Sitting of 14 June 1892

QUESTIONS.

  OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN STAFF CORPS.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that by Furlough Rules published to the Indian Army in November, 1868, the Indian Government laid down that officers of the Staff Corps should draw while on furlough
  1034
  "half their Indian pay calculated at the rate of 2s. per rupee,"
  and
  "that any officer leaving the British Service and joining the Staff Corps after July, 1868, would ipso facto become subject to the Rules of 1868";
  that in 1871 the Government altered the Furlough Rules, so that furlough pay was "calculated at the exchange of the day"; and that retrospective operation has been practically given to the Rule of 1871 by applying it to the case of officers previously joining, i.e., in 1869, 1870, from the British Army who have not signified assent to any later set of Furlough Rules than those of 1868, whether the Secretary of State will give directions that officers who joined the Staff Corps under the Rules of 1868 and have elected to remain under them shall have their furlough pay at the rate of 2s. to the rupee as promised them on joining?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The Secretary of State has nothing to add to the answer which was given to a similar question on the 19th March, 1891. The matter has been repeatedly decided by successive Secretaries of State in Council, and as no new facts have been adduced, the Secretary of State does not consider that he would be warranted in disturbing their decision.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY PENSIONS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is now the number of pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary receiving a lower pension than that to which they claim to be entitled by reason of the general adoption of the recommendations of the Commission of 1872, with respect to increase of the rates of pension payable to men at that time serving in the force; what is the annual amount involved in the claim of this particular class; whether they correctly represent that, whilst the recommendation in their regard as to pension has been disregarded, the recommendation as to pay had been acted upon during their continuance in the Service; and whether their case will be re-considered?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,)(who replied): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I presume the hon. Member refers to a Commission which reported in 1866, and I assume that the pensioners in question are those who retired from the Force between August, 1866, and August, 1874. I do not possess the information asked for in paragraphs 1 and 2. It is not the fact that the recommendation of the Commission as to pension has been disregarded. There is no intention of re-opening the case, which has been carefully considered on more than one occasion.

  SALE OF POSTAGE STAMPS ON MAIL STEAMERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that all German mail steamships, in accordance with the Postal Union arrangement, are provided with German stamps for sale to passengers, and that the passengers habitually post letters bearing these German stamps in English ports, the work of dealing with such letters being partly performed by our Post Office, while all the profit falls to Germany; and whether he will consent to entrust £20,000 or £30,000 worth of British stamps to the owners of our steamships carrying the mails to America, and to the Orient and Peninsular and Oriental Companies carrying the mails to India, the East, and Australia, on sufficient guarantees being given in respect of payment for them, so that every British mail steamship may become, in effect, a travelling British post office, the passengers being privileged to post their letters in any port touched at in the world?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): The arrangements made by the German Post Office for the sale of German stamps on board the packets referred to are well known; and there is no reason for supposing that passengers post letters bearing German stamps in English ports. If they did, such letters would be chargeable on delivery as unpaid letters. The fact which my hon. Friend probably has in
  1036
  view is that, on board of each of the packets in question, there is a German travelling post office, at which stamps are sold and letters are posted. The travelling post office makes the letters up in closed mails, which are landed at the most convenient port. Such mails, for instance, are landed at Southampton from the German mail steamers on the way from Bremerhaven to New York. The British Post Office maintains no travelling agency on board any of its mail steamers. Mail packet contractors, however, supply their passengers with stamps, both British and foreign, when they touch at foreign ports; and the Post Office has not heard of any difficulty in obtaining stamps on board British mail packets, or of any necessity to allow its contractors a credit stock of stamps. On and after the 1st July there will be no occasion for passengers on board British steamers, posting letters on the high seas, to obtain any but British stamps.

  BONDED WAREHOUSES AT DUMFRIES.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inland Revenue Department, on a plea of economy, have intimated their intention, in the exercise of their powers under the Act of 1881, to discontinue their licence for the bonded warehouse of Messrs. Lennox, Dumfries; whether the Department, however, since the passing of the Act of 1881—namely, in 1885, granted a licence to the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company for a bonded warehouse at Dumfries, and in 1891 a similar licence for a warehouse at Dumfries to the Caledonian Railway Company; whether these two warehouses, being less centrally situated than that of Messrs. Lennox, will entail a much greater expenditure for proper supervision by the Department; and whether, having regard to the practically unanimous opinion of the trade in Dumfries, the Department will re-consider their intention with regard to the licence granted to Messrs. Lennox?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The facts stated in the question, are, in the main, correct

  1037
  except that economy was not the only ground for the action taken by the Inland Revenue Department. The change will not entail a much greater expenditure for supervision. Messrs. Lennox have written to the Treasury on the subject, and their letter is now under my consideration.

  THE COMMONWEAL.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would explain to the House by whose authority the police entered the office of a paper called the Commonweal, and took away the type; and what means the editor must adopt to regain possession of it?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): The type in question was seized by the police at the same time as Mr. Nicoll was arrested for the libel printed from it, as one of the implements used in committing the offence. Since the conviction of Nicoll various persons have claimed the type, the title to which appears doubtful; and Mr. Vaughan, the Police Magistrate, has issued a summons against the police, on the hearing of which the true owner will, no doubt, have the type restored to him. The police are anxious to get rid of it.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT ASHENDON.
  MR. LEON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that the school children of the village of Ashendon, near Aylesbury, above the age of seven years have to walk two miles to attend the school at Wootton Underwood, and that Her Majesty's Inspector reports that—
  "The existing schoolroom at Ashendon is not suitable for more than a small number of infant children";
  and whether the Education Department will require the Ashendon school managers to make adequate provision for all the children in the schoolroom in that village?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): In the absence of notice, I have been unable to ascertain the facts of the case referred to by the hon. Member, but I will cause inquiry to be made. I may say, however, that I do not think that two miles is an excessive distance for older children to to go to school, as the hon. Member will see by reference to Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870.

  ROYAL NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the amount of compensation to be paid for drillsheds, uniforms, and headquarters of the Brighton Corps of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, which was considered as long ago as 2nd March last; and when the Report of the Committee, appointed under the Admiralty Order of 13th November last, may be expected?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The Committee in question have now completed their inquiry into the financial position of the various corps of the late Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, and they will be able to submit their general Report to the Admiralty in the course of the next ten days. The apparent delay in presenting their Report is due to the fact that the Committee visited the headquarters of the Brighton Corps first of all, and since then they have been making the round of the other stations.

  POSTMEN'S GOOD CONDUCT STRIPES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is able to inform the House as to his answer to the Petitions of the London postmen, "Zone 1," forwarded to him in April last; and whether he can now consent to restore the good conduct stripes to those postmen who were deprived of them two years ago for violating the rule of the Department which prohibits postmen attending outdoor meetings to discuss their grievances?
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: It has been determined to increase the maximum of the wages of these postmen from 32s. to 34s. a week. The answer to the other points of their Petition will be promulgated immediately. The question of restoring good conduct stripes to the postmen who have broken rules in this and other respects is being considered.
  MR. HOWELL: I would press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. It is a long time since this violation of the rules occurred.
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I have for some time had under consideration the propriety of restoring good conduct stripes to men who have lost them for various offences; but in a large Service one has to be very careful, in taking such a step in individual cases, to consider how far it will reach. I shall, however, lose no time in dealing with the cases.

  THE SHILLELAGH UNION ELECTION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board refused to grant a sworn inquiry asked for by Mr. Terence Byrne, a candidate at the last election of Guardians of the Shillelagh Union, into the conduct of that election, on the ground that the Board considered the explanations of the returning officer satisfactory; whether he is aware that Mr. Byrne made certain charges against the returning officer of having disallowed eight votes duly recorded for him, and allowed certain other votes, which he alleges were illegal, for his opponent, Mr. Casey, whom he declared elected by a majority of two votes, and that Mr. Byrne charges the returning officer with having acted as a partisan of Mr. Casey, and states his willingness to support his charges and allegations on oath if the inquiry is granted; whether, under these circumstances, he will recommend the Board to re-consider their decision, and grant a sworn inquiry as in the case of Cork, where, as in this case, forgery and other malpractices are alleged; and whether he is aware that since the refusal of the Board to grant the inquiry, Mr. Byrne,
  1040
  the defeated candidate, has sent to the Local Government Board a sworn declaration in support of his charges, and that Mr. Thomas Kingston, whose votes were disallowed by the returning officer on the ground that they were signed with his mark, and which, if allowed, would have given Mr. Byrne a majority of legal votes, has also forwarded to the Board a sworn declaration that he could not write, and that his votes were filled for Mr. Byrne by his authority, and his mark attached to each?
  THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I am informed that the Local Government Board for Ireland, having received from the candidate mentioned an affidavit in support of his statements respecting the case of Mr. Thomas Kingston, have already ordered a sworn inquiry to be held into the circumstances of the election.

  MR. WENYON'S CLAIM AGAINST THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state in detail the particulars of the Report received from our Minister at Pekin relative to the result of his representations addressed to the Chinese Government in the matter of the outrage committed by Chinese officials at Canton in February last upon the property of a British merchant, by name Mr. Wenyon, in violation of the Treaty of Tientsin, whereby he has suffered loss to the extent of over seventeen thousand dollars; and whether Her Majesty's Government, if satisfied of the justice of his claim, will insist upon reparation being granted for the outrage in question?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): A strong Instruction was sent at the end of February last to Sir J. Walsham to call the attention of the Chinese Government to the case. There has hardly been time to receive a Report of the result of his communications with the Tsungli Yamen, but the matter will not be lost sight of by Her Majesty Government.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: As I know Mr. Wenyon is now in England, it may be convenient that he should be allowed an interview, so that he may state his own case at the Foreign Office?
  MR. LOWTHER: Yes, I think that will be desirable, and I shall be glad if the gentleman will call.

  RETIRING PENSIONS OF LIEUTENANT COLONELS.
  SIR CHARLES FRASER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will explain on what grounds a non-purchase Lieutenant Colonel is permitted to retire on a pension of £420 a year immediately on his retirement from the command of a regiment, while a purchase Lieutenant Colonel is compelled to remain on half-pay for five years on £200 a year, if unemployed, unless he repays to the Government the over-regulation value of the commission he held on the abolition of purchase, varying from £2,500 to £4,000, although he may have served many years longer than the non-purchase officer, and although he has sunk for ever sums such as £1,800 to £4,500?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): The rule, so far as it affects purchase officers, is in exact accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission over which Lord Penzance presided, and has been in force ever since. It could only be abrogated by re-considering the provisions made on the recommendation of Lord Penzance.

  EMIGRANTS TO BRAZIL.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to a letter published in certain English papers (and reproduced in the Jornal do Commercio, of Brazil), bearing the signature of E. Drolke Fasciotti, Brazilian Consul at Cardiff; whether it is a fact, as stated in that letter, that emigrants, who do not wish to remain in Brazil, are even entitled to be sent back at the cost of the Government; whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that any of the
  1042
  unfortunate persons, who were induced to emigrate to Brazil, have been repatriated to this country at the cost of the Republic; and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to lay upon the Table of the House any further correspondence on this subject which has taken place since the presentation of No. 20, Commercial, 1891?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the letter in question, and Her Majesty's Minister at Rio de Janeiro has been instructed to ascertain from the Brazilian Government if the statement attributed to their Consul at Cardiff is accurate or otherwise. Further correspondence respecting emigration to Brazil will be prepared for Parliament.

  LONGFORD POST OFFICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY(for Mr. TIMOTHY HEALY,): I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the new post office at Longford; and when will the work be completed?
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I informed the hon. Member for Longford on the 3rd inst that fresh plans for the proposed new post office at Longford were under consideration. I regret that these fresh plans have not proved to be satisfactory, and some further discussion will be necessary in regard to them. No time is being lost in the matter.

  RETIREMENT OF THE LENAMORE POSTMASTER.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (for Mr. TIMOTHY HEALY): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain whether Mr. Henry Doran, who for nearly forty years was postmaster at Lenamore, County Longford, and who was obliged to retire through old age, has been refused a pension; and, if so, why?
  *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The postmaster retired from ill-health, and the circumstances being such that he did not give his whole time to the Department, he has no claim to a pension.

  EXTRA POLICE IN COUNTY KILKENNY.
  DR. TANNER(for Mr. CHANCE,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why six or eight extra police have been quartered on the district of Kilmoganny (Callan), County Kilkenny; will the people be called on to pay for them, and what outrages have been committed to justify this burden?
  MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that there has been a temporary increase of six in the number of police at Kilmoganny station. The increase has been provided from the force already in the county, and there will, therefore, be no increased charge on the local rates. This temporary strengthening of the local force has been rendered necessary to prevent the intimidation of a man who was occupying evicted farms.
  DR. TANNER: IS it not the case that the man referred to has himself applied to have the extra police withdrawn? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has signed an affidavit, witnessed by the local Protestant clergyman and others, stating that his mind was seriously affected when he made the application, and that he is still subject to fits of mental aberration?
  MR. JACKSON: If that is so, it is the more necessary that he should have protection.
  DR. TANNER: But will not the right hon. Gentleman rather have the man taken care of in a lunatic asylum than excite the hostility of the people by inflicting more police upon the locality?

  PETROLEUM IN THE SUEZ CANAL.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the police rights of Egypt over the Suez Canal and its ports, he will give the assurance, after communicating with the Ottoman and Egyptian Governments, that, in the event of the Provisional Regulations of the Suez Canal Company authorising cargoes of bulk oil to pass through the
  1044
  Canal, these Governments will undertake not to issue any laws or bye-laws relating to the commerce of petroleum in Egypt?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The hon. Member asks me to give an assurance that the Ottoman and Egyptian Governments will not make any Regulations for controlling the sale of petroleum within the limits of Egyptian territory. The Egyptian Government, however, is free to enact its own domestic legislation in the matter, and Her Majesty's Government could not therefore either usefully or properly interfere.
  MR. ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the 14th Article of the Concession of the Suez Maritime Canal Universal Company, dated 5th January, 1856, which guarantees neutral passages to any merchant vessel crossing from sea to sea without any distinction, exclusion, or preference whatever for persons or nationalities, he will inform the House under what words in this Article the Suez Canal Company have the right, without the sanction of the Sublime Porte and Egypt, to exclude any class of steamer and any class of cargo, as they now for the first time seek to do?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Her Majesty's Government are not responsible for the decisions of the Suez. Canal Company; but as I understand their contention, it is to the effect that, being charged with the safety of the Canal and its adjuncts, the Company declines, on the ground of the danger which might arise in the event of an accident, to permit the passage of petroleum bulk ships except under very stringent Regulations. If those Regulations are complied with no distinction, exclusion, or preference for persons or nationalities will arise.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that under the Provisional Regulations of the Suez Canal, that Company proposes to prohibit from passage on the

  1045
  Suez Canal British owned steamers complying with the Provisional Regulations, and built in the United Kingdom under a British classification; and whether he will take steps to prevent effect being given to the proposed illegal Provisional Regulations pending the action which has been raised in the Egyptian Courts against the Suez Canal Company for misuser of its Charter?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: So long as the Regulations are complied with the Canal Company has no power to prohibit from passage through the Canal any British owned or other vessels. The legality or Regality of the Regulations is the subject of an action in the Egyptian Courts, and pending their decision Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to invite the Company to prejudge the question by preventing the Rules from coming into force.
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in December last, before the Provisional Regulations were issued, a Petition was signed by shipowners representing over 5,000,000 tons of shipping, protesting against the passage of petroleum tank steamers through the Suez Canal?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: A Petition was presented to the Suez Canal Company in December last, a copy of which will appear in the Papers which I hope to lay upon the Table in the course of a day or two. I cannot say how many tons of shipping the signatories to the Petition represent, but a considerable number of firms signed it.
  MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Suez Canal Company has the right to make regulations or bye-laws in excess of the powers given under its concession?
  MR. LOWTHER: The reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is in the negative.

  BALLINCOLLIG WATER SUPPLY.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office why no reply has been given by the
  1046
  War Office to the Guardians of the Cork Union on the subject of the Ballincollig water supply; whether the supply of 25,000 gallons daily is sufficient; and whether they are aware that the work is being delayed in consequence of the procrastination of the Military Authorities?
  DR. TANNERhad notice also of the following question: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Local Government Board will not sanction the issue of the loan for Ballincollig Waterworks until the Military Authorities have fixed a maximum number of gallons per diem as their requirement; whether, at the commencement of the correspondence on this subject, the maximum requirements of the Barracks were stated not to exceed 16,000 gallons per diem; and whether the present water supply in the Barracks has been almost wholly condemned by military medical authorities?
  MR. BRODRICK: I will answer the two questions of the hon. Member at once. The letter from the solicitor of the Cork Guardians came through the General Officer commanding in Ireland, to whom a reply was duly sent. Personal communications have been taking place in Dublin, which may have delayed a final answer to the Guardians. The present water supply is not sufficient. I have reason to believe the Local Government Board has now sanctioned the issue of a loan to the Ballincollig Waterworks without insisting that a maximum quantity shall be named, and an agreement has been signed under which a continuous and plentiful supply of water for the Barracks is secured, and the necessity for stating a maximum quantity does not arise. There has been no avoidable delay on the part of the Military Authorities, and I believe the whole matter has now been satisfactorily arranged.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not the fact that the maximum requirements of the Barracks were stated not to exceed 16,000 gallons per diem, and the Local Authority undertook to supply 2,800 gallons? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to bring the matter to a conclusion at once?
  MR. BRODRICK: I believe that originally the maximum was as stated, but as an arrangement has been come to by which there shall be a continuous supply, the question of a maximum need not further disturb the arrangement.

  DUBLIN AND CORK MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the advance by the Treasury of the sum necessary to improve the mail service between Dublin and Cork?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Negotiations are still in progress, and the hon. Gentleman need be under no anxiety as to the result.
  MR. HEALY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can indicate some date when we may hope to have the improvement? Great anxiety does exist on the subject.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, but it would rather hamper the negotiations if I were to make a promise for a given time. We are anxious to secure as much as we can with economy. The hon. Gentleman need be under no anxiety or doubt that I shall do my best to bring the matter to a conclusion.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will include the first section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The clause referred to has for several years been included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and I see no objection to continue that course for the present.

  NATIONAL TEACHERS IN IRISH WORKHOUSES.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Education Bill applies to National teachers in workhouses; and, so, how it will affect them as re-
  1048
  gards class salaries and as regards the capitation grant?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that the Bill does not apply to National teachers in workhouses who are under the authority of the Local Government Board and provided for under the Local Government Board Vote.
  MR. HEALY: But are they not National teachers, and paid class salaries as such?
  MR. JACKSON: But they are not paid by the Commissioners of National Education.

  CULRAIN AND LOCHINVER RAILWAY.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the terms offered for the construction, working, and maintenance of a railway from Culrain to Lochinver on the west coast of Sutherland?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member asks me to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the terms offered for the construction and working of the Lochinver railway. I am not yet in a position to answer this question. The question to which yesterday I undertook to reply in detail had reference to the Mallaig line.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman give that information?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Lord Lovat has promised to give a free grant of his land which the proposed railway will traverse for a distance of about four miles, and the site for the harbour at Mallaig. The local subscriptions towards the undertaking are estimated at £40,000. This sum includes the value of some of the lands to be taken.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these are as favourable as the terms offered in regard to the Lochinver route, and did not the report recommend the Lochinver route over every other route?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, I have read the report, and it does not seem to me to convey that; but so far as the Treasury are concerned, the arrangements are superior, so far as I can judge, to other offers.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: Will a guarantee or subsidy for the Mallaig route preclude consideration of the Lochinver route?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The one does not exclude the other; sanction of the Mallaig route does not prevent the consideration of another line.
  MR. SUTHERLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any indication as to when a decision will be arrived at? Much anxiety exists on the subject in the district.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The matter does not rest with the Treasury alone; it is a matter of policy, upon which the Government as a whole will decide.

  GREYSTONES HARBOUR.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (for Mr. TIMOTHY HEALY): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the original estimate for the Greystones Harbour, County Wicklow, by the engineer of the Board of Works, was £10,000; that, to make up this sum, the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, under the Act of 1883, 46 and 47 Vic, c. 26, made a free grant, out of the £250,000 granted by that Act, of £8,500, and that the balance was made up according to the Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries for 1890 by a contribution of £500, and a loan secured by the locality of £1,000; while according to the Return to Parliament, dated 5th April, 1892, No. 153, the expenditure on this harbour was £17,870, and a further sum of £2,087, estimated to complete the works, making a total of nearly £20,000, instead of £10,000 as originally contemplated; and was this additional £10,000 given as a free grant out of the £250,000; and, if so, has it been made on the recommendation of the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, to whom the allocation of this £250,000 was entrusted by the Act of 1883, or were they consulted in the matter; and, if not, on whose authority has it been done?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I think this question has been put on the Paper by some inadvertence. I believe identically the same question was answered on 3rd June. I have nothing to add to it.
  MR. HEALY: I understand the question on 3rd June was not answered.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Yes, I believe it was.

  RECRUITING.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is true, as stated in the Irish Times of 30th May and the Army and Navy Gazette of 4th June, 1892, that recruits rejected at other stations have proceeded to a large London recruiting station and been immediately accepted there, and that a medical officer has been recently removed from his post, as examiner of recruits, for not working in harmony with his superior officers by declining to pass into the ranks recruits who, in his opinion, were quite unfit for the Service; and, if so, whether this officer's removal was carried out with the approval of the Secretary of State?
  MR. BRODRICK: The statement that recruits refused at some stations have in some cases gone to others and have been admitted is true in the case of London and of other stations also, because medical officers, like other people, sometimes differ in opinion. The medical officer in question has not been relieved of his duties for the reason stated in the question; but the Secretary of State is, at the present time, personally looking into all the facts of the case, which had not previously been examined by him.

  ELECTION CIRCULARS.
  MR. GARDNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to a circular issued to the electors of the Tonbridge Division of Kent by Mr. W. F. Browell, J.P., Chairman of the Conservative Association, in these terms:—
  "Dear Sir, I am requested to ask you to allow your name to be added to the committee for securing the election of Mr. A. G. Boscawen, for this division. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I shall assume that you consent to do so";
  and whether, seeing the words in the last paragraph of the circular are calculated to force the electors either

  1051
  to declare for which candidate they will vote, or submit to having their names falsely placarded as supporters of the Conservative candidate, this circular is an infringement of both the Ballot and Corrupt Practices Acts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a copy of the letter in question. I must not be understood as agreeing with the inference stated in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question. In my opinion there is no infringement either of the Ballot or the Corrupt Practices Acts, or any other Act of Parliament.

  DISTURBANCES IN UGANDA.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Times of the 13th inst., with regard to Uganda, that the British East Africa Company have issued an order to abandon it; whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the Company to abandon a sphere which has been allotted to England; and whether no attempt is to be made to sustain Captain Lugard and his men in that position, in which, by all accounts, they have so nobly done their duty?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have endeavoured to obtain the information which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman desires, but I have not succeeded, and perhaps he will be good enough to defer his question until Thursday, when I hope to be able to reply fully.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House the information referred to yesterday in the House of Lords as a communication received from Captain Williams? I think it has not been stated here, nor indeed has the information been published in extenso. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give us that information, and can he also state how it is that Captain Williams, who was appointed military coadjutor with Captain Lugard,
  1052
  appears to have left Uganda and to be on the south side of the Lake?
  MR. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to answer any of these questions if the right hon. Gentleman will put them down for Thursday.
  DR. CLARK: May I express a hope that the Clerk will examine questions before they are printed on the Paper? The question of the hon. Baronet reads, "a sphere which has been allotted to England"; but, of course, for "England" we ought to read "Great Britain."

  THE SCOTTISH COMPTROLLER OF STAMPS AND TAXES.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why there has been so much delay in filling up the office of Comptroller of Stamps and Taxes in Scotland, caused by the retirement, on 7th April last, of Mr. Crawford; whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint to that important office someone outside the Department, or to promote to it the officer next in rank who has every qualification for the office; and whether it is proposed to abolish this office, or to transfer the office to a London official?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Board of Inland Revenue have submitted names of gentlemen to fill the office. The matter is under consideration.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS HOURS OF LABOUR.
  MR. MACLURE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the whole of the evidence taken before the Committee on Hours of Labour (Railway Servants) will be printed and delivered to Members; and whether the Memorandum circulated by the Chairman, giving his opinion as to the evidence of Hood, can be obtained?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I am quite unable to answer the first paragraph. It depends upon the printer, over whom I have no authority. The Report of the Committee was circulated this morning. Perhaps I may add that the account of that Report

  1053
  appearing in the Press has been both inaccurate and incomplete. With regard to the second paragraph, I hardly understand how the hon. Member is acquainted with the existence of any such Paper. I suppose the Paper to which he refers was the confidential analysis of the evidence which I drew up for the information of the Committee, in the belief that they would desire to express an opinion on the conduct of Hood. On considering the matter they deemed it not to be their duty to express any such opinion, and, at the instance, I think, of the hon. Baronet the Member for the County of Durham, they unanimously agreed to the paragraph in their special Report to that effect. Therefore, of course, the analysis I had drawn up is not included in the Papers which will be published.
  MR. MACLURE: Is Mr. Hood authorised to go and hold meetings in my constituency, as he is doing now, and denounce me in the most disgraceful way, according to the Manchester papers, without my having any chance out of respect to the House to reply to him?
  *SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Of course, I cannot advise my hon. Friend as to his conduct in the matter, but the whole of the evidence has been printed and is in the possession of the House. The House can form an opinion from that evidence, and so can the hon. Member's constituents, as to what Hood's conduct has been.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what manner manufacturers are benefited by the provision 53 Vic, c. 8, s. 23, for relief in case of losses, if the question of re-payment of overcharged duties is governed by 28 and 29 Vic, c. 30, s. 6, which is merely an Act to amend Section 133 of 5 and 6 Vic, c. 35; and if Clause 4 of the provision does not abrogate the three years' average in case of loss, how can it be reconciled therewith?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Under the earlier Acts a loss in business assessed under Schedule D could not be set against profit assessed under other
  1054
  Schedules. The Act of 1890 allows an actual loss under one Schedule to be set against gains under another. Manufacturers are benefited by this provision as much as anyone else. The earlier Acts did not deal with cases of actual loss, but of profits which, fall short of the assessment. They proceed on the basis of a three years' average, and would not be affected in this respect by the provision to which the hon. Member refers in the last part of his question. I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should call at the Inland Revenue Office, where the matter would be thoroughly explained to him in a manner which is not possible in reply to a question.

  SCRABSTER HARBOUR.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, Whether it is the intention of the Treasury or of the Scottish Office to give a grant of £3,000, or any sum, to Scrabster harbour or pier during the present year?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): The question of the hon. Member reached me such a short time ago that I have not had time to communicate with the two Departments concerned; but if the hon. Member will either repeat the question or take some other occasion to raise it, I will give him an answer.
  DR. CLARK: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury have agreed to give, out of the savings of the Scottish Vote, £1,500 this year to Scrabster harbour at the request of the Scottish Office?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I think there is something in that direction, but without the Papers I cannot say what is the exact sum. I do not know whether it is out of the savings of any Vote, but I do know that a Vote of £10,000 is to be given for Scottish harbours, and from that Vote it will be perfectly proper to give a grant to Scrabster harbour.
  DR. CLARK: Is it not the case that last year the House refused a grant, and that the Treasury are now to give the grant out of money appropriated to other purposes? Did not the right hon.

  1055
  Gentleman pledge himself that, before anything was done, an inquiry would be made as to the two competing harbours, Thurso and Scrabster, in the one bay; has that inquiry been made; and, if so, what is the result?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot answer that question without notice. The House did not refuse the grant, but under somewhat singular circumstances I withdrew the Vote at the wish of the hon. Member. The hon. Member suggested that a reduction should take place, and I did not wish to force the expenditure on Scotland against the wish of the people.
  DR. CLARK: The fact is a reduced sum of £47,000 was given, but the House refused the grant. The right hon. Gentleman pledged himself to have an inquiry. Has that inquiry taken place?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I must ask the hon. Member to repeat that question.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to give notice that on the Supplementary Vote I shall raise this question and move a reduction of the Vote.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury about the conduct of Public Business. I would call his attention to the fact that all the Bills he mentioned yesterday as being such as the Government are desirous to pass are not on the Paper to-day, and I would ask him whether it would not be a convenient course that all these Bills should appear each day upon the Paper, so that the House may know exactly what stages they are at? Now there are one or two minor Bills which I see were last night postponed till Thursday. There were the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill, Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, and some other small Bills; and I would suggest that if they had been on the Paper to-day they might have been forwarded a stage to-day and tomorrow. There are some other Bills mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman which are not at all before the House yet. They are mainly Money Bills, including the Local Loans Bill, the Mauritius Bill, the British Columbia
  1056
  Bill, and the Pleuro-Pneumonia (Ireland) Bill; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take measures to have these Bills brought before the House at once and put upon the Paper? He will, I am sure, recognise the fact that the House is anxious to pass the Bills to which there is no opposition as rapidly as possible; and if the Bills are upon the Paper then he would always have a chance of a stage being procured for them each day. There is one other Bill—the Criminal Evidence Bill—which he mentioned yesterday as being before a Grand Committee. Now, the state of that Bill I understand is this—that the last time that Grand Committee was summoned there was not a quorum, that there has been no meeting since, and that the Chairman, I am sorry to say, is ill, and is not likely to be present. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in these circumstances it is not probable that the Bill will be able to pass, and that it should not be left on the Paper. But the point that I rose to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should place upon the Paper every day all the Bills which he thinks the House should pass, so that the House may see from day to day the actual state of business.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman is in substance a reasonable one, and I will endeavour as far as possible to carry it out. It cannot, however, be absolutely carried out at once in the case of every Bill. The Fishery Bill, for instance, to which reference is made, has not yet come down from another place; but when it, does it will be put and kept upon the Paper. The Pleuro-Pneumonia Bill is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and will as soon as possible be put upon the Paper; but there may naturally be in the case of these Bills, which are brought in to meet an emergency some delay, although, I hope, not a delay of an important character. The British Columbia Bill, I am afraid, must wait the advent of a gentleman charged by British Columbia to deal with the question, and who will be

  1057
  here in a day or two. I think the other Bills could be put upon the Order Book each day. Of course, some of the Bills cannot be put upon the Order Paper at once, because we have promised to delay the next stage. For example, we have finished the Committee stage of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill, and at the request of an hon. Gentleman who takes a great interest in the Bill we have deferred the consideration of the Report stage until the Bill can be re-printed, which cannot be before to-morrow, and probably not before Thursday. The Superannuation Bill has, I understand, gone through Committee to-day, but I suppose it cannot be discussed to-night.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What about the Criminal Evidence Bill?
  MR. BALFOUR: With regard to that Bill I believe the facts stand thus. On the last Friday before Whitsuntide the Grand Committee was summoned, and there was not a quorum. Last Monday there was a quorum, but the Grand Committee was not summoned. A large number of gentlemen came to attend the Committee, but it had not been summoned. I do not know whether it was owing to the illness of the Chairman or to any other cause that the requisite notice was not given. But I still entertain a hope that the Committee may yet be able to meet, so that the Bill will be allowed to pass this Session.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (, &c.): With regard to that point, I may, perhaps, be allowed, as having the most recent experience of a Standing Committee, of which I was Chairman, to express a very strong opinion that it is simply impossible to expect to have a quorum of Members on a Standing Committee at this time of the Session. Even with a Bill which excited a good deal of attention, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—the Clergy Discipline Bill—it was with the greatest difficulty that we were able to get a quorum day after day. That was a fortnight ago, and I leave the right hon. Gentleman to imagine what chance of having a quorum there is now.
  MR. BALFOUR: I admit that there are great difficulties, and I will consult
  1058
  with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General on the matter.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: With regard to Order 14, Public Elementary Schools Bill, having regard to the fact that this is not one of the measures mentioned in the Schedule of Bills that the Government hope to pass, and that there is great opposition from both sides of the House, and seeing the inconvenience of keeping us here late at night to oppose it, I would ask whether he does not see his way to withdraw the Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not received any notice of a desire that the course suggested by the hon. Member should be taken.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the Irish Education Bill be the first Order to-morrow?
  MR. BALFOUR: Yes, if that meets with the convenience of hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I desire to know whether it would be necessary, in the event of the Government granting a sum of money for the Lochinver Railway, to introduce legislation?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): That would depend upon the form which the grant takes. If it is in the form of a guarantee, it would be necessary to have legislation; if it were in the form of a lump sum, it would have to be passed by Estimate; but of course a lump sum could only be granted after the railway had been constructed, so that there would be no occasion for immediate Parliamentary action.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT:: With reference to what my hon. Friend (Mr. John Ellis) has said, I may say, from information which reaches me, I think there will be very strong resistance to the Public Elementary Schools Bill. Therefore I think it would be very imprudent to expend time on the discussion of that Bill which might be given to other matters.
  MR. BALFOUR: I will not put it before other Bills which must go through.
  DR. CLARK: There are two Supplementary Estimates, 254 and 255. Which is to be taken first?
  MR. BALFOUR: They will be taken in their order.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will say whether the Industrial Schools Bill, the Reformatory Schools Bill, and the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill are to be included amongst the Bills that the Government think it necessary to pass before the conclusion of the Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Industrial Schools Bill and the Reformatory Schools Bill have been withdrawn. As to the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill, I am not without hope that the House may see fit to pass it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES, 1892–3.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES, 1892–3.

    CLASS II.
    1. £22,489, to complete the sum for the Public Works Office, Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: The Government agreed yesterday to postpone this Vote, at the request of the hon. Member for Cavan, who desired to raise a question with regard to the drainage of Loch Erne. My hon. Friend has not been able yet to return from Ireland, and I do not think it would be reasonable to ask for any further postponement.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS IV.
    2. £265,000, Supplementary Public Education, Scotland.
    DR. CLARK: I regret that I cannot increase the sum, and the only course I can take will be to move a reduction. What I wish to say is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the course he has taken is hindering the development of free education in Scotland. He allocates this sum, which is equivalent to the English sum, on the theory that Scotland pays eleven per
    1060
    cent., so that this is eleven-eightietht of the English sum. Yesterday the First Lord of the Treasury stated, that this eleven per cent. had been generally accepted, and therefore he thought is ought to be inserted in the Bill. Now we have never had an opportunity of considering this question at all, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not appointed the Committee he promised to give, but has prevented the appointment of that Committee as far as possible. Finding it to be useless to expect the Government to give time, I took the opportunity of balloting in order to have the subject discussed in private members' time, thinking the right hon. Gentleman would gladly accept my aid; but he used the forms of the House to prevent my Motion coming on. I am not going to raise the question, except to say that I protest against this system being carried out on quite different lines from the hon. Member for St. Rollox. I have to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this new method of bookkeeping, and I expect that if it is logically carried out then it will mean at least a million and a half of a saving to Scotland. The conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather unfair. He first got rid of a great deal of discussion on the Budget by agreeing to grant a Commitee of Inquiry, and he has put off on one pretext or another for two years the appointment of that Committee. Last year there was nothing done, and the Committee was never appointed; this year no Committee has been appointed; one hour's discussion has been given to the subject, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has prevented the Committee being appointed in private Members' time. Until that Committee has reported this system ought not to be adopted, but I am very glad that the general lines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal have been adopted. I think that, by the national system of bookkeeping, by-and-bye we shall get one million and a half as the result of it. Unfortunately for Scotland, we are going to suffer because of the application of the principle here. I want to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it will seriously affect Scotland. The Scotch Office ex-

    1061
    pect an increase, and we have voted already Estimates for an increase, of three and a half per cent. of children in Scotland. The same Estimates in England are only in respect of a two and half per cent. increase. I hope and trust that, as far as England is concerned, the two per cent. is too low an estimate, and that at least three per cent. will be the increase; and that, in virtue of having free education, there will be a greater increase in the attendance of children in England, and that you may arrive near to our Scotch estimate. Then we shall have more money for Scotland, but I do object to and protest against the educational development of the more advanced country — more advanced simply because for three hundred years Scotland has had national education—being limited and controlled by the development of the less advanced country, and to our getting the money not in proportion to our own wants, but in proportion to the wants of England.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I would only say, in reply to the hon. Member, that I cannot accept his description of the course which has been followed in regard to the Committee as accurate in any degree. I have repeatedly expressed my anxiety to secure the appointment of the Committee, and not only that, but I have tried to induce Members on the opposite side of the House—I have tried to influence the Welsh Members—to withdraw their opposition to the appointment. Although this Committee has not been appointed, I must entirely disclaim any responsibility on the part of the Government. With reference to the particular night to which the hon. Member alludes, the discussion might have been complicated by the fact that his proposal is not the same as the Government proposal, because he proposes that it should be extended to Wales also; besides which, he himself will feel that it is an extremely late period of the Session to enter upon the subject. I regret that this important inquiry has not taken place.
    Vote agreed to.
    3. £5,000, Supplementary, Universities and Colleges, Great Britain.
    DR. CLARK: I have to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has been able to look at this question from our standpoint, and that he has, to a certain extent, gone beyond the position of last year. I think it is a fair sum, and I tender him my thanks that upon this question he has come to our view.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS V.
    4. £1,700, Supplementary, Diplomatic and Consular Services.
    MR. MORTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs for some explanation in regard to this item of £200, "Copenhagen, provision for chaplaincy restored under special circumstances," &c. This appears to be a new item in this Vote, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give us some explanation why this sum is asked for, and why it is introduced by way of a Supplementary Estimate.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the question as to why this Copenhagen chaplaincy is included in this Vote. The Royal Commission which inquired into the Civil Service recommended that the chaplaincies should be discontinued unless there were special circumstances to the contrary. Consequently, when the late chaplain at Copenhagen resigned his position for some other post, this amount of £200 was not again put into the Estimate. But since then a representation has been made to the Government that this church at Copenhagen, which the chaplain serves, had been raised at an expense of some £13,000 or £14,000 two or three years before, in the confident hope that the chaplaincy would be continued. The English community there is a very poor one, and it now appears that unless this amount is continued the church will have to be abandoned. It seemed a pity that so large a sum should be entirely lost, and I thought, under those circumstances, we should be justified in

    1063
    replacing the sum in the Estimate, and that it would fall within the special circumstances which were contemplated by the Report.
    MR. MORTON: It is for an Episcopal Church?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
    MR. MORTON: This appears to me like an endowment of a particular sect in a foreign country. If we were in the habit of endowing all the sects belonging to this country in foreign countries I could understand it, but why we should proceed at this time to endow a church to the extent of £200 I cannot understand. Surely, if there was any congregation at all, and any good feeling about them, they ought to pay their own minister and their own expenses with regard to the church. I am pleased to know that the Nonconformists always do that, and surely these Episcopalians should pay for their own services. If they cannot do so let them go to other churches in the country. There are Protestant services, I have no doubt, in Copenhagen, which would be good enough for these people; let them learn the language of the country, and then they could get on very well. I do not intend to move the reduction of the Vote, though I should like to if we had a proper opportunity of doing so; but I do say it is a very improper thing, especially after, as I understand, the Royal Commission have reported against it, at this late hour of the Session, and without any notice whatever, for the Government to take this money from the general taxpayers of the country, Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, for the endowment of an Episcopalian church at Copenhagen.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to know whether this is an annual grant, or whether it is only for one year?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: This will be an annual grant, like the other chaplaincies.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VII.
    5. £10,000, Supplementary, Chicago Exhibition, 1893.
    MR. MORTON: I must ask for some explanation with regard to this amount. There is a strong feeling
    1064
    among merchants and traders that we are not doing all we ought to do in order to have this country properly represented at the Chicago Exhibition. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us what is being done under the increased grant, and whether the exhibitors from this country are satisfied with the way in which they are being treated. We ought to be properly represented at the Exhibition, in order to show our American kinsfolk what we can do in this country, and what we are prepared to do.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): This Supplementary Estimate is brought in in consequence of the general desire that was expressed that more money should be spent in connection with English exhibits at the Chicago Exhibition. It was particularly impressed upon the Government that the charge which it was intended to make for space should be done away with, so that every inducement might be given to exhibit the manufactures and industries of this country. Of course, the sum that would have been received from the exhibitors for space would have been taken into account by the Commission as part of the assets, without which they would be unable to carry out the duties which devolved upon them. The Government decided to take notice of the strongly-expressed desire on the subject, and to increase the grant to £60,000, with the view of enabling the Commission to do without charges for space. Therefore, space will be allotted at the Exhibition to those who will undertake to properly represent the manufactures and industries of this country, and I have every reason to believe that this outlay will enable the Commission to secure good results.
    MR. MORTON: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he has made, and I hope that the Government will do everything in their power to have the manufactures and industries of this country properly represented at the Chicago Exhibition.
    Vote agreed to.
    6. £996, Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund.
    7. £18,759, Repayment to the Local Loans Fund.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to move, as an Amendment, the reduction of this Vote by £2,741 12s. 9d., the amount of the loans under the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886. I am not prepared to agree to the granting of this money in consequence of the action of the Scotch Office. I say that the amount should come out of the savings of that Office.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): How can these remarks apply to the present Vote?
    DR. CLARK: They want to make good the loss incurred by the Scotch Office in connection with this matter.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: No; these are repayments which ought to be made under the Act of 1887.
    DR. CLARK: I say that this money should come out of the savings of the Scotch Office, and I object to Parliament granting it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That argument is not at all relevant to this Vote.
    DR. CLARK: Then I will raise the question on the Appropriation Account. It is a matter of comparatively little importance when it is raised, as long as it is raised.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It cannot be raised now.
    MR. MORTON: We ought to have some information before we vote this money. There is a loan of £2,198 14s. 1d. for land improvements in Ireland, another of £1,950 8s. for arterial drainage works in Ireland, and a third of £11,868 for the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland. I should be glad to know where this money has gone to. Has it been advanced to landlords and not been repaid, and is it, therefore, what is called "bad debts"? We are told in the daily and weekly papers, from which we have to get most of our information—we cannot get it from the Government—that the tenants in Ireland pay back the money they borrow, but that the landlords do not do so, as a rule.
    SIR JOHN GORST: Under the Statute the Government are bound to make provision for repaying to the Local Loans Fund loans which
    1066
    are irretrievably lost, so as to keep that fund solvent. The items in question are hopelessly lost, the security being exhausted, and there being no means of making it good.
    MR. MORTON: Who are the borrowers?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: The borrowers are both landlords and tenants; but these losses were incurred in consequence of legal decisions which were given in the Court of Appeal some time ago, and which have deprived the Public Works Commissioners of sums which they had every reason to expect they would recover. Those amounts, therefore, have to be made good. The smaller debts have been provided for; but the Commissioners sustained a serious loss of £100,000 in connection with a scheme of land reclamation which was undertaken in Ireland many years ago. If the attempt had proved successful it would have recouped the Public Works Commissioners the sum that was invested in the undertaking. Unfortunately, in the middle of last year the high tides of the river and a very violent thunderstorm caused a gap to be made in the embankment, and the whole of the land which was to be reclaimed was overflowed. That occurred, not owing to any engineering mistake, but through extraordinary circumstances which could not be foreseen or controlled. The question then arose whether the embankment should be re-constructed and another attempt made to reclaim the land, or whether it would be better to write off the loss and make good the money expended. After consideration, and taking the best advice, the Government came to the conclusion that they would not ask the Commissioners to enter into such a hazardous and speculative enterprise as the re-construction of the embankment and the attempt to reclaim the land, but that it would be better to sell the whole undertaking for what it would fetch, Rightly or wrongly — and I think rightly — that course was taken, and the undertaking sold about a month ago by auction for about £2,000. The speculation may prove a great profit to the purchaser, or a great loss; but the Commissioners have

    1067
    written off £100,000 as bad debts in connection with the undertaking. The present Parliament is not solely responsible for the investment, several Governments having been concerned in it. No doubt, experience has shown that it has been a very disastrous affair; but I think the Committee will be of opinion that the present Administration has made the best of it, and that they have adopted the course which, under the circumstances, was the best to adopt.
    MR. MORTON: I am sorry that the Government have been so unsuccessful in regard to the undertaking; but I understand now that it is the result of a misfortune. I want to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer why these amounts appear at all. If there has been a profit sufficient to make good the bad debts, why does the right hon. Gentleman come to the country for this Vote?—that is, unless the profits go to the benefit of the Exchequer.
    MR. GOSCHEN: That is so. I should explain that these losses were formerly incurred without the attention of Parliament having been called to them. We therefore thought it right that Parliament should now be informed of them, and that it should be asked to vote the money that was lost in the undertaking.
    MR. MORTON: But all the profits are accounted for?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
    Vote agreed to.
    8. £10,000, Foot and Mouth Disease.
    MR. MORTON: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have given some explanation with regard to this £10,000. The only statement we have at present with regard to it is that contained in the footnote at the bottom of the page, which says—
    "Further amount required, in addition to the amount to be recovered as salvage, to provide compensation to owners of animals slaughtered, for employment of Veterinary Inspectors and temporary travelling Inspectors, valuers, and other necessary expenses."
    That means anything and everything. I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he wants the money at all, and how it is to be expended?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I think I can explain. The Committee will remember that in the first instance I asked Parliament for a grant of £15,000 for the purpose of dealing with the outbreak some months ago. Nearly the whole of that amount has been exhausted, and I am able to say that, although the disease had spread through a great number of the counties in England, and also in Scotland, it has now been reduced within limits so narrow that, if I were not afraid of speaking prematurely, I should have said we had nearly stamped it out altogether. That being so, and seeing that last time it cost no less than £3,000,000 to stamp it out, I think that the £15,000 has been well laid out. I am therefore most anxious, as the House is soon to be dissolved, that the Board of Agriculture should not be left in such a position that if, by any misfortune, there should be a recurrence of the outbreak, all the good work that has been done should be lost for want of funds. Although there is no immediate necessity for money, I thought it right to ask for this sum, and I hope that under the circumstances it will be granted.
    Vote agreed to.
    9. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, for expenditure connected with the Colonisation of certain Crofters and Cottars of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland."
    DR. CLARK: Before we discuss this Vote, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it has been introduced? There was an understanding that no really controversial question should be raised at this stage of the Session; but this is a very important question, which is exciting a good deal of feeling in Scotland, and which will require to be discussed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be wiser to withdraw this Vote from the Estimates and to postpone its consideration?
    MR. GOSCHEN: lam somewhat surprised that the point has been raised by the hon. Member, as we were asked some time ago for the money.
    DR. CLARK: By a Commission.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: My recollection is that it was by a Member of Parliament. This is part of the policy of the Government, and I hope the Vote will not be opposed. The hon. Member will remember that the Committee on Colonisation recommended further progress in order to meet the difficulties that existed
    MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: As this is the Government's policy as opposed to that of the Highland people themselves, I hope that the Vote will be opposed. We object to any scheme to induce people to emigrate when there is land in their own country which is open to colonisation. We would like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money the Government are going to devote for the purpose of promoting a policy of emigration from the Highlands? £12,000 has been already spent, and we are now asked for £7,500 more. If emigration is to be carried out, why is it not promoted in the congested districts of the large towns, instead of in the Highlands, where there is not such a necessity for it? I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I have no doubt that he is bound to carry out the policy which is advocated by the Scotch Office; but the fact remains that, as regards relieving the congestion of the Highlands, the Government's policy has done nothing in that respect. On that ground, and upon many others I might mention if I were not anxious to save the time of the Committee, I think the Government's policy has been very undesirable. We were told that we were not to be asked for any more of these annual doles, and we were told also that the holdings which were left should be added to the holdings of those who remained. There has been no such addition made, and therefore the scheme of emigration is of no avail whatever.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: I would just say in reply that it can scarcely be said that the £150,000 of public money is
    1070
    given out of the pockets of the taxpayers for this purpose, because the Colony is perfectly solvent, and gives a guarantee that every shilling of the £150,000 shall be repaid by the Colony itself. I would point out that the families have left because they believe that they will improve their position, that they will be more prosperous in their new homes; and if no more land has been added to the other holdings by the departure of these families, at all events the process must tend to arrest the process of sub-division which is so extremely hurtful to the general interests of the districts. As the Colonies are anxious to have these families, and as these families believe that it is for their interest that they should emigrate, I deprecate attempts at discussion. This policy has not been forced upon the Government by any Members of this House. In Glasgow—where funds were subscribed—and elsewhere, considerable interest was taken in the movement, and a Committee of this House took action in the matter, and practically endorsed their policy.
    *MR. SUTHERLAND: I fully understand that there was nothing more than a guarantee of expense in this matter; but my point is that the same guarantee and security for the return of the money could exist if the same arrangements were made at home. Then, with regard to the point that it prevents sub-division, I would point out that sub-division is already prohibited by the Crofters Act. So that argument has no virtue. And as to the fact that a certain amount of money was subscribed in Glasgow, I was told by an hon. Member of this House that he would do nothing of the kind again, and that he was led to subscribe in the first instance by false pretences. Then I must take exception to the composition of the Board of which the Secretary for Scotland is a member. I have a strong opinion regarding the propriety of an executive officer of the Government being a member of such a Board. The other representatives, the gentlemen from Canada, are the representatives of the land companies and the landlord class, and therefore are vitally interested in this proposal. Therefore

    1071
    on that ground alone we have a perfect right to scrutinise every penny of the money that is to be so devoted.
    DR. CLARK: Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us whether a proportion of this grant is to be subscribed locally—whether this £2,500 is to be so subscribed in order to make up the £10,000?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I think not, Sir.
    DR. CLARK: That is a point raised by my hon. Friend. This Committee was appointed upon the theory that a large amount of local money was to be subscribed—I think £2,000 of the £10,000—and on that ground they were to have control of it. Now, although they are not going to subscribe anything, they are still to have control. It seems to be another form of the jobbery the Scotch Office is endeavouring to perpetrate just at the close of Parliament. I have no confidence in the men who have been conducting the experiment in colonisation. On the two occasions they sent out emigrants to North America they sent them out at the worst possible time. There has been no application of brains in the carrying out of this work. If an important work had had to be determined, then, perhaps, that undertaking costing millions of pounds would have been spoiled in consequence of their folly, inability, ignorance, and the stupid manner in which they went about their work in sending people out at a time when the land could not be prepared for use. When the last grant was made we heard very conflicting accounts as to the condition in which the people who had been sent out were, and as to whether large numbers of them had not left their farms and holdings. The whole of one settlement of fourteen families in Manitoba were so dissatisfied with their treatment in going out, and with the holdings they received on arrival, that they left and got employment in the lumber trade. Thus there was a considerable loss, because money had been spent in procuring them waggons, cattle, and houses. We could not get anything like accurate information from the then Lord Advocate, and I put myself to the trouble of going over this North-Western Territory to look at these people and to come to a personal
    1072
    conclusion as to what had taken place. The result was that I gave evidence before the Colonisation Committee, to the effect that the men we appointed in voting this money had wasted; it that the people were sent out at a period which did not allow an important experiment to be associated with conditions that were conducive to success; and that we were consequently precluded from indications as to whether money could be devoted to such works or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has got the support of the Colonisation Committee. Yes, but that Committee recommended home colonisation as well as foreign colonisation. If our policy had been adopted these people would have been more prosperous and happy at home, and in time would have added to the trade of the country. They would have been a market for the produce of our towns. Instead of that they are away in Manitoba, while we have hundreds of thousands of acres lying waste. Instead of promoting thrifty colonisation at home, and so adding to the national wealth, you are sending it away, and the probability is that the same stupidity which marked the sending of the last batch will be renewed. The most important question the Committee had to consider was the congestion in all our large towns, and in that case it is not seven thousand pounds nor seven millions, but, according to the recommendation of the Committee, it is seventy or eighty millions that you require. This can only be an experiment, as the last one did not have a fair chance owing to the stupidity, of the mode in which it was carried out. I have no confidence that those in charge will do any better now, because they are very much like the Bourbons. They never learn, and experience does not teach them. What you want in relation to this subject is not a paltry seven or ten thousand pounds, but a well-matured scheme, one that the Government will be responsible for, and one introduced at a period of the Session when there is full opportunity for discussion. At this late juncture we cannot discuss the subject, but have to rush it through. I object to the money being spent, because I can see no earthly reason

    1073
    why it should be spent. I do not know what is the relative amount you are going to allot. The sum previously voted was not sufficient to give families a fair chance, and I think the Committee recommended that you should give a much larger sum. Is your present theory based upon £120, £140, or £180? How much per head have you estimated for? How many do you intend sending out? We have had no information from the Government as to the reason for asking for this small sum. How is it to be spent, and what do you expect to derive from it? Perhaps the Lord Advocate will give us some information, in order that the people who will be induced to go away may know that they will have a fair start in another country. Are you making preparations for the building of the houses before the people get there; are you going to carry out your scheme in a more rational manner than before; and where are you going to send the people—to Australia, Canada, or South Africa, or where? I think the House ought to have some information as to what you are going to do.
    *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I can assure the hon. Member that the Government have been using this money very much, though not perhaps exactly, on the lines on which the previous experiments were made. The hon. Member asked how much per head was to be allowed. I think it has been found that the figure hitherto fixed per family was wanting in elasticity, because families differ very much in size, and therefore it is proposed to allow a sum considerably more elastic than the amount hitherto proposed for families going out. For example, if a family consists to some extent of grown-up sons, that fact, instead of being a reason for more is an argument for less money, because these sons are capable of contributing to the earnings. Some of the families which have gone out are getting on quite well on £100. On the other hand, I think the average is to be considerably more than £100—I think £150 or £157. With reference to the time and mode of sending out, I think the hon. Member will give the
    1074
    Government credit for endeavouring to send the families out at the best time. There are seasons when it is impossible to send colonists to Canada. At the same time, it is right that the money should be in the hands of the Colonisation Committee, in order that they may not be hampered when they see opportunity of carrying out the scheme. I think this is the first time I have heard anything of a proposal to colonise South Africa from the Highlands, and I think, therefore, the hon. Gentleman who suggested that was going rather beyond the sphere hitherto marked out. In the first instance, the colonists were sent to the North-West of Canada, and I think the success of the colonists who have gone there justifies us in adhering to it. It is quite true that in some cases families have found that they could do better elsewhere; that was only to be expected; but it is not in every case a loss of money to the Government, for there is increased security in the enhanced value of the holdings.
    *MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: It must, in reference to what the Lord Advocate has said, be remembered that it was not choice that led the Scotch Office to Canada. There was a deliberate and systematic attempt made to try every Colony and every country in the world, and it was only when every other Colony refused to have anything to do with them that it was decided to send the colonists to America, so that what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) said has not been answered by the speech of the Lord Advocate.
    MR. MCDONALD CAMERON (, &c.): Under the circumstances, it is right that the Vote should not be passed without some strong protest. I consider that this question should be met by migrating people from one place to another at home, and by purchasing land for the purpose of settlement. The Crofters Act did not go so far as that, but you have not even given expression to the clauses of the Crofters Act. My hon. Friend's (Dr. Clark) reference to South Africa was justified, for I believe that there was not a single part of Australia, or any other part of

    1075
    the Colonies, in regard to which investigation was not made.
    DR. CLARK: I do not think the Lord Advocate will get more than a small portion of the money devoted to the holdings which have been left. If you held these holdings until the districts developed you would get more. In the case of the large families with grown-up sons the Lord Advocate has referred to, he did not state that a large portion of the expenses is represented by the outfit of these sons, their passage across, the cost of the railway journey of 2,000 miles to the scene of their destination, and their maintenance there until they are in a self-supporting position. A scheme of this sort should come before us earlier in the Session, and then we could consider it. In its present form it is objectionable, and we ought, therefore, to oppose it.
    Question put.
    (5.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 61.—(Div. List, No. 187.)

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  10. £20,000, Supplementary, Post Office Telegraphs.
  MR. LODER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Sir James Fergusson) whether this Vote is for the purpose of carrying out the Resolution recently passed in the House to the effect that better communication should be established between lighthouses and lightships and the coastguards and lifeboat stations along the coast? My recollection is that the Government promised to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into this question, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can inform the Committee when it will be nominated.
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): This sum has no reference to any further experiments in placing lighthouses or lightships under telegraphic service. That question is delegated to a Royal Commission which I understand will be immediately appointed. This £20,000 is to be devoted to increase telegraphic communication with selected parts of the coast which are peculiarly liable to be the scenes of shipwrecks, and where
  1076
  experience has shown that more speedy communication with coastguard stations and lifeboat stations is necessary. I may say that some of the principal points are on the south and west coasts of England and on the coast of Aberdeen.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

CASUAL WARDS BILL.—(No. 384.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): As the object of this Bill is to make some changes with regard to the treatment of the casual poor, I think I ought to make some statement as to the reasons which prompted the Government to introduce it, and also as to what it proposes to do. I have been myself for a long time dissatisfied with regard to the manner in which the casual poor of London are dealt with, and I have supplemented a personal investigation in London by that of Inspectors. The result has been to show that, although London is one unit in respect of casuals, yet the treatment of casuals has been in the different Unions of a very varied character. It is obvious that this is a condition of things which is not conducive to the proper treatment of casuals. The natural effect of such a state of things is that a tendency exists for casuals to go to those wards where they are accorded the most lenient treatment, and to keep away from those where they are more rigorously dealt with. A great deal of pressure is therefore brought to bear upon some wards, while in others the applications are comparatively few. Now, Sir, I found that the chief variations in the casual wards in the Metropolis were with reference to the hour of discharge and the task the casuals had to perform. As the law at present stands, no casual is entitled to demand his discharge until nine o'clock in the morning, although the Guardians may at their discretion allow a man to discharge himself before that time. I have issued two circulars in the course

  1077
  of the last year or two to Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis pointing out the great hardship which is involved in respect of men who are honestly desirous of searching for work in detaining them until an hour when it is almost impossible for them to obtain it; and I have suggested that in a case of that kind the Guardians might exercise the discretion vested in them, and allow the casuals to discharge themselves earlier. I find that in a considerable number of instances the suggestion contained in these circulars has been acted upon, but there still exist several wards in which the casuals are detained to, I think, an unduly late hour. Well, Sir, this matter is one I am able to deal with by Order, and I have within the last few days issued an Order to all the Unions in the Metropolis making it compulsory upon them to allow casuals who have to the best of their ability discharged the task of work imposed upon them to discharge themselves at half-past five in the summer and half-past six in the winter. This will enable the honest wayfarer to seek for work at a time when it is most readily secured. The question of the variation in the task of work imposed is one of much more difficulty, and I have invited the Boards of Guardians in London to appoint delegates to attend a conference at the Local Government Board Offices for the purpose of ascertaining whether arrangements cannot be made by which these various tasks may be reduced to something like uniformity. Now, Sir, the matter dealt with in the Bill before the House refers to another branch of the subject. I have been very much struck by representations which have been made to me with respect to the very large number of refusals of admission which occur every year in the casual wards of London. I think that arrangements with reference to casuals should be of such a nature as to prevent the possibility of these refusals taking place. In my opinion, it is the absolute duty of Boards of Guardians to make such provision as will enable them to relieve all destitute persons. The fact that in London at a certain period of the year poor wayfarers are turned away from the casual wards owing to there being no room for
  1078
  them, while accommodation is not found for them elsewhere, is to me an indication that the Poor Law has in this respect broken down. Now, it so happens that while there is a considerable pressure upon some wards, and refusals take place every night, there are other wards where this state of things does not exist. To my mind, there ought to be some means by which applicants who have to be refused admission to a particular casual ward should be informed of other wards in which there is accommodation, or you may have these unfortunate persons travelling about footsore hour after hour seeking for a place of shelter and eventually finding none. This Bill proposes to set up a central station which shall be in telephonic communication with all the casual wards of London, so that if a casual applies for admittance to a ward where there is no room he may be informed of the various wards where there is accommodation. And this Bill further proposes that in cases where the distance from one ward to another may be remote, the Central Authority may provide some means for the conveyance of the casuals. The Bill goes a step further. Taking the Metropolis as a whole, there is, I think, a distinct deficiency in the matter of casual poor accommodation, which is very largely owing to the fact that there are several Unions in the Metropolis that do not provide casual wards at all, relying upon the casual poor being received in the neighbouring Unions. Now, Sir, the Local Government Board may call upon Boards of Guardians who have not provided casual wards to do so; but in case the Guardians do not obey the Order, the remedy is a very cumbrous one. We have to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus to compel the Boards of Guardians to do what they have been called upon to do. This takes a great deal of time; it is attended with great trouble, and not always with success. I think, therefore, there should be some Central Body charged with the duty of providing such casual accommodation as the Local Government Board may consider necessary in the event of default being made by the Boards of Guardians. We take power in this Bill to call upon the

  1079
  Central Authority referred to therein to provide wards in those cases where the Guardians have neglected to do so. The only remaining question which I think it is necessary to trouble the House with, is what the Central Body should be. And, Sir, I have come to the conclusion that the Metropolitan Asylums Board is the authority we ought to make use of for the purposes of this Bill. First, because it is the only Poor Law Authority in London, an authority that has charge of a very large number of the sick poor; but there is another reason—namely, they have the necessary provision at their ambulance station, in the form of horses, &c., in case they wish to put in force the power given them in this Bill of conveying casuals from one ward to another when the distance is too far for them to walk. These, Sir, are the provisions of the Bill. They are extremely simple, and I hope they will commend themselves to the House. I have no doubt whatever that if the Metropolitan Asylums Board is charged with the duties proposed to be imposed upon them they will discharge those duties in a manner satisfactory to the people of London, as they have, I think, hitherto discharged all their duties. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—Mr. Ritchie.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

CORONERS' DEPUTIES BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  As amended, further considered.
  DR. CLARK: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton), I should like to move to leave out the words "Lord Chancellor," for the purpose of inserting the words "the County Council."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I rise to a point of Order. On a previous occasion an Amendment was brought forward on
  1080
  line 17, and we have now got past the point at which the hon. Member proposes to make an Amendment.
  On Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 1, page 1, lines 18 and 19, leave out "or by the chairman or mayor, as the case may be, of the council who appointed the coroner"; page 2, line 13, leave out "two," and insert "three."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  DR. CLARK: There is a great change made by this Bill in introducing the Lord Chancellor, and I think it would be well to postpone it till tomorrow, in order that we may consider the matter.
  MR. PICTON: I am sorry I was not in my place just now. I was only called out for a moment on a matter of Parliamentary business. I must say that there is amongst my constituents a very strong objection to this Bill, and I believe that objection is shared by other towns. It is a move in the direction of centralisation, and many of us think we have got enough of that already. The counties are quite capable of managing their own business without the interference of the Lord Chancellor. When the Coroner desires to appoint a deputy the matter is referred to an altogether different authority from that which is responsible for the appointment of the chief officer. I think this matter has been rather rushed upon the House, and there has not been sufficient time to consider it; and I think that not only at the end of a Parliamentary Session, but at the end of a Parliament, to press a matter of this kind, which is really a substantial change without the knowledge of the Municipalities, is not only an imprudent but an unstatesmanlike course. I suppose I should not now be in Order to move the Amendment of which I have given notice, but I should like to ask if I should be in Order to move the re-committal of the Bill for the purpose of inserting those words in Clause 1?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in Order.
  MR. PICTON: Then I move that the Bill be re-committed.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," in order to add the words "re-committed in respect of Clause 1."—(Mr. Picton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  Question put.
  (6.5.) The House divided:—Ayes 119; Noes 55.—(Div. List, No. 188.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

WITNESSES (PUBLIC INQUIRIES) PROTECTION (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 365.)
  CHANGED FROM

    WITNESSES (ROYAL COMMISSIONS AND PARLIAMENT) PROTECTION BILL.—(No. 287.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 30th May.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I understand this Bill is a conglomeration of two Bills which have been referred to a Select Committee; but there are in the first clause some words which I do not understand. In line 7 occur the words "or pursuant to any statutory authority." I can understand the words "Royal Commission," or a "Committee of either House of Parliament"; but these words I do not understand, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to explain what they mean. They are not intended to apply to Courts of Justice; and if they are merely general words they are very dangerous in this Bill, and I move that they be omitted.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "or pursuant to any statutory authority."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HAYES FISHER: It would very much weaken the Bill if these words were left out. Before the Select Committee, which was unanimous in passing this Bill, this question was argued fully, and it was thought to be most desirable that it should apply to all such inquiries as are held by the Board of Trade referring to railway questions and other inquiries at which people in the position of railway servants would be called upon to give evidence. It was proposed by the hon. Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell) and the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh) that this Bill should include such departmental inquiries as these. I hope this explanation will satisfy the hon. Member, and that he will not proceed with his Amendment.
    *MR. MCLAREN: I hope the House will pass this Bill in the strongest possible form. As a Member of the Select Committee which inquired into the hours of railway servants, I feel that it is very necessary that this Bill should become law. Had it been passed earlier it would have enabled us to get probably more accurate evidence, and better evidence; and I should very deeply regret if, especially from this side of the House, Amendments were moved to minimise the effect of this Bill. I fully agree with what has been said by the hon. Member opposite, and I think these statutory inquiries will be held more frequently in the future. It is of the utmost importance that the railway servants should have perfect liberty and freedom in giving evidence before inquiries of the kind which are included in this Bill, and I have sufficient knowledge of Railway Directors and of Railway Managers to know that this may be a matter of the utmost difficulty. It may be that that does not apply more to Railway Managers than to many other large employers; but I believe if this Bill had been passed earlier, the result of the Breach of Privilege Debate in the matter of the man Hood would have been very different from what it was. I trust the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    MR. DARLING: These words give protection to persons who may give evidence before a very im-

    1083
    portant class of inquiry, and they were unanimously agreed upon in the Committee, because it was thought that this protection should be given. These words are looked upon as highly important by the class which would be affected by any inquiry into railway questions, and I do not see why any objection should be raised to full protection being given. The Courts of Law have power to protect witnesses who give evidence before them, and I do not see why witnesses who are called by the inquiries which are contemplated by this Bill should be deprived of protection. If these words were omitted the Bill would be of comparatively little use. I fail to see what is the ground of objection to these words, and I do not see why any class should be deprived of protection.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I can assure the hon. Member that I have not the smallest desire to exclude from the Bill the class of persons to whom he has referred, and I admit the reasonableness of what has been said, that all classes of persons should be protected in giving evidence. At the same time, the class of inquiries to which this Bill can refer is not large, and I think it would have been better if they had been specified. What I had in my mind was a totally different class of inquiry from anything that has been mentioned. We frequently have in Ireland Star Chamber inquiries under the first clause of the Crimes Act. Those hon. Members who were in the House in 1887 will remember the struggle we had with the Government over this clause, and how it was extended by our Amendments. I am anxious that the work that we then did should not now be all undone by a few casual words in a Bill of this kind. It is very desirable that witnesses should be properly protected, and I do not desire that even witnesses who give evidence before a Star Chamber inquiry should be molested, but I am very anxious that the concessions we obtained after hard fighting should not be swept away by a few words inserted in another Bill. I will look at the words again before the Bill reaches another stage, and I will now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL. HICKS BEACH,): There is one point I am anxious to raise on this clause. The Bill is one to which I have given some attention, on account of what took place upon the Select Committee on the Hours of Railway Servants, and I think it will be a very useful alteration in the law. The one point which I am anxious to bring before the House, with a view of obtaining the opinion of some hon. and learned Members who may have considered this subject, is this: Paragraph B of the second clause provides that any person
    "who threatens, or in any way punishes, damnifies, or injures, or attempts to punish, damnify, or injure, any person for having given evidence upon any inquiry, or in respect of the nature, quality, or character of the evidence which he has given upon any such inquiry, unless such evidence is shown to have been given in bad faith,"
    shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and be liable upon conviction, &c. Only the other day before the Royal Commission on Labour several witnesses attempted in their evidence to promulgate what really were libels against other persons, which libels had formed the matters of action in Courts of Law, and for which they had been punished. I do not know whether as the Bill now stands it would or would not be possible for a person—I am not talking of a railway servant or anyone in that position—to go before a Committee of this House or a Royal Commission and promulgate an atrocious libel against some person who would by this clause be debarred from bringing an action against him in a Court of Law. That would be a very serious matter indeed, and I trust that that would not be the effect of the Bill. What I want to know is whether the words "given in bad faith" will include a case of that kind?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point, but he has learned advisers beside him who must be capable of informing the House how

    1085
    the matter rests. I hope if they are not satisfied that an action for libel would lie under those circumstances, they will make it clear that such would be the case.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I will look into the matter with pleasure if it be desired, but my attention has not been called to it before, my right hon. Friend only mentioning it to me just before he rose. The real answer is that the Bill does not touch that particular question. The law would not be altered in that respect by the Bill at all. Anybody giving evidence in a Court of Law is absolutely privileged, except in very rare cases, where a man goes out of his way and volunteers a statement which has nothing whatever to do with the case. The Bill leaves the law as it is. In answer to the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), I would say that if an action for libel lay before the passing of the Bill, an action would lie after it has passed. The Bill contemplates punishing persons preventing others from giving evidence. I will, however, look into the matter, and if there is any doubt it can be dealt with on Report. Words might be inserted to show that nothing in this Bill should affect any such right of action, but my impression is that there is nothing in the Bill affecting it.
    MR. FENWICK: I am sorry I was prevented by illness from being present at the Committee, and I shall now have to object to the first sub-section of Clause 2, as, in my judgment, it is too wide. That is also the view of a large number of working men who have had an opportunity of considering the question. I fear, as a layman, that Sub-section (a), as it stands, would cover the action of a committee of a trade society passing a resolution to the effect that it was undesirable that any members of the society should give evidence before an inquiry held under statutory authority, and make them guilty of a criminal offence. That is a position of things to which I hope the House will not give its sanction, and it is certainly wider than anything which was said in the course of the Cambrian Railway discussion some time ago. If the sub-section is
    1086
    persisted in, I shall have to challenge the question by dividing the Committee in reference to it. It would, as it stands, cover numerous cases before witnesses had even come to give evidence.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question at present before the Committee. It will make it more regular if the hon. Member will now move to omit Sub-section (a).
    *MR. FENWICK: I move, Sir.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "Sub-section (a)."—(Mr. Fenwick.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I think the hon. Member for Wansbeck has raised a point well worthy of consideration, but his Amendment goes too far. I admit that it is open to question whether the words "hinders or attempts to hinder" are not too wide. I can very well understand that hindering might be done by proper and justifiable persuasion which ought not to be brought within the purview of the law. I think that persuasion might be used quite as much in the interest of the workmen as of the employer. If the hon. Member would confine his Amendment to striking out the word "hinder," which has a doubtful meaning, I think that would meet his view, and we might discuss the matter.
    *MR. FENWICK: May I point out that the word "intimidate" would be just as objectionable as the word "hinders," unless you define the term "intimidation." If I endeavour to persuade a fellow-workman not to give evidence it may be held in a Court of Law that I have intimidated him, and unless you define that term the word is as objectionable as the word "hinders."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The difficulty might be removed by taking the definition of intimidation as it is in the Trades Unions Act, where it is limited. I agree that these words are rather too wide. If you get rid of the word "hinder" you should also get rid of the word "prevent."
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I do not think the general scope of the Bill is too wide; but I agree that these particular words are capable of misinterpretation. I would suggest that the question should stand over to the Report stage, so that the Attorney General may consider it.
    MR. MCLAREN: The valuable part of the sub-section is that it would punish employers who prevented workmen giving evidence, and I think that side is as important as that put forward by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick). A man might be hindered or prevented from giving evidence by an expression of opinion on the part of his employer; but that would not be intimidation as defined by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I think we should endeavour to leave the subsection in such a form that it will prevent such action on the part of the employer, even by means of persuasion, which is very difficult to challenge in a Court of Law. As the sub-section stands, I think the committee of a trade society passing a resolution that it is inexpedient that any of its members should give evidence would come under the clause, and, therefore, I think it is too wide. But I should object to leaving it out altogether, and I do not think it would meet the necessities of the case to strike out "hinders" and "prevents" and to leave in "intimidate." There would be many ways, which could not be called intimidation, in which employers would try to prevent their workmen giving evidence.
    MR. DARLING: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Fenwick) should make this proposition, for one of the Bills referred to the Committee of which I was a Member was called the "Bill for the better protection of witnesses giving evidence on Parliamentary and other public inquiries." That Bill was backed, among others, by the hon. Member, and the second section of the Bill provided that whoever, without lawful excuse, should in any way interfere with any person so as to prevent, or with a view to preventing, such person giving evidence should incur the penalties provided in the Bill. That Bill
    1088
    proposed to make it an offence, not to intimidate or hinder, but simply to interfere with a person desiring to give evidence. The resolution of a trade committee such as has been referred to would be interfering, and would have come under the Bill. Hon. Members seem to think that while a body of workmen prevent other workmen giving evidence it is all right, but that it is all wrong when the employers prevent them. I think the principle in the hon. Member's Bill is the better one; but, at any rate, we should adhere to the sub-section as it stands, as I do not think anybody will be hurt by it.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I have listened to the discussion, and it seems to me that if we leave out the words "hinders, intimidates, prevents, or attempts to prevent" for the purpose of inserting the words "by threats or intimidation, prevents or attempts to prevent," that would meet the case. It would limit the offence to threats or intimidation, which are sufficiently defined, and the prevention or attempt to prevent by these means would meet the object of the Bill.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Government have made themselves responsible for this Bill, and yet it is only at this stage that we by chance find out these defects in it. I quite agree that "hinders" is too strong, and I think that those who assist the passing of this Bill will find that they are cutting a rod for their own backs. I take the view that this is a very dangerous Bill, which will be mischievous in Ireland and probably in England. The Attorney General says that intimidation has been defined—so far as I know it has not been defined; and it is used in Statutes exactly because it is impossible to define it. Until this word was introduced the theory of English law was that a criminal offence must be defined with the greatest strictness. The word "intimidation" was expressly selected to cover a mass of matter that could not be defined, and up to this day that word has not been defined. It purports to be defined in the Irish Coercion Act, but that definition is simply an extension of the meaning of the word. I do not think my hon. Friend's position would be any better if he struck out the word

    1089
    "hinder," while so vague a word as "intimidation" is left in. This is a very serious Bill, and yet we have not a single Amendment on the Paper. It creates a new misdemeanour, and apparently the Law Officers of the Crown have not even read or considered the Bill. If the Bill is to be passed this Session, it should be done after careful consideration.
    MR. FENWICK: The hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) has pointed out that I backed a Bill in which the term "interfere" was used, but he passed very lightly over these qualifying words, "without lawful excuse," and he will not find the word "intimidate" in that Bill. All the trouble and difficulty that has arisen in connection with the Trades Union Act has arisen in consequence of the vagueness of the term "intimidation." We have had again and again to appeal from learned Recorders and County Court Judges to the Court of Queen's Bench in order to have justice done to the members of trade societies. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) suggested that we should take the definition of intimidation as it appears in the Trades Union Act. There is no definition of it in that Act. If the word "intimidate" is to remain in the sub-section, there must be a Definition Clause added to the Bill, giving a clear definition of the meaning of the word, otherwise the Bill will not be acceptable to the great mass of working men in the country. I am anxious for the passing of the Bill, so that the workmen should have that protection to which they are entitled when they give evidence before statutory authorities; but I also wish to prevent the misunderstandings which have occurred through the wide interpretation of the word "intimidation."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This is a serious question, and one which ought not to be lightly disposed of. I would suggest that it should be considered before Report, as we cannot be too careful as to the words used in creating a new offence. We should save the time of the House if the sub-section were omitted for the present, and another brought up on the Report. In the meantime, hon.
    1090
    Members representing the trades unions would have an opportunity of considering the words suggested by the Attorney General. I think the words suggested by the hon. Gentleman are an improvement, but I also think that all parties concerned in the Bill should have an opportunity of considering them.
    MR. HAYES FISHER: I hope the Committee will not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, for we shall probably not have a greater assembly of lawyers present on Report than we have now. We on this side should be most willing to accept the words suggested by the Attorney General. So far from this Bill not having been considered up to the present by the Law Officers of the Crown, the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) was Chairman of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and it was considered in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), and the whole Committee was unanimous in passing the Bill in its present form. We cannot do better than accept the words suggested by the Attorney General, which will be found all that can be desired.
    MR. ROBERTSON: I share the dislike to the use of the word "intimidate," as I believe there is no authoritative definition of it. It was defined in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act as such intimidation as would justify a Magistrate in binding over the person intimidating to keep the peace. That was repeated in the Conspiracy Act of 1875 as it left this House, but it was struck out in the House of Lords, and the word was left absolutely undefined. The Plymouth case was taken to the Superior Court. The Court held that the facts brought before Mr. Bompas did not constitute a case of intimidation under the Act; but they did not go beyond the bare facts before them, and they refused to define intimidation in the way in which we tried to define it by the Act of last Session. We made an attempt to restore the Act of 1875 to the condition in which it originally left the House of Commons. We tried to get rid of the mischief which the

    1091
    House of Lords had done, but we were beaten by hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I venture to suggest that we should leave out the word "intimidates" in Sub-section (a), and define it by a Definition Clause; and if that is in order, let the Definition Clause extend to intimidation wherever it occurs.
    MR. R. T. REID (, &c.): I do not think the hon. Gentleman was quite accurate in saying that we were all unanimous in selecting this word. Some of us, myself amongst the number, preferred the word that appeared in the Bill of the hon. Member for Hackney. Now, I want to point out that the object of this sub-section is to place a person who interferes with witnesses before a Committee of this House in the same position as a person who interferes with witnesses in a Court of Justice. There is no definition of what is a contempt of Court, and yet it is a very wide offence, and it depends upon the discretion and judgment of the Court whether a contempt of Court has been committed by interfering with witnesses. I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Robertson) is a very good suggestion—namely, that we should leave out the word "intimidates" and then define the word "intimidate" by the Definition Clause at the end of the Bill. It seems to me that it would work out somewhat in this way: that intimidation should consist of threats of violence, or of injury, or loss of employment or wages.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: If my Amendment passes it will be an improvement, to a certain extent at all events, and then some hon. Members and hon. and learned Members might try their hand at defining "intimidation" later on in the Bill.
    MR. MCLAREN: Would the Government be willing to admit now that a Definition Clause should be put in the Bill?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: No.
    *MR. MCLAREN: Then that would leave us pretty much as we were. Though I entirely agree that the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman would make the Bill better than it is, they would not meet the main objection raised on this side of the
    1092
    House—namely, that the word "intimidation" undefined is objectionable. We would gladly accept the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman if they were merely to be a stepping-stone. But we cannot accept them unless it is made quite clear that some definition shall be put in the Bill, and that it shall be considered also before the Bill leaves Committee, and not on the Report stage, which I think would not be satisfactory.
    MR. CREMER: I hope my hon. Friend will press this question to a Division, because it is an exceedingly important one. If this sub-section were passed in the form in which it appears in the Bill, it would lead to a great deal of litigation in the future. Already it has created a great deal of feeling out-of-doors. We do not want this feeling to become intensified, and find ourselves at no distant day involved in a conflict with the authorities arising out of this unfortunate sub-section. I think it is only fair that it should be stated that when the Committee sat upstairs we were placed in a most unfortunate dilemma. The Committee sat only three hours. There were two Bills to consider: one introduced by the hon. Gentleman on the opposite side and one by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney. They were essentially lawyers' Bills, as many of us saw from the first; and it was somewhat difficult for us to quite master the details of either of them. When it was proposed that we should take the two Bills and roll them into one, the matter became still more complicated, and some of the most learned Members of the Committee confessed once or twice during our discussions that they were not quite clear what we were doing. ("Oh, oh!") Well, I remember the question being put by one Member of the Committee:—? "Where are we, Mr. Chairman?" ("Oh!") Yes; that question was put. I remember it perfectly well; and if the hon. Member charges his memory I think he will recollect it. I think, therefore, I am quite consistent in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend to omit Sub-section (a). I have spoken to friends who are old Trades

    1093
    Union leaders, with quite as much experience as any of us here can claim to possess, and they all agree as to the great danger and difficulty there would be in giving effect to this clause. I respectfully suggest to the Attorney General to carry out the wishes of my hon. Friend, because he is simply voicing the general feeling, so far as I can gather, of Trades Unions out of doors, irrespective of political considerations.
    MR. FENWICK: I would suggest to the learned Attorney General, as a solution of the difficulty, to accept the words that have already been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries Burghs. I should then be prepared to accept Sub-section (a) in that form—
    "In order to obstruct the due course of any inquiry, by threats of violence, or of injury, or logs of employment or wages, prevents, or attempts to prevent, any person from appearing or giving evidence on any such inquiry."
    But, as I understand the learned Attorney General seems to have made up his mind to retain the word "intimidates" in the Bill; and as I understood from a gesture made by him a short time ago he does not intend even to insert a Definition Clause in the Bill defining what is meant by intimidation. If that be so, then we shall be obliged to fight the Bill through all its future stages.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member for Wansbeck seems to be under a misapprehension. I have not intimated by gesture or otherwise that I would accept no definition of "intimidation." What I said was that I would require to see what the definition was before I would be prepared to support it. It is much more difficult to define it than the hon. Member thinks. The drafting of such a clause requires a great deal of consideration.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think that remark rather strengthens what I ventured to say some time ago—that this is far too important a matter to legislate upon in a hurry. It is quite obvious that it requires the most careful consideration. I must say that it is rather late in the Session to deal with a matter of such a serious character. I do not blame the Government. But it is quite plain that this is a very ticklish clause, and
    1094
    nothing more should be done with regard to it without full consideration. Therefore, I again repeat the suggestion which I ventured to make to the Attorney General, as the definition of "intimidation" will require consideration, that he should postpone this subsection for the purpose of bringing up well-considered words on Report, so that we might have an opportunity of seeing how the matter stands.
    MR. CREMER: I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I am at a loss to understand why the Attorney General, after having stated that there is extreme difficulty in defining "intimidation," should persist in retaining sub-section (a) in this Bill. Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at that conclusion, I think we should be neglecting the duty which we were sent here to discharge if we did not make every effort in our power to prevent this clause passing in its present obnoxious form.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Cremer.)
    MR. DARLING: As I understood the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was that, for the present at all events, we should omit Sub-section (a) altogether, and then to consider whether we should put something better instead of it. For my own part, I should be in favour of accepting that suggestion to omit Subsection (a). I would go further, and say, so far as I am concerned, I should not desire to put anything at all in the place of it.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I made the suggestion seriously, and not with the object of throwing ridicule on this Bill. If we-are to go on with this Bill, it is quite plain that these words must be reconsidered. I think, upon the whole, the better course is to report Progress, and let the matter be considered fully. Therefore, having in view that the real object of the Bill may be carried out, I am prepared to support the Motion for reporting Progress.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I hope the hon. Member will persist in

    1095
    his Motion. If I had any doubt as to the attitude which I should take towards this Bill, that doubt would be removed by the attitude shown by the hon. Member for Deptford. The hon. Member is interested in the Bill not for Trades Unions, but because he thinks it could be used against Trades Unions. The hon. Member will permit us to draw our own conclusions from the observations he has made.
    MR. DARLING: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I used no such expression. What I said was that I was perfectly willing to accept the course suggested of omitting the sub-section and substituting nothing instead of it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the Question before the Committee is the Motion to report Progress.
    MR. HEALY: One of the most extraordinary invitations I ever heard from those Benches came from the Attorney General a while ago. This is a clause creating a new criminal offence—a misdemeanour; and he issues an invitation to all and sundry to come forward and assist him to frame a definition for this new criminal offence. Is that the way legislation is to be conducted in this House? I submit the Government should know their own mind in this matter, and that this matter is not to be dealt with by private Members, but by those who are responsible for the Government of the country.
    SIR HORACE DAVEY: I shall support the Motion to report Progress on this ground. It appears to me that the substantial question before the House is not the question of draftsmanship, but it is the question of what the Government really mean. I think it would be better to postpone the discussion till another day, when the Government may be able to tell us—perhaps they might be able to put it on the Paper in order that we might be able to consider it—what their meaning is. I think, perhaps, the best suggestion that has been made has been made by the hon. Member for Dumfries, and I am prepared to support that suggestion.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that
    1096
    this is not a Government Bill at all.
    SIR HORACE DAVEY: But the Government have taken it up.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Not at all. All that the Government have done, as it appears to me, is to bring forward this unopposed Bill so as to prevent it from being defeated. The Government have no responsibility whatever in the matter.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: All the more reason, I think, why the Government should agree to report Progress. It is quite plain, and the Attorney General himself has admitted, that this sub-section as it stands is not satisfactory; and, that being so, the best course for the Government to take is to allow Progress to be reported, which will afford time for further consideration.
    MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to suggest that instead of using the words suggested by the Attorney General for Sub-section (a), Clause 2, the words used in Subsection (b) should be substituted, and the Sub-section (a) should then run—"any one who threatens, damnifies, or injures any person in order to prevent any person from appearing or giving evidence upon any such inquiry," thus doing away with the necessity for using the word "intimidation" altogether.
    MR. ROBERTSON: I think there is something to be said for the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oldham. The Report stage is not a convenient opportunity for a discussion on the definition of "intimidation," which is essentially a matter on which Members ought to be able to speak as often as they think necessary. Therefore I support the Motion to report Progress, and I hope the Government will consent to it.
    Question put.
    (7.30.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 70.—(Div. List, No. 189.)
    Original Question put, and negatived.
    Words omitted.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: The Attorney General was asked whether or not this clause would prevent an action for libel if a witness had misconducted himself by uttering libellous matter when evidence was given. He said that it would not, and that the law would not be altered by this clause passing into law. I am not concerned to preserve actions for libel in cases of this kind, but it would be desirable to know whether it is the intention of the Government that the clause should stand as amended, or whether it is their intention to bring up a fresh subsection in lieu of sub-section (a)?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The Government have no responsibilty in the matter beyond what has already been stated by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It seems to me that the question whether any sub-section should be drawn up in substitution for the Sub-section (a) is really a matter for the consideration of the promoters of the Bill. I think the Bill will work very well as the clause stands without the sub-section; but if the promoters think it desirable to bring up anything further, I suppose they may do so, but I do not see why the responsibility should be thrown upon me.
    MR. HEALY: I submit that this is a very unsatisfactory way to leave this matter in. Are the Government responsible for this Bill or not?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: No.
    MR HEALY: They are not responsible for it. Well, then, who is responsible for it? because it unquestionably makes a very serious change in the law, and I think we ought to have some guidance from the Government. Are the Government willing that the clause as it now stands should pass into law, and that that should be the beginning and ending of the matter, because if, as I understand, it is the intention of the promoters to bring up something in place of Sub-section (a), then the whole controversy will be revived. The hon. and learned Attorney General says that he is not responsible for the Bill, and of course that is technically true; but I do think it is a matter for the consideration of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I ask him, speaking as he does in some
    1098
    sense for the Government, whether he intends to leave the clause as it stands, and if the promoters bring up any clause in substitution for Sub-section (a), is he willing that it should pass in that way?
    *MR. MCLAREN: The difficulty is that two of the hon. Members who have charge of the Bill are not here. The hon. Member who sits behind the Attorney General (Mr. Hayes Fisher) is, I take it, in charge of the Bill, because his name stands second on the list; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester, whose name stands first on the Bill, and who has taken all the credit—perhaps more than he deserves—for it, is away. He is attending, I suppose, to other duties in securing his own seat at Chester, and is neglecting the Bill which he has brought before the House. If he were here he would be able to tell us what Amendments he was willing to accept. He has left the hon. Member for Fulham in charge of the Bill, but I think that during the course of this Debate the hon. Member has rather given us the impression that he has tried to throw his responsibility upon the Government. The Government equally refuse to accept the responsibility, and throw it back upon goodness knows whom. At any rate, this House is in the curious position of having a Bill discussed of which nobody takes charge. The hon. Member does not take any authoritative charge of it, and he does not tell us what Amendments he will accept or what his course will be with regard to this sub-section which has been omitted. He agreed to the omission because he did not challenge any Division. It is desirable we should know whether he will accept an Amendment on the lines suggested by my hon. Friends below me on the Report stage, or whether he proposes that the Bill should go on without any addition being made in place of Sub-section (a)?
    MR. HAYES FISHER: I am in the position of second godfather to this Bill. The first godfather, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh), is unfortunately away, but that also applies to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Hackney.
    MR. MCLAREN: No. His name is not on the Bill.
    MR. FISHER: But he is joint-author of this Bill, and he takes a great deal of credit for it. I am very sorry that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Chester nor the hon. Member for Hackney are here, but if the hon. Member for Crewe will allow me I will take the responsibility for the Bill. The exact position in which I find myself is this: I prefer the Bill as it stands; but rather than not get the Bill at all, I would consent to pass the Bill with sub-section (a) taken out. At all events, we shall secure one object—namely, that anyone who intimidates or punishes witnesses after they have given evidence before any of the Committees of this House shall be properly punished, and that in future those witnesses shall be able to obtain from the Courts of Law what they cannot obtain from this House adequate compensation, and we should also have provided that any witnesses who were injured be cause they did give evidence—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is travelling wide of the Question. The Question is that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
    *MR. CREMER: I hope my hon. Friend below will not press the suggestion which he made in regard to the necessity of introducing some other words in lieu of Sub-section (a) because, so far as we are concerned, the Bill in the form in which it will read with Sub-section (a) struck out will, I think, in the main, be satisfactory to us, and I do not think we shall find that there is any necessity for offering any further obstruction to the passage of the measure. The primary object for which this Bill is introduced will be met so far, at least, as we are concerned, if Sub-section (b) is retained in the form in which it is in the Bill. We had a few weeks ago an unfortunate man dismissed from his employment for giving evidence before a Committee of this House. This Bill is introduced to prevent a repetition of any such conduct on the part of employers or Corporate Bodies. It will be practically
    1100
    impossible for employers and Corporate Bodies to do anything of the kind in future, except under the pains and penalties provided by Sub-section (a). Seeing that the object of the promoters has been gained, that such a scandalous state of things which we took the opportunity of denouncing can never happen again—I hope my hon. Friends will not further oppose this Bill, now that the Attorney General has very wisely given way and allowed the subsection to be withdrawn.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have not the smallest desire that any words shall be substituted for the words struck out. All that I desired to do was to point out to my hon. Friend the danger to which I think we were subjected—namely, that on the next stage of this Bill, when we should have no opportunity of discussing the matter, the promoters of this Bill might put in words in substitution for the words that have been struck out. I think that, before we come to the next stage, we should have some security that they would not take any course of that kind.
    MR. FISHER: I agree to that.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    MR. WARMINGTON: I wish to know when the objection mentioned in Clause 3 is to be taken? Must that objection be taken before the case is heard by the Magistrate, or will it be sufficient if it is taken after the case is heard by the Magistrate?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Evidence will be given establishing a primâ facie case, and the Magistrate will ask the accused, "Do you desire me to deal with the case summarily, or do you wish to go before the Session?" I think that is the stage at which objection should be taken.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 224.)
    COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th May.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4.
    On Motion of Sir ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.) the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 2, line 18, leave out "district," and insert "rural sanitary district;" line 19, after "district," insert "and a rural sanitary district;" line 20, after "Acts," insert—
    "And 'district' means the district of an urban sanitary authority or of a rural sanitary authority, as the case may require;"
    line 27, leave out "the expression," and insert "words referring to;" line 27, leave out "includes," and insert "shall be construed as including;" line 29, leave out from "and words," to "accordingly," in line 31 inclusive.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 5.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 33, to leave out the word "kerbed."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'kerbed' stand part of the Clause."
    DR. TANNER: I think we should have some explanation of this Amendment.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): If the hon. Member will look at Clause 4, the last section says the expression "paving," &c, includes "kerbing."
    Question put, and negatived.
    On Motion of Sir ALBERT ROLLIT the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 2, line 38, leave out "kerb;" page 3, line 11, leave out "estimates," and insert "estimate;" lines 11 and 12, leave out "apportionments," and insert "apportionment."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8.
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, to leave out
    1102
    Sub-section (2). I promised the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) to assent to this Amendment, and I am bound to do so.
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, leave out Sub-section (2).—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
    Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. STOREY: I hope, nevertheless, the Amendment will not be accepted. It is not the practice now.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 9.
    Amendment proposed,
    Page 5, line 28, at end add "access to which is obtained from the street through a court, passage or otherwise, and."—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 10 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 18.
    MR. STOREY: I object to this clause of the Bill, and move as Amendment to omit the words from "provided" to the end of the clause.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I am quite willing to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 19 agreed to.
    Clause 20.
    MR. RITCHIE: I wish to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper—namely, to strike out in line 33, the words "in the execution of other private street works or," and add at the end of the clause—
    "If there is no such loan outstanding then in any such manner as shall be sanctioned by the Local Board."
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 21.
    On the Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan) the following Amendments

    1103
    were agreed to:—Page 8, line 36, after "railway," insert "or canal"; line 41, after "station," insert "towing-path"; line 41, after "no," insert "direct."
    On the Motion of Sir ALBERT ROLLIT the following Amendments were agreed to:—
    Page 9, line 4, leave out from "other," to "street," in line 5, inclusive, and insert "owners"; line 11, leave out from "other," to "street," in line 12, inclusive, and insert "owners for the time being of the premises included in the apportionment."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. STOREY: I should like to be informed upon what principle a clause like this should be placed in the Bill? The proposal in it is that Railway Companies shall be treated in a different manner to other owners of property, and that when the railways abut on but not communicate with streets, the companies are not to be charged with the cost of nagging and paving the street. I submit that this would be a most inequitable arrangement, and that Railway Companies should not be treated in this exceptional manner. I shall, therefore, move that the clause be omitted.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be omitted."—(Mr. Storey.)
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: This subject has been discussed on several occasions by the House, and I believe the clause is one which is invariably inserted in local Bills dealing with such matters.
    MR. STOREY: Not always.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Frequently, if not invariably. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree to it.
    MR. STOREY: The clause is not in any local Act, to my knowledge.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: One of the objects of the Bill is to prevent the injustice complained of by the hon. Member. It has been accepted on other occasions, and I hope that the clause as it has been drawn will be supported.
    MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Member will understand that I am not responsible for the clause as it has been drawn; but at the same time I feel that this is an extremely good and useful measure, and one that is much desired. My sympathies, I must say, do not go with exceptions, and I should like to have further time to consider this clause. I would therefore suggest that it should now be omitted.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I am quite willing to agree to that.
    MR. STOREY: I would beg leave to say that I entirely dissent from the statement that it is the common practice to introduce such a clause as this. If the clause is not left out now I shall object to it on the Report stage.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 22.
    On Motion of Sir ALBERT ROLLIT the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 9, line 18, after "authority," insert "and a rural sanitary authority respectively"; line 20, after "them," insert "respectively."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 23 agreed to.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to move, in page 2, after Clause 3, to insert the following Clause:—
    (Local Government Board may extend Act to rural districts.)
    "The Local Government Board may declare that the provisions contained in this Act shall be in force in any rural sanitary district, or any part thereof, and may invest a rural sanitary authority with the powers, rights, duties, capacities, liabilities, and obligations which an urban authority may acquire by adoption of this Act, in like manner and subject to the same provisions as they are enabled to invest rural sanitary authorities with the powers of urban sanitary authorities under the provisions of section two hundred and seventy-six of 'The Public Health Act, 1875.'"
    Clause brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. STOREY: Can the President of the Local Government Board tell us whether the effect of this would be that the rural districts would become urban districts?
    MR. RITCHIE: They are practically small urban authorities.
    MR. STOREY: Do they become urban districts?
    MR. RITCHIE: If the aggregation of houses were sufficient to justify it they would.
    MR. STOREY: You confer on them special urban powers, but not full powers?
    MR. RITCHIE: We confer upon them ordinary urban powers.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to move, in page 9, after Clause 23, to insert the following Clauses:—
    (Certain Sections of Public Health Acts not to apply.)
    "Sections one hundred and fifty, one hundred and fifty-one, and one hundred and fifty-two of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall not apply to any district in which this Act has been adopted, and where Part III. of 'The Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890,' is adopted, section forty-one of that Act shall not apply.'"
    (For protection of Conservators of the River Thames.)
    "This Act shall not extend to prejudice or derogate from the estates, rights, and privileges of the conservators of the River Thames, or render them liable to any charges or payments."
    This is a new clause, such as that which deals with the same matter under the Act of 1875. It is a general saving clause, to which I think no objection can be taken.
    Clause brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. RITCHIE: I think there should be some Amendment. The clause proposes to relieve the conservators of charges or payments. I would propose that words should be added, so that it should read:—
    "This Act shall not extend to prejudice or derogate from the estates, rights, and privileges of the Conservators of the River Thames, or render them liable to charges or payments in respect of any of their works on the shore of the River Thames."
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday.

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 143.)
    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan) (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, London University) the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 3, line 3, leave out "sanitary"; line 4, leave out "sanitary."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 3, line 32, after "years," insert "from the date when the office became vacant."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 12.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 5, lines 34 and 35, leave out "or a sufficient part thereof"; line 36, leave out "and any surplus remaining," and insert "or."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
    Clause 15.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) the following Amendments were agreed to:—Page 6, line 42, leave out "sanitary"; page 7, line 4, leave out "sanitary," and insert "urban."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 16.
    MR. CRAIG(for Mr. BRUNNER,): I beg to move, in the absence of my hon. Friend, the following Amendment:—
    Page 7, line 19, at end, add, "and in case of inability, objection, or failure on the part of the governing body to enter into such agreement, the Charity Commissioners may, if they think fit, become party to the agreement on behalf of the governing body."
    Amendment agreed to.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 7, line 20, after "apply," insert "with the necessary modifications,"
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
    Clause 19.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 9, line 7, leave out "sanitary."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 20.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 19, line 18, leave out "sanitary."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 21 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 25.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I move to omit Sub-section (1), which is inconsequential in view of the new clause which stands in my name to the effect that there shall be no exception to the powers given in any local Act. This sub-section has the same object in less adequate words.
    Amendment proposed, to omit Subsection (1).—(Sir Albert Rollit.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 26.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 12, lines 8 and 9, leave out "or enrolled as burgesses."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 27 agreed to.
    Clause 28.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 12, line 31, after "England," insert "and Wales."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to move the following new clause:—
    (Saving as to Local Acts.)
    "Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to limit, or to reduce or alter the limit of any rate which any library authority is authorised to levy under or by virtue of any local Act."
    Clause brought up, and read a first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. STOREY: I should have thought that, when making this beneficial improvement in the law, advantage would have been taken of the opportunity to consider the case of municipal boroughs which are now limited to the whole area for one penny in the pound, whereas outside there may be live or six urban districts each levying its halfpenny for the whole district.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: The penny limit should be raised to two pence, and I hope next year to bring in a Bill to amend this Bill, and to induce the House to go in for a two penny rate. That rate has been granted to a certain number of towns, a number which I hope will be increased.
    MR. STOREY: The hon. Member should know that now is the accepted time, and that next Session we may, for ulterior purposes, block his Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Schedule 1.
    On Motion of Sir FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK) the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 15, line 1, at end, insert "the."
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL (for Sir JOHN LUBBOCK): I beg to move, in page 15, line 2, after "papers," insert "respectively."
    Question proposed, "That the word 'respectively' be there inserted."
    MR. STOREY: I think it very unfortunate that in a Bill which is so great an improvement as this, the old, worn-out mode of voting by paper should have been reproduced. There is no compulsion on them to adopt that form, which in many districts will be extremely unfortunate, because there will be influences at work which will prevent an ordinary workman from giving his vote, and so the acceptance of the Act will be prevented.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: The Committee refused the clause which I drew up to carry out the object of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Storey); and I greatly regret that this Act should pass with the old, obsolete, and cumbersome form adopted. I hope next year to introduce a Bill containing the more modern and useful form of voting, and I hope the hon. Member will support me.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule 2 agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES, 1892–3.
  Resolutions [13th June] reported.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES, 1892–3.

    CLASS I.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £162,105, 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 Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for Drainage Works on the Rivers Shannon and Suck."
    MR. KNOX: I wish to inquire as to the costs arising in the case of Ryan against the Guardians of the Cavan Union. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury told me some time ago that he would endeavour to give a final answer as to the decision of the Treasury in the matter. I want to know if the Treasury have come to any decision, and whether that decision can be now communicated to the House?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (SIR JOHN GORST,): I think I explained to the hon. Member some time ago that the case could not be decided.
    MR. KNOX: I think the right hon. Gentleman undertook to see whether there was any real reason why a decision in the case should not be made.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: I did undertake to make inquiries to satisfy myself that the reasons for delay were valid. I also said if there was reason to press for a decision I would urge the Local Government Board to come to an immediate decision as to what they would recommend. I did make inquiries, and satisfied myself that the reasons they give for delaying the decision were valid.
    MR. KNOX: What were they?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: I cannot state the reasons. When I saw them I thought they were valid—to me they appeared sound.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he acquainted himself with the reasons alleged by the Local Government Board; and although that happened on a recent date, and he considered them satisfactory, they made no such permanent impression on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as to enable him to give us the least idea of what the reasons were.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I said they were reasons which I did not think it desirable to give.
    MR. SEXTON: We understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had no clear idea of what the reasons were. If he has, then we must press him for further reasons. It is a case where the Board of Guardians consider themselves entitled to the heavy costs of a suit which was due to the action of a Government Inspector. The Inspector forced upon the Guardians a certain course, which course resulted in the Guardians being mulcted in costs. They come forward now, and we plead for them that they are entitled to be relieved of these costs by the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman, in that manner which distinguishes him, has given three or four answers on the subject which have not enabled us to come to any conclusion whatever. He has suggested that there is a seed rate owing by this Union; but it is hard to see why a rate to be paid at some

    1111
    future date should govern altogether the separate question as to whether costs incurred, by the Guardians through the advice of an officer for whom the Treasury is responsible should not be settled now, without reference to what the Union may have to pay in August next, and upon another account. I have asked the right hon. Gentleman more than once whether, in case the Guardians pay this seed rate in August next, this question of costs would be settled; and if there were frankness and sincerity in the conduct of the case, he would give us a contingent assurance that if the rate were paid in August next, and therefore if the only reason suggested for delaying the termination of the question were settled, that legal costs would also be settled. If this assurance is not given, I can come to no other conclusion than that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to get rid of Parliament and the Session, and that when the Guardians pay the seed rate it will be found that the engagements made by the right hon. Gentleman have been mere words, and that there is no satisfaction to be given by the Treasury in regard to the costs.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolution 2 agreed to.

    CLASS II.
    Resolution 3 agreed to.
    4. "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 Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
    Resolution read a second time.
    MR. SEXTON: The Chief Secretary is also President of the Local Government Board, and no doubt the Local Government Board is cognisant of the affairs relating to Boards of Guardians, and probably could interfere and advise in this case. I take this opportunity of advising the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gorst) to be sufficiently courteous to come to the Table and give a further explanation with regard to this question. If he does not, we shall have to take such
    1112
    steps as will secure the return to the House of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and ask him to use his influence with the Treasury. The Guardians have paid all the seed rates up to the present moment; but, by some reasoning which is absolutely bewildering, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give any reply on a past transaction, whether or not the Treasury will pay legal costs for which the Guardians are not morally responsible, and mixes up with it a further question as to whether the Guardians will pay to the Treasury money which they do not owe now, but which they will owe in August next. I see no connection between the two transactions. I do not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his somewhat discourteous silence; but these tactics of evasion will not succeed with us. As the Chief Secretary has now come into the House, I ask that the two questions should be separated and dealt with on their own merits, or a contingent assurance be made that if the Guardians pay their seed rate for August next the Treasury will then liquidate these costs.
    MR. KNOX: I first mooted this matter rather more than a year ago, and since then I have been endeavouring to get a definite answer from somebody. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who met me with his usual courtesy. His reply by letter was that the matter was one with which the Irish Office had no power to deal, because they had no funds at their disposal which they could devote to the purpose. He added that he was far from saying that it was not a case which the Treasury should consider. While I was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, I submit that the Irish Office, although they had no money, might have gone so far as to recommend the Treasury to provide the money. The facts were these: Under the Seed Potatoes Act the Guardians were bound not to accept any potatoes which had not been previously inspected and approved by the Inspector appointed by the Land Commission. In this case the Guardians ordered potatoes in the ordinary course, and everything was approved by the officials of the Land

    1113
    Commission. The potatoes were delivered and the Guardians thought they were good enough; but as the Inspector of the Land Commission refused to allow them to accept these potatoes, they refused to accept them. The consequence was that the vendor of the potatoes brought an action, and that the verdict was against the Board of Guardians; who have paid the money. This misfortune was brought upon them by obedience to the law and to the ruling of an executive officer. The Guardians of the Enniskillen Union took the wiser course of refusing to obey the Inspector, and they heard nothing more of it. The right hon. Gentleman refuses to give any answers for certain reasons of State. I find that the seed rate is being duly collected, and, although not completed, is in a very advanced state. There is no doubt that the whole sum due to the Government will be paid in August when due. The Cavan Board of Guardians have never refused to meet their obligations, and I submit it is unfair to covertly charge them with intention not to perform their legal obligations in this matter. The case, I contend, is one requiring a definite answer.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: That I did not answer the hon. Member for West Belfast was not due to discourtesy on my part. The Rules prevented me making a second speech, and I did not feel justified in asking the indulgence of the House. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Knox) have both sketched their view of what the case is; and on the assumption that the facts are actually as stated by them I would undertake at once that the costs of the Cavan Guardians should be reimbursed. But my information is that the facts are not as stated by the hon. Members. It is stated that these gentlemen were practically coerced by the Inspector into refusing the potatoes and into entering the action. That is not consonant with the fact as represented to me by the officials in Ireland.
    MR. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what particular statements are incorrect?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: I cannot do that very well.
    MR. KNOX: The right hon. Gentleman makes a charge against me.
    *SIR JOHN GORST: I have brought no charge against the hon. Member. I merely said the facts were not as stated by hon. Gentlemen, and did not make out so strong a case for the Cavan Guardians. If the facts are as stated by the hon. Member, the Cavan Board of Guardians have a moral right to be repaid. The hon. Member asked me to personally inquire into this matter, and I did so. I daresay the decision I came to was wrong—at least, no doubt the hon. Member thinks so; but if he were afraid of my decision, why did he ask me to make a personal inquiry? The decision I came to was that the reasons given by the Local Government Board were adequate and sufficient. The hon. Member asks what they are; but I do not feel disposed to tell him. I can only say I have done the best I could in the matter, and that I feel I came to a right conclusion. If we were to talk about this question another hour or two I do not think we could do any good, and I therefore suggest that hon. Members should allow it to drop.
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think an official in the position of the right hon. Gentleman—although perhaps he does not expect to hold that position long—might endeavour to give hon. Members some satisfaction when, on behalf of their constituencies, they lay a case of this kind before the House. I cannot conceive of anything more unfair than the way in which he has dealt with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has made a sort of State secret of this question as to whether the costs of the Cavan Guardians in this case should be remitted to them or not. The Secretary to the Treasury has told us that if we discussed this question for another hour it will not do us the smallest good. I am afraid that is an invitation to discuss it, and I think we should not be doing our duty if we listened to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, and did not endeavour to extort from the Treasury some more satisfactory answer. It has been said that my hon. Friend's facts are all wrong.
    SIR JOHN GORST: What I said was that the facts, as represented to me by the officials in Ireland, differed from those put forward by the hon. Member.
    MR. HEALY: If that is so, surely the right hon. Gentleman must expect that we should ask him in what respect the version of facts communicated by the Irish officials differs from those given to the House by my right hon. Friend. If this was the first occasion on which this question had been raised the right hon. Gentleman might plead that he was not in a position to give an answer, but over and over again this case has been brought to his notice. In face of the detailed narration of the facts by my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman thinks it is enough to get up and say to him, "I learn from the Local Government Board in Ireland that your facts are wrong, but I am not going to say in what respect they are wrong." In what particular, I should like to ask, does the right hon. Gentleman impeach the accuracy of the statement of my hon. Friend? I am at a loss to know. And I will take this opportunity of pointing out the inconsistency of the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He contends that our version of the facts are wrong; but he says that if the rate is paid the Treasury will in twelve months re-imburse the money.
    MR. SEXTON: No; he did not say that.
    MR. HEALY: At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman said he would consider it with that object. How is a promise of that kind consistent with the allegations that the facts of my hon. Friend are incorrect? If the statement made by him is erroneous now, it will be equally erroneous in twelve months' time. I must say that in all my experience in this House I do not recollect a more unsatisfactory reply than that which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman. He gets up and says, "The hon. Member for Cavan asked me to look into this matter personally, and I went over to the Local Government Board in Ireland and investigated this trumpery question. I devoted my great mind to it, and I came to a certain conclusion. Here is my conclusion, and you may take it or
    1116
    leave it, but I am not going to give any reasons for it." I say that that is an unsatisfactory course to take, and it is an invitation to us to resist the passage of this Vote in order to mark our sense of the unfair way in which the right hon. Gentleman has-treated this matter. I beg to move that this Vote be reduced by £200.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£29,060," and insert "£28,860."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That '£29,060,' stand part of the Resolution."
    MR. SEXTON: I should like to submit the question whether the treatment of the Irish Members on this point by the Secretary to the Treasury has been either respectful or according to the usages of this House. I maintain that we are entitled to an answer. The right hon. Gentleman takes credit to-himself that in his high position he condescended to inquire personally into this question; but no matter what may be the position of a public official, the value of his intervention is to be determined by its results, and, judging the matter from that point of view, we should have been just as well off if the right hon. Gentleman had not gone into the matter at all. I wonder if there is any Member of this House who can recall to mind any case in which a Member of a Government, in reply to a challenge such as has been made to the Secretary to the Treasury to-night,, has stated that he refused to disclose the reasons which had induced him to deal with a matter like this in a particular manner? The right hon. Gentleman, I complain, has been most curt in the way he has answered us upon the subject, and I should like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he concurs with the Secretary to the Treasury that the reasons we ask to be disclosed should be withheld from the House? The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) is in his place, and I presume he knows that, according to the practice of the Land Commissioners, an Inspector is appointed for such a function as has been referred to. The potatoes were rejected by the Inspector, and upon his advice an action was entered and a

    1117
    verdict returned against the Cavan Guardians. These are the essential facts, and there is nothing material to be added to them. The Guardians were, upon the advice of this Inspector, driven into a legal liability which resulted in a heavy penalty, and they ask that that penalty shall be borne by those responsible for it—that is to say, the Treasury. I appeal to the Chief Secretary and to the Attorney General for Ireland to say if in the material particulars which have been laid before the House there is anything incorrect, and also whether in the event of the Guardians in August next discharging their engagements to the Treasury the Treasury will be prepared to meet them on this question?
    *SIR JOHN GORST: I am very sorry if the attitude I have taken in this matter has hurt the feelings of the hon. Member. I can assure him that I had no intention of being at all disrespectful to Irish Members. The hon. Member has said that it was the action of the Government Inspector which induced the Cavan Board of Guardians to reject these potatoes; that the Board of Guardians were compelled by law, on the representation of the Government Inspector, to reject the potatoes; and that, in consequence of their obedience to the law, they were exposed to an action for damages and mulcted in costs. That, I am bound to confess, is a very much fuller and more precise statement than has ever been laid before me before, and I have not the slightest wish to impugn the accuracy of it. Hitherto I have understood the hon. Member to ask the Treasury to return to the Cavan Guardians the amount of these costs as a matter of grace, and not as something to which they had any moral or legal claim. But, as I now understand the matter differently, I will again inquire into it; and if I find the facts to be as they have been represented to this House, these costs shall be returned without delay.
    MR. KNOX: Of course I have no desire to impeach the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that these facts have not been brought to his attention until now. I would point out, however, that they have been reiterated in this House time after time, and that
    1118
    they were also stated in a Memorial presented to the Treasury by the Cavan Guardians six months ago. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that if these facts are found by him to be correct, he will refund the money, I will accept his undertaking, and ask my hon. Friend not to press the matter further.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolution 5 agreed to.
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £103,792, 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 Local Government Board in Ireland, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
    MR. MACARTNEY: On this Vote I should like to call attention to a matter which has arisen between the Board of Guardians of Antrim and Colonel Spaight, one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board. Colonel Spaight in his Report—a copy of which has been transmitted by the Local Government Board to the Board of Guardians—says that the accommodation provided in the female idiot ward is insufficient, and adds—and this is the paragraph of which the Guardians complain—
    "The inmates of the ward have evidently been grossly neglected with regard both to their clothing and bedding."
    The moment the Guardians received that communication they appointed a Special Committee to inquire into the matter, with the result that a letter was sent to the Local Government Board asking them to institute a sworn inquiry as to whether there was any foundation for the allegations of Colonel Spaight. The Local Government Board declined to hold that inquiry, but said they would ask Colonel Spaight to make a fresh Report. That, however, is not satisfactory to the Board of Guardians, and I think they are justified in asking either that this very serious and very damaging paragraph should be practically withdrawn, or that the sworn inquiry shall be held. The last communication from the Local Government Board is under date 1st June, and in that occurs the phrase "Colonel Spaight adheres to his Report of the ap-

    1119
    parent neglect of the female idiot class." The introduction of the word "apparent" shows that there is some doubt in the mind of Colonel Spaight or of the Local Government Board. The communication further states that the Local Government Board cannot see how the Board of Guardians are in a position to contradict Colonel Spaight's statements. The Guardians, it is true, are not; but their officers, who were present when Colonel Spaight made his inspection, are prepared to contradict him. They are fully prepared to meet these statements, and only desire the opportunity to do so. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for a specific answer to-night, but I hope before the end of the Session he will be able to give me some satisfaction on the point. I should also like to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a point with respect to the erection of labourers cottages. He told me some time ago that the Local Government Board had informed the Guardians of Ballymena that they were not entitled to decline to enter upon the erection of cottages that had been recommended by a Committee of the Union which had been appointed to consider the matter.
    THE CHIEF SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The point was this: A scheme had been recommended and adopted. Subsequently, it was sought to amend the scheme by striking out portions, and this the Guardians were, I understand, advised could not be done.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I understand that a Committee was appointed for each of the separate electoral divisions of the Union, and that this Committee recommended a modification of the various schemes. When the Board met to consider the recommendations it in every single instance rejected the schemes as amended and recommended by its own Committee. I understand that the Board was wrong in taking that course, and that it has been so advised by the Local Government Board. I hope that some time next week the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some satisfactory assurance in regard to the position of these various schemes with respect to the erection of labourers' cottages. It
    1120
    is nearly ten months since the schemes were brought forward, and great dissatisfaction exists amongst the labourers at the delay.
    MR. JACKSON: My hon. Friend has very fairly stated that he does not expect me to answer offhand a question of this kind. I will make inquiry about the Report to which he has referred by one of the Local Government Board Inspectors, and ascertain how the question stands. No doubt I shall be prepared to give him some information next week. With respect to the other matter, the last information I had was that the Local Government Board had advised the Board of Guardians that the action they had taken was not a proper action, nor action which they were capable of taking. I do not know without making inquiries what is the power of the Local Government Board to enforce any views they may hold, and I have given the hon. Member all the information that is at present in my possession.
    DR. TANNER: I am glad to have at last forced one of the Members for Antrim to take up the question of labourers' cottages. I have been working in this matter for a long time, and I have in my hand now letters from labourers in Antrim who complain that they are compelled to live in huts which are unfit for human habitation, and have been condemned by medical men. Many of the houses in which they live were used as stables twenty years ago. I have also a lettter from the Labourers' Association of Omagh complaining of the miserable hovels in which the labourers have to live; but what is the use pressing the matter now. The Government are not in a position to deal with it. It will have to be dealt with by a new Parliament. At the same time, it is satisfactory to have brought down one of the champions of the North, one of the gentlemen who is going to fight. But if they are going to raise an army they will want to recruit the labourers, and they will find the labourers of Antrim in line with the labourers of Cork. They know their interests and they know their friends, and they know that if their cause is to be triumphant the victory will not be won by fighting

    1121
    with the gentlemen of Ulster, who have only woke up to the importance of this question on the eve of an Election.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions 7 to 9 agreed to.

    CLASS III.
    Resolutions 10 and 11 agreed to.
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding £44,000, 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 Office of the Irish Land Commission."
    MR. MAURICE HEALY: I should like to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman some information as to what the Land Commission has been doing during the last twelve months. A year ago the Commission found it necessary to largely reduce the staff of Sub-Commissioners, because the pressure of work had subsided; but there are still a large number of Sub-Commissioners on the active staff. But in the County of Cork there has not been a single Sub-Commission held during the last twelve months. I have asked several questions on the subject, and have been told that other counties were included in the Circuit in which Cork is included, and that, as the Commissioners had worked admirably for four years, that was considered a sufficient justification for entirely ceasing the work of fixing fair rents in the whole of the County of Cork. I may point out that now no Commission can sit till October, so that fourteen months will have elapsed since the last Commission sat in the county, and since any attempt was made to fix fair rents over that enormous area. But there were tremendous arrears of work in Cork, some thousands of applications being still unheard. I have myself been professionally engaged in cases the applications for which were made in 1887, and they have not yet come to a hearing. Then the right hon. Gentleman knows that last year his Predecessor in the Office (Mr. A. J. Balfour) passed the Redemption of Land Act, and under that Act a number of fresh applications have been served. It is true there is an alternative; but if the landlords are not willing to sell,
    1122
    the cases have to be tried in the same way as the other cases before the Commission. A number of these cases have been raised—not perhaps so many as we anticipated—but a large number; but, so far as we know, those unfortunate tenants may have to wait five years before their cases are heard. But the curious thing is that while the Sub-Commissioners have ceased their work the head Commission is as active as ever. It consists only of three members, and has to deal with the whole of Ireland, but they have held three sittings in Cork during the last twelve months. In that time, although there are forty Sub-Commissioners, not a single Sub-Commission has been held in Cork. We know that the head Commission has an inducement to get on with the work of hearing these appeals, and we do not com plain that the applications should be disposed of as quickly as possible, but I want to know why the work of the Sub-Commissioners should have ceased. The failure of the Sub-Commissions in Cork is very unsatisfactory to the tenants, especially as they cannot take their cases into the County Courts. The landlords of Cork have swept the whole of the cases out of the County Courts and have taken them to the Land Commission, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some explanation of the total failure of the Sub-Commissions in the County of Cork during the last twelve months.
    MR. JACKSON: I quite sympathise with the desire which the hon. Gentleman has expressed that the utmost speed that can be made in fixing fair rents should be made, and that the visits of the Commissioners should be as frequent as possible, so as to provide, as far as possible, for dealing with the cases in the district. I have been watching the proceedings of the Commission, and there has been a considerable reduction in the amount of arrears. At the end of January, 1891, there were 20,781 cases. That number has been reduced gradually and continuously, I am glad to say, until at the end of April this year there were only 9,000 cases, so that it will be seen there has been great progress made. It must be remembered that during that time the

    1123
    Commissioners have had current cases to deal with, and yet they have made this reduction of more than one-half of the cases. The number of Assistant Commissioners was reduced in August last year, but the Court may appoint a Sub-Commissioner temporarily if found necessary. The hon. Member may take it from me that I have called the attention of the Commissioners to the desirability of making such progress as they can consistently with doing the work well and properly, and I will do what I can to push on the work and get rid of the arrears.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [10th JUNE] REPORT.
  Order read, for Consideration of postponed Resolution—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,736,360, 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 Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): I must ask the House to permit me, on the postponed Vote for the Telegraph Service, to call attention to certain circulars addressed to candidates at the General Election, and also sent to some Members of this House. The address is from "The Provincial Postal Telegraph Male Clerks to Candidates at the General Election," and in one of these circulars the following sentences occur:—
  "We have, in addition, to ask you whether you will, if elected, vote for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the working of the Telegraph Service, as we believe such an investigation would be of great utility, and could not but tend to the improvement of the Service, the state of which is causing great public dissatisfaction, as will be seen from the subjoined newspaper extracts."
  The circular goes on—
  "In conclusion, we beg to state that we await your reply to these few questions of vital importance with considerable anxiety, and trust that you will give them your careful consideration."
  I have heard also that another branch of the Service is organised, and is issuing similar notices. It appears to me to be a great evil that a body of
  1124
  public servants should organise themselves to address Members of the House and candidates on the eve of a General Election, inviting, in no ambiguous language, an undertaking as to the internal management of a Public Department, which may influence votes at the coming election. Parliament entrusts public servants, equally with other electors, with the franchise; but it is certainly not in order that they should bring organised pressure to bear on candidates in their own interests. Such action is absolutely disloyal to the State which they serve, and is calculated to impair the purity of elections. As regards a particular case, my predecessor took great care, and showed great sympathy with the Service, in reorganising its classification. I feel some reluctance to disturb an arrangement so recently entered into; but I have earnestly considered all Memorials addressed to me since I have held my present office, and I have attempted to remedy every case of hardship submitted to me. There is another point besides pay and slowness of promotion to which these public servants call attention, and that is to certain regulations made by my predecessor in a time of considerable public excitement regulating the right of holding meetings by officers of the Department. Formerly they were not allowed to hold meetings except in Post Office buildings, but my predecessor allowed them to take part in meetings outside public offices; but it was stipulated that no outside people should be present, and, further, that notice should be given of such meeting, so that an official reporter might attend. I can say that, since I have held my present office, I have never sent an official reporter to any such meeting, and I have only gathered what passed from the reports in the newspapers. But this right has remained in abeyance, and I am free to confess that, however necessary it may have been, it may have become unnecessary now, and I may re-consider the question. As regards the grievances of the Department, I can abundantly testify that the superior officers have considered all reports made to them. I think there would be an end to the discipline which should characterise members of the Public Service if en-

  1125
  couragement were given to such attempts to bring pressure to bear on Members of the House and candidates on the eve of a General Election. The Public Service is popular; it is the object of ambition and competition; the future of its members is assured; it is conducted on principles of fairness and impartiality; but it would be injured, if not destroyed, if proceedings in the nature of canvass or solicitation before an election became prevalent, and it would be an abuse of the privilege of the franchise conferred on members of the Public Service. I trust that not only the House, but Parliamentary candidates, will set their faces against endeavours to bring into practice a system of getting candidates to pledge themselves to vote for inquiries into the details of Departments of the Public Service. I hope they will decline to give such pledges, and will consider that pledges given on ex parte statements to vote for inquiry are as much prejudicing the question as if they were to pledge themselves at once to vote for revision. I have to say that the leading Members of the Opposition, including the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), and the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), fully concur in the observations I have made.
  MR. HOWELL: I feel that I cannot allow the remarks of the Postmaster General to pass unnoticed. The members of the Postal Service are placed in a very peculiar position—they are denied the right of ordinary combination. That right is given to every citizen by the statutory law, and no Department has a right to infringe it; it does not lie within the competency of any Department to interfere with it. The Postmaster General indicated that he had the assent of right hon. Gentlemen on this side. I hesitate to believe that any such undertaking has been entered into by right hon. Gentlemen on this side; and I venture to say that if such undertaking has been entered into, I denounce it as a conspiracy against the working men of this country. We are told that we are not to consider the complaints of these men on the eve of a General
  1126
  Election, because it is exacting from us something which would be derogatory to the Public Service. The men of the Postal Service will do their duty honestly and fairly if honest and fair terms are given to them, and I am exceedingly sorry that the Postmaster General did not see his way clear in the early part of the evening, in answer to my question, to say he would forego any further punishment of the men who took part in the meetings some years ago. When a man has committed a crime and has been punished for it, that crime is no longer a barrier to his position in society. Here are men who for the fault—you cannot call it a crime—of exercising their right as citizens by belonging to a trade union sanctioned by law, and taking part in a public meeting—a technical violation of the law of the Department—are being punished permanently. I know some of the men who took part in the movement, and I say that some of the men who took part in what they believed to be a rightful movement were men who would do honour to any service, not only in the humble positions they occupied, but even in those occupied by right hon. Gentlemen in this House. I think these men have been punished sufficiently, and though they may have committed a technical fault, the time has come when they should be forgiven. One of two things must be conceded by the House—and I will fight for them as long as I am a Member of this House—either these men must have the right to combine, according to the common law of the country, for the purpose of raising their wages or lessening their hours, or else that the Department shall see that they have at least as good terms of service as those that are given by any private firm. The employees of the Government, particularly in the Post Office, are entrusted with duties upon the proper discharge of which very much depends in this country; and the least that can be done is to treat them fairly, I would even say generously. But, although there is a large annual surplus from the Post Office, the gratuities these men receive are taken into account in fixing their wages. These gratuities, ought not to be taken into consideration

  1127
  by a great Department when considering the monetary value of the services to be rendered by its employees. I hope we shall have some more liberal arrangement with regard to this matter; and if the same policy is pursued by right hon. Gentlemen on this side when in office, I shall be as sturdy an opponent of their conduct as I am of the conduct of the present Government.
  MR. LAWSON: I venture to join in the expression of regret that the Postmaster General has not seen his way to restore the good conduct stripes to those men deprived of them for taking part in the open-air movement two years ago. I thought at the time their action was ill-judged, but I knew how great were the grievances under which they suffered. I had many interviews with the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor, and some partial reform was made. There were, however, men working for sixteen hours a day under conditions harder than obtained in any other branch of the Public Service, and I think there was great excuse for their action. They had also a good example before them. The clerks of the different divisions of the Civil Service had organised themselves into bodies essentially of the nature of trade unions, and were in the habit of communicating with Members of this House and the heads of their Departments, and yet nothing was done to prevent them doing so. It is monstrous to deny postal servants the right of combination — their right to which is as good as that of the trades to which it is allowed by a series of Statutes. Things were so bad in the Postal Service that the late Mr. Raikes admitted the force of the arguments urged by various hon. Gentlemen, and made considerable reforms in the conditions under which the work was done. It would be a graceful and generous act, as well as one of justice, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to remit the further penalties. I do not consider that the men were really wrong; they were only following the example set them by the clerks in the Public Service; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider his decision. It would be a popular step
  1128
  to take, and I am certain it would be one which every Member of the House, who has really watched the different organisations existing in the Civil Service, would say was urged upon him by every motive of reason and justice.
  MR. STOREY: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman I should give the same attention to a postman who waited on me as to any other elector in my constituency, and I should not ask a voter the question whether or not he was a servant of the State. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman speaking with an energy and even bitterness which do not usually distinguish him. He complained that these postal people had the insolence and audacity to combine to prefer a civil request to candidates for Parliament as to whether they would support an inquiry into certain grievances of theirs. For what purpose was the vote given to any citizen except to secure the redress of his own or other grievances? The right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament had entrusted these men with the franchise; it was theirs, and they would have had reason to complain if Parliament had kept it from them. He also took credit for the fact that these men could now hold meetings, and that he had not sent an official reporter—spy, I should call him. I agree that every body of men in the country, whether serving the State or not, has a right to combine and ask for what the individual has the right to ask for. Suppose in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency a postman was canvassed by his friends, and he said he would vote for the Conservative candidate if he would support an inquiry into some grievances in the Post Office. Would that man be exceeding his right as a citizen? If not, how can the right hon. Gentleman show that fifty, combined to say the same thing, would be exceeding their right? I have been in the House many years and have been applied to by different sections of the Public Service to support an advance of salary, but I have never once acceded to the request. I was sent here rather to curtail expense, and so I have never supported such a demand. But if any Department says it is excessively worked, or that the conditions of their daily life are

  1129
  not decent and proper, that would be a different matter altogether. With respect to this grievance, I should like to say one word to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Post Office. The regulations, as I understand, still continue under which those employees of the Post Office and the Telegraph Service cannot hold their meetings, admitting any outside person to take part therein without a Government reporter being present to take down the names of every speaker and every indiscreet word anyone may utter during any meeting. The right hon. Gentleman himself admits that he never sent a reporter. I should have expected nothing else from the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been discreditable to him and to the Government which he represents if he had taken any such course. These employees may be poor and of the lower rank of Civil servants; but it is well-known that there never was an attempt made to prevent the members of the higher branches of the Service from meeting for the redress of their grievances. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a constitutional illustration. When Army purchase was abolished, more than twenty years ago, great complaints were made by Army purchase officers that sufficient justice was not done to them. They demanded from this House not merely the regulation price which they had to pay, but they demanded to be paid an extra regulation price, which this House had never sanctioned, and which it had no power to give. What occurred? Did they go to the War Office or the Treasury? No; they combined together and held meetings; they organised; they petitioned and caballed with their friends in this House; and they persisted in that course of conduct without the Government of the day even once saying to them, "Of course, you must not organise to get what you are seeking." These officers were seeking what was unjust, what was illegal; and yet the House at last granted them that, and paid them what ought never to have been paid away from the taxpayers of this country. With that remarkable instance in recent history before him, I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to re-consider the position
  1130
  which he and his predecessor have taken, and say distinctly and frankly to all employees of the State, "Yes, you have the same right as every other citizen to combine and organise, and to come respectfully with your Memorials and present them to us the same as any other Memorials are presented; and if they are unjust and unfair to the taxpayer, we will say so bluntly to you, and we will sustain the taxpayer and not you." That would be the just and fair position to take. I would venture, before sitting down to say that I do not think that justice can be done to these poor people who are employed by thousands in the Post Office and Telegraph Departments unless there is accorded to them the fullest rights of citizenship, foremost amongst these rights being the right they claim—the right, either personally or in an organised fashion, to come to the House of Commons and the Ministry and ask for the redress of their grievances.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I should like to say, after what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green has said regarding the men who were discharged in connection with the strikes-a year or two ago, that my predecessor examined carefully the case of every man and restored a great many of them. I am glad to say that I have been able to restore some more. With regard to the restoration of the stripes, in all Services in which good conduct stripes are given, the rule is that a certain time must elapse before they are restored again to men who have been deprived of them.
  Resolution agreed to.

  LAND COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 396.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, leave out from "date" to "the," in line 9, and insert "on the passing of this Act," so that the clause shall come into effect in the usual way from the date of the passing

  1131
  of this Act. The object of the clause is to equalise the salaries of the Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission, and I may state in a few words how the matter at present stands. The Land Commission is composed of five members: three of whom held office under the Land Act of 1881, and two under the Land Purchase Act of 1885. Of the Commissioners who hold office under the Act of 1881 the Judicial Commissioner has the salary of a Judge of the High Court, and the other two Commissioners under the original Act have each of them a salary of £3,000 a year. The two Commissioners who hold office Under the Act of 1885, commonly called Purchase Commissioners, have each a salary of £2,000 a year. Last year, at the time of the passing of the Land Purchase Act, the Government were placed under a pledge to introduce a Bill this year for the purpose of equalising the emoluments of these functionaries; and the present Bill has been introduced as the redemption of that pledge. I must observe, however, that it appears to me that this clause proposes to carry out that object in rather a questionable fashion, because it proposes that the salaries should be equalised, not from the date of the passing of the Act, but from the date at which the appeals mentioned in Section 29 of the Land Purchase Act shall be disposed of. When the Land Purchase Act was before the House last year it was proposed that all the Commissioners should have equal functions, and that all the five Commissioners should participate in all the functions of the Commission. But it was pointed out at the time that the Rent Commissioners were considerably in arrear with their work; that there was a great bulk of appeals in cases where fair rents had been fixed to be disposed of; and that it would not be fair or reasonable that the Rent Commissioners should participate in the work of the purchase department until they had disposed of the arrears. A provision was accordingly inserted in the Land Purchase Bill that until the Rent Commissioners had cleared off the arrears of fair-rent appeals, they should not concern themselves with the work of the purchase department; and con-
  1132
  versely, that until the Rent Commissioners had disposed of the fair-rent appeals, the Purchase Commissioners should not concern themselves with the work of fixing fair rents. Now, the proposal of the Government is that until the Rent Commissioners clear off the arrears of work which lie upon their hands, the Purchase Commissioners shall not have the increase of salary of £1,000 a year to which they are admittedly entitled. I should point out that the Rent Commissioners are juniors to the Purchase Commissioners, having been comparatively recently appointed. The Purchase Commissioners are at present the same gentlemen who were appointed under the Act of 1885, and are seven years in office, whereas the present Rent Commissioners are only in office three or four years. I do not think that it shows much consideration for the dignity of the senior Purchase Commissioners that they should be placed substantially at the mercy of one of their juniors, Mr. Wrench; and I think it is an invidious position to put Mr. Wrench in, as it may possibly expose him to undue temptation. It may possibly be conceived that he might not go through the arrears at a headlong pace if the increase of the salaries of the other Commissioners were to be dependent upon the speed with which he disposed of them. Moreover, supposing Mr. Justice Bewley, or Mr. Wrench, or Mr. Fitzgerald were, through illness or any other cause, to become incapacitated for the discharge of their duty, so long as the fair-rent appeals were delayed the proposal actually is that Mr. M'Carthy and Mr. Lynch would have to wait for the increase to their salaries of £1,000 a year until the ailing Commissioner was restored to health or was able to return to his duty. Therefore, it is with very considerable confidence that I propose to insert these words, which will bring the clause providing for the increase of salary into operation from the date of the passing of the Act.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word "date" to the word "the," in line 9, and insert "of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member has stated with great fairness pretty well the facts of the case. But he left out one or two considerations which it is necessary to bring before the Committee. He has stated that this Bill has been brought in, as he put it, in pursuance of a pledge made last year when the Land Purchase Act was before this House. I do not think it can be put quite so far as to say that a pledge was given on the subject. Certainly there was an understanding; but I think that understanding only went this length, so far as my information goes: A question was raised as to whether the salary of the two sets of Commissioners ought not to be identical; and I remember it being urged on that side of the House that a certain date should be fixed before which time neither set of Commissioners should do the work of the other. The hon. Gentleman states that the Fair Rent Commissioners are in arrear with their work; but I am afraid it cannot be said that the Purchase Commissioners are not in arrear with their work. They are not making such progress as we could have hoped; and, as a matter of fact, we have recently strengthened their hands by giving them additional assistance in order to try to catch up the arrears of purchase work. But I am afraid it will take some time, and probably a longer time than the hearing of the appeals, before the arrears can be overtaken. We found it necessary that the date fixed in the Act of 1891 should be adopted in this Bill; that is, the date at which the Purchase Commissioners on the one hand can take part in the fair-rent cases, and the Fair Rent Commissioners on the other hand can take part in the purchase business. When that time arrives the duties would become identical, and practically interchangeable in the two classes of work. With regard to the salaries of the two sets of Commissioners, we do not propose to make any comparison between the work of the two sets of Commissioners. The work of both sets of Commissioners is undoubtedly of great importance. Both
  1134
  sets of Commissioners are entrusted with dealing with very large sums of money, and no doubt their work is important. The Fair Rent Commissioners are entrusted with very important work in fixing fair rents, or hearing cases of appeal against rents fixed. But these salaries have been fixed already. It is true that on the passing of the Land Act last year Parliament thought fit to raise the salaries of the Fair Rent Commissioners beyond the salaries enjoyed by the Purchase Commissioners. Parliament took that view; and it was on an appeal being made on the other side of the House that the salaries should be equalised that an understanding was come to that when the work, as I have said, was identical and interchangeable, the salaries should be equalised. Of course, equalisation must take one of two forms.
  MR. SEXTON: Three forms.
  MM. JACKSON: They might be equalised by raising the one or lowering the other. We have taken, perhaps, the most generous course of raising the salaries of the Purchase Commissioners. But we hope it may be possible, when the time arrives when the work of the two sets of Commissioners shall be interchangeable, that we may be able to do with four Commissioners instead of five; and that therefore we may be able to save the salary of one, and thus while equalising the salaries improve the position of the Purchase Commissioners, and at the same time effect some economy in the Department by the abolition of one of the Commissioners. I think I need say no more on the subject. Perhaps I may say, however, that there is another Amendment following in the name of the hon. Member upon which I shall have something to say. But, in the meantime, I do not think I can accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the reply of the right hon. Gentleman has been extremely unsatisfactory. I think it is a matter for strong comment that such an able and painstaking body of officials should be dealt with in such an ungenerous manner. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that the Purchase Commissioners cannot now

  1135
  transact the business of the Rent Commissioners, but he is also forced to argue that the Rent Commissioners cannot now transact the business of the Purchase Commissioners. The force of that argument disappears in the fact that the Land Commissioners are confined to one Department. The existence of the arrears has been referred to, but that fact affords, I think, a very good case for pressing this Amendment on the acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman. Why are there arrears? Because of the policy of the Government with regard to the Land Purchase Acts. The Government passed the Land Purchase Act of last year with a new condition by which the tenant was obliged to provide an insurance fund; and it was well known to every one that the insertion of that provision would so hamper purchase that the tenants would be very eager to avail themselves of the balance under the Ashbourne Acts, which required no insurance fund. Therefore, last year there was a rush made in Ireland for the balance of the Ashbourne money, and that involved a great increase in the transactions before the Purchase Commissioners. Surely it would be very unjust to argue that, because the policy of the Government has caused a rush of applications and has vastly increased the work of the Commissioners, these facts should now be cited as a reason for arguing that the increase of salary should not be immediately given. I rather think that the existence of these heavy arrears due to the policy of the Government is a double reason why the increase of salary should be immediately conceded, because that increase in their labours was not foreseen last year. I must again emphasise the inexpediency and the disregard of the dignity of the Purchase Commissioners involved in leaving the increase of their salaries at the will of their juniors. The Purchase Commissioners have seven years' service; the Land Commissioners were only appointed three or four years ago. Mr. Wrench and his colleagues can determine how fast they will dispose of these appeals. They may for the next five years allow some appeals that were lodged before June last year to remain
  1136
  undetermined, and so long as one remains undetermined Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lynch are not to have their £1,000 a year. Any Government which makes such a proposal is not mindful as it ought to be of the respect that is due to the senior officials of the Department; officials who have discharged their duty in a devoted and painstaking manner—a manner which not only frees them from blame from any quarter, but has entitled them to praise from all sorts and conditions of men interested in the administration of the system of land purchase. I do trust the reply of the right hon. Gentleman may not be taken as his final word. The question is whether this £2,000 a year shall be given at once, or at some future time to be determined, not by the merits of the officials concerned, or by anything they can do, but by something that may be left undone by other persons, with which they have no concern and over which they have no control. The work under the Redemption of Rent Act has fallen not upon the Rent Commissioners, but upon the Purchase Commissioners. That work has fallen entirely on Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lynch, and I do strongly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take that into consideration. We do not deny there may be economy in the expenses of this Department. No doubt, within a moderate time it will be possible to reduce the number of the Commission to four; but that, instead of being an argument against my Amendment, seems to me a reason why the older officials of the Department should receive a generous recognition. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do a graceful and a gracious act by giving practical acknowledgment to the merit of these officials, and paying due deference to the wishes of all the Representatives of Ireland.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The hon. Member for West Belfast has made his case very clear, and it seems to me that the Chief Secretary has advanced no argument against the proposal. The salaries of the Purchase Commissioners are to depend on the speed with which another set of Commissioners do their work. How would the Chief Secretary like his salary to depend on the speed

  1137
  with which the Irish Attorney General did his work? That would strike everyone as being very curious, but it would not be more curious than the proposal of this Bill. There has been no reason alleged in this Bill for this extraordinary proceeding. You have got two gentlemen called Purchase Commissioners and three others called Rent Commissioners, and you propose that one body shall not be paid until the other body has done some particular work. It is the most complete case of flogging one man for the offence—if it is an offence—of the other that I have ever seen introduced into a Bill. I cannot understand the principle for the adoption of this extraordinary and anomalous proceeding; and, unless the Government accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, we must look upon it either as a practical joke or as a Party question. I fear there is something of this kind at the bottom, but as all the Irish Members have said that these salaries ought to commence from the beginning of the Act, I am surprised that the Government have brought forward this grotesque proposition. If we adopt the proposition, the people will question the good sense of an expiring House of Commons. We may be considered to be in our dotage at present, but I do not think we ought to set up as a future precedent such an extraordinary and strange Pill as this. I hope the Government may accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I think this is the shabbiest Bill I have ever come across, and really I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not feel ashamed to get up and defend its provisions before the House of Commons. I cannot say, astonishing as its provisions are, that I am altogether surprised, because this Bill is simply a continuance of the policy, I might almost say, of contempt which the present Government have consistently displayed towards this Department of the Irish Land Commission. The odd thing is that these two gentlemen were appointed by Lord Salisbury. This is the one Department of the Government in Ireland which possesses the confidence of the Irish people. Why, then, should the salaries of the
  1138
  Purchase Commissioners not be increased until the Fair Rent Commissioners have cleared off their arrears of work? I contend that the salaries should be placed on the same level without such delay, and that it is most shabby to treat the Purchase Commissioners in this way. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division on the subject.
  MR. JACKSON: I would like to say a few more words, as the hon. Member has used some strong language on the subject. The date is fixed in the Act of 1891, before which neither set of Commissioners shall do the work of the other. We have scrupulously followed that arrangement in order that there should be no charge made against us of having in any sense departed from it. The Government are therefore acting entirely in harmony with the Commissioners. All they want is to have the work done as soon as possible. I am afraid, however, that it will take twelve months to finish it, but hon. Members may rely that every attempt will be made to push it forward. Any suggestion, therefore, that the Government wish to prevent an increase of the Purchase Commissioners' salaries is entirely unfounded. I will only add that as the date has been fixed by Parliament, we are not justified in altering it.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to suggest that a compromise should be made on the subject. I offer this suggestion because I am extremely anxious to secure harmony in the management of affairs, and to promote the public interest, which depends a great deal on harmonious action on the part of the Land Commissioners. I also desire that a painful impression should not be left in the minds of the Representatives of Ireland on account of the irreconcilable action on the part of the Government in this matter. I must take issue with the right hon. Gentleman when he mixes up the question of salary with the question of clearing off arrears of work.
  MR. JACKSON: It is so arranged in the Act. There can be no interchange of duties on the part of the Commissioners until a certain date.
  MR. SEXTON: That is not the question. This is a question of increase

  1139
  of salary, which does not depend upon when the changes take place. We argued that it is absurd to cast upon the Fair Rent Commissioners the functions of purchase until they had cleared off their other work, because otherwise the duties to be imposed upon them could have no real effect. We never dreamt for a moment that the delay of the transfer of the Fair Rent Commissioners to the Purchase Department would also delay the increase of salary of the Purchase Commissioners. Therefore we disclaim any responsibility for it. In our view, the Purchase Commissioners are entitled to the increase of salary from the passing of the Bill. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that in his view the work will not take more than nine months.
  MR. JACKSON: A year.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to do a graceful act in deference to the unanimously expressed wish of the Representatives of Ireland, and relieve the Purchase Commissioners from the humiliating position in which they are placed. I hope he will also give the Fair Rent Commissioners a gentle hint to clear off the arrears of work in a limited time, and thus secure for the people the advantages conferred by the Act of last year.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not like to answer without a little consideration. I agree there is force in what the hon. Member has said about the possibility of one or two appeals delaying the time even beyond the power of the Commissioners themselves, because there might be technical difficulties or legal delays, over which they had no power. Perhaps we had better adjourn the matter, and in the meantime I will see whether I can accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, or something approximating to it.
  MR. SEXTON: I leave the matter with every confidence.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Would it not be most convenient to pass the Bill through Committee, so that it may be printed, and then deal with this matter on the Report stage?
  MR. SEXTON: I am quite satisfied with that arrangement.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. SEXTON: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: Before my second Amendment I wish to raise the question in regard to the scale of pension. As the clause now stands these Purchase Commissioners will only be entitled to pensions calculated upon the scale as if they were clerks in the Civil Service. They are judicial persons; their functions are, in large degree and eminent character, judicial; the tenure of office is the same as that of a County Court Judge; their salaries are based on the Consolidated Fund, and, by the withdrawal of their salaries, the Government and the House have shown that they regard the salaries as judicial. The County Court Judge is entitled to a pension on a judicial scale. The County Court Judge is a Court of First Instance, and his decisions come before these Commissioners for review, and they hold a higher position, so far ascertain actions in regard to land are concerned. Yet we have the anomaly that the lower office of County Court Judge has pension fixed on the judicial scale, while the Appellate Court only receives the pension of a Civil Service clerk. I move to leave out after the word "calculated," in the last line but one in the clause, in order to insert "upon a judicial scale."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, to leave out the words "calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Act," and insert "upon a judicial scale."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. JACKSON: This question has been carefully considered by the Treasury, and I think there can be no difference made between the Purchase Commissioners and the Fair Rent Commissioners in the scale of superannuation. I think it would be impossible to accept this.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I do not press this matter further, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see in it a further argument for equalising their position as far as possible in regard to salaries.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. SEXTON: My last Amendment provides what is very necessary with regard to Commissioners who hold office and discharge analogous functions before they become Purchase Commissioners. The principle of the Amendment is one the Government have urged with so much energy upon the House in regard to a less important and, perhaps, less deserving class of officials, that I have no doubt as to its acceptance.
  MR. MADDEN: In substance I am in a position to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, but I would move in substitution words which have been carefully considered by the Treasury. The difficulty is that under the Act of 1881 the Commissioner or Sub-Commissioner was precluded from coming in that Act for the purpose of valuation. In the removal of that disability I think the words I propose would carry out the intentions of the hon. Member.
  MR. SEXTON: That Amendment will dispose of the case of Mr. McCarthy, but is it certain that Mr. Lynch will also be included?
  MR. MADDEN: There is no difference. The interval will be covered.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it quite certain that will be taken into account without provision in the Bill?
  MR. MADDEN: Yes; I may mention that even without the words I suggest, where there had been service to the Crown under the Act of 1881, there would be title. But in order to make it perfectly clear, those words have been suggested.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, at the end of the clause, add "notwithstanding anything done in the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881."—(Mr. Madden.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL. (No. 371.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE EIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has appealed to me with regard to this Bill. He informed me it was opposed very strongly, and in conformity with the pledge I gave him I beg to withdraw the Bill until tomorrow, when I will put it down after unopposed Business.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 368.)
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 369.)
    As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

    GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER [INVERNESS] BILL.—(No. 403.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 211, 236, and 237 be suspended, and that the Committee of Selection have leave to appoint the Committee on the Bill, and to sit and proceed Tomorrow.—(Mr. Caldwell.)

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.—(No. 353.)
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 14) BILL—(No. 358.)
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL—(No. 346.)
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

    SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 275.)
    Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 271.]
    Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 410.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary." [Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' to enable the School Board for London to put in force 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' and the Acts amending the same." [Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Dublin, Fareham, Liverpool, Oxford, Sheffield, and Waterford." [Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Hampstead, Lambeth, Shoreditch, and Wnitechapel." [Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Bill [Lords.]

    TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL [Lords.]
    Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    SOLICITORS AND APPRENTICES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 85.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    JURY LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 289.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
    Ordered—
    "That the several Accounts and Papers, which have been presented to the House in this Session of Parliament, relating to the Revenues of India, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the Whole House."
    Resolved, That this House will on Thursday next resolve itself into the said Committee.—(Mr. Curzon.)

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, the sum of £44,094,083 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ANIMALS (IRELAND) [GRANT].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise 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.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [Lords.]
    Read the first time. [Bill 411.]
    EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [Lords.]
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. [Bill 412.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL.— [Lords.]
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. [Bill 413.]
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL. [Lords.]
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. [Bill 114.]
MOTIONS.

  QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS ((GUARDIANS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Morton, Bill to amend the Law relating to qualification of Voters for Guardians of the Poor in England and Wales, and to provide for the election of such Guardians by ballot, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Morton, Mr. Burt, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Priestly, and Mr. Bowen Rowlands.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 415.]

  PENSIONS (OLD AGE) (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Rankin, Bill for establishing a system of Old Age Pensions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Mallock, and Mr. Hozier.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 419.]

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TBAFFIC ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bill to amend "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks Beach and Sir John Gorst.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 416.]

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Gorst, Bill to grant Money for the purpose of certain Local Loans; and for other purposes relating to Local Loans, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 417.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Gorst, Bill to continue Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst, Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 418.]

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1890–91.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1891, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, namely:

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £96,021 4s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £266,410 9s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £170,389 5s. 7d.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £110,717 12s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Nav Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £166,196 5s. 8d. as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £55,478 12s. 9d.;

  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  352,616

  5

  8

  Total Deficits

  126,748

  7

  4

  (2.) That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  (3.) Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1890–91. Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimt'd Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimt'd Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  …

  Wages, &c, of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

  …

  …

  24,042

  13

  2

  24,337

  0

  7

  2

  …

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  …

  …

  42,442

  4

  7

  7,485

  11

  10

  3

  …

  Medical Establishments and Services

  …

  …

  …

  3,537

  7

  0

  611

  12

  4

  4

  …

  Martial Law

  …

  …

  …

  1,610

  5

  11

  11

  12

  9

  5

  …

  Educational Services

  …

  …

  1,895

  4

  10

  …

  501

  14

  5

  6

  …

  Scientific Services

  …

  …

  472

  12

  4

  …

  3,618

  12

  1

  7

  …

  Royal Navy Reserves

  …

  …

  871

  18

  7

  6

  3

  1

  8

  …

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.

  …

  Sec. 1

  Personnel

  …

  6,036

  13

  8

  …

  126

  9

  10

  Sec. 2

  Matériel

  …

  …

  69,415

  18

  10

  …

  …

  38,048

  19

  2

  Sec. 3

  Contract Work

  …

  …

  41,814

  13

  1

  5,617

  14

  8

  9

  Naval Armaments

  …

  …

  88,756

  6

  6

  …

  116,750

  8

  6

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad

  …

  …

  …

  41,535

  10

  2

  …

  7,164

  13

  0

  11

  …

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  18,187

  8

  10

  …

  1,099

  4

  9

  12

  …

  Admiralty Office

  …

  …

  1,326

  12

  6

  …

  111

  18

  6

  13

  …

  Half-Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

  …

  …

  …

  7,142

  18

  0

  3,320

  19

  0

  14

  …

  Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

  …

  …

  …

  …

  799

  4

  8

  5,055

  5

  0

  15

  …

  Civil Pensions and Gratuities

  …

  …

  …

  …

  10,162

  18

  5

  45

  19

  1

  16

  …

  Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

  …

  16

  10

  0

  …

  63,000

  0

  0

  Amount to be written off as irrecoverable

  …

  2,364

  12

  10

  96,021

  4

  2

  266,410

  9

  9

  110,717

  12

  11

  166,196

  5

  8

  Net Surplus, £170,389 5 7

  Net Surplus, 55,478 12

  Net Surplus, £225,867 18 4

  (4.) That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1891, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, namely:—

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £104,337 19s. 1d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £290,107 17s. 1d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £185,769 18s.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £38,723 15s. 8d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of the other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £133,885 0s. 7d., as shown in Column No 4 of the said appended Schedule;
  1150
  so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £100,161 4s. 11;

  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  416,519

  13

  11

  Total Deficits

  130,588

  11

  0"

  (5.) That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated appropriations in aid, in respect of the same Services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services."
  (6.) Resolved That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
  [For Tabular Statement—see following page.]

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote.

  Army Services, 1890–91. Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, &c, of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

  …

  …

  …

  …

  126,781

  14

  4

  …

  126,303

  7

  8

  2

  Medical Establishment: Pay, &c.

  …

  …

  …

  …

  11,433

  13

  10

  82

  16

  0

  3

  Pay, &c., of Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer Corps

  …

  …

  …

  …

  54,987

  9

  10

  …

  2,861

  17

  5

  4

  Transport and Remounts

  …

  47,598

  15

  5

  …

  3,763

  18

  11

  5

  Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies, and Clothing Establishments, and Services

  …

  599

  11

  7

  …

  12,453

  7

  2

  6

  Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

  …

  39,211

  16

  9

  …

  19,024

  7

  10

  7

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Superintending Establishment

  …

  …

  …

  31,178

  16

  10

  …

  637

  18

  3

  8

  Military Educational Establishments: Pay and Miscellaneous Charges

  …

  3,615

  10

  10

  68

  3

  10

  9

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  …

  …

  2,798

  3

  4

  …

  90

  15

  3

  10

  War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

  1,234

  10

  3

  …

  …

  12

  11

  0

  11

  Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c.

  …

  …

  …

  45,685

  12

  10

  6,366

  7

  4

  12

  Non-effective Charges for Men, &c.

  …

  …

  18,956

  11

  11

  …

  …

  5,356

  16

  6

  13

  Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

  …

  9,953

  3

  4

  …

  …

  586

  9

  1

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

  405

  5

  1

  104,337

  19

  1

  290,107

  17

  1

  38,723

  15

  8

  138,835

  0

  7

  Net Surplus, £185,769 18 0

  Net Surplus, £100,161 4 11

  Sum to be surrendered to the Exchequer, £285,931 2 11

  House adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock.

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK'S PLACE IN THIS HOUSE.
Report from the Committee for Privileges, that His Royal Highness the Duke of York has place and precedence in this House next after His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, and before His Royal Highness the Duke of Albany, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, the Archbishop of York, the Lord President of Her Majesty's Privy Council, the Lord Privy Seal, and all other Dukes, and that Her Majesty may direct His said Royal Highness to be placed in a chair or seat, to be prepared for him, on the left hand of the Cloth of Estate, if such shall be Her Royal pleasure; made, and agreed to; and resolved and adjudged accordingly; and Resolution and Judgment to be laid before Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves: Ordered, that the proceedings of the Committee for Privileges be printed. (No. 171.)
PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 82 be suspended for the remainder of the Session; and that Standing Orders Nos. 143 and 143A be also suspended for the remainder of the Session provided that amended prints be deposited before the Third Reading of any Bills to which the said Orders relate.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the London County Council (Tramways) Bill. The Bill as it stands proposes that a tramway should be laid from the dead end on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge to come over the bridge, then turn sharp to the right, and go along the Embankment as far as a pro-
  1010
  posed new street to be called Horse Guards Avenue, which is not yet made. The houses in Parliament Street, however, are in course of demolition, and the Horse Guards Avenue will go from the Horse Guards through to the Embankment, and, being a sixty feet road, it will make a very fine road forming a junction between Whitehall and the Embankment. The tramway terminus or dead end is to be placed before the tram gets to the Horse Guards Avenue, so that there will be no block of the traffic whatever, and it will relieve the great congestion of traffic and remove the danger that at present exists on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge. My Lords, I was not aware, till I came down to the House, that there would be any opposition to this Bill; but I have been told that there is a certain amount of opposition, which may, perhaps, be occasioned from not exactly knowing what the County Council propose to do. I will, therefore, venture first to take the opposition to the Bill as it stands itself. There are only three Petitions against it. One is from the Metropolitan District Railway Company, who appear to be apprehensive of losing a certain amount of traffic. I venture to think that that apprehension must be very small. I am speaking under correction, but I believe I am right in saying that the fares are the same from Westminster Bridge Station as they are from Charing Cross Station to the Mansion House; anyhow, there might not be the same number of people in the train, yet, at the same time, the Railway Company would not lose any money. Then there is an opposition from the Vestry of St. Margaret, Westminster. They seem to be apprehensive of the trams getting into Victoria Street. Well, my Lords, when there is any question of the trams getting into Victoria Street, that, perhaps, would be the best time to discuss the question. There is no question of the trams getting into Victoria Street or anywhere else. The terminus or dead end, as I said before, is at the end of Horse Guards Avenue, and there is no question I venture to think that need be discussed. Then the other Petition is from the frontagers and dwellers in the houses on the Embankment, who are chiefly I think represented by St.

  1011
  Stephen's Club. The Club pointed out that it would be a great detriment to them to have this tramway going past the door, and the chief objection that they made was that in wet weather people waiting for the trams would run and shelter themselves under the portico, which would be a great inconvenience to the members of the Club. Now there is no portico at all at St. Stephen's Club, so that I think the members may consider that that danger is not very great. And the frontagers are backed up by the Tramways Defence Association, which is an Association interested in ordinary wheel traffic, and that is the old question rather, as in the old days, of coaches against railroads. I may say briefly that the congestion of traffic at the end of Westminster Bridge is not only inconvenient, but it is a great and positive and serious danger. Besides the 55,000 passengers carried every week in omnibuses over Westminster Bridge past this dead end, there are 200,000 passengers every week who have to get out of the trams and walk over the bridge. It does not matter what the weather is; they must get out in the middle of the road, women and children, and walk through the mud; and all these 200,000 individuals have to walk across the bridge every week because they are unable to proceed any further. To help those people there are the halfpenny omnibuses which your Lordships may see,—the little red omnibuses which carry ten persons, and which it is calculated pass the end of Parliament Street 777 times a day. Now if the tramway was allowed to pass this House and was made up to this end, all those omnibuses would be run off the road of course; but I think I can put the case in a nutshell by just quoting what Mr. Street, of the Lambeth Vestry gave as one of his answers before the Select Committee of the House of Commons. He puts the case very clearly—
  "Sometimes three or four cars are waiting at the dead end, sometimes in addition three omnibuses come from the West End, two come from the Elephant and Castle, a halfpenny 'bus takes up passengers, and another one delivers passengers on the other side, and a heavy vehicle comes up from Standgate at the York Road, besides other traffic. The marvel is how there are not a large number of accidents in that place. It is to the credit of
  1012
  the police and those who have the management that it is not so. It is a question not only of inconvenience, but of danger."
  If it is a danger on a fine day your Lordships can imagine what a terrible inconvenience it must be on a snowy wet day such as we sometimes have. The statistics that I have given to the House were taken on the 6th, 7th and 8th March last, which the House-will remember were the most stormy days that we have had during the year, when the snow came down and there was a regular blizzard. Now, my Lords, I will very briefly state who are in favour of this proposal. The Lambeth Vestry, to begin with, are strongly in favour of the Bill. Then there is a Petition signed by sixty thousand inhabitants of South London. I know that sometimes Petitions are thought very little of; but this is a bonâ fide genuine Petition signed by sixty thousand inhabitants of South London, to whom it would be a manifest and great advantage; and Colonel Ford, who represents the North Lambeth Division on the London County Council, speaking for his constituents, says that the feeling is very strong in its favour. But I venture to think that what the House will consider the thing most in favour of the Bill is that there will be no extra charge for this extra half-mile. All that we propose to do is to run the tramway a little over four furlongs, and it will cost no more to go to the dead end on the Embankment than it does to go to the dead end on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge. And when you come to think that a great many of the female workers in the Strand, in Regent Street, and all round that part of London, come from the South of London, if they can be carried through the winter for that half-mile at the same rate that they are now carried it will be a great advantage to them—a great many of them are not able to afford the halfpenny omnibus; they have to trudge across the bridge in all weathers—I think those facts will satisfy the House. And knowing what a great benefit it will be to Walworth, Peckham, Brixton, and the whole of the district of South London, I venture respectfully to hope that your

  1013
  Lordships will not make any serious opposition to the Bill, or, at any rate, if any of your Lordships think they cannot support the Bill, that you will allow it to pass the Second Reading, when it will be referred to a Select Committee who will again go into the merits and demerits of the case; and then your Lordships will have an opportunity, if the Select Committee allow it to go through, of throwing out the Bill, if you are not satisfied that what I have said is absolutely correct. With great respect, in the interests of so many people in the South of London, I most earnestly ask your Lordships to be good enough to assent to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Carrington.)
  *LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. I have not the advantage, like the noble Lord, of being spokesman for the London County Council; but I am pretty confident that I should have been more likely to have had a seat on that body if I had thought it worth while in my speech to mention the fact of the tramways being constructed on the Victoria Embankment. With regard to the history of this Bill in the other House, perhaps I may just briefly allude to it. The Bill only passed the Second Reading in the House of Commons by a majority of two; and on the Third Reading it was by misadventure that it happened to be unopposed in a House of five Members. Your Lordships would rather perhaps that I considered the demerits of the Bill itself than the actual procedure that took place in the other House; but I thought it was just as well to mention these particular points to your Lordships. With regard to the Bill itself, there are two especial considerations. First of all what are the particular disadvantages of the proposed tramway, and also what necessity is there for its construction? There are two insuperable disadvantages connected with all tramways with which, of course, your Lordships are very well acquainted: the disadvantage that is applicable to a carriage or a cart, or an apple woman's
  1014
  donkey cart, that in crossing a tramway line there is always a great amount of skidding; and, secondly, there is the disadvantage of the rigidity of the course of the tramway line. And with regard to this line I might quote the Report of the Highways Committee of the London County Council of last year, in which, taking into consideration the Bill that was then before the House of Commons, promoted by a Tramways Company, they said—
  "It has been impossible to exclude from our consideration the fact that the proposed line would involve the occupation by what may be described as an inelastic traffic of a most important bridge and a thoroughfare which has been constructed at enormous expense at the cost of the Metropolis."
  That is the Report of the Committee of the London County Council itself, describing this traffic as most inelastic. And I might also quote the Report of a celebrated engineer, Sir John Fowler, when in 1872 there was a Joint Committee of both Houses for the purpose of considering the various proposed tramways throughout the Metropolis, in which he gave evidence with regard to this particular tramway line across Westminster Bridge. Now Sir John Fowler was asked—
  "Do you think it would be possible to bring the tramcars across the traffic upon Westminster Bridge?"
  and he replied—
  "I think it would be very dangerous, and at certain periods of the day almost impossible."
  Evidence to the same purport was likewise given by Sir Joseph Bazalgette; and the Report of the Committee was condemnatory of any line across Westminster Bridge. Now the noble Lord has referred to the existing block on the Surrey side of the bridge; but if this Bill were passed there would be an equal block brought about by the junction that would be created between the present South London Tramways Company and the London Tramways Company. Their two lines would be united; and it is impossible to conceive that you can have a junction effected between these two tramway lines without a great block and stoppage perhaps of all the traffic at that particular I point. The noble Lord in his remarks quoted the evidence of someone—I

  1015
  did not gather whom—who said that if it were not for the police it would be impossible for the traffic at the present time to be continued along the Surrey side of the bridge. My Lords, it is certainly to be regretted that when this Bill was in Committee in the other House there was no evidence of the police taken with regard to the traffic over Westminster Bridge. The private petitioners against the Bill could not obtain the evidence of the police, because they said they were Government officials, and the Chairman of the Committee for some reason did not think it necessary to take their evidence; but it would have been very important to have heard what the police, who are the superintendents of the traffic of our streets, would have said. As it is now proposed that the tram line should be put on either side of the roadway, all the traffic would be bound to go over one of those tram lines, and you would have Westminster Bridge, on which is focussed most of the traffic going to one of the terminal stations in London, the station, I believe that carries more passenger traffic to and from than any other station in the Metropolis—you would have the greater part of that traffic centred upon Westminster Bridge, and all the disadvantages that are consequent upon any tramway line would be most severely felt in that particular locality; and, even if there were any strong case in favour of the Bill, I still say that this particular locality renders it most unsuitable for having any tramway line running along it. Now the present Bill, as it is presented to your Lordships' House only proposes to take the tramway line to the other side of Westminster Bridge; but the Committee of the other House in their Report stated that they were unwilling to extend the tramway along the Embankment beyond what is necessary for another terminus. Therefore those two furlongs running down the line can only be considered as another terminus—I admit a long terminus; but according to the Report of the Committee it is only proposed that the tramway should exist for the sake of the traffic coming across the bridge. I maintain that it is an equal disadvantage for people, if they have to
  1016
  get out of a tramway and get into an omnibus, whether they do so at one end of the bridge or the other. The people coming over the bridge go to all parts of London,—but they do not go along the Embankment; perhaps a certain number do go by the District Railway, but the District Railway Company should know their own interests; and we have the District Railway Company as petitioners against the Bill. Therefore we must assume that there would not be any great part of this traffic that would be diverted into the Underground Railway. If then this Bill only proposes to take people across the bridge, it is natural enough that people will alight not at the end of the tramway, but at the end of the bridge; and therefore you would have the trams standing at the very point where it is least desirable that they should stand, at the point at which a few years ago the Metropolitan Board of Works got a special Act for removing a small ventilator of the District Railway Company at a cost of £7,000 or £8,000, so bothersome was this ventilator to the general course of traffic. And I say if the London County Council are anxious to do a good work in the Metropolis let them curtail the present lines of the Tramway Company and put them rather further back along the York Road so that you might have an uninterrupted traffic to Waterloo Station. But if it is objected by the promoters of the Bill that it will also assist people going down the Embankment to Charing Cross, and elsewhere, I should like any of your Lordships just to look at a map of London, and you will see that this reach of the river by Westminster is really north and south, and not east and west. Take a point down at the Borough—take the Obelisk—no man in his senses would think of coming across by Westminster Bridge to get to Charing Cross or the Strand; he would come by Waterloo Bridge if he were driving, or by the footroad of Hungerford Bridge to Charing Cross, running parallel with the railway. I am not talking of those portions of Lambeth that lie rather to the south-west; but the great mass of the dense population of the South of London would invariably go either by the Hungerford Bridge, or Waterloo

  1017
  Bridge, if they wanted to get to any portion of London east of Charing Cross. And if this is only in theory, I can say that I myself a Sunday or two ago thought I would go and stand down by the corner of Westminster Bridge and watch, on a beautiful Sunday evening, when you might imagine that people would go by the Embankment, and see what percentage of the people went along the Embankment, and what number went along Bridge Street; and I calculated about seven per cent. turned down the Embankment. But I may say that the Vestry of St. Martin-in-the-Fields took statistics with regard to the number of people going along the Embankment from South London, and on 5th May between the hours of five a.m. and nine p.m., out of 5,564 persons crossing only 270 went along the Embankment; and it is evident to anybody knowing what the Embankment is, that none of the working classes, or only a very small proportion, would go along the Embankment itself. And another proof that there is no traffic that way is that there are no omnibuses running there. We know that omnibuses are numerous enough in the Metropolis, and, if there were any likelihood of their paying, there would be an omnibus from the present termination of the tramway to take people along to Charing Cross; but they do not exist; and therefore we may fairly assume that there is no traffic that way. It may be asked why the London Council Council want to take their tramway along the Embankment if there is not likely to be any passenger traffic; and it is very hard to say at first sight. It is not likely that the members of the National Liberal Club, or even Constitutional Club want the tramway; there must be some deeper reason for it; and it is that the County Council want a starting point from which to have a general system of tramways throughout the West End of London. But my Lords, there is no likelihood of this present line being worked. The Tramway Companies at the present time refuse the conditions of the London County Council. According to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons up to 1898, when, if the Bill passes, they will get
  1018
  full power to work over any other tramway in London, the tramway shall not be worked by the London County Council unless it is found that they are unable to obtain an inadequate rent. I understand that they have come to some agreement about the rental, £1,000 or £1,300, with the Tramway Company; but what the Tramway Company stick at is the ten hours' limit per day, and there they are at a dead-lock. Supposing even the County Council were to get permission from the Board of Trade under these circumstances to work the line themselves, is it likely that they would incur the expense of starting their own staff of men, stables, cars, horses, and all the rest of it, to work four furlongs and an odd number of yards? Besides, even if they did, that would involve the changing of the passengers from the system of the Tramway Company to that of the London County Council. The fact of the whole thing is that it is an abortive scheme; it is a still-born child, this production of the London County Council; there would be lying a decaying nuisance along the Embankment until such time as it may have some life infused into it by a general system of tramways throughout the whole of the West End of London. Then it may indeed become the heart centre, the great starting point for all the tramways of the West End. There was evidence given by the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council, I think at the County Council itself, in which it was distinctly stated that the Council tried to get trams along Victoria Street, and that with regard to Parliament Street they would leave it an open question; and a Member of the House of Commons, I think it was Lord Compton, said that it was a necessity for joining the southern and northern systems of tramways in the Metropolis. Therefore you would have probably the tramways from Moorgate Street, the tramways-from Gray's Inn Road, and the tramways from Hampstead Road all converging towards Charing Cross; and thence there would be other tramways radiating out of Victoria Street, and through the West End. If your Lordships think it desirable to have tramways throughout the West End, then

  1019
  you must vote for this Bill; but otherwise you should not pass this Bill, because it is only an excuse for making a great centre for a general tramway system. And I may remind your Lordships that at the present time Electric Subway Train Bills are being promoted which would most effectually deal with this particular district. There is one Bill in particular for a subway running under the river right up to the North of London, up by the Hampstead Road. Now with regard to the evidence brought forward either in support of, or against the Bill, of course the owners of frontages are strongly hostile to the Bill. I may also say that St. Thomas's Hospital is strongly opposed to the Bill, and, if the noble Lord quoted the Vestry of Lambeth as being in favour of the Bill, it is also assuredly legitimate to quote the Vestries of St. Margaret's and St. John's, Westminster, as being strongly opposed to the Bill, and as being petitioners against it. And I think the noble Lord quoted Colonel Ford as being in favour of the Bill, as representing Lambeth on the County Council; and I might equally quote General Sir Charles Fraser, who is strongly opposed to the Bill, and who said that he had the unanimous support of all the tradespeople in the Westminster Bridge Road against the Bill. My Lords, let me then just sum up the points as I have put them to you. First of all, that the inconvenience created by the tramway would outweigh any real benefit; secondly, that the traffic down the Embankment is a minimum amount, and there is no prospect of the line being worked; that it has been stated in evidence that the desire of the London County Council is to extend the tramway system throughout the West End; and also that there is likely soon to be a most efficient way of increasing locomotion throughout the Metropolis by means of electric railways. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will not be led away by any appeals that you are doing a benefit to the masses who reside in South London. It has not been proved that the Bill would be a benefit; and, even if it were a benefit, it would be a benefit in no proportion to the injury that would be done to the general public of the Metropolis. My
  1020
  Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Lord Lamington.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I think there is one consideration which ought to weigh very strongly with your Lordships, and that is that this Bill has been before a Select Committee of the other House, and has been carefully considered by that Select Committee who, after hearing the evidence, reported in its favour. Your Lordships are asked in the case of a Bill, the importance of which cannot be denied, after what has been said by my noble Friend near me, and even by the noble Lord opposite, to reject the Bill without hearing evidence, without having any means of guiding your Lordships to a conclusion, although the Committee of the other House, after hearing evidence, have reported in its favour. What will be the result? Your Lordships will be said to have determined to proceed not upon evidence, but without evidence, to reject the Bill which the other House upon evidence determined to pass. Surely, by so doing, your Lordships will put yourselves in a position extremely to be deprecated. The result of reading this Bill a second time will merely be that it will go to be investigated by a Committee of your Lordships' House; and, if those who promote it do not establish their case, and, if those who oppose it can show that, upon the whole, this Bill will not be a public advantage, then the Committee will so report; and if, on the other hand, the Committee report to the contrary, and your Lordships' Committee come to the same conclusion as the Committee of the other House, it will still be in your Lordships' power to act; but then you will be acting with evidence before you, and with the means of judging. I am not going into the merits of the Bill at this stage; I think it undesirable to discuss its merits; I am at the moment not in a position to do so; but I do appeal to your Lordships to let the determination of this question be a determination

  1021
  when you have the evidence and can act upon it, and not before.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to say very much with regard to this Bill; I would only point out to your Lordships that it is unusual, to say the least, to reject a Bill of this kind without allowing it to go to a Committee. I admit further that this Bill does not stand absolutely on the same footing as many Bills of the kind, because no doubt it is connected with an important thoroughfare that is well known to your Lordships. At the same time the House must remember that it comes from an important body; it is promoted by an important representative body, the County Council of London, and it has been passed by the House of Commons. I do not wish to say that that is to have an extreme weight with your Lordships, but I think it must have some weight with you, and should deter you, at any rate, from rejecting a Bill on the Second Reading without allowing it to go to a Committee. The course would be an unusual one, and I venture to think in the present case, it would be somewhat unfortunate. I would remind the House that after the Bill has gone through a Select Committee, where the many points that have been brought before your Lordships by the noble Lord, who moved the rejection of the Bill, may be fully considered, there will still be an opportunity for the House, if it thinks fit, to reject the the Bill on the Third Reading.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, having had some experience of Private Bill legislation in this House, and perhaps being now one of the oldest Members of it, I can only bear my testimony to the fact that during the time I have been in this House I do not remember any course being taken similar to that which is now proposed by the noble Lord opposite—with one exception, and that was taken by the late Earl of Derby, when he moved the rejection of a Bill which had for its purpose, if I am rightly informed, the erection of an arcade, somewhat similar to the Burlington Arcade leading out of Bond Street. The House on that occasion rejected the Bill on Second Reading; but the
  1022
  difference between that Bill and this one was very important, because that was a Bill that originated in this House, and did not come up, as this Bill has done, from the other House. I have looked in vain for any precedent for the course suggested by the noble Lord opposite, and I think it would really be a very dangerous course; and I venture to hope that the House will seriously consider before they take the step they are asked to take this evening.
  *LORD LAMINGTON: If this Bill does go to a Select Committee would the noble Lord who brought in the Bill allow it to be an undertaking that no objection shall be made to any petitioner appearing before the Committee? Very few people have a locus standi in the matter. The roadway of the bridge and of the Embankment belongs entirely to the London County Council, and therefore it is possible for the Vestries of St. Margaret's and St. John's, Westminster, who practically are chiefly interested in the Bill not to be allowed to appear before the Committee. But, if the noble Lord would agree to their being allowed to appear, and any other petitioners, then I will withdraw my Motion.
  LORD CARRINGTON: I cannot bind myself to do exactly what my noble Friend wishes; but I can bind myself so far as this: that the London County Council will cause no objection to be placed in the way of any persons who wish to oppose the Bill, and who have any valid reason to show why it should not be passed into law.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: May I be allowed to point out that the noble Lord cannot bind the Committee? The noble Lord can bind himself not to oppose the locus standi of any person who wishes to appear before the Committee; but it rests with the Committee alone to decide who shall appear before them.
  On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion, resolved in the affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ACCUMULATIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBUBY): My Lords, the Accumulations Bill has been sent to me with a request that I should move the Second Reading in your Lordships' House. The circumstances are somewhat peculiar. An Accumulations Bill came up to this House on a former occasion to which I objected very much, and it was negatived, but I said at the time that if certain parts of the Bill had been by themselves I should have had no objection to raise to the Second Reading. That course has been adopted apparently by the other House, and the Bill is sent up here retaining only very limited enactments, to which, certainly, I have no objection; and I suppose it is in consequence of what I said on that occasion that it has been expected that I should move the Second Reading. I have no objection to doing so, and under these circumstances I ask your Lordships to let the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, as the Bill stands it seems to aim at an improvement, though only a very small improvement, in the law. And this leads me to say, that I hope those who in any future Session may have the conduct of business in your Lordships' House may consider the propriety of reviewing in a larger spirit the whole law, I do not say of accumulations so much, as of the kindred subject of perpetuities, with a view to putting it into a better form than at present. I will take the liberty of suggesting that the present power of accumulating might well be confined, not to any abstract number of lives arbitrarily selected and twenty years afterwards, but to lives interested under the settlement; that accumulations should only have relation to persons entitled under the settlement, and should not be allowed to go on any arbitrary footing. And another point
  1024
  which I think worth considering is whether the present law of remoteness is not unnecessarily severe by destroying, as against persons who come into existence within due limits of time, all provisions which might comprehend, as members of the same class, other persons, who either actually or possibly come into existence at a time beyond those limits. I have no doubt the law on that general subject does deserve revision, and that it might be usefully revised in those directions.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, when I invited your Lordships to read a second time a Bill dealing with this, same subject some time ago now, my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack induced your Lordships to refuse to give it a Second Reading, and the Bill was lost. I cannot help thinking that, if the Bill had been allowed to be read a second time, and had been put into a better shape, the legislation which is admitted now to be necessary, and which has now some three years afterwards been brought before your Lordships' House, might have passed into law in a better shape than is at present proposed. My Lords, I am not going to oppose this Bill—I take an instalment, whenever I can get it, and look for better things hereafter; but I cannot, profess to be satisfied with a provision which forbids the accumulation of money to be laid out in land; that is to say, that you may not direct the money to accumulate for so many years in order that it may be laid out in that particular way, but, may allow of its accumulation in another form. I think these accumulations with a view of piling up huge fortunes, leaving the persons, whose children may hereafter be entitled to them, in the meantime in a very unsatisfactory position, are bad things in themselves; they are bad whether it applies to money to be laid out in land or in any other way. But, my Lords, I accept this Bill, of course, as it now stands and shall not attempt to extend its scope, with this exception, that, as it stands, it seems to me it is so drawn as to admit of the whole object of the Bill being very easily, and satisfactorily, defeated by anybody who wants to defeat it. The words are these in Clause 1:—

  1025
  "No person shall, after the passing of this Act, settle or dispose of any property in such manner that the rents, issues, profits, or income thereof shall be wholly accumulated for the purchase of land only."
  In order to come within the Act it must be "wholly accumulated for the purchase of land only." Therefore if you except from the accumulation any sum however small—if from an estate that brings in £50,000 a year you except £5 a year, and direct it to be applied to something else than land, the clause is not applicable, and therefore you have allowed the accumulation of all the rest. I cannot think that that was the intention with which the Bill was framed; but, if it is not the intention, it seems obvious that some amendment is needed. Then, with regard to the second clause, I do not know whether I rightly understand its effect. I am not sure whether that is intended which seems to result from the language used; but is it intended, I would ask my noble and learned Friend, that this clause should be retrospective? The first clause says, it is true—
  "No person shall after the passing of this Act, settle or dispose of any property";
  but then the second clause says this—
  "In every case where any accumulation for any longer period shall have been directed, such direction shall, as from the passing of this Act, be null and void, and the rents, issues, profits, or income so directed to be accumulated shall go to and be received by such person as would have been entitled thereto if such accumulation had not been directed."
  Your Lordships may alter the law so as to forbid accumulations in future; but where it has been legal to direct an accumulation of this description, and a person has made his provisions accordingly—it may be not wishing the person who would become entitled under this clause to come into possession of it—it seems to me rather a strong thing to make such a provision as this retrospective, and to say that from the passing of this Act all this provision, lawfully and well made, shall not be allowed, but shall cease, and that the property shall no longer go as disposed, but shall go to such persons "as would have been entitled thereto if such accumulation had not been directed."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With regard to the first of my noble and learned Friend's criticisms, I am disposed to agree with him that the word "wholly" ought to be omitted. With regard to the second, I confess I entertain no doubt that the clause is intended to be retrospective in this respect: that all that is done under it—all that has been accumulated under it I presume would not be touched by the Act, but that all accumulations that are to be prevented by the Act, such as accumulation of land, would be unlawful after the passage of the Act; and in that sense, although the step had been taken many years ago,, it would be unlawful. It is the intention of the framers of the Act that it should be in that sense retrospective, and I agree with my noble and learned Friend that it is so. Whether it ought to be so or not is a question for your Lordships to determine. For myself, I am bound to state candidly what my impression of the effect of it may be, and I think that is what would be the effect. The House of Commons, I think, passed this Bill without any objection at all, and I believe it is not one of those Bills that were passed absolutely in silence; I rather think it has been discussed. But whatever Amendments may do in Committee in this matter your Lordships will, of course, consider the arguments on both sides of the subject. I should be very reluctant for your Lordships to reject the Bill on the Second Reading, because it might be considered that I had not practically advanced the interests of this Bill by anything that I said in its favour.
  LORD HERSCHELL: With regard to the discussion on this Bill, my Lords, I received a communication, from a Member of the other House who takes a great interest in the subject, and who put down certain Amendments, especially with regard to the retrospective effect of Clause 2, and he informs me that the Bill came on suddenly and unexpectedly in his absence, so that he was not able to bring them forward.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I certainly understand the clause not to be retrospective.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to obviate the inconvenience of the delay that sometimes occurs in the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) from there being no power in that Court to hold two Courts in Edinburgh at the same time. That power exists already in the Court on Circuit. The Bill consists of one clause only, which is to effect that object. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to clear up certain doubts as to the effect of the Housing of Working Classes (Scotland) Act. That Act repeals the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1875, under which in certain burghs in Scotland Provisional Orders have been obtained and schemes entered into; but in consequence of the repeal of that Act those burghs have had the greatest difficulties, because certain undertakings had been entered into by the Local Authority in the burgh, and by the repeal of that Act those schemes have been hung up, and cannot be safely continued unless that difficulty is removed. That object will be effected by the second clause in the Bill. There is another clause which has been inserted to alter the definition of an
  1028
  Urban Sanitary Authority as defined by the Act of 1890 so far as regards Scotland. Under Section 96, Sub-section 2, of that Act, it is provided that the assessment of any improvement scheme should be levied only within the parish or parishes in respect of which such expenses are incurred. That provision is appropriate enough in rural districts, but in burghs where there are more than one parish it introduces a novel and undesirable system of rating which it is intended to remove by this clause, the effect of which will be to put the assessment on the whole burgh, and not on the individual parish. I think with that explanation I may ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

COLONIAL STOCK ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, I have to ask your indulgence in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, because, owing to some block apparently in the printer's department, it has only at this moment come down from the printer's office. As your Lordships are aware, certain Colonial Stocks may be inscribed in this country, after certain regulations have been complied with, under the Colonial Stocks Act, 1877. The Colonial Authorities have hitherto always transferred, and they very much prefer to transfer, their Colonial Stock by deed; but Section 4 of the Colonial Stock Act, 1877, provided a special form of transfer for Stock inscribed under that Act; it was to be done by a note on the register. By some misunderstanding or overlooking of the effect of Section 4 certain Colonial Stock, which has been inscribed under the Colonial Stock Act, 1877, has been still continued to be transferred by

  1029
  deed. This Bill has a double object: first, to provide, as the Colonial Governments very much desire it, for the continued transfer of Stock although inscribed under the Colonial Stock Act, 1877, by deed; and, secondly, to heal the irregularity which has unfortunately occurred with respect to some Colonial Stock that has been inscribed under the Act of 1877. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Knutsford.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, my attention has been called to the difficulty to which the noble Lord has alluded, and I think this is eminently a case in which a measure of this sort should be passed; there has been an oversight; a considerable amount of property is affected by it; and no mischief can be done by validating that which has been done.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
    THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I have to apologise somewhat for asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill to-night, because it has not yet been circulated; it has just been printed, but I am afraid your Lordships have not yet had an opportunity of considering its provisions. I have the less difficulty, however, in asking your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading now, because I have already introduced this Bill in two Sessions, and your Lordships have passed the Bill on those two occasions. I need not therefore go into detail about the Bill beyond saying that there are two main alterations in it as compared with the Bill which your Lordships passed last year and the year before. The first of these provisions is that whereas in the Bill of last year it was proposed to give the Secretary for Scotland power to divide Scotland into four fishery districts, for the purpose of each of
    1030
    those districts returning a member to the Fishery Board, and for other purposes, it is now proposed under this Bill to divide Scotland into five districts, so that the Fishery Board will consist of ten instead of nine members as proposed last year. The second alteration is one perhaps of rather more importance. It is proposed to give the sea fishery districts power to form sub-committees in their several districts, and one of the main powers either of the Fishery Board itself, or which they could delegate to sub-committees, is the power of acquiring and dealing with mussel beds on the coast of Scotland. Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the great difficulty that there has been, and that exists now, in obtaining mussel fishery beds on the coast of Scotland, especially on the east side; and one of the main objects of the Bill is to try and arrange for a cultivation of mussel beds, and putting them under the authority of the Fishery Board of the particular fishery district; so that the fishermen may with greater case obtain the bait necessary for their calling. Another provision under Section 4 of the Bill is that money will be voted by Parliament for the necessary expenses which will be incurred under the Act if it is put in force. My Lords, I think I need not explain further the provisions of the Bill. As your Lordships have not had an opportunity of seeing it, I shall, of course, be prepared on the Committee stage to give any further information for which your Lordships may think it necessary to ask. With these observations I beg to move that the Bill now read a second time.
    Moved "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
    Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a; the Amendments proposed by the Select

    1031
    Committee made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3* on Thursday next.
    BILLS OF SALE BILL [H.L.]
    Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 173.)
    INFECTIOUS HOSPITALS BILL [H.L.]
    A Bill for enabling County Councils to promote the establishment of hospitals for the reception of patients suffering from infectious diseases—Was presented by the Lord Thring; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 174.)
    EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next: (The Lord Ker [M. Lothian]). (No. 175.)
    NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next: (The Lord Elphinstone.) (No. 176.)
    POOR LAW SCHOOLS (IRELAND) 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. 177.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.—(No. 178.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 179.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 180.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
    EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to order): An Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with: Amendment reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with: Amendments reported: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
    House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (BATHGATE WATER) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

    ALLOTMENTS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock.