words he used indicate that he is not quite acquainted with the geographical conditions of the problem. It takes six months for a caravan to get from the coast to this Lake and back again; so that a Commissioner, even if everything ran perfectly straight, could only just visit the Lake and come back again by December next. Undoubtedly we will make every inquiry, and we will call rigorously to account any who, on inquiry, deserve that their conduct should be censured. We are very anxious that peace should be restored in that country, and that the self-devoted men who have been working
  828
  there should be restored to their activity; but, in spite of that anxiety, we cannot allow any presumption of blame to rest upon British agents, whose reports, for some reason or other, we have not yet received, and as to whose conduct it would therefore be most unjust in us to form conclusions.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, it would not be either right or convenient to enter into such a question as that relating to Uganda upon a mere question asked upon a very interesting point no doubt, but which does not involve the whole of our relations at all with that country. At the same time I have heard with satisfaction the news which, so far as it goes, tends to relieve our anxiety; it is not of very late date, and other events may have happened since; still, so far as it goes, it tells us that the hostilities have ceased, and therefore leads us to hope that a state of things may exist there which is not such as to give rise to any complaint on the part of others. But, my Lords, I cannot help making one remark, namely, that it is not a very satisfactory state of things when we are held responsible for the acts of British officers in a part of Africa with which it seems it takes no less than six months to communicate; and, if I could have given notice, or had known that this question was going to be put, I should have liked to have asked the noble Marquess whether the announcement that I have seen in the Times newspaper that the British East Africa Company have determined to abandon Uganda, is well founded, and, if so, what are likely to be the steps taken with regard to our position in that quarter of the world. Probably the noble Marquess would not wish to answer that question without notice, and, if he wishes it, I will give notice; but if he could answer it simply now, I think it would be some satisfaction to your Lordships to know how the matter stands.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I believe it is perfectly true that orders have been sent to Captain Lugard to withdraw from Uganda, I do not think to withdraw to the coast—that is my recollection speaking without notice—but to a place about half-way. With

  829
  respect to the holding of Uganda, I quite admit that, as long as the communications are as difficult as they are now, it will be an arduous task for this country to maintain its position there. I have a remedy which I hope the new Parliament will adopt, and that is to encourage the making of a railway to Uganda; and, as soon as a railway is made to Uganda, there will not be the slightest difficulty in maintaining our position.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess will forgive my saying that there will be a very considerable time, I conclude, before this railway is completed, and I would like to know what our relations with the country will be during that long interval?
  *LORD HERRIES: I should like to make one remark on what has fallen from the noble Marquess. I think the noble Marquess was hardly fair upon me in saying that I condemned the action of those officers. I said that I hesitated to condemn their action until I received further information on the subject; but I went on to say that I thought we must consider that further information as an ex parte statement, and that independent evidence was necessary.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Before this discussion terminates I wish to say that I quite understand the noble Lord who has just sat down not to anticipate the result of inquiries about to be made, and not beforehand to express an opinion that blame ought to be thrown now upon British officers against whom a presumption seems to have arisen, I think under very mistaken circumstances, owing to stories told at second and third hand through a most unreliable source. But I rise, not in consequence of anything my noble Friend near me (Earl of Kimberley) said, but rather because of the tone in which he spoke of the whole question. My Lords, this is a large question, and one that cannot and ought not to be discussed on an incidental discussion such as this; but it was impossible to mistake the tone of my noble Friend, implying that the whole position of Great Britain in Central Africa was one to be deprecated and condemned.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I never said anything of the kind.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I thought that was the tone of my noble Friend. I only wish to say distinctly, that, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of the great majority of the people of this country, it will be the duty of Great Britain to take her part with the other European nations in the civilisation of Africa and in the destruction of the Slave Trade, and that those two great objects cannot be accomplished unless Great Britain asserts her power over that vast territory over which her dominion has been acknowledged, over which her sphere of influence—I believe that is the term—has been extended. With regard to the possibility of wars, more or less bloody, happening in that country, it is inevitable that such wars will happen, and I have no doubt that a great fuss will be made in this country about a few hundred negroes shot in these encounters.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Hear, hear!
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I quite understand my noble Friend's cheer; but I beg my noble Friend to read the account which the missionaries give of the loss of human life which occurs in these districts of Africa from the savagery of native kings. I venture to say that there will be no loss of life in any number of battles against the British or against European Powers to be compared with the daily bloodletting and murder of thousands of people by the savage tribes of Africa. My Lords, it is a Continent which seems to be given over on lease to the Devil. It is impossible to exaggerate the language one would use of the horrors that go on among native princes, and all that is due to a great extent to the loathsome slave trade carried on with Arab slave dealers; and we are one at least of the great Powers whose duty it is to see that that is put an end to as soon as possible. So far, then, from thinking that our position is unsatisfactory in Uganda, merely because occasional difficulties arise, or occasional battles happen, or blood is shed, I think these are occasions on which we must put our hand to the wheel and go forward with the policy indicated by the noble Marquess of establishing

  831
  a thorough communication from coast to coast of Central Africa.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am not going to answer the noble Duke, because that would be out of order; but I rise to make a personal explanation. I did not say one single word of condemnation with regard to the policy of the Government; I prefaced my remarks by saying that I did not think this a fitting opportunity of entering upon these very large questions; but I suppose even those who approve entirely of the policy of the Government do not think it wrong to inquire what may be our position in that part of the country, or to inquire of the Government in what way they propose to deal with the difficulties that arise. My object was merely to obtain information as to the present condition of Uganda, and I protest against my remarks, which were of a simple character, being interpreted in a sense they will not bear.

LORD WANTAGE'S COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SANDHURST: With the leave of the House I wish to ask a question, of which I have given private notice to Lord Wantage, who presided over a Committee to inquire into the terms and conditions of Army service. It is to ask the noble Lord whether he will state what were the reasons which guided the Committee on the terms and conditions of Army service with reference to the course taken by them in regard to the evidence sent home by Lord Roberts; and why that evidence was not included in the evidence laid before Parliament?
  LORD WANTAGE: My Lords, owing to his absence in India Lord Roberts was not able to give evidence before the Committee; but the evidence taken by the Committee was from time to time unofficially sent out to Lord Roberts, and he sent home a paper which he himself described as "A review of the evidence taken before Lord Wantage's Committee." That paper, being in the nature of a commentary or criticism of the evidence, did not appear to the Committee, however valuable in itself, to be either intended or suitable for inclusion in the evidence and Report furnished to Parliament.

  THE DUKE OF YORK.
  The Marquess of SALISBURY acquainted the House, by the Queen's Command, "That Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to issue Letters Patent, dated the 24th day of May, creating His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert Duke of York, whereby his said Royal Highness has obtained the right to sit and vote among their Lordships in Parliament; and Her Majesty recommends it to the House to consider of the place his said Royal Highness should occupy in the House."
  Ordered, That the matter with which the Marquess of Salisbury has acquainted the House by Her Majesty's Command be referred to the consideration of the Lords Committee for Privileges; and that their Lordships do meet to take the same into consideration, to-morrow at Eleven o'clock; and do report their opinion thereupon to the House.

SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I rise to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill for the provision of Small Agricultural Holdings in Great Britain. My Lords, it has been my duty, on more than one occasion, to present Bills to this House for dealing with the question of tenure of land. Those Bills related entirely to one part of the United Kingdom, namely, to Ireland; but, though I retain a grateful recollection of the generosity and support which I received, from your Lordships on the occasion of the performance of past duties, I cannot but feel anxiety as to the performance of the task which is before me now with regard to the Bill which now lies on your Lordships' Table. My Lords, this Bill has been for some time past before Parliament, and before the country. It was introduced into the other House of Parliament by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture in a speech of singular ability

  833
  and eloquence, which gave to that Assembly a very complete description of its scope and its general bearing. My Lords, I cannot doubt that every one of your Lordships will have made himself, to a certain extent, at any rate, acquainted with the provisions of this Bill; and I am therefore somewhat in doubt as to what course I should pursue in moving its Second Reading to-night. I remember to have heard that on one occasion, when a Member of your Lordships' House had performed the duty of moving the Second Reading of a Bill in a somewhat perfunctory and incomplete manner, a distinguished Peer rose, and began his speech by saying that "The noble Lord in charge of the Bill appeared to have omitted to do that which he asked the House to do, namely, to read the Bill a second time." My Lords, I am not anxious to incur any such criticism as that; and yet I think I should be wanting in respect to this House, especially in view of the many changes which have been imported into the Bill during its passage through the other House of Parliament, if I failed to go as quickly, and as concisely, and as clearly as I can through the general scheme of the Bill, and asked your Lordships to pass a judgment upon it as a whole. My Lords, as to the necessity which exists for some measure of this sort, and as to the objects which influence us in presenting it to the House, I conceive that all of your Lordships on both sides of the House will probably be agreed. I do not intend on the present occasion to discuss the circumstances under which agriculture has become depressed, or the causes which may have led to that depression. There is, however, one of the many evils which at present affect agriculture to which our attention has been specially directed; I allude to the migration which is taking place, and which increases every day, of the rural population from the rural districts into the towns. My Lords, that migration is perhaps easily understood, and can be easily accounted for. No doubt the spread of education, the increased facilities of communication, and other causes are likely to lead young men in agricultural districts to look to
  834
  something more lively than the occupations to which they have been brought up, and to induce them to leave the country and to go into the towns. But the worst of this state of things is that the want of sufficient labour, which is the result of this migration, has injurious effects, not only upon the labourers themselves, not only upon the tenants, not only upon the owners of land, but also upon the whole community. Undoubtedly the deficiency of labour which is thus caused must result in a deficiency of yield of produce throughout the country, and such a deficiency must injuriously affect every member of the community. My Lords, we believe that some remedy can be found for this most serious evil, and we believe that it can be found in an increase in the number of occupying owners by the creation of small holdings in the agricultural districts. With regard to the first of these points, it may be satisfactory to those who value consistency in policy and continuity in legislation that I should remind the House that the main object which we put forward in the Land Purchase Bill of last year was the increase which it would bring about in the number of occupying owners. It is interesting to note that the necessity or the advisability of such an increase proceeded in Ireland and in England from two diametrically opposite causes. In Ireland there is that love of the soil which possesses the inhabitants, that "land hunger" as it is called which induces them, above all things, to remain in and cling to that land upon which they have been born. In England, on the contrary, as I have just said, the evil which we have to combat is mainly this: that there is a tendency, on the part of those who are born and bred in the country, to leave the country to the detriment of the agricultural interest. But, however that may be, my Lords, the principle was adopted and was established that it is to the advantage of the country that we should, as much as possible, increase the number of the occupying owners of the soil. We have, therefore, determined to give effect to the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on Small

  835
  Holdings which sat from 1888 to 1890. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read the two paragraphs which refer specially to this point. The Committee say:—
  "On this branch of the subject your Committee are strongly and unanimously of opinion that the extension of a system of small holdings is a matter of national importance. It is desirable in the interests of the rural population, to whom it offers the best incentive to industry and thrift, and it is calculated to add to the security of property by increasing the number of persons directly interested in the soil."
  And then, in the conclusions to which they came, the following paragraph occurs:—
  "The following is a summary of the conclusions arrived at by the Committee: 1. That the extension of a system of small holdings is a matter of national importance, both in the interests of the rural population and also as adding to the security of property generally. 2. That the intervention of the Legislature is called for by the special circumstances of the case, and is justified by considerations affecting the well-being of the whole community."
  It is our desire to encourage occupiers to become owners of small holdings, to attach labourers to the soil by the inducements which the future or immediate possession of land may provide, and we desire and we hope to bring back from the towns some of those who have deserted their native villages, and who have endeavoured to earn a living in other branches of industry than that of agriculture. My Lords, a right hon. Gentleman, a colleague of noble Lords opposite, some time ago raised the cry, "The village for the villagers." I think that anyone who reads the Report of this Committee on Small Holdings will come to the conclusion that it will be necessary before long to bring back "the villagers to the village;" and I believe it will be found that the measure which I shall have the honour to lay before your Lordships is one that is calculated to effect that object. We have done something, as your Lordships know, by the provision of allotments. Two measures have been passed in the course of the present Parliament to assist the promotion of allotments which were limited to one acre; but it is our wish to go still further in that direction. It is encouraging to us to know that the small holdings which have been established in the country
  836
  have proved to a great extent successful. No doubt, as in the case of a well-known district in Lincolnshire where small holdings were formed a long time ago, in some cases such a heavy price had to be given for the land that those who settled in these small holdings were not only unable to live in them but were absolutely ruined in their endeavours to cultivate them. But that is not the case at present; the opportunity seems to be a good one; the price of land is low, and the stimulus which has been provided by allotments for cultivation and for interest in agriculture appears to point to the present as the moment for undertaking some legislation such as that which I venture to propose. Now, my Lords, with regard to the Bill, I will endeavour to make a very rapid survey of its general provisions. It is divided, as your Lordships will see, into three parts. The first is to constitute the provision of small holdings by the County Council; the second, which consists of only one clause, is to provide that loans should be granted by the County Council to the present tenants of small holdings who have agreed with their landlords to purchase; and the third consists of supplementary provisions only with a view of applying the clauses of the Act to the future. Now small holdings are defined in the Bill as plots of land from one acre to fifty acres in extent, or, as an alternative, land valued at £50 a year. For the purpose of providing these small holdings, the Local Authority, the County Council, is empowered to borrow money of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, who are empowered under the Bill to lend at a rate of interest not less than 3⅛ per cent., for the purpose of acquiring land for persons who desire to buy and will themselves cultivate their holdings. This borrowing power is limited so that the charge under it is not to exceed a penny in the pound on the rateable value of the land. And here, my Lords, I wish to mention one objection which has been largely taken by the opponents of this Bill to these provisions—namely, the question of the authority to whom is entrusted the working of this Bill. It has been said that the County Councils are

  837
  not the authorities who are best qualified to carry on these operations. I believe it was suggested that some authorities like the Board of Guardians, or some authorities which have not even yet been constituted, like those Parish Councils of which we have heard so much lately, should be the proper authority under the Bill. It is I think sufficient in reply to those criticisms to say that as this Bill is only experimental, and as a rate of a penny in the pound in the aggregate is calculated to amount to about ten millions of money, it is advisable that a larger area should be used at first to carry out this experiment. If in a large area and if backed by the resources of the large area, this experiment is carried out, even if it should fail, the loss would not be large; but, if to the small authorities, to which I have alluded, is committed this duty, it is extremely doubtful whether their resources would be sufficient to find the money which would be required under the circumstances. My Lords, I now pass on to the procedure which I may briefly state to the House. Your Lordships will observe that this Bill differs so far from the Allotments Act that the County Council are enabled to take action themselves without any previous petition or action being taken by any of the electors. One or two of the electors may, however, petition the Council, and their petition would be referred to a Committee of Inquiry which is constituted under Clause 5. That Committee is to report to the County Council, and if their report is favourable to the application of the Bill, the land is then to be acquired by the County Council. Now "acquired," as your Lordships will see, means primarily "purchased." There is a clause, to which I shall presently refer, which enables the County Council to let land; but it is obvious that for the proper working of the Bill it is more advantageous that the large number of these small holdings created under this Bill should be created by purchase rather than by hire; because after the County Council purchase they are enabled to sell; and if they are enabled to sell, they carry out our object in increasing the number of occupying owners. It is also, as I think your Lordships
  838
  will agree, undesirable that Local Authorities should be placed largely in the position of middlemen; and it is undesirable also that we should incur the risk to the ratepayers, which inevitably would occur if the Local Authority became the landlord. The price to be given is to be reasonable, and such as to repay the outlay of the expenses of the sale. And now before I go further I would, with the indulgence of your Lordships, refer to the other great objection which appears to have been taken by our opponents to the Bill—namely, to the question of its operation being permissive and not compulsory. Now, my Lords, I am not prepared to deny, what everybody knows, that compulsion has been and frequently is resorted to for purposes which are calculated to be beneficial to the public welfare. This system of compulsion appears to be on the increase. It is generally the first criticism that you hear from our opponents that any measure that we are introducing is not compulsory in its action; in fact, within the last few days compulsion has been raised to the dignity of a beatitude. But I conceive myself, and I believe your Lordships will agree, that, especially in the matter of contract between man and man, it is advisable, at all events before you resort to compulsion, that you should be able to prove that the necessity for compulsion has arisen. If this Bill assumed a compulsory form, this at least would be the result that you would almost inevitably do away with voluntary sale and purchase of these small holdings, and it would result in a general system of compulsion in their organisation. But there is again another reason against compulsion in the matter of small holdings. We are constantly reminded that in the matter of allotments we have introduced compulsion. We did so, however, for this reason—that if the labourer requires an allotment he requires it in a particular position, he requires it near his own house, he requires it where he can easily and conveniently cultivate it; it is possible that grievances may thus arise, and that it may be found absolutely necessary to introduce compulsion, and accordingly we intro-

  839
  duced it. But that argument does not apply in the case of small holdings. The necessity that may arise for a small holding does not arise in one particular place; it is the general demand, the general desire for small holdings in any county which sets in motion the authority which is to constitute these small holdings; and it is at all events reasonable to suppose that with the amount of land which is now to be sold throughout the country, and with the absence of all necessity for any particular location of that land when it is desired to establish a small holding, the necessity for compulsion will not arise in the manner in which it arose in regard to allotments. I will not lay any stress on the argument of expense; but that is one also I think that nobody can deny; the expense of compulsion in these matters is always considerable; and I think, if noble Lords opposite consider it, they will see that that is another reason against pressing for that condition. I hope therefore that we shall not hear to-night, as we have heard on platforms and elsewhere, that this is a measure good in its intentions and to a certain extent unobjectionable in its form, but which will be absolutely nugatory because it does not contain a clause rendering compulsory the various conditions of the measure. Now to refer to the proposals of the Bill—the Local Authority having become the owners of the land they are empowered to adopt it for small holdings, to erect buildings upon it, to offer it for sale under conditions which will be found in Clause 6, which I do not think I need read at length to the House. As I said before, with a view to help labourers who have not been able to put by money enough to buy these small holdings, it is provided that holdings of not more than fifteen acres or of the value of £15 per annum may be let in accordance with rules which the County Council are empowered to issue, and which will be found under Clause 7. The small holdings created in the manner described are to be held under conditions described in Clause 9, and it will not occupy more than a minute of your Lordships' time if I may be allowed to read them. First—
  840
  "That any periodical payments due in respect of the purchase-money shall be duly made";
  secondly—
  "That the holding shall, unless let with the consent of the County Council, be cultivated by the owner, and shall not be used for any purpose other than agriculture";
  thirdly—
  "That the holding shall not be sub-divided or let without the consent of the County Council";
  fourthly—
  "That not more than one dwelling-house shall be erected on the holding";
  fifthly—
  "That any dwelling-house erected on the holding shall comply with such requirements as the County Council may impose for securing healthiness, and freedom from overcrowding";
  and lastly—
  "That no dwelling-house or building on the holding shall be used for the sale of intoxicating liquors."
  Now, my Lords, the question arose at this stage of the Bill which I think it may be interesting also to your Lordships to discuss: Are these conditions which attach to these holdings to be perpetual, that is to say, are they to last only so long as the holding continues in its present position and until the money is fully paid; or, are they to be perpetual? This matter was discussed in the other House of Parliament, and very opposite views were expressed. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has at all times expressed his very earnest desire that these holdings, if they are established, shall be freed as soon as possible from all vexatious and restrictive conditions; and I must say that in that wish I fully coincide. But the decision arrived at in the other House was that these conditions, shall remain for twenty years, and thereafter so long as the money remains unpaid. Your Lordships will see at once that it is necessary to secure the duration of these conditions in order to prevent what I may call jobbery in land, that is to say, in order to prevent their being purchased by someone for a short period, and, as soon as that period is at an end, being used for other purposes

  841
  than those of agriculture as intended. There is one more clause in Part I. that I think I ought to mention—that is Clause 17, under which it is provided that the County Council may delegate the adaptation, selling, letting, and management of small holdings to a Committee consisting of five members, three of whom are to be members of the County Council, and the other two representatives of the immediate locality. I draw the particular attention of your Lordships to this provision, because it is an attempt to meet the views of those who would, and perhaps with some reason, wish not only to decentralise the authority, but also to secure that proper local knowledge is utilised in the procedure under this Bill. I referred before to the somewhat vague allusions to Parish Councils to which we have become accustomed of late; but I think under this clause it will be seen that by the delegation of the powers of the County Council, which as I said before have been considered to be too wide and central, we shall arrive at considerable use of the local knowledge which is so desirable, as I admit, in these proceedings. My Lords, there are two clauses, Clauses 8 and 10, referring to registration of title. I think those are not clauses that I need deal with in a speech on the Second Reading of a Bill—they afford a fair and ample battleground for those high authorities on legal procedure in which this House is so rich, and I think it will, perhaps, be better to postpone the consideration of their details until the Committee stage is reached. I now come to two clauses which were added to the Bill in the course of its passage through the House of Commons—they are Clauses 11 and 12. I take Clause 12 first, because it has reference to a subject on which I have already touched—namely, the question of perpetuity of the conditions and restrictive covenants. My Lords, this Clause 12 was designed in part to meet to some extent the views of those who are in favour of making these covenants perpetual. It provides that before the holding be used or sold for purposes other than agricultural—that is to say, going outside the condi-
  842
  tions of the holding, a right of preemption is to be given first to the County Council, secondly to the owner of the land from which the holding was originally severed, and thirdly to the adjoining owner; and, of course, I may add that if the right of preemption is not availed of then the holder of the small holding can do as he pleases, and can use it free from that covenant that it shall only be used for agricultural purposes. And then I come to Clause 11, of which I will read to your Lordships the actual text—
  "Land comprised in a small holding shall be and shall remain personal property, and shall be dealt with in like manner and be subject to like rules of law as leasehold land. Provided that nothing in this section shall render any such land liable to Probate Duty or Legacy Duty, or exempt it from Succession Duty."
  Your Lordships will observe that the effect of that clause is twofold. It provides that all small holdings, when created, shall become personalty; and in the proviso you will find that, although it has become personalty, it is to be liable, not to Probate or Legacy Duty, but to Succession Duty—which is the condition usually appertaining to realty. This clause was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Cust, and supported by a large number of Members on both sides of the House. The object of it undoubtedly was this. It was felt that under the ordinary intestate succession — because this clause mainly applies to intestacy—to land which would be realty, a serious grievance would arise with reference to the position of the widow and children of the owner; and it was felt desirable that some remedy to that should be found. Now, your Lordships are perfectly well aware that there are already cases of realty held and devolving as personalty, and the Ashbourne Act has already been cited, as also has the Land Transfer Bill of my noble Friend the noble Lord on the Woolsack. But the case of Ireland is not analogous. The leaseholds there were converted into ownerships under the section of the Act of 1887, and the owners nevertheless—perhaps I ought to remind your Lordships that this characteristically occurred in Ireland—continued to believe that these holdings

  843
  were personalty and continued to treat them as personalty. The law therefore had to be altered to meet this special case. And with regard to the Bill of my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, that was a general Bill to amend the condition of transfer and devolution of land, and, though no doubt some such change might have been applicable to a Bill such as that which my noble and learned Friend then introduced, it would, I think your Lordships will agree, be extremely undesirable that in a clause contained in a Bill of this nature an entirely new tenure of land should be created, which, under this clause, would be divided into two classes. There are two more reasons connected with the clauses of the Bill which I have now the honour to lay before your Lordships which I think may be taken as arguments against this clause: the one is that there are already two clauses in the Bill providing against sub-division; whereas, if this land is turned into personalty, sub-division must inevitably result in the case of the death of an owner who has not made a will. And another difficulty has been suggested—but that is one also which can better be dealt with by the great judicial authorities in this House—namely, I am informed that there are rights of dower, which would attach to these small holdings under any circumstances, and which, if they were not barred, would remain even if these holdings became personalty. Therefore, with all these difficulties before us—your Lordships will remember that this clause was inserted somewhat late in the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons—and in view of the fact that it would be almost impossible to pass the clause without considerable modifications, we are landed in serious difficulty; because the proviso at any rate of this clause is one which deals with the imposition of a tax, and I am advised that, under no circumstances, would it be within the rights of this House to amend or modify the clause. I shall be glad to hear the opinion of noble Lords opposite and others upon the matter; but I should be very much disposed to recommend to the House that we should throw out the clause, and trust to the other House of Parliament producing an
  844
  amended and improved clause, when it returns to that Assembly, which we should be enabled to adopt, and thus to meet the wishes of those who proposed the clause as it now stands. My Lords, I think I have now stated to the House the chief enactments which will be found in Part I. Part II. consists of only one clause, but it is a clause of some importance; it applies really to Great Britain the principle which is embodied in the Ashbourne and other Acts relating to Ireland—namely, that, under certain conditions, public money should be advanced to existing tenants for the purchase of their holdings. It will be essential, before any advance is made, that there should be an agreement between landlord and tenant, and the County Council are to be satisfied that the title of the holding is good, that the sale is made in good faith, and that the price is reasonable. Where these conditions exist the Council may advance an amount not exceeding four-fifths, that is 80 per cent., of the purchase money; and this will be repaid by the small holder on the same terms as if the County Council had purchased the land and had themselves created the small holding. As I said before, Part III. consists entirely of supplemental provisions, and there are clauses in it — which may perhaps interest some noble Lords in this House—for adopting the general procedure under the Bill to the different conditions under which land is held in Scotland. My Lords, I feel I ought to apologise to your Lordships for having delayed you so long upon the somewhat dull and dry details of this measure. I think I have gone through all those provisions which would come naturally under our consideration in a Second Reading Debate, and I propose to leave the remainder of the details to the Committee stage. My Lords, as to the result of this Bill it will be difficult for anyone to utter any prophecy, and I shall certainly not myself attempt any prediction. It is, as I have said, an experiment. It is a measure tentative in its character, and it is one of which, until it has been tried, it is impossible to foresee the consequences or the result. But a difficulty has been found, and has been

  845
  accentuated lately, in the position of a Minister who brings forward any measure of this sort. If he expresses any doubt as to the actual efficacy of the measure—if he expresses any fears that it may not wholly fulfil the objects which it was intended to promote—he is at once told that he is half-hearted in its production, and that he does not thoroughly sympathise with the measure which he is called upon to introduce. My Lords, I am one of those who do not believe in finality in legislation of this sort. We have to provide for difficulties, the creation of which has covered a large number of years; and is impossible to believe that any remedy which we can produce will be immediately successful in completely doing away with the evil which it is our object to avoid. But I do venture to commend this measure to the anxious consideration of your Lordships, as one which is sincerely and honestly designed to improve the condition and to brighten the prospects of the tillers of the soil. My Lords, much has been done during this Parliament for agricultural labourers — their dwellings have been improved; greater interest has been evinced, and progress has been made by legislation, in questions affecting sanitation; the education of their children has been freed; and, as I reminded jour Lordships just now, legislative enactments have been passed for enabling them to obtain allotments. But there is one thing still lacking, and there is one grievance which remains yet unredressed. I think we cannot but feel the hopelessness of the lot of those who have no future to look to in the career to which they have been born; who, if they wish for success, must seek for it far away from the homes in which they have been brought up; who have no prospect, in the pursuit of their avocation, of attaining that position of independence which should be at once the incentive and the reward of their industry. My Lords, it is in the earnest hope that a remedy may be provided for this state of things that the Government have determined to produce and hope to pass this measure. We are standing, as it were, round the death-bed of a Parliament which will
  846
  be memorable for the improvement which it has wrought in the condition of all classes of the labouring population; and I venture to think that we cannot better employ the closing days of this Session than by assisting to pass a measure which, as we sincerely believe, will materially conduce to the welfare of the agricultural labourer, and do much to revive the drooping fortunes of the greatest and most important of our industries.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Cadogan.)
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I am anxious to say a few words upon the object of this Bill, and to express the views which I entertain about it, which I grieve to say are not of the same character as those of my noble Friend who has just addressed you. And, feeling as I do about the Bill, I am quite prepared to admit that the most logical conclusion I could come to would be to move the rejection of the Bill on the Second Reading. But, my Lords, I am not willing to do that for what seems to me a very sufficient reason, and that is, that I feel certain that if I attempted to do so I should fail in the attempt. My Lords, there is some mysterious agency underlying this whole question, because I find a marvellous and extraordinary consensus of opinion on both sides of the House in the other House of Parliament that this is the time, now, as my noble Friend said, around the death-bed of the Parliament, when it behoves us in the most strenuous and most united manner, as in the other House of Parliament, to provide small holdings for the agricultural labourer. My Lords, I wonder that this has not occurred to both sides of the House before. I think it did. But then the House was of a different mind, and it was not brought so prominently home to them as it appears to have been on this occasion. Now, my Lords, I am far from saying that it is not a good thing that there should be an increase in the number of those who hold land in this country; I am entirely in favour of it; but then I think it should be done by what I call legitimate means, and I am sufficient of a Tory to consider that the best mode of

  847
  meeting this question is to leave it to the ordinary course of events, and to let those who want to buy and those who want to sell make their own bargains without the intervention of the State and the ratepayer. We have been told by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture that there is an enormous amount of land in this country to be sold; we are also told that there are a great number of persons who are anxious to purchase. If that is so, what is the necessity for an Act of Parliament to enable them to do so? The reason I take to be that they have not got the money to buy, and that you are now coming forward to lend them the money with which they are to purchase this land. My Lords, the views which I entertain are very clearly set out by a most eminent agriculturist who was examined before the Committee on Small Holdings that sat two years ago, a gentleman very well known in the West of England and indeed all over England, Mr. Squarey, a very eminent land agent. The question was put to him—
  "Might it not be desirable that the State should intervene in this way in order to stimulate the creation of these small holdings?"
  and Mr. Squarey said—
  "I have been brought up in the doctrine of laisser faire, and I believe that individuals can do this thing very much better than the State can do it; because if the State once departs in England—which we can deal with without any of the associations connected with Ireland—from the sound political and economical doctrine of letting individuals make their own bargains, and if one section of the State is to be subsidised when others are not to receive the same subsidy in the conduct of their business, as an individual I think it is a wrong departure, and I hesitate to endorse it, much as I should like to see small holdings increase."
  I believe that is exactly the common-sense view of the case. My Lords, I am very much in favour of allotments; I think they are most excellent and admirable things, and the more they can be increased the better; but to be of use to a labourer the allotment must be near his cottage where he can cultivate it when he has any spare time to devote to it. And, my Lords, I think that the allotments ought not to be too large. If they are made too large they will fail. If this measure is to be a boon to the labouring
  848
  class, it is no use giving them more land than they can cultivate properly and serve the master for whom they are engaged to work. I differ entirely from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture when he says that those who have these small holdings will cultivate the holdings themselves, and will also be able to work for the farmers. I look upon it as an impossibility, because the time when the farmer wants the work more particularly than at any other time is just the time when the owner of a small holding will also be busy with his own holding in carrying out the operations which are necessary there. Now, my Lords, with regard to the size of the holdings. I am sorry to quote, but there is a letter written on the subject of these small holdings by one of the most eminent agriculturists in the country, Sir John Lawes, who is very well known for his interest in agriculture, who has devoted a great deal of time and labour and consideration to the subject of allotments; and this is what he says—he is describing some allotments that he set out on his own property at Rothamsted. He says—
  "Many of these allotments are held by agricultural and other labourers, and I believe it is the unanimous opinion that one-eighth of an acre is quite as much as a man depending on weekly wages can properly cultivate. In fact, whilst no demand has been made for larger areas, requests have occasionally been made for smaller ones on account of the smallness of the family or the age of the tenant."
  That expresses my opinion with regard to allotments, and I have taken some interest in the matter and not to a very small extent. Now, my Lords, the reasons for the Bill, as I gather from my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, are twofold: one is to re-create the class of yeomen, and the other is with regard to the labourers migrating into the towns. My noble Friend did not go very far into the question of the recreation of yeomen—I will touch upon it presently. I now wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the other reason for the Bill which my noble Friend put forward, namely, that the labourers go into the towns; and I think my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture went even further than my noble Friend

  849
  did just now, because he spoke of the attractions of town life, the increase of education, the growing dislike to actual labour, the reduction in wages and the increase of allotments which followed the passing of the Allotments Act. My Lords, with regard to the question of the reduction of wages I differ entirely from my right hon. Friend, and I think he can scarcely have forgotten that when we sat for three years, I think, upon the Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression, if there was one thing more than another that was continually brought before us it was that whereas during these very had times of agricultural depression wages had increased, the work which the farmers got for those wages had diminished very considerably. I am sure my right hon. Friend would not deny that that was the evidence which we had before us, and I think my noble Friend opposite must have heard it too.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Hear, hear!
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal when he says that the diminished number of labourers in the country has affected the yield of crops.
  EARL CADOGAN: I said it will do so.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I understood my noble Friend to say that the want of sufficient labour was bad for the agricultural interest and affected the yield of crops. I do not think that is the fact. I confess that I have never heard yet that there was such a diminution of agricultural labour in this country that the crops of the country had suffered.
  *EARL CADOGAN: I hope my noble Friend will excuse my explaining that I did not speak in the past; I did not say the crops had suffered from want of agricultural labour; I said that undoubtedly there was a migration going on to an increasing extent in the country, which must result in such a diminution of labour as must eventually tend to a decrease in the yield of the land. I did not say it had occurred.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: Then my noble Friend rather embarked on that spirit of prophecy which he deprecated just now. I am ready to admit that it is likely that such a migration of labour into the towns, will cause less labour to be available; but I have Sir John Lawes again on the question of the migration of labour into the towns, which I cannot but think has been very much exaggerated. It may be that in some places the labourers have gone into the towns, but not to the extent that my noble Friend would have your Lordships believe. Now Sir John Lawes says—
  "There is little hope that a system of small holdings can ever be carried out in this country to anything like the extent which experience has shown to be practicable in the countries that are so frequently held up to us as models by those unacquainted with the conditions essential to success, or even with practical agriculture at all."
  And I call my noble Friend's attention to this—
  "Indeed, no one who dismisses from his mind sentiment and the exigencies of party politics, and looks carefully into the facts of the subject which is pre-eminently a very practical one, can entertain any hope that the system of small holdings can be carried out to any such extent as to counteract at all materially the flow of the rising rural populations into the towns."
  Well, my Lords, we are told that the increase of education and the growing dislike to actual labour are some of the reasons which cause these agricultural labourers to go into the towns. What is there in giving a man a small holding of from one to fifteen acres on lease that will prevent the increase of education from causing him to desire to go into the town? And, moreover, if it is the dislike of actual labour that has been the cause, to give him a holding in which he knows that unless he does work himself, and work very hard, he cannot make it pay, does not seem to meet those two reasons for going into the towns. The giving him a certain amount of small holding will have no effect whatever. But, my Lords, I was very much struck, and I read with very great interest and attention all the speeches — and they were a great number — which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture addressed,

  851
  some in the other House of Parliament and some to "conventions," as I think they called them, of labourers—I never heard of them before, but there were two or three conventions; and one of the advantages which my right hon. Friend held out to the labouring population, as one of the benefits of this Bill, was that it would
  "find employment for that vast number of the population which, alas, at present were out of employment."
  If that is so—if the labourers are in the country and this Bill is to find them a great amount of employment—where is the argument that they are gone into the towns? You cannot have it both ways. If they are gone into the towns, the labour that you find for them in the country will not be of any use to them, because, according to that theory, there is only a small number remaining in the country—not more than enough to carry on the agricultural employment in the various districts. Therefore I say that the statement of the President of the Board of Agriculture, that this Bill is to find employment for a great number of those who are unhappily out of employment, does not quite accord with the idea that they have all gone into the towns. But then the owner of fifty acres is certainly a man who will not employ labour, because, if he does, he will be in the Bankruptcy Court before he is much older; he must work it himself or he will not make a profit out of it. Then, my Lords, I come to another point, and that is the County Councils being the authority. I cannot conceive any worse authority than the County Councils to deal with this matter. I am not prepared to say what authority should be set up—that is not my business—but just fancy the County Councils as the landlords of these leaseholders to whom you are going to grant leases of from one acre up to fifteen, and others up to fifty acres! I cannot imagine what will take place. Who is to sign the lease, to begin with? Is it to be the Chairman of the County Council? Is it to be a vote brought before the County Council that such and such a lease is to be signed by the Chairman? There is nothing in the Bill which says who is to sign the lease. I am sure there are numbers of
  852
  your Lordships, who have small holders as tenants, who know that it is often very difficult to know what to do with them; they are not the best rent payers in the world, and it requires very often some consideration on the part of the landlord before he takes any serious steps. He may give him time before he either insists upon having his rent paid, or turns a man out of his holding; and that is a matter that requires very great consideration on the part of the landlord. But then who is to be the judge here? I have the honour of presiding over the County Council of West Sussex; we consist of sixty-three Councillors. Is the question of arrears of rent to be brought up and argued before the Council, and a vote taken as to whether one man who holds ten acres is to be proceeded against, or his rent reduced or forgiven altogether? I do not see that there is any provision whatever in the Bill to show how that is to be done; and, if it is to be done by the County Councils, I think myself it is a very serious matter. Then how are you going to carry out this measure? Supposing you require ten holdings of 50 acres each, you must buy a farm of 500 acres to do that. And what will that be in the neighbourhood of some towns? That will be no good to holders in a distant part of the country; you would have to take another 500 acre farm there. It seems to me almost unworkable. Now I will follow my noble Friend through the Bill. I take Clause 1—the County Council are to take land suitable for agriculture. It seems to me that that is a very wide term. What is "suitable for agriculture," and who is to be the judge? Originally—and my noble Friend did not tell us why it was left out in the first part of the Bill—this measure was to apply for the benefit of the labouring population, and they must reside in the county. The labouring population has fallen out of the Bill, and the residence in the county has fallen out of the Bill; so it may be, so far as I understand it, that persons not residing in the county may get the benefit of those who live in the county. Just look what effect that would have. You might have a man living in Kent possessing land in the County of

  853
  Sussex, which land in the County of Sussex is provided by means of the ratepayers in the County of Sussex. Could there be anything more unjust than that? Then I do not quite understand another term in the Bill, which is that the man must cultivate it himself. I do not understand what cultivating it himself means; because if he must cultivate it himself he cannot be in Kent; but I understand my noble Friend to admit that this is not intended to force him to reside in Sussex, because that was left out of the Bill as it passed through the other House of Parliament. Then, my Lords, there is a very remarkable point in connection with those words "land suitable for agriculture." One would imagine that they were not to take any land that was not suitable for agriculture; but if your Lordships turn to Clause 16 it says that the
  'County Council shall, if practicable, sell or assmall holdings, and in accordance with this Act, any land required under this Act, but it the Council are of opinion that any such land is not needed for, or is unsuitable for, small holdings" then "they may sell or let the land,"
  which, according to the instructions in the first part of the Bill, they have no business to take because it is not suitable for agriculture. Therefore they may take my land and they may get it for the purpose of agriculture, and, after they have got this land of mine, they may suddenly find out that it is not wanted—that is the extraordinary thing—and then, though they have got it from me for the purpose of agriculture, they may sell or exchange that land, and with the proceeds of it they may buy some land in another part with which I have nothing whatever to do. I think that is a most extraordinary provision, and is certainly one that I do not approve of. My Lords, I am sure my noble Friend will forgive my saying so, but I think the title of the Bill is a wrong one. I do not think it should be called a "Small Agricultural Holdings Bill"; I would rather call it a "Bill to enable County Councils to speculate in land at the expanse of the ratepayers," because that seems to me what it is; if you call things by their right names that would certainly con-
  854
  vey very much what is in the Bill. Then there is another clause, I think it is Clause 19, that the Council shall fix the rent at such reasonable amount as to guard them against loss. Well now I do not quite see how that can possibly be done. If your Lordships bear with me I will just point out why Supposing you are taking land that is worth 30s. an acre, I conclude that, if you take land at 30s. an acre from a tenant, you are bound to pay him something for disturbance; then that, of course, is added to the 30s. Then, in addition to that, there is the fencing, roads, water, buildings, and the drainage; all that, of course, must be added to the rent. Unless you have bought the land far below its market value, when you let it it must be let at such a rent that the man cannot possibly pay it; or, if you do not charge him that high rent, then it must be paid by one of two people—it must either be paid by the tenant to whom you let it, or by the ratepayers; and in that case a serious addition would be made to the local rates. Then, my Lords, there is an expression that I should very much like my noble Friend to explain, and that is that this land may be cultivated on the co-operative system.
  EARL CADOGAN: No, in co-operation by a certain number.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: It is in Clause 4, at the bottom of the page—
  "A number of persons working on a co-operative system, provided such system be approved by the County Council."
  What does that mean? I cannot, for the life of me, understand it. And it is to be left to the County Council to say whether it is a co-operative system or not. You are dealing with very small holdings. What do you call a co-operative system? Are there to be half-a-dozen labourers joined together to farm a plot of fifteen acres—because they would not have two acres apiece? And observe, if you have a six acre farm on a co-operative system, what an enormous amount of squabbling and quarrelling there would be; each man would think he knew better than his neighbour how it ought to be cultivated. I should not envy anyone who worked on the co-operative system.

  855
  Then I think, my Lords, under Clause 6, after the money is all paid, the holding becomes the freehold property of the owner, and he may cut it up into as many little bits as he pleases, as it seems to me. I do not know whether that is wise, but I should rather doubt it. Then under Clause 9 the County Council are to make sanitary rules. But then what becomes of the Sanitary Authority? because you set up two Sanitary Authorities there you have the regular Local Sanitary Authority and you have the Sanitary Authority set up under this Bill. Which is to prevail? One of them must. Perhaps my noble Friend will think that over before the Committee stage; I think he should look to that, and see what can be done. Then, my Lords, I come to Clause 11. My noble Friend says with regard to that clause he is in a serious difficulty. I never like to hear my noble Friend say he is in a serious difficulty, and I am always glad if, by any possibility—particularly as I have been rather criticising his measure—I can relieve him. I think I can relieve him, because I will move the rejection of that clause when we get into Committee; and, from what he said to-night, I am certain that I shall get his support and that of my noble Friends who think with me. I now come to the first reason for the Bill—namely, the re-creation of the yeomen. I am quite ready to admit that they are a most admirable class; I regret that they have ceased to exist really, and my noble Friend in talking of yeomen I think must for get—
  EARL CADOGAN: I did not use the word.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: But the right hon. Gentleman did in introducing the Bill into the House of Commons, and I have a right to take what the Proposer of the Bill intends the Bill to do. He said that there were two objects in the Bill—one was to benefit the labouring population, and the other was to recreate, if he might be allowed to use the expression, the class of yeomen. A yeoman used to be considered a man who owned from one hundred to five hundred acres of land, and
  856
  to say that you are going to re-create the class of yeomen holding from one hundred to five hundred acres of land, by setting up men who own land from one acre up to fifty acres, is, to say the least of it, as it seems to me, a most extraordinary statement to come from either my noble Friend or my right hon. Friend. My Lords, the yeomen have gradually disappeared, because the present state of things did not suit them—because they preferred to occupy rather than to own; and there are many instances even in which the yeoman has sold his own land and afterwards become the tenant of the man who bought it. I was talking to a friend of mine, a yeoman, not long ago, who owned about two hundred acres of land. I asked him how he got on, and he said very badly indeed, and he added, "For family reasons I do not like to part with the land, but I should be very much better off if I was the tenant and you the landlord, and you were the buffer between me and bad times." That is the very reason. They do not like to be the buffer themselves, but would rather somebody else was. And, to say that you can re-create a class of that kind by having fifty acre holdings is an assertion that I certainly cannot admit. My Lords, I must apologise for being so long. I have just come to the last point, and I told my noble Friend I would not forget it—I am quite sure he would be very sorry if I did — and that is compulsion. My noble Friend I think admitted that these holdings were an extension of the Allotments Act. In the Allotments Act there is compulsion. Then, I ask, if you have compulsion for one acre, what is the difference between one acre and fifteen acres? If you find it necessary in the one you will find it necessary in the other. My Lords, I am of opinion that compulsion will come. I do not mean to say that I like it, but I think it will come, and I cannot help thinking that everybody whom I have the honour of addressing at this moment is of the same opinion too. If such a dreadful calamity were to happen to the country as that my noble Friend the Prime Minister was to find himself in a short time sitting on the other side of the House, we know perfectly well what

  857
  would happen; because we have been told, by noble Lords in this House and right hon. Gentlemen in the other House of Parliament, that the only mistake in the Bill is that there is no compulsion in it; and therefore I have no doubt if that calamity should happen—I hope to goodness it will not—we shall have compulsion. But I say the logical conclusion is that, if you are bound to have this power of compulsion up to one acre, it is absolutely necessary to have it for more. There are many men who would say, "Take one acre if that is all; I do not care about that; it will make very little difference in the field." But, when you come to take ten or fifteen acres, I do not think you will find it so easy; and, if you find it necessary to have compulsion in order to get one acre, you will find it more necessary when dealing with ten or fifteen acres. I should like very much to quote one of the reasons, and it is so very weak a reason that it alarms me, that was given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. He said—
  "He believed the power of compulsion at the present time to be absolutely unnecessary. On the First Reading of the Bill he stated that the quantity of land in the market for sale was something remarkable, and that the difficulty rather was on the part of owners of land to find a purchaser rather than to induce them to sell. He had in his possession figures supplied by a firm who during the last three years had sold about 67,000 acres of land in England alone out of 375,000 acres which they had at their disposal."
  I want your Lordships to consider what he says now—
  "If hon. Members multiplied the number of eminent firms who had land at their disposal with the number of acres sold by this firm in proportion, they would find that there was in the market at the present time waiting for purchasers an amount of land which made the idea of compulsion entirely unnecessary if not ridiculous."
  Now, if it would not be rude, I should have applied that epithet to that last statement. If that is the way you are to arrive at the quantity of land in the country, and if that is the fact which renders it unnecessary to resort to compulsion, all I have to say is that I hope the statistics of the Agricultural Department are not framed on the same principles. My Lords, in this quantity of land which my right hon. Friend has
  858
  been describing he does not tell us where the land is situated and what sort of land it is. It is no use to tell a labouring man in Sussex that he can have a very good bit of land somewhere in Northamptonshire. It is no good unless you have the land in the immediate neighbourhood where you want it. And as to the quality of the land, unless you know what sort of land it is, you cannot say that it is capable of being turned into these holdings. My Lords, I come now to the injury which this Bill will inflict upon two classes in this country, who are not mentioned in the Bill at all, and who I take to be not the two least important classes in the country—namely, the owner and the occupier of land. I am assuming now that we shall get compulsion, as I am sure we shall. My noble Friend does not like it, but still it will come, and I quite understand his not arguing the question.
  EARL CADOGAN: Not in this Bill.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: No, but it will be in the next. Just take the injury that would befall the owner and occupier. Take a farm of two hundred acres, of which the County Council want to take fifty acres. They will not take the worst land; because we know perfectly well that it is difficult enough in these days to make both ends meet if you are dealing with good land; therefore the County Council, if they are going to let it to a man, will take fifty acres of the best land on the farm. Everybody knows that on all farms there is good land as well as bad, and that they see one against the other, and the man pays the rent, taking it all round, which he thinks he can afford to pay. But, if you take fifty acres off a two hundred acre farm, and leave it with 150 acres of the worst land, it is obvious that the occupier cannot pay his rent. Then what happens? He gives his landlord notice to quit, and the landlord is left with a farm of 150 acres with probably more buildings than he wants upon it, which he cannot possibly dispose of at anything like a rental. I say this is one of the fruits of the very great injustice that would be done to every owner and occupier of a farm.
  EARL CADOGAN: Under our Bill?
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: No, but my noble Friend says the Bill is an experiment; it is a sort of pilot balloon; it goes on, and after a bit when it is found that under this Bill you cannot do what you want to do, you cannot get the land you want to get, just in the same way as you could not get all the allotments you wanted under the old system and were obliged to resort to compulsion, so I say it will be exactly the same thing now, for the compulsion for the Allotments Act was brought in by my friends the Government themselves, and therefore they admit that it is necessary in some cases. My Lords, I am sorry to have detained you so long, but I feel very strongly upon this question, and this is a Bill which contains a great deal that is not at all to my mind. I hope it may be a success. My noble Friend says it is an experiment; I hope it may be a successful one; but, at the same time, I have very great doubts as to whether it will prove that blessing to the agricultural labourers which my noble Friend hopes it will.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I hope I shall not trouble your Lordships at any great length, but I feel that I ought to make some remarks on this important measure which has been introduced by my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I shall not follow the exceedingly interesting speech of the noble Duke who has just sat down; he has acted the part of a candid friend to Her Majesty's Government, and it will be for them to answer the criticisms which he has made on their Bill. My remarks, my Lords, will be of a more general character; and, at the outset, I should like to say, with regard to a remark which fell from the Lord Privy Seal that the opponents of the Government have twitted him and those who introduced the measure with being half-hearted about it, that I do not in the slightest degree wish to impute that they are half-hearted in this matter. I am ready to admit that they consider that this Bill will be of advantage to the country. The only thing, I may say, is that they would not have thrown themselves open to the insinuation to which he refers if
  860
  they had been able to introduce the measure at an earlier stage of their political existence. Now, my Lords, I do not consider it is necessary to argue in favour of the desirability of increasing the number of owners of land in this country. The social and political advantage of this course is admitted on all hands. Nor need I argue in favour of the desirability of enabling the man who earns his daily bread from agricultural labour to mount the ladder of his profession and to rise gradually from the lowest step where he may now stand. Everybody, I believe, admits that to give hope to a man makes him a better worker, and a better citizen. I should like to dwell on two or three points which occur to me in considering this matter; and first of all I would like to refer to what I believe is the case—namely, the diminution of small holdings in this country. The interesting Report of the Committee which sat up to 1890, to which my noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) referred, speaks clearly on this question. It is obvious that that Committee considered that there had been a very considerable diminution in the number of small holdings in the country, notwithstanding the large increase in the amount of land brought into cultivation, and the increase of small holdings near the towns. Now, to what do they attribute this falling off of small holdings? First of all there is the natural waste in small ownership; small owners from ordinary causes are obliged to sell their land, and, when they sell their holdings, other small owners rarely come in to occupy the same holdings. It may be that some small owners who have been successful buy an adjoining holding, and perhaps double their small holding; but more often, from economic causes which I need not go into, large owners of property absorb these small holdings. Then there is another cause which contributes a good deal to the discouragement of small holdings. I allude to what has been done during the last forty years, or perhaps even before that time, in the inclosure of common land. Now, as your Lordships are aware, common lands afforded great opportunities to small owners for

  861
  the feeding of their stock, and in other ways they derived considerable benefit from common land. I am quite aware that when inclosure took place a considerable number of small holdings were created, but not to any very appreciable extent in comparison with the amount of land which was distributed in larger holdings. I notice from this Report that, out of about 600,000 acres which have been dealt with in this way, only about 2,195 acres were given for garden land or small fields. I, for one, regret the operation of these inclosures, for I believe that more good was perhaps done by many of these than the good which I know those who favoured the Inclosure Act prophesied from their proceedings—namely, the large increase of cultivation in the country. I cannot but think that the diminution of these commons has had an effect in diminishing small holdings. The Committee refer to other causes, and those causes are important. They draw attention to the heavy expense attending the transfer of land; they draw attention to the Laws of Settlement and Entail; they draw attention to the laws with regard to intestacy; and they say that all these Acts of Parliament have tended to diminish the number of holdings in this country. I confess I wish that we could have done something to remedy these general drawbacks to the creation of small holdings. I am quite aware that some years ago that distinguished lawyer, Lord Cairns, introduced an important Act dealing with property; but, unfortunately, that reform was not followed up, for your Lordships threw out a measure not many years ago which was supported greatly on this side of the House, but was actually proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I regret that more has not been done in general legislation to remove restrictions which may hinder the creation of these holdings. If more had been done there would probably have been a safer distribution of land throughout the country, and the advantages which are claimed for this measure would probably, or possibly, have been carried out by the ordinary law of supply and demand. Well, my Lords, I am not going to
  862
  criticise the Bill in the way that the noble Duke has criticised it. Part of his speech referred, I think, more to allotments than to small holdings; and, though I agree with a great deal of what he said with regard to allotments, I do not think the same arguments apply to this, which is a step higher up in the ladder of the promotion of the labourer. Well, then, I do not understand what was said with regard to the creation of yeomen. I do not for a moment conceive that this Bill is intended to create these large yeomen of whom we were so proud and whom we regret to find in such dwindled numbers now in various parts of the country. I welcome this Bill, however, as an encouragement to the agricultural labourer and those who spring from the same class—namely, small artizans in the villages, to enable them to get the benefit of being the owners of land. Now I, for one, do not anticipate that this measure will have any very large or wide extent. Certainly in the rural districts with which I am most familiar there will not be a great many labourers who will be able to produce the money necessary for coming under the Act; there will be, I fear, very few of them who can, with their heavy responsibilities of families, save a sufficient amount to put down the money necessary for the purchase; but, at the same time, if this measure encourages in every village, or even in every other village, a few men to become owners, it will be a direct encouragement to thrift, and I therefore welcome the measure in that respect. But now I should like to make one or two criticisms on parts of the Bill. The noble Earl, the Lord Privy Seal, alluded to the question of compulsion—he has had a most able argument from the noble Duke behind him on that subject; but I am afraid I cannot altogether pass over this question of compulsion. I agree entirely with the noble Duke in the belief that compulsion is certain to follow the introduction of this measure. I may leave the argument to the noble Duke, for he put it very concisely and very forcibly, particularly that part of it where he said that you are obliged to have compulsion with regard to allotments, and there is no difference in

  863
  principle between compulsion for allotments and compulsion for a small holding. I should like also to emphasise another part of his argument in which he dealt with the great amount of land which is now said to be in the market. That, to my mind, does not really touch the question of compulsion at all. There are large owners who have whole villages under their complete control, and, if they are opposed to carrying out this Act, it will be no consolation to a man who has saved some money, and is able to take a small holding under the Act, to be told that twenty or thirty or fifty miles off, or perhaps, if he is in Northamptonshire, that in Sussex there is a large quantity of land available. The fact is that the distribution of land available to be sold is not wide, and therefore the fact that a large quantity of land is in the market will not meet the objections which people have who desire compulsion. Now I will take another point. I quite admit that with regard to rent the Government have made some large concessions; but I feel very strongly that, if this measure is to be really useful to the agricultural labourer, more should be done to enable him to rent land than is done now even under the Bill. Why do I say this? As I have told your Lordships before, there are very few agricultural labourers who have been able to save any considerable sum of money; it is a very small sum that they may have saved out of their industry; and this small sum is not more than adequate to provide the stock for the farm; and if, in addition to that, they are obliged to put down a fifth of the purchase-money, it will make it almost impossible for any of these men to avail themselves of the Act. I therefore wish that the Government could have extended this point, and enabled larger holdings to be rented under the provisions of the Bill. Now, my Lords, I come to a further point, and that is with regard to the authority which is to administer the Act. I agree in a great measure with what the noble Duke has said with regard to the immense difficulties that there will be if the County Council is to administer
  864
  the Act. I believe that the initiative in all these matters ought to have been placed in the hands of a body representing a smaller district. Four years ago the Government introduced a measure which dealt with Local Government in the counties. In that measure they included provisions for creating District Councils. They have never carried out those provisions. Four years have passed, and they have not introduced any measure on that subject. I myself would go even further, and desire to see the erection of Parish Councils. Now to these small bodies I should like to give the initiative in this matter of small holdings. They know the wants of the people; they know the exact land suitable for the purposes of small holdings; and they could admirably initiate all matters connected with this Act. I do not want that they should have unrestricted power with regard to this—I should give either a confirmatory power to the County Council, or that an appeal to them should be made in cases of difficulty. And I desire to say one word with regard to the hardship that might be inflicted under this Bill. I do not myself believe that any hardship would be inflicted, even if the Bill were made compulsory. I do not believe the body administering the Act would do anything to spoil what are called the amenities of property, or to prevent the practical and profitable use of a farm by taking portions of it which would have that effect. I believe it would have a very much better effect in the country if these provisions were added to it. My Lords, I have made these criticisms, not in a hostile spirit; I hope my noble Friend will not think that; for, on the whole, I feel disposed to be friendly towards the Bill. I do not propose to move any Amendment, because your Lordships are well aware that it would be futile, if we wished it, to propose any Amendment from the Bench where I sit. My Lords, I sincerely trust that this measure will have a good influence in the country. If its influence be but small, it will to some extent give hope to the agricultural labourer, and, in that way, I cannot but think that benefit will be conferred on the rural communities in England.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, if this Bill referred only to England I should not venture to trouble your Lordships at all; but, as it includes Scotland, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words on the general view that I take of this Bill such as it is natural to take on the Second Reading and before going into the details. My Lords, I am very glad to acknowledge the great fairness and ability and justice of the speech which has just been delivered by my noble Friend the noble Earl behind me. There are many things that he said with which I entirely agree. This is a Bill to satisfy a sentiment, but it is a sentiment widely entertained on both sides in both Houses of Parliament; and, whatever may be said of the electioneering aspect of the Bill to which my noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) not indirectly referred, I am bound to say, and to remind the House—both sides of it—that many years ago the noble Marquess opposite, when he was not in office, expressed in this House an anxious desire to increase the number of occupying owners in England. I remember it well because at the time it was rather a novelty—it has become a very common sentiment now—and I remember particularly taking notice of it. I do not think therefore that my noble Friend at the head of the Government can be accused of having, so far as he is personally concerned, taken this action merely on account of the approaching General Election. But, if any motive of that sort can be brought against my noble Friend opposite, it equally applies to the Party on this side of the House. During their last tenure of office I do not recollect that they took any steps whatever towards this end, and we all know that it is in order to satisfy the general sentiment that they have taken it up as well as the Party which supports the Government— the one is as bad and as good as the other in that matter. Now, my Lords, my own feeling is that this is an experiment which it is worth while to try— that is all. I do not believe that it will operate to a large extent; I do not see how it can possibly do so; and, as to re-instating what is called the old yeomanry class,
  866
  I think it is a pure delusion to suppose that this or any other Bill can do it. What are the causes which have led to the decrease of small ownerships in England? My noble Friend in charge of this Bill said that one of them was the spread of education. What does that mean? It means that educated men do not find it pay them to have this small property. Are you to stop education, and are you to favour ignorance, in order that ignorant men may think they are better off in the country than they would be in the town? My Lords, the causes are purely economic which have led to the decrease of small owners. What happens is this: A family, who have gone on for generations perhaps in a very humble way, hardly saving anything, living on their own produce and their own funds, get into more expensive habits of life—their sons do, their daughters do, the whole family do — and at last a standard of living is set up which the little property is unable to support—that is a common case—and they find that, instead of getting £100 a year with very hard labour from their small property, it pays them much better to get £3,000 down, either from a neighbouring landlord, or from somebody else, and to migrate into the town. Now is Parliament really going to attempt to make these men think otherwise of their own interests and their own destiny? The thing is absurd; you cannot do it. On the other hand there are causes which are and have been in operation, which the noble Earl behind me alluded to, quoting I suppose from the Report of the Committee; but there are other causes which have perhaps led to the diminution of these small properties, which might have been remedied at an earlier period. My noble Friend referred to the cost of the transfer of land. Now, my Lords, we all remember that two or three years ago the Government produced a Bill for the registration and simplification of title; but a large majority of this House threw it out, and great blame has been attached to your Lordships for its rejection. I took no part in the discussion because it was a Bill that referred to England alone, and I did not think it proper to do so; but I re-

  867
  member that a number of Peers who voted against the Bill, the noble Marquess of Bath among others, complained and objected chiefly because attached to that Bill there were clauses which referred to a wholly different matter, namely, the division of property upon the decease of the owner. That was one of the grounds, I think the main ground, on which the vote of your Lordships was come to. I do not believe that this House would be disposed to reject any measure which would really facilitate and cheapen the transfer of land; I cannot conceive that they would have any interest in doing so. It is the interest of all of us to have our land as easily saleable as possible, and to increase our own market; and, therefore, I do not believe that if a Bill were reintroduced purely for that purpose—I hope it will be by some Government—there would be opposition in this House. But I am bound to say to my noble Friend behind me (Earl Spencer) that personally I do not believe that that has been a widely operating cause. The transfer of land is not so dear after all. I have had to buy a piece of land recently, and the costs were not so extraordinary. I believe, if there was a real desire to get land of that kind, there would be no difficulty in meeting the expenses of the transfer any more than meeting the expenses of the purchase. It is because there is not a market for these small properties, it is because there is not a class of men existing who think they would be benefited by them, that they are not bought. With regard to entails, I may say that Lord Cairns's Act seems to me to have remedied the evils in that respect. As I understand the law of England now, there is no land which is not saleable; the price may be entailed, but the land itself is saleable; and therefore I do not see that entails, as they now stand in England at all events, have much to do with the question. Then my noble Friend came on the question of compulsion. Now I entirely agree with my noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) that compulsion is a very serious matter in this question; but I do not think my noble Friend stated the strongest ground
  868
  against it. Compulsion, as we all know, is familiar to this House and the other House of Parliament when lands are taken for strictly public purposes; but you can hardly say that it is a strictly public purpose when you merely say that it is desirable that small proprietors should exist. That is not a public purpose in the sense of a railway, a canal, or any other such work. My Lords, it is a question of general policy. If you are to make men sell their land compulsorily, you set up motives and you destroy other motives in a manner that would have a most serious effect upon the employment of the working classes. Just consider what the effect of compulsion would be upon the employment of labour in the country. I suppose most of your Lordships who have large estates are accustomed to spend large sums of money in improvement of the soil. Now with what heart would you undertake this operation if you knew that a County Council, or, still worse, as my noble Friend (Earl Spencer) proposes, a District Council, or even a Parish Council, so far as I understand him—
  *EARL SPENCER: As an appeal.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: With what heart would any landlord enter upon agricultural improvements if he knew that next week, after his drain was finished, after his enclosures were made, after his buildings were completed, the County Council might come in and say, I demand that that land shall be sold to me that I may cut it up for small proprietors? I have no doubt whatever that that is what people forget in regard to what is called, or miscalled, the science of political economy; they forget the concealed and invisible motives that you set up—that when you adopt an absurd measure of that kind, you put an end to the improvements on the part of landlords. A universal system of compulsion would be the greatest curse that can happen to any industry and would smite the whole agricultural industry of the United Kingdom. My Lords, I cannot conceive a greater mischief than that. You say that the agricultural labourer is migrating to the towns. Why is he migrating to the towns?

  869
  Because you have adopted free trade, and it does not pay any longer to grow corn, and a large part of the land of England, especially in the North is going into pasture. You are not going to reverse your policy of free trade in order to employ the labourer. Just think what an increased impetus you would give to that want of confidence and want of employment which drives the labourer into the towns! Every landlord would think twice before he made any improvement whatever; he would take care to consider whether the County Council was friendly or not; and all sorts of political and jobbing motives might enter into the action of the District and Parish Councils. And the smaller you make your authority—my noble Friend particularly says he wants the authority to be very small and local—the more local you make your authority, the less responsible it will be to public opinion; and you will smite the agricultural industry of England with utter paralysis from the insecurity of property. Remember this, my Lords, that security for the results of industry, for the investment of capital, is the mainspring of all prosperity in all departments of human life, and, still more than any other, in the question of land; because there you cannot get your results except after a long time. If there were a compulsory Bill passed, enabling everybody to seize everybody else's land because they thought it an important object that small proprietors should be set up, I cannot conceive that any landlord in England or Scotland would think it worth while to improve his land at all, but would live as our ancestors did, from hand to mouth, and give up improvements. You will not see the effect of that, because the motives operating in the minds of men are not visible to the multitude; they act secretly and incidentally; and that is why they are never seen and taken account of. I must say, in answer to my noble Friend the noble Duke, who said that if we try this experiment the logical consequence is that we shall go on to compulsion, that I do not agree with him at all. What the noble Duke meant was that this is an electioneering Bill, and it will not succeed, and that
  870
  in order to have another electioneering measure more successful we will cap it with compulsion; and no doubt, if that is the object we have in view, if that is the influence under which we are to legislate, then possibly compulsion may be the consequence. But it is not the logical consequence, it is an illogical consequence, a ruinous consequence, a consequence founded upon total ignorance of the first principles of human industry, a consequence which destroys the confidence in all property. My noble Friend behind me (Earl Spencer) alluded again to the Report of the Commissioners upon the enclosure of common lands. Can there be a more vulgar error than this stupid denunciation of the enclosure of common lands? Have your Lordships ever looked into the evidence that was given about 100 years ago as to the condition of farms held on the edges of great commons? They were universally miserably poor; their agriculture was at the lowest ebb; they lived upon poaching and every kind of extra employment they could get; and the first movement and improvement in the agriculture, both of England and Scotland, was the abolition of common lands. I do not say it may not have gone too far where you want recreation lands—that I do not deny; but after all it is easy to buy them back, and they are being bought back by very large sums of money indeed, wherever they are wanted for the large cities; and with regard to the great heaths of Surrey and the South of England, many of them remain commons to this day; they are very barren lands, not likely ever to be enclosed; and I am very glad that Parliament has stopped the excessive advance of enclosures with regard to that particular class of laud. But to denounce the enclosure of common lands, which has been the a. b. c. work of the whole of the agricultural improvements in England, seems to me the stupidest of fallacies and giving in to the vulgarest of all prejudices. With regard to some clauses of this Bill, I think they are very queer, and I am bound to say the observations of my noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) were full of that article which is so rare on all these subjects, and that is good

  871
  sound common sense; he did not go upon theories; he went upon practical knowledge of agriculture and the state and condition of the people, amongst whom he is, as we all know, an eminently good landlord. Now, my Lords, I agree with much that he said with regard to those clauses. But then observe the difficulty Parliament is in. Parliament wishes to make this experiment of forcing a hot-house growth of small proprietors; but Parliament does not want the County Councils to be mere jobbers of land; and therefore there are all sorts of clauses put in to protect the ratepayer. And I must say I think that a sound principle. You ought not to give to Local Bodies the power of harrying the ratepayer. It is an essential principle of local municipal legislation—it has been from the beginning, through all the Middle Ages—that Parliament has doled out to Municipalities the powers which they are to exercise; but Parliament has kept in its own hand the power of protecting the individual ratepayer and the liberty of individual man, and has not given it to the Municipalities, even the greatest of them; such places as Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, every one of them, are under restrictions from Parliament, and they cannot levy unjust taxation on the ratepayers of the towns which they govern. My Lords, so far as that goes, these clauses are right in principle; they are intended to protect the ratepayers, and to prevent the County Councils from becoming mere jobbers of land; and that is sound so far as it goes. But, my Lords, if compulsion were ever adopted, these clauses would have to be enormously reinforced. They are very good as they are in the case of voluntary purchase, but they would be quite inefficient in the case of compulsion. Therefore, my Lords, we are entering on a most interesting and very dangerous experiment. And I beg your Lordships to recollect, and I hope the public will recollect, that you are dealing with forces and motives which are out of sight, and you may touch, by stupid and foolish legislation, the whole springs of the agricultural industry of this country.
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, from the undue haste with which this measure has been brought forward, I have had no opportunity of putting on the Paper my intention to move that it be read a second time this day six months. I am satisfied, from long acquaintance with elaborate measures of this kind, that it is impossible for any Opposition that wishes to maintain any amendment to do so; and, therefore, my only course is to move the postponement of the measure. My Lords, it is quite contrary to the policy which so long has prevailed in Ireland. In 1836 I passed through a great part of the County of Cork, and I was told that small holdings had been abolished, that tenants had been removed from the old roof-tree, and that in the end they were very thankful for having been prevented from becoming small holders. My Lords, in Scotland every labourer has a good garden to his holding. My Lords, I do not believe that letting men into small holdings, without increasing their power of stocking those holdings, is doing them any service. We find that our labourers are extremely glad of a little garden; but in many instances they would rather not be either tenants or proprietors. My Lords, I happen to have had a good deal of correspondence with Irishmen, and I find that they wish very much to improve their property; but I do not find that everyone wishes to have a larger holding than he now possesses. In the crofter legislation you have made the holdings larger, and I can only say, "O si angulus ille proximus accedat qui nunc denormat agellum." But here you are going to make a few small holdings; and what will be the consequence? We know that cattle will stray. You must have fences that are almost enormous. If any one knows the way in which woodland sheep stray, he will not wish any small holder to be near his place. Large proprietors can afford to lose part of their stock; but in the case of poor men with a small holding if a foal or two or a heifer die, how cam they sustain it? My Lords, you had better let those who have large possessions make the best use of them; and you know that they have much greater power of doing good than those who are

  873
  only small proprietors. There is an expression in Ireland, that I have met with in one of the books which I have read, of "a half sir"; and you want to make a great many "half sirs." It is a mistake; and, depend upon it, you will find it to be so; and I can only hope that you will not interfere with the property of possessors of land. My father, in his letter to Mr. Merivale, said—
  "You cannot disturb the largest possession of any owner of land without endangering the property of the smallest.… You might have an agrarian row every week and every month."
  It is necessary for land to be in the same hands. That fixity of tenure which is so much desired proves the desirability of that system being carried out. My Lords, I fear I shall not be able to find even a Teller for this Motion of mine; but at the same time I will watch, and if I see any good Amendments in Committee, I will endeavour on Third Reading to support them. As it is, I feel an uncompromising dislike to this experiment.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I should not like to let this Bill be read a second time without making a few observations on the subject in which, like the noble Duke opposite, I take personally great interest. My Lords, like my noble Friend behind me, I regard the Bill in a friendly spirit. I think that what the noble Duke who has left the House (the Duke of Argyll) called the sentiment of the country, which I should call the general feeling of the country in favour of some measure dealing with the subject, is a sufficient justification for us on either side of the House in attempting to legislate on the subject. At the same time I am bound to say that I do not expect any very great results from the Bill, and my reasons are very much those which have been stated by the noble Duke, not so much from the nature of the Bill — though I have some objections to the Bill itself, as from the nature of the subject and the difficulties which surround it. First of all
  874
  let me say one word as to what we hear so much of, the exodus as it is termed from the rural districts to the towns. The Duke of Argyll in his observations said it was due to free trade. Now my Lords, that is an opinion which I do not share, and my reason is not a theoretical one connected with any economic doctrine, but the simple fact that you find this movement going on in other countries where there is not free trade; but, on the contrary, protection. Anyone who has followed this subject carefully knows that there is practically no civilised country where this movement from the country to the towns is not now going on. It is a very remarkable thing that it even goes on in the United States in the form that the towns increase much faster than the country; it goes on in France where there are protective duties, and where the tenure of land is quite different; and I could mention other countries where the same thing prevails. I do not think there can be a doubt that there is a general tendency, owing to a variety of causes which produces this exodus; and I should say that the greatest cause of all is the facilities of locomotion. In former days the agricultural labourer found it difficult to leave his home; now he can leave his home with the greatest ease, and he naturally takes his labour to wherever he thinks it will produce the largest result. I do not say that so far as regards corn-growing counties there is no migration arising from the low price of corn; it is possible that that may have some effect there; but I do say that it is a general cause operating practically in almost all countries, and cannot have arisen simply from the economic policy of free trade that we have adopted here. I am therefore of opinion that no legislation which we can possibly pass will really, on a large scale, counteract this tendency. At the same time, regretting as I do that there is going on a diminution of our agricultural population, and believing the causes to be so powerful, I find that to be a reason, not why we should not attempt legislation, but rather an additional inducement to do what we can in that direction. Then with regard to the creation of small owners

  875
  of land, which, for political reasons as well as economic reasons, I believe we all desire, the Bill really has two objects in view as I take it. One is to create what may in some respects resemble the old yeoman. I agree with the noble Duke opposite that the old yeoman was rather a man of more acres than this Bill contemplates; but the Bill contemplates the creation of owners of land to the extent of fifty acres, and this would mean a holding of a fair-sized property in one sense. The other object of the Bill is to enable the agricultural labourer to get small holdings properly so called of four, five, ten, or fifteen acres; and that stands on a different footing. As regards the first object, I wholly disbelieve in the possibility of recreating the yeoman in any form. I have frequently had opportunity both of addressing and communicating with men engaged largely as farmers in the country, and I have always found them agree in this: that if you look at the matter simply in the business point of view—and more and more people do look at these things in a business point of view—it does not answer for a man who wishes to make a profit by agriculture to own his own land. It is obvious that, if a man has a moderate capital, to sink a large portion of it in the freehold of the land itself, and in the buildings which must be put up upon that freehold, cannot be nearly so profitable as to hire the land from another man who is willing, being a kind of sleeping partner, to own the freehold at a low rate of interest and provide all the buildings. It is far better for a man to employ the whole of his capital in cultivating his land, in obtaining the profits that a man expects when he is engaged in any business; and I am sure the noble Duke opposite will agree with me that there are extremely few farmers in this country who have more capital than they want for the cultivation of their land; indeed, there are extremely few who have capital enough for the purpose; and to say to these men: "You shall go and spend a portion of this now insufficient capital in buying a piece of land" is, in point of fact, to tell them to reverse the whole of the economic principles upon which business is conducted. For that reason
  876
  I say I do not believe for a moment in the creation of large holdings, even of fifty acres, to any appreciable extent; but I think it is possible that we may create advantageously a certain number of really small holdings; and that I think will depend very much upon circumstances in different parts of the country. It is very difficult to generalise from a knowledge of one part of the country only with regard to any other part. In counties that are corn-growing, such as I live in, I doubt very much whether to any extent people could make a living on small holdings of ten or fifteen acres. But, on the other hand, in counties where dairying is profitably carried on, I think it would be possible, and still more in parts of the country where market gardens can be increased with advantage. No doubt it is a small part of the country. Sir John Lawes, in that interesting letter which the noble Duke has quoted from, has pointed out that there are some parts of the country where the growth of early vegetables is exceedingly profitable; and I was very much struck only the other day, in some conversation that I had in Cornwall, by the opinion entertained there that considerable portions of land might be advantageously occupied by small holdings for the purpose of growing early vegetables. For those purposes I think the Bill would be very desirable. One word with regard to compulsion. The noble Duke who last addressed us laid down some admirable general principles upon the subject; but I apprehend that, when we are dealing with a matter of this kind, it is as well not merely to confine ourselves to general principles, but to look at the matter from a common-sense point of view, to look at the matter as it presents itself to us, with a view to the probabilities of what will take place. Now I cannot imagine that anyone deliberately bringing in a Bill of this kind should not foresee that there is almost a certainty, after what has been done, especially with regard to the Allotments Act, that compulsion will be made a portion of this legislation. I do not think it is a mere matter of electioneering or of catching votes; but the moment you introduce

  877
  a principle of this kind, it will be found that there will arise hard cases, as they will be termed—examples where land cannot be procured where it is the opinion of the County Council, for instance, that it ought to be procured—and pressure will be put upon Parliament and upon both political Parties—I care not which—which will end, I believe, in compulsion being introduced. I agree with the noble Duke opposite; I look upon it as certain as anything can be that this Bill will result in compulsory provisions. I admit that there is a good deal to be said on the subject of compulsory provisions, and that there is something in what the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) said as to the uncertainty which it will introduce with regard to dealing with land. But there is one reason which has not been mentioned why I think compulsion will be found to be almost unavoidable, and it is a good practical reason. Many of those who have discussed this Bill seem to have forgotten that there are not only landlords but tenants, and it will be found almost certain that the principal opposition to the working of this Bill will come from the tenants and not from the landlords. I put it to any one of your Lordships whether he would consider himself justified, as an honest man, in evicting a tenant who paid his rent regularly and made a living, because that tenant would not consent to give up a portion of the land for the purpose of its being sold under this Bill. But if, on the other hand, there is a power of compulsion at the back, the landlord will say to the tenant: "We had better make the best arrangement we can, because, otherwise, we shall have compulsion applied, which will be most unsatisfactory, and it is better that we should yield in a way that is least inconvenient to ourselves." With regard to allotments, I know it has been extremely convenient and advantageous to be able to say: "These allotments are by Parliament to be given to the labourers; we cannot put aside the Act of Parliament; we must find the allotments." Some tenants are willing, but others are extremely reluctant, and there is thus often difficulty in obtaining land, and then, as
  878
  was pointed out just now, it is no use telling a man that he can get land in Sussex when he is in Northamptonshire; land must be got close to where the man lives; and for that purpose I think you will find ultimately that you will be obliged to have recourse to compulsion. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) made some remarks upon the suggestion of my noble Friend behind me (Earl Spencer) that the Parish Councils, if there were any, or the District Councils, should have the conduct of this measure. I think the noble Duke a little misunderstood my noble Friend. My noble Friend did not say that these Parish or District Councils were to be the authority to conclude the matter. What he said, and I agree with him in the suggestion, was that they would be the best bodies to initiate the matter, and to bring it before a body like the County Council to decide upon. That is a a very different thing. I agree with my noble Friend behind me that the initiation of the matter would come much better from a Local Body, itself well acquainted with the particular circumstances of the parish or the particular circumstances of those who wish to obtain a small holding. There is not much else upon which I desire at this stage to make any remark. I did not quite understand what the noble Earl intended to do with regard to Clause 11, which deals with the putting of these holdings in the same position as personalty. I am quite in favour of the principle of the clause as it stands; but I did not quite understand the noble Earl's desire. Perhaps the intention was merely to amend the clause as may be found desirable; and I understood him to say that, for the purpose of amending the clause, it was necessary to reject it entirely.
  EARL CADOGAN: What I stated was that, inasmuch as the proviso at any rate relates to the provision of a tax, it was not within the power of this House to amend the clause; and, if it is found desirable not to pass the clause in its present wording, it might be necessary to reject the clause in order to enable a fresh clause to be provided in another place and sent back.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Then I did understand the noble Earl rightly; he entirely adheres to the clause, but he thinks that there are some Amendments that may be necessary.
  EARL CADOGAN: I think I pointed out at the same time various objections which, on consideration, we entertain to the clause as it now stands.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I understand that the noble Earl did not himself intend to propose to reject the clause for the purpose of getting rid of it entirely; but he said it might be necessary, in order to make amendments that are desirable in his opinion, to reject it because we could not amend it here, and then another clause might be substituted in the other House which might meet with his approval. We shall hear from the noble Earl in Committee what is the nature of the objections to the clause, which I suppose do not affect the principle of it. I can only say that I think the clause itself is desirable and I shall greatly regret to see it omitted from the Bill. My Lords, with regard to the matter generally I will only add this, that I hope my prognostics may fail in respect to the small effect of the Bill; I have no desire to see the Bill fail; on the contrary, I shall be very glad to see it succeed; but at the same time I think it would not be honest or right to conceal one's opinion that, after all, no great expectations must be entertained from the working of a Bill of this kind; but in the passing of it those who, like myself, take a friendly view of it, do so rather from the point of view of it as an experiment, and in the hope that it may do something towards improving the condition of the labouring population and something especially towards giving them a step on the ladder; and if the experiment should succeed to some extent, it may be found possible afterwards, by other provisions, after further experience, to extend it so that we may add to the number of holders of land, and increase the contentment of the rural population, which is an object, I am certain, that every noble Lord in this House, wherever he sits, must have at heart.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: I think, my Lords, a false impression might be given with regard to this very important Bill if it were observed that the only independent supporter of Her Majesty's Government on this side of the House, who spoke on the subject, was the noble Duke who spoke strongly against the measure. I, for one, should be extremely sorry that that impression should go abroad. This is a subject that I have studied myself for many years in connection with my own property; and I must say that I think the noble Duke rather undervalued the gravity of the evil with which we have to deal, that is to say the removal of the rural population from our villages. It is not so much the movement of the elder men that is going on now; but, if you look forward a few years, the course that is being taken by the younger people, by what may be called almost the children of the present day, in the villages, is what alarms one with regard to the future. It is impossible not to observe, if you study the question at all, that the feeling of the younger population in the villages is in favour of migration away from the villages. I do not think it is owing so much to a dislike to country life as to the sure and certain effect which the excellent education they now receive must have upon them. They think more, and look forward more, than their fathers did before them; and, although many of them are devoted to country life, they are more strongly aware than their fathers have been hitherto that they have no prospect whatever in the country of rising in what may be called their own profession; that the door of advancement is shut; that there are very few small holdings which they can occupy; and they see nothing but going on plodding, as their fathers have done before, with no prospect of bettering the position of themselves and their families. It is no feeling of despair that drives them away, but they listen to the many invitations made to them on all sides. Think how a country lad is sought for for every kind of occupation; how he is demanded by the railways; how he is sought for in the best workshops; how the Army and the Police, by every possible induce-

  881
  ment, try to get the country lad; how the Navy does the same; how for our household, our stables, for our positions of trust, wherever we want honesty, straightforwardness, good character, the country lad, now that he has become an educated creature, is largely in demand. I fear, therefore, that the drain on the country villages will go on at a terrific pace in the future; and I venture to think that the noble Duke, in his interesting speech, underrated the perils that we have to face. It is not only the question of the farmers having no labourers, but it is the loss of one of the stout and stable classes of the country, who have done as much for the country as any other class in the past. I have always valued the country labourer immensely. I do not think him the dull, degraded creature that some modern writers put him down to be. He has played his great and noble part in the country. Look at your flocks, your herds, your horses. Whoso are the hands and the cunning spirit that have attended them, but the rural labourer's? And as your battles have been fought, so your households have been manned, by the labourers, by that respectable class of domestic servant. They have been a steady, a reliable, a noble class, who have played their part well; and I believe it would be a tremendous loss to England if we had our villages denuded of that class. I confess, with some regret, that I cannot say I expect very enormous results from this Bill in the way of creating a large occupying proprietary. I am afraid that, so far as the present time is concerned, there cannot be an immediate operation of that part of the Bill. But I cannot help thinking that there are not a few—they are a saving race now—who, when they know that there is a possibility of returning to their native villages, may, after years of labour elsewhere, wish to return; and they will be very valuable occupying freeholders in our villages. Supposing, after all, a village artizan becomes a freeholder, is not that a gain? Or supposing the village carpenter, or the village blacksmith, or the village shopkeeper became a freeholder, I should hold that it would be a distinct gain to the whole social condition of
  882
  England. Anything which opens the door of hope to an industrious man, so that he may have that hold upon the soil, must elevate him, and tend to elevate the whole class. But, my Lords, I expect a very much greater benefit from this Bill in another quarter. It is a great enunciation of the national feeling in favour, not only of small freeholds, but of small holdings. I hold that the country gentlemen of England—and your Lordships here are some of the largest holders of land—have an enormous opportunity now of furthering this great national policy which has been declared. You have had great difficulties in carrying out the system of small holdings. The large farmer has been against it. The land agent of the past has been against it. It is, no doubt, a costly process. But I venture to hope that now that the national policy is declared by this Bill, which I trust will soon be an Act, your Lordships will be enabled to embark, or to deal more largely with your large estates, upon a graduation of holdings, which is so much needed in every village. What has been the despair of the labourers has been this:—You have had all the farms consolidated in the villages—the small farms swept up into large ones; small holdings have disappeared, owing to economic reasons, and there has been nothing between the labourer and the large farmer; so that the labourer has had no chance of getting a small holding himself. But I see, myself, no reason why we should not do more for the graduation of holdings in the villages. I have done it myself on a considerable scale in the last few years. I have found labourers who had saved and were ready to take a small holding varying from ten acres to forty acres; and I have found those men pay their rents and cultivate their land well. My Lords, I do not believe we want a quantity of small holdings in each village; but I am confident that what we do want is a graduation of holdings; that is to say, we want a cottage garden; we want an allotment; we want a small holding, a grass holding of five acres; then we want a holding of ten acres; and then perhaps a small farm of forty acres, and so on. And my remarks apply principally to grass holdings, and not to arable hold-

  883
  ings. I doubt small arable holdings bringing a profit; except under very peculiar circumstances of soil, climate, or market I do not believe them to be profitable. But I venture to hope that in this way, by this graduation of holdings, another benefit, which has, I think, been overlooked may accrue, and that we may be gradually creating a fresh farming class to fill up the lapse owing to the failures that the farmers at present have had. I look, myself, with the greatest hope, to a vigorous farming class gradually springing up through the labourers taking these small holdings, and advancing by their own industry to become owners. In this way I think perhaps this Bill, which has such a noble intention, may do a great work in a direction in which its authors have not thought of its operating, by means of its encouraging at once the great landowners of the country in a graduation of small holdings in the future. My Lords, I beg to give my best wishes to this important measure; and I assure Her Majesty's Government that many of their supporters are ardently in favour at any rate of trying the experiment to which the great necessities of the time have evidently led them.
  *LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I am emboldened to make a few remarks in consequence of what fell from the noble Duke of Argyll. I heard with great regret his denunciation of common lands; and as I come from a district where common lands are the real means of the success of small holdings on a most important scale, I feel bound to state that there is no part of the country where small holdings are of more value than in the New Forest. There has been lately an inquiry of an important character there; and the Commissioner stated that in consequence of small holdings and common rights there was less poverty in the New Forest than in other places, and that it was extremely small indeed. I feel it is only right and just that I should notice this matter, because the noble Duke went further to say that the characters of the people who lived on commons were not of a very excellent kind. Knowing, as I do, the small holders in the New Forest well, I feel bound to state that the noble
  884
  Duke's criticisms would not apply to them. A more respectable class of men is not to be found in the whole country. In fact it is my belief that small holdings, apart from purely grass land, can only succeed where there are common rights attached to them, and that the secret of the success of small holdings in the New Forest is due practically to the fact that the holders have the use of their common rights. I will not intrude upon the House further; but after the remarks made by the noble Duke I feel bound to say that I do most heartily believe that certainly, as regards common lands, they are an immense additional help to small holdings, and play a great part in their success.
  *THE EARL of CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, at this late hour of the evening I only propose to detain your Lordships for a single moment. I join with their Lordships who have spoken on this side of the House in saying that this Bill is an experiment, and I hope and think it ought to succeed. In my belief this is a Bill which will have much more effect in Scotland than it will in England. I think in England the question of allotments is a matter of much more importance. As the noble Lord (Earl Spencer) said, there are very few working men in England who have saved enough money to enable them either to buy or to hire or to cultivate a property called a holding, but a great many of them are very anxious to take an allotment. On the other hand, in Scotland my experience is—and I think probably the experience of other Scottish landlords is the same—that the labourers care very little about allotments; indeed a great many of them hardly cultivate the gardens which they have. But they do care a great deal about small holdings; and the size of holdings which they are anxious to get is such as can be tilled with one pair of horses, being between fifty and seventy acres of land; and I believe that anything which tends to increase the number of holdings of that sort is certainly likely to prove a great benefit to Scotland. My Lords, one word with regard to compulsion. I think that if there were anything of that nature it would infallibly tend to limit the desire of owners to create

  885
  holdings of that description. I should greatly regret, at all events for the present, to see anything in the nature of compulsion inserted into the Bill. And, my Lords, I only wish to make one further remark, which is that I hope that, under no circumstances whatever will the district, and still less the parish, be accepted as the area which is to decide on what principle such holdings are to be made. If you allow the parish to decide a matter of this sort you may have, in one county, twenty or thirty different principles for creating small holdings. My Lords, I think the right area has been selected in the county, and to that I hope the Government will firmly adhere. My Lords, I wish to call the attention of the Lord Privy Seal to the constitution of this Committee in Clause 17 of the Bill. It is perhaps a matter more for consideration in Committee, but I should like to direct attention to it. I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware of it, but in Clause 17 he has given a majority to the locality in deciding the manner in which the holdings are to be adapted, managed, sold, and so on. He will see that there is to be one County Councillor who represents the locality; then there are two of the allotment managers in the case of England, and two persons in the case of Scotland—that is in Clause 26—who are to be elected ad hoc. Then, besides those, there are to be two more, and two more only, on the Committee, and those two are to represent the County Council. I wish to point out to the noble Earl that the local interest will be a majority upon that Committee, because, of course, the Councillor who is elected by a particular district will do what his neighbours wish. He depends upon them for his election, and I know it is our experience in Scotland at the present time that the local Councillor is always guided by the wishes of those who reside in his immediate neighbourhood. Then, if besides him, there are two persons who are also taken out of the same parish, and those are three out of a committee of five, the result will be that in different parts of the country you will have these questions decided in a different way. My Lords, I only wish to call the attention of
  886
  the noble Earl to that, because I think it is a point worthy of his consideration.
  On Question, Amendment negatived; Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION.
  Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 148.)
  AND STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the said Committee with Amendments; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 149.)
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) EXTRACTS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  FORGED TRANSFERS BILL [H.L.]
  Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PURCHASE) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
  CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  MARRIAGES ABROAD BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  GAS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS AND BONDS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 150.)
  ACCUMULATIONS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 151.)
  ALKALI, &c. WORKS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 152.)
  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Ker [M. Lothian.]) (No. 153.)
  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next.—(The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan]). (No. 154.)
  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Lord Ker [M. Lothian]). (No. 155.)
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(The Lord Ker [M. Lothian]. (No. 156.)
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 157.)
  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 158.)
  POLICE RETURNS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 159.)
  POST OFFICE ACT, 1891, EXTENSION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Balfour.) (No. 160.)
  TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.) (No. 161.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 162.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 163.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 164.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 165.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 166.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 167.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 168.)
  COLONIAL STOCK ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Colonial Stock Act, 1877, so far as regards the mode of transfer of Stock to which that Act applies—Was presented by the Lord Knutsford; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 169.)

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to alter the constitution of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and to amend the law in regard to Sea Fisheries in Scotland—Was presented by the Lord Ker (M. Lothian); read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 170.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock.