Sitting of 20 June 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Orders for the Suspension of Private Bills, or Bids to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY,): It is proper that I should say a word or two upon the Resolutions I have the honour of moving. Their object is understood by the House—namely, to enable the promoters of Private Bills who have not succeeded in getting their Bills passed into law this Session to suspend further proceedings at the stage they may have reached when this Session comes to an end, and to resume those proceedings in a new Session of Parliament, so that promoters may not be forced to go through again the work transacted in respect to such Bills in the present Session, and be put to the expense of fees in relation to those
1550
stages which have been passed. These Resolutions have been agreed to on similar occasions more than ones in recent times, and their operation is perfectly well understood; but the condition of affairs this Session materially differs from the conditions on previous occasions. In 1880 and again in 1886 there were interruptions of the work of the Session, consequent upon the Dissolution of Parliament, and Private Business was suspended and resumed when Parliament met again. But it will be remembered that in 1880 the Dissolution happened before Easter, when the work of the Session was not one-third through, when there was a considerable amount of Public Business left over for the beginning of the new Session. Again in 1886, although the amount of legislation left for the House when it re-assembled was small, a great amount of administrative work—a large number of Votes in Supply—had to be disposed of; and under the circumstances there was no difficulty in calling together the necessary Committees to carry the Private Business to completion. But in the present Session, with all the Public Business transacted and no Votes remaining in Supply, it must be obvious to everybody that the prospect of obtaining Committees to sit and consider Private Bills after a Con era! Election and in the month of August is small; therefore, unless the stages which remain are purely formal, not calling for the action of Members in Committee,. or unless the Bills have reached a stage only calling for assent to Amendments made in the other House, all practical work being completed; unless such a stage is reached when Parliament adjourns and is dissolved, it would be hopeless to attempt to carry them through in the autumn; they must, in fact, be suspended until February; and so long a suspension, with possibly considerable changes in the circumstances under which the Bills were promoted, might involve greater hardships to promoters than was involved in the years I have referred to, 1880 and 1886. The circumstances of the present year are altogether novel, and the assistance which the House has been able

1551
to give to promoters on former occasions, enabling them to resume proceedings after a short interruption, cannot practically now be offered until many months have gone by. Under these circumstances we who have been engaged in the conduct of Private Business have endeavoured to get as many Bills as possible through their stages, so that as small a number as possible may be left over; and I am glad to think that of the Bills promoted, so far as this House is concerned, only about ten or a dozen will be left over, among them toeing two very important Bills—the Leeds Corporation Bill and the Blackpool Improvement Bill. These must be left, and be carried through in another year. The other Bills are of comparatively minor importance, though still of importance; but altogether I do not think there are more than ten or twelve. I am bound to say the list is actually longer, but we hope with the concurrence of the other House to dispose of several this week. The time has not elapsed within which parties may lodge Petitions against some seven or eight Bills, and until the time has elapsed we have no security that parties will not appear, though in the majority of cases the Bills will be unopposed. In the course of the week the required time will expire, and the House sitting for another week, these seven or eight Bills may pass both Houses and be ripe for the assent of the Crown. I feel bound to express the opinion that there are grave reasons why this Private Bill legislation should be dissociated from the chances and fortunes of Parliamentary life so long as we retain control of Private Business, and that we are bound to do all we can to alleviate the pressure the exigencies of the situation throw upon the promoters of these very useful measures. I am glad that we are able to do so much, and that the remnant that must stand over will be so small, although included in the number are two very important Bills in which large Corporations are interested.
Motion made, and Question proposed,

"1. That the Promoters of every Private Bill which shall have been introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords in
1552
the present Session of Parliament, shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereupon, in order to proceed with the same Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

2. That the Promoters of every such Bill shall give notice in the Private Bill Office, not later than the day prior to the close of the present Session, of their intention to suspend any further proceedings thereon; or, in the case of Bills which shall have been suspended on the Report of a Committee, or which, having passed this House, shall then be pending in the House of Lords, of their intention to proceed with the same Bill in this House in the next Session.

3. That an Alphabetical List of all such Bills, with a statement of the stage at which the same were suspended, shall be prepared by the Private Bill Office, and printed."

MR. HOWELL: I presume the list will be circulated?
MR. COURTNEYassented.
"4. That, not later than three clear days after the next meeting of Parliament, every Bill which has been introduced into this House shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, in the form required by Standing Order No. 201, with a declaration signed by the Agent annexed thereto, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill with respect to which proceedings have been so suspended, at the last stage of its proceeding in the House in the present Session; and, where any sum of money has been deposited, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact from the proper officer of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England or Ireland, or the Court of Exchequer in Scotland, as the case may be.
5. That such Bills, indorsed by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, as having been duly deposited with such declarations and certificates annexed, be laid by one of the Clerks of that Office upon the Table of the House, in the next Session of Parliament, in the order in which they shall stand upon such List.
6. That in respect of every Bill so laid upon the Table, the Petition for the Bill and the Order for leave to bring in the same in the present Session shall be read, and thereupon such Bill shall be read a first time; and a second time (if the Bill shall have been read a second time previously to its being suspended); and if such Bill shall have been reported by any Committee in the present Session, the Order for referring the Bill to a Committee shall be dispensed with, and the Bill ordered to lie upon the Table or to be read a third time, as the case may be.
7. That in case any Bill brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, upon which the proceedings shall have been suspended in this House, shall be brought from the House of Lords in the next Session of Parliament, the Agent for such Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office, prior to the first reading thereof, a declaration stating that the

1553
Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the House of Lords in the present Session; and where any sum of money has been deposited, that such deposit has not been withdrawn, together with a certificate of that fact from the proper officer: and so soon as one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office has certified that such deposit has been duly made, the Bill shall be read a first time, and be further proceeded with in the same manner as Bills introduced into this House during the present Session.
8. That all Petitions presented in the present Session against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate, and which stood referred to the Committees on such Bills, shall stand referred to the Committees on the same Bills, in the next Session of Parliament; and that all Notices and grounds of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard given in the present Session within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Referees relating to such Notices shall be held applicable in the next Session of Parliament.
9. That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on such Bills, unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present Session.
10. That, in case the time limited for presenting Petitions against any such Bills shall not have expired at the close of the present Session, Petitioners may be heard before the Committee on such Bill, provided their Petition be presented previous to, or not later than, seven clear days after the next meeting of Parliament.
11. That all Instructions to Committees on Private Bills in the present Session which shall be suspended previously to their being reported by any Committee be Instructions to the Committees on the same Bills in the next Session.
12. That no new Fees be charged in respect of any stage of a Bill upon which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
13. That all Standing Orders complied with in respect of any Public Bill introduced, or intended to be introduced, during the present Session, shall be held applicable to any Bill for the same objects introduced in the next Session, and where the Examiner has already reported upon the compliance with the Standing Orders in respect of any such Bill, he shall only report in the next Session whether any further Standing Orders are applicable.
14. That Bills to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords in the present Session, shall be suspended from the close of the present Session, in order to be proceeded with in the next Session of Parliament.
15. That with regard to any such Bills the Order of Leave in the present Session shall be read, and thereupon the Bill shall be read a first time and a second time (if the Bill shall have been read a second time during the present Session); and if such Bill shall have been reported by any Committee in the present Session, the Order for referring the Bill
1554
to a Committee shall be dispensed with, and the Bill ordered to be upon the Table, or to be read a third time, as the case may be.
16. That all applications made, and Certificates given, and all other proceedings taken with reference to any Bill introduced, or intended to be introduced in the present Session for confirming any Provisional Order in respect to the Inclosure of Commons, under 'The Commons Act, 1876,' shall be deemed to apply to any Bill introduced for the same object in the next Session.
17. That the said Orders be Standing Orders of this House, and be printed."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Motion agreed to.
MR. COURTNEY: My next proposal is to facilitate the more rapid consideration of Lords' Amendments that may be returned to us this Session.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the Session.
That, as regards Private Bills already returned by the House of Lords, with Amendments, such Amendments be now considered.
That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords, with Amendments, such Amendments be considered forthwith.
That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a Copy of such Amendments shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords, and such Amendments may be considered forthwith."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Motion agreed to.

REGENT'S CANAL, CITY, AND DOCKS RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the case of the Regent's Canal, City, and Docks Railway Bill [Lords], Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration, provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—(Dr. Clark.)
MR. PICTON: I think there are some reasons for objecting to this. I presume, if objection is taken, it stands over till to-morrow? I think it will be more convenient to put it off.
MR. COURTNEY: There is the Third Reading afterwards.
MR. PICTON: I think some reasons should be given why this scheme should have been hung up for eleven years. I

1555
think we ought to have a full explanation of the subject, which I suppose we can scarcely have to-day; therefore I object.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member object to this Motion, or to the Third Reading?
MR. PICTON: To the Motion.
MR. SPEAKER: Then it is postponed till to-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  A GALLERY OF BRITISH ART.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can hold out any hopes of a successful resumption of negotiations with Mr. Tate, and the acceptance by Government of his generous contribution towards the establishment of a Gallery of British Art; and whether it might be possible to induce Mr. Tate and the Trustees of the National Gallery to agree to some kind of compromise, by which his valuable collection might be housed at the St. George's Barracks' site?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): As regards the first question, I am not at present in a position to hold out any such hopes. As regards the second question, it would be most agreeable to me to see such a compromise effected, and I do not see why it could not be possible; but I have no information at the present moment to entitle me to admit its probability.

  THE TRAINING SHIP "BRITANNIA."
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has yet made his official Report upon the system of fagging discovered on board the cadet training ship "Britannia" last autumn; if so, will he state the nature of the recommendations that have been made?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT,)(who replied): In the absence of my noble Friend I have to say that no Report of the kind suggested was made; but certain cadets, having been detected in practices of a
  1556
  very reprehensible character, were expelled the ship, and warning was given to all the cadets that any repetition of these offences would meet with summary punishment.
  MR. GOURLEY: Was the Duke of Edinburgh called upon to make any Report?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I believe not.

  BOYS FOR THE NAVY.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if the 1,292 boys just reported as being proposed for entry into the Navy during the current financial year is in addition to the annual entry of 3,700 boys for three years, or 2,500 less?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The number, 1,292, is the estimated increase on the total number of boys to be borne in the Navy, both for service and training, for the year 1892–93, as compared with the same total for the year 1891–92. The number to be entered during 1892–93 is 3,700, which is two hundred more than in the preceding year.

  THE LAND PURCHASE COMMISSION AND THE GREVILLE ESTATES.
  COLONEL LLOYD ANSTRUTHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the delay of the Land Purchase Commissioners in adjudicating upon the offers of certain tenants on the Greville Estates, County Longford, to purchase their holdings under the terms of Lord Ashbourne's Act; whether he is aware that agreements to purchase to the extent of £76,000 were signed between April and December,. 1889, by tenants on the Granard portion of the estate; that up to the present time sales representing £49,266 have been sanctioned; and that there remain on this portion of the estate a large number of cases still pending on which no final decision has been given; and that agreements to purchase to the extent of £12,944 were signed, for the most part, in October and November, 1889, by tenants on the Ballymacormick portion of the estate; that up to the present time only three of these cases, representing £1,257, have been sanctioned; that the

  1557
  remaining cases were postponed by the Commissioners on a question of turbary rights; that this question was settled, and the cases were remitted for the consideration of the Commissioners in November, 1891; and that offers to purchase on this portion of the estate, to the extent of £11,687, are still awaiting their decision?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GOBST,)(who replied): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Land Purchase Commissioners report that there has been no delay on their part in dealing with the applications from the Greville Estate, which have been adjudicated upon in due course according as the necessary information and rectifications as to areas, tenancies, turbary rights, grazing rights, and otherwise have been supplied. The total number of applications from both sections of the estate was 186 for sums amounting to £86,360. Of these 128 have been sanctioned for sums amounting to £62,018, and fifty have been refused for sums amounting to £22,562. There remain only eight cases to be adjudicated on, and these are stayed for replies to queries which have been issued long since. A sum of £48,624 has been lodged to the credit of the estate in the Bank of Ireland.

  THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the statement in the Gold Fields News of last October, that a party of Englishmen were arrested in Zambaan's territory by a Transvaal Sheriff and were turned out of the country, has been brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government; whether any Dutchmen, on behalf of the Transvaal, demand taxes within the territories of Zambaan and M'Bigesa; and whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to prevent concessions being granted to the subjects of the Transvaal similar to those which were acquired by them in Swaziland?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): The statement in the Gold Fields News, which the Secretary of State has not seen, no doubt refers to a case which occurred in September last, when a party of white men were arrested by a Transvaal official while on their way to Zambaan's kraal. It is not stated that the men were British subjects, and it is doubtful whether the spot where the arrest took place was, or was not, within the Transvaal boundary. The Transvaal official maintained that it was. The Secretary of State is not aware that taxes are being demanded in the territories of Zambaan and M'Bigesa by a Dutchman on behalf of the Transvaal Government. Her Majesty's Government cannot prevent the grant of concessions by independent chiefs, but they must reserve the question whether they would lie under an obligation to recognise such concessions hereafter under altered circumstances.

  COUNTY CESS RECEIPTS.
  MR. KNON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the cess collectors in Cavan have, by direction of the Grand Jury, refused or omitted to give separate receipts for county cess under the Relief of Distress Act, 1880, half of which is recoverable from the landlord, or in any way to separate the amounts levied under that Act from the ordinary cess; whether £4,000 repayable by the landlords has ever been repaid by them owing to this practice; and whether he will take steps to prevent the recurrence of this abuse?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): My right hon. Friend answered this question on Friday to the effect that it is a matter which does not come within the cognisance of the Government, but that the question had been referred to the Secretary to the Grand Jury for any observations the Grand Jury might desire to offer. No reply had then been received, and I am informed that up to the present no information has reached the Irish Office.
  MR. KNOX: Is it not customary, as a matter of courtesy, for the Secretary of a Grand Jury to reply?
  MR. MADDEN: Oh, yes. I have always received the fullest information from Secretaries to Grand Juries, and I have not the slightest doubt that information in this case will be transmitted. I merely notify to the hon. Member that it has not yet been received.

  THE CAVAN GUARDIANS COSTS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what decision has been arrived at as to the payment of the costs, &c, in the case of "Ryan v. the Guardians of the Cavan Union"?
  SIR JOHN GOEST: I have again made inquiry, and am informed that the Inspector did not recommend the Guardians to reject the potatoes after handpicking, and that it was not in obedience to his order that they rejected the handpicked seed. The Inspector examined the seed supplied by Mr. Ryan to the Guardians after delivery, and reported that it was very uneven and not equal to the sample handed in by the contractor. The hon. Member will see that my information does not confirm the accuracy of the statements made on the subject in this House, so that I do not as yet see my way to sanction payment of the costs; but I have asked for, and am still awaiting, a copy of the proceedings in the case, so as to leave no means untried of obtaining perfectly complete information.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE PENSIONS.
  MR. FRANCIS EVANS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the case of Benjamin Young, who joined the Naval Reserve in November, 1874, having, in December, 1889, whilst on board H.M.S. "Trincomalee," sustained single rupture, the injury from which he is now suffering, and who was granted a pension of £9 2s. per annum, which was discontinued after the second year, the Admiralty giving him a gratuity of £5 on account of the injury sustained; whether he is aware that Young applied
  1560
  for a pension such as would be given to a man who had served fifteen years in the Royal Navy under the Queen's Regulations, Article 2,003, vii., and Article 2,004 (c)—namely, 6d. a day for life—and that the Admiralty declined by letter, dated the 19th of April, 1892, to grant the deferred pension of Royal Naval Reserve, for which Benjamin Young did not apply; and whether, having regard to the fact that Young applied only for the pension of 6d. a day under the Queen's Regulations, Article 2,003, vii., and Article 2,004 (c), he will direct that an inquiry be made into the claim, with a view to Young receiving the pension to which he is entitled?
  SIR JOHN GORST(who replied): Benjamin Young sustained a single rupture in December, 1889, while loading sand in a boat during the period of his drill on board the "Trincomalee." For this injury he was awarded a pension of £9 2s. a year for two years, and at the end of that time a gratuity of £5. This is the utmost assistance that the Admiralty are justified in granting under the regulations, as although the rupture incapacitated him for further service in the Royal Naval Reserve, yet it did not render him incapable of contributing to his own support. The conditions of service of men in the Royal Navy are very different from those of merchant seamen enrolled in the Royal Naval Reserve, who in the ordinary course are only called upon to undergo an annual drill of a few weeks' duration. It is not, therefore, considered that fifteen years' service in the Naval Reserve entitles a man to the same pension as fifteen years' service in the Navy.

  SKERRIFF PIER.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Irish Board of Works have received a Memorial from the people interested in Skerriff Pier, and whether a reply has been given; and what action they intend to take in the matter?
  SIR JOHN GORST: This subject is engaging the attention of the Board of Works, who are willing to do what is possible to meet the hon. Member's wishes.

  OPIUM SALES IN BURMAH.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for India a question of which I have given him private notice: whether any reply has been received from the Chief Commissioner of Burmah to the Despatch of 29th July, to the Government of India, and paragraph 9 of that Despatch, as to the possibility of a total prohibition of the use of opium?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): No reply has yet been received by the Secretary of State.
  MR. BRYCE: Will a Return be given of the issue of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors and opium in Burmah, or is it desirable to move for it?
  MR. CURZON: I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman will put notice of the question on the Paper.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PICTON: I do not see the First Lord of the Treasury in his place, but perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can say is it the intention to push forward the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am not in a position to answer the question; but my right hon. Friend will be in his place in a few minutes, and in the course of the afternoon will answer the question.
  MR. CONWAY: Perhaps the Financial Secretary can say under what circumstances, by whose authority, and upon what information have the bands in Limerick been prohibited from playing?
  SIR JOHN GORST: That is a question quite out of my Department. Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of it?
  MR. CONWAY: Under the circumstances, and as the Attorney General for Ireland is within the precincts of the House, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will so far assist me to the
  1562
  information as to send for General for Ireland?
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government, seeing that the Shop Hours Bill has no opposition, will agree to "star" that Bill so that it may be included in the list of Government Bills for tomorrow?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will report the matter to my right hon. Friend the First Lord. I now beg to move—
  "That, for the remainder of this Session, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House each day at the conclusion of the Government business without (Question put."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House each day at the conclusion of the Government business without (Question put."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: May I ask if the Shop Hours Bill, to which I just now referred, will be starred and included in the Government Bills?
  MR. O'KELLY: I hope we shall have some guarantee that Ministers will be present to answer questions Members may desire to ask.
  MR. CONWAY: Seeing the Attorney General for Ireland in his place. I beg to repeat my question: Under what circumstances and by whose authority have bands in Limerick been prohibited from playing in public?
  MR. MADDEN: I think the hon. Member will recognise that the question is one I cannot possibly answer without notice.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the House of the Question before it.
  Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    CIVIL SERVANTS AND ELECTIONS.
    MR. HOWELL: I desire for a moment to call the attention of the House and of the Postmaster General to a notice, which was issued by the authority of the latter, apparently since the Debate which took place at the latter end of last week, in which the Postmaster General cautions postal employees with regard to their conduct in the forthcoming General Election. One particular paragraph in the notice I desire to call attention to. It is as follows:—
    "The Postmaster General at the same time desires to warn Post Office servants that it would be improper for them, in combination or individually, to endeavour to extract promises from any candidate for election to the House of Commons with reference to their pay or duties."
    This is dated Friday, 17th June, and I feel it my duty at once to call the attention of the House to the position in which postal employees are placed by a notice of this kind. In the first place they are denied the right of ordinary combination, and the leaders in such combination, contrary to the law of the realm, were a year or two ago punished for such combination. Some of them were deprived of their positions, and others had their good conduct stripes taken from them, and they have never been restored; and now these employees are placed in the unfortunate position that they are denied the right of combination to which they are by law entitled; and they are refused the right of appealing to Parliament through the Members for their constituency in regard to their duties and pay. Now, I hold it is not within the competence of the Postmaster General to issue a notice of this kind. I hold it is altogether a violation of the duties of the position of Postmaster General to deny to postal employees this right conferred upon them by law. If these men are not permitted to combine and are not permitted to bring their complaints before the House of Commons, how are they to obtain any redress of the grievances of which they complain? I fully admit it would be very improper with regard to the rules quoted by the right hon. Gentleman as issued in 1885
    1564
    that postmasters and others in the Service should take prominent parts in Party elections. I am quite prepared to go that far. But if this is fair towards postal employees, then it is a rule which should equally apply to all Civil servants of the Crown. But it is well known in the House, or it ought to be well known in the House, that many of the higher officials in the service of the Crown employ much of their time—and it is very doubtful if they do not employ time which should be devoted to the Public Service—in taking part in Parliamentary elections for the purpose of serving the candidate of the Party they support in any given constituency. Now, what is right with regard to the higher paid officers in the Service ought to be right for those who are underpaid. The rights of the latter should be more secure, and they should have the opportunity of putting their grievances before the House. But the Postmaster General would deny to these men the right of public petition through their own representatives for the Division in which they happen to reside when they have any grievance to bring before the House. I have no wish, and perhaps it would be unseemly for me, to put the House to the trouble of a Division on this question; but I should like to learn from the Postmaster General under what authority, under what Statute, under what regulation passed by this House, he has cautioned — or warned, to use the words of the circular
    "Servants of the Post Office that it would be improper for them, whether in combination or individually, to endeavour to extract promises from any candidate in reference to their duties and pay"?
    Let me remind the House that this is done particularly by two branches of the Public Service. Every Session we have Members representing the Army and Navy bringing forward grievances of men in those Services, and long Debates ensue. But men in the Postal Service have no Members here capable of representing their case. The only man capable of dealing with these questions is the Postmaster General, and he deals with them adversely to the interest of the employees. I have felt it my duty, having had the opportunity of seeing a copy of this notice issued, to declare

    1565
    that, so far as I am concerned, I do not understand there is any right on the part of the Postmaster General to issue such a warning; and I ask him under what Statute does he exercise such authority? So far as my information goes, every postal employee in the country whatever his position has the right of every citizen to apply to the Member for his Division for representation to the House of Commons of grievances of which he may have to complain. When and where has Parliament sanctioned any regulation in abrogation of such a right?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): The hon. Member has correctly quoted a passage in the circular which has been issued to servants of the Post Office, and it has been usual to issue such a circular previous to a General Election warning public servants not to take a prominent part in elections. It is desirable, and it is recognised as proper, that while public servants should be entrusted with the franchise—and we will not quarrel now over the question of whether it is a privilege or a right—they shall not take a leading part in elections. It would be extremely inconvenient, and lead to all sorts of abuses, were officers of the Post Office to be at liberty to do so. To this circular has been added a special caution on account of a disposition which has been shown in some branches of the Service to put test questions to candidates at the General Election. I read to the House the other night passages from a circular which had been issued, and which bore the very strong appearance of being put to candidates as the condition upon which the votes of members of the Service would be given. That, as I said then to the House, appeared to me to be an abuse of the privilege of the franchise, and calculated to impair the purity of elections. The hon. Member has, I think, overstrained his case in asserting that in issuing this caution, this warning, to servants of the Post Office against putting test questions in reference to pay and duties, I have gone the length of denying the right of public petition. I in no way deny the right of members of the Public Service to appeal to Members of
    1566
    this House to get their case represented here. But there is all the difference between Members being asked to represent a primâ facie case and candidates being asked to pledge themselves upon an ex parte statement to support a revision or a commission of inquiry—in fact, to prejudge the case. To ask for such a promise as a condition of giving a vote does seem to me inconsistent with the duties of a public servant, and to go beyond his constitutional privileges. In that view the warning has been issued. By what law or right has this been done the hon. Member asks? By the right and duty which belongs to the head of a Department to preserve proper discipline. Of course my actions in this respect are subject to review in Parliament, and I submit the grounds on which I acted. The hon. Member says that officials of a higher grade take a prominent part in elections; but I am not aware of any cases. If this has been the case such officials have undoubtedly been guilty of a breach of discipline and are open to censure. For my part, I make no distinction between the lower and higher branches of the Service. The hon. Member refers to discussions upon the Army and Navy Services, and I make no objection to similar discussions on the Postal Service; but that is altogether different from this putting of test questions to candidates. If such a practice were carried out, say by such public servants as soldiers, where would discipline be? It is surely desirable that there should be some reserve maintained by all public servants. The hon Gentleman says that I have been insensible to the wants of the members of the Department while I have been active in maintaining discipline. I do not think that is the feeling of the officers of the Department, nor would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say so, and I repel the charge as undeserved.
    MR. HOWELL: May I be allowed to make the explanation that I know nothing whatever of the test question being applied? I have had no test question put before me, nor have I had any information from the employees themselves. I have taken the matter up simply as a public duty.

    THE ULSTER CONVENTION.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: My hon. Friend behind me remarked on the absence of Members of the Government from their places. I regret the absence of the Secretary of State for War and of the Under Secretary, as it is my intention to lay before the House a statement made at the Ulster Convention a few days ago, which involves the character and the credit of a great General at present in the service of the Government. The statement I refer to was made by the Rev. Dr. Kane, who, alluding to Lord Wolseley, said—
    "He is one of us—an Irish Loyalist to the core. Our fathers followed his gallant ancestor at Newtownbutler, and followed him to victory; and we cannot do better than to fix our eyes on the oriflamme of Wolseley, and follow him in his war upon domestic treason."
    I want to know whether the War Department will ask from Lord Wolseley an explanation, and request him to state whether he has given any person or persons in Ireland authority to say that he was prepared to lead them in civil war against this country? It is a very serious matter if we have in our employment at the present time receiving pay, great rewards, and sometimes entrusted with the execution of great military expeditions, a man who professes sentiments that amount to treason. We are told by the newspapers, and it was even stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) yesterday or the day before, that the language used at Belfast was moderate language. I deny, Sir, that the language was moderate. The Duke of Abercorn, who presided, said that they wished to tell the English people what might occur under certain eventualities. What are those eventualities? Perhaps it is to kick the Queen's Crown into the Boyne, as some gentlemen said they would before the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. That was a statement made by hon. Gentlemen, and endorsed by a right hon. Gentleman who now occupies a position in Her Majesty's Government. It was endorsed, too, by the very gentlemen who were present at the Belfast Convention the other day, and it is the
    1568
    sentiment that permeates the organisation they were representing the other day. I want to know, is Lord Wolseley to aid and assist those people in kicking the Queen's Crown into the Boyne? There was even worse language used at the Convention. Mr. Thomas St. Clair, a Justice of the Peace, said—
    "If it be ever set up (that is the power) in Dublin, we will simply ignore its existence; its Acts will be to us as waste paper; its police will find their barracks pre-occupied by our constabulary; its judges will sit in empty court houses; the early efforts of its existence will be spent in devising means to deal with a passive resistance co-extensive with Ulster."
    What is this passive resistance? If it means anything, it means resistance to the payment of taxes; and I wish to know whether Lord Wolseley will be on the side of the people who resist payment and opposed to those who enforce the law? Mr. Thomas Andrews, a man of great influence on their side, said—
    "If England and Scotland are determined to force us into civil war, on them let the responsibility rest. As a last resort we shall be prepared to defend ourselves, and we shall not be without allies."
    Who are the "allies"? Is Lord Wolseley to be one of them? Is he to be engaged in civil war? If he is, this House ought to know. I think the Government ought to demand from him some explanation as to what his conduct is likely to be under those eventualities. There were days when military commanders floated revolutions in this country; there were days when Puritan armies passed resolutions having for their object the coercion of Parliament; and it may be possible that unless the intentions of this military tyrant be checked in time he may be found to be a second Cromwell, and enter this House, and tell you, Mr. Speaker, to "take away that bauble." We have seen elsewhere the deplorable results of military combinations and revolution, from which this country has long been free. While I wish it to remain free from these treasonable compacts, I hold that Lord Wolseley should be asked what encouragement he gave the utterers of these statements affecting his credit in this country. This is not the first time these statements have been made. They were made in 1886, and they have remained uncontradicted

    1569
    since. They are made now in greater force, and I want to know what assurance we are to get that there is no foundation for them in fact? I do not wish to be severe on Lord Wolseley. He is a gallant Irishman, and I have frequently pointed to him as a splendid specimen of the Irish military commander. It does not matter to me whether a military commander comes from Tyrone or Tipperary, so long as his talents are engaged in the service of this country and used in the protection of this Empire. I do not care from what part of Ireland he comes; providing he is an Irishman I am always proud of him. Hence it is that I shall be glad if Lord Wolseley is afforded an opportunity of clearing himself from the charge that must inevitably be made against him by all reasonable men. That is why I am anxious that some Representative of the War Office should have been in his place to-day to give an assurance in this House that Lord Wolseley repudiates all connection with the statements made concerning his character as a soldier and a citizen of this country. If those Members of the Government I am now addressing are not capable of giving me some satisfaction in this matter, I hope that before the close of the Debate the Secretary for War will be in his place, will be informed of what has taken place, and will make some statement that will relieve Lord Wolseloy's character from the stigma of rebellion which has been placed upon it.

    THE DISSOLUTION.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We are now going to part entirely with control of the finances of the country, and before we do so I think we should obtain some clear and satisfactory assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as to the exact date when the Dissolution is going to take place. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has communicated with his colleagues in the other House the very strong opinion that was felt a few days ago, when the matter was discussed, as to the dilatory proceedings of the House of Lords? I observe that on the evening when the discussion took place here, the other House ad-
    1570
    journed before dinner, and I think it is possible that they will adjourn at an earlier hour to-day—perhaps also to-morrow and Wednesday, and possibly Thursday and Friday—than we are accustomed to adjourn at. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not communicate with his colleagues and say that the Dissolution shall take place on Thursday or Friday of this week? As he is aware, our business will be entirely concluded on Thursday, and therefore it will be open to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to take proceedings to bring about the Dissolution and the issue of the new Writs for the next Parliament during the present week. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will, before this Bill is passed—

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
  The House went;—and being returned;—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal assent to,—

  1. Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1892.

  2. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1892.

  3. Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1892.

  4. Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1892.

  5. Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act Amendment Act, 1892.

  6. Indian Councils Act, 1892.

  7. Charity Inquiries (Expenses) Act, 1892.

  8. Weights and Measures (Purchase) Act, 1892.

  9. Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Extracts Act, 1892.

  10. Statute Law Revision Act, 1892.

  11. High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) Act, 1892.

  12. Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1892.

  13. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1892.

  14. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1892.

  1571

  15. Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1892.

  16. Dublin Barracks Improvement Act, 1892.

  17. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 1 (Abbotsbury Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  18. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 2 (Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  19. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 3 (Cambrian Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  20. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 4 (Cleator and Workington Junction Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  21. Railway Rates and Chaeges, No. 5 (East London Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  22. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 6 (Festiniog Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  23. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 7 (Furness Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  24. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 8 (Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  25. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 9 (Isle of Wight Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  26. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 10 (Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  27. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 11 (London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  28. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 12 (Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  29. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 13 (Metropolitan Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  30. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 14 (Midland and South Western Junction Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  31. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 15 (North Eastern Railway Company, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  1572

  32. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 16 (North London Railway) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  33. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 17 (North Staffordshire Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  34. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 18 (Taff Vale Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  35. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 19 (Caledonian Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  36. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 20 (Callander and Oban Railway) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  37. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 21 (City of Glasgow Union Railway) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  38. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 22 (Glasgow and South Western Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  39. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 23 (Great North of Scotland Railway) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  40. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 24 (Highland Railway) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  41. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 25 (North British Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  42. Railway Rates and Charges, No. 26 (Athenry and Ennis Junction Railway, &c.) Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  43. Milnathort Water Supply Confimation Act, 1892.

  44. Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1892.

  45. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1892.

  46. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1892.

  47. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1892.

  48. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1892.

  49. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4.) Act, 1892.

  50. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1892.

  1573

  51. Bathgate Water Supply Confirmation Act, 1892.

  52. Allotments Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1892.

  53. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation Act (No. 6) Act, 1892.

  ROYAL ASSENT.

    THE DISSOLUTION.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I only rose before in order to elicit some information from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. As I have pointed out, the business here will be finished absolutely on Thursday, and with a little goodwill on the part of the Lords the business in the Upper Chamber could also be finished by Thursday. The writs could then be issued on Friday, and delivered on Saturday to the constituencies. The election could also take place the week afterwards. Not only that, but the Saturday for which we are contending would be included in the permissible days upon which the polling could take place. I quite agree with the First Lord of the Treasury that there are places where, no doubt, Saturday would be an undesirable day for the election. We never for one moment asserted that it would be a universally convenient day for the purpose. We merely said that in a certain number of places it is considered—whether rightly or wrongly—that Saturday is the most convenient day, and we only desired that the Saturday should be included in the days upon which the returning officer may order the poll to be taken. Under those circumstances I hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will re-consider the position he took up a day or two ago, and that after having communicated with his colleagues and the House of Lords we shall be informed that the Dissolution is to take place so that the polling may occur on the Saturday.
    MR. PICTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman would also do well to complete the information which he gave the other day as to the work we are expected to do before we are released. Certain measures were
    1574
    to be passed, but there were others with regard to which the First Lord of the Treasury said nothing definite. It is very inconvenient for Members who are interested in the measures about which there is no certainty to come here when perhaps they are wanted elsewhere. There is the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is no desire for it except on the part of certain interested individuals, and that there is a good deal of public opposition to it. I think, therefore, he might say whether that Bill is to be pushed on under present circumstances. There is another matter I should like to refer to, and that is the continual interference by Peers of the Realm in the elections of Members of this House, which has been ruled in this House to be extremely improper. I know that we have no control over the House of Peers, but I do not think it should be allowed. It is scarcely courteous to this House for noblemen who occupy high positions to set at defiance the privileges of this House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will set my mind and the minds of others at rest in regard to this matter, and that he will also say that the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill shall be withdrawn.
    MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I wish to make one remark with reference to the day of the Dissolution. It is clear that whatever days are fixed certain other days must be excluded. Hon. Members are desirous of including Saturday and Monday among the days to be selected; but if reference is made to the election of 1866 it will be found that the larger number of the elections took place on the Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and to some extent on Friday. Therefore the Government would not do wisely in excluding those days for the other two days. I think the two most inconvenient days all round, owing to the disfranchisement which takes place on them, are the Saturday and the Monday, and I hope that in the interests of Democratic principles the Government will take care that Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are not excluded, but that the elections shall take place on those days.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend into the discussion which we went into last Thursday upon this question. I rise to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) with regard to the Archdeaconry of Cornwall Bill. I desired to see that Bill passed into law; but I am aware that there is opposition to it in the House, and that one result of dealing with it would be to keep Gentlemen here at a time when, in the ordinary course, they would probably be occupying themselves in another, if not more agreeable, fashion. Under those circumstances, I shall not endeavour to proceed with it. In regard to what has been said as to the action of Members of the House of Lords, I have always understood that the mode in which the rule has hitherto been applied is that no peer shall speak in favour of a candidate after the writ for the election has been issued. I am not a legal authority, but that is the view I have always heard taken in this House. I do not think there is any justification for entering into a conflict with the House of Lords as to the precise line of demarcation on one side of which it should be legitimate for a peer to speak in a constituency at an election, while on the other side it would be illegitimate for him to do so. I have no doubt my colleagues in the House of Lords have made themselves acquainted with what passed in this House the other night, and that they know there is a desire to close the business of the Session as soon as possible. It must, however, be recollected that when this House sends up not only many Bills, but important Bills, to the House of Lords at the end of the Session, it is not fair to ask the House of Lords to do what we would not do in this House—namely, suspend the Standing Orders, so that they may take all the stages of those Bills on the same day. That is a proceeding which the House of Commons is prepared to take with reference to minor and uncontroversial Bills; but that course could not possibly be taken, either in the House of Lords or in this House, in respect of measures about
    1576
    which a considerable difference of opinion may exist. Have we any right, for instance, to expect that all the successive stages of the Education Bill should be got rid of by the House of Lords in one day? It would be a proceeding which would be contrary not only to their practice, but contrary to our practice as well. There is this further point to bear in mind. One of the most important Bills is the Small Holdings Bill. It is possible that some discussion may be necessary on the Amendments passed by the House of Lords with reference to that Bill. Personally, I should deplore that result, but it is a contingency that may arise. For these reasons, I do not think that anything has occurred which should lead me to depart from the position previously taken up, and which rendered it absolutely impossible that the Council for the Prorogation could be held earlier than next week.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Before we part from the question, I think it is due to the House, according to precedent, that the Government should state the date upon which they intend to prorogue and to dissolve. When we were in precisely similar circumstances last time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, who then represented the Government, was called upon by the present President of the Board of Trade to state to the House the dates of Prorogation and Dissolution. My right hon. Friend at once complied with the request, and I think he told the House that it would be prorogued on the Friday and dissolved on the Saturday. I do not wish to reopen the question about the Saturday. The hon. Member for Stockport thought that Monday would not be a convenient day for the working classes. I will only say that, in my opinion, Monday would be a convenient day for polling in many places outside London. Strong arguments may be used for and against Saturday, but that Monday would be a most convenient day there cannot be the shadow of a doubt. I will not pursue that question further. I will only point out that on the last occasion the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill took

    1577
    place on the Monday, as it will take place to-night. The Indian Budget was then brought in, as it will be on this occasion, and at the close of the Session the House adjourned until the Thursday in order to wait for the Bills from the House of Lords. The House of Lords then had the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, as they will now have. The Bills were brought back on the Thursday, Parliament was prorogued on the Friday, and the Dissolution took place on the Saturday. I would further point out that there are no important Bills now on the Paper—every important Bill having gone to the other House. There is no necessity then for the House of Lords to suspend their Standing Orders, because all the important Bills were there last week. I would therefore now ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to state the date of the Dissolution. Will it be Tuesday, the 28th, Wednesday, the 29th, or Thursday, the 30th? I think we should know the date before this Bill is allowed to be read a third time.
    MR. BALFOUR: I have refrained from fixing absolutely, within twelve hours, the date on which the Dissolution should take place; but as the right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to me, I do not think that I should be justified in resisting it. I will say, therefore, that the Council for the Prorogation and Dissolution will be held on the first day on which, I think, we can clearly look forward to having completed all the business which is before us, and that would be Tuesday, the 28th.
    MR. FOWLER: Dissolution on the Tuesday?
    MR. BALFOUR: Yes.

    PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING
    MR. MORTON: The right hon. Gentleman said just now something about the House of Lords requiring time to consider the Bills sent up to it from this House. That may be so, but it should be remembered that he asked this House to go through Supply without proper consideration in order that the Dissolution might take place this week. I now want to ask the right hon.
    1578
    Gentleman a question as to the appointment of the Committee with reference to the Reports of the Parliamentary Debates. Early in this Session as a matter of urgency, on the Vote on Account, I brought before this House the question of the contract for the reporting of the Parliamentary Debates, and we were then promised that a Committee should be appointed to consider it as soon as possible. I do not know why that Committee was not appointed till just before the Whitsuntide Recess, or why the Committee itself was not called together till the 10th of this month. When I called attention to the question I referred to the conditions of the present contract, and I then said that a month's notice was required to put an end to it previous to the end of the Session. What I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to is this—that by putting off the appointment of the Committee and the meeting of the Committee, he has practically prevented anything being done this Session. The Committee were not called together until it was too late to give the notice required to terminate the contract, if it was so desired. I want to know why he put off the appointment of the Committee and the calling together the Committee until it was too late to do anything—thus making a farce of the whole business? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows anything about the matter or not; but at any rate he is responsible for what has happened. As the matter now stands we have been done out of the opportunity of considering it and of being in a position to terminate the contract if the House or the Government thought fit to do it. All sorts of rumours are about of friends of the Government being connected with the contract, and that therefore they are not willing to do anything to upset it. What value there is in these remarks I do not know—they are only rumours; but I should be inclined to think there is something in them. As a matter of fact, some validity has been given to these rumours by the manner in which the Government have treated this matter. Everyone knows who has looked into the matter that there is a general opinion with regard

    1579
    to the present system. I do not wish to say one word against the present contractors for the reporting, because for the price at which the work is being done it is impossible for Parliament to have the work done properly. There is, however, an opinion prevalent that some alteration should be made. Some of us think, as I think myself, that the money now being spent upon it—£2,000 or whatever it is—will be absolutely wasted, because the Times weekly reports are quite as good as Reuter's reports. I have nothing more to say on the subject, but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation why the Committee was not called together until it was too late, under the terms of the contract, to do anything.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) BILL.—(No. 406.)
    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses, 1 to 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4.
    On Motion of The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square), the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 2, line 9, leave out "thirteen," and insert "twelve."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 17, leave out Sub-section (3).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered. To-morrow.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.—(No. 418.) CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. LEA: I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General
  1580
  whether the Irish Sunday Closing Act is continued under the Bill? The exemption of certain towns under this Act has been renewed year after year now for ten years, and I hope that the next Parliament will find time to deal with the matter once for all.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I have not had time to consult with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland on this point; but, speaking from memory, I have no doubt that the Act referred to is continued under this Act.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 405.)
  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  On Motion of Sir JOHN LUBBOCK (London University), the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  "That the word 'Ireland' be inserted in the title of the Bill."
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with an amended Title.

MOTION.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL (SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT).
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT,): I may say in explanation of this additional Estimate that it is an earnest of the desire of the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee as to Greenwich age pensions. It will be within the recollection of the House that a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the claims of those naval pensioners, above fifty-five years of age, who are not in the enjoyment of age pensions, to such pensions, and, after a careful examination, the Committee reported favourably to the claims of the naval pensioners. And, Sir, that Committee indicated two principal ways in which the sum requisite to carry out their recommendations might be provided. The first of these was an extra grant to be paid out of naval funds to the Greenwich funds for the use of the Greenwich

  1581
  Hospital buildings as a Royal Naval College; and the second was to re-grant to the Greenwich funds the sum of £16,000; a year, which was paid out of the Consolidated Fund, under Act of Parliament, from 1834 to 1869. This second question is now under the consideration of the Admiralty and Treasury; but, inasmuch as it necessitates a special Act of Parliament, it is impossible at this period of the present Session to carry it into effect. Well, Sir, as I have already said, this present sum of £5,000 is an earnest of the wish of the Government to carry out one of the recommendations of the Committee. It will be granted at once, and it will enable the Admiralty to give 600 additional pensions, which, together with 400 already granted this year, will make a total of 1,000 extra pensions granted during 1892.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Supplementary Statement of the estimated additional Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1893, beyond the Amounts included in the Statement already approved by Resolution of the House of Commons, dated the 14th day of June, 1892 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 243, of Session 1892), prepared in pursuance of Act 48 and 49 Vic., c. 42, be approved."—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett.)
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I hope, Sir, that the interest which is felt by this House and by the country at large in the affairs of our greatest Dependency will not be measured in the opinion of our fellow-subjects therein either by the number of Members who are present or are likely to be present during this Debate, or by the period of the Session at which the Indian Budget is now usually introduced. In every Session of the Parliament that is now drawing to a close, I, and many other Members interested in Indian affairs, have protested against the postponement of
  1582
  this Debate until such a late period. It must, however, be admitted that there is some reason for this Debate being fixed so near the end of the present Session, because the circumstances of this year are altogether exceptional. It will be remembered that the wisdom of this very House, now nearing its Dissolution, ordained only last year a return to our ancient procedure, which allows a general discussion on Indian affairs on the Motion that you, Mr. Speaker, should leave the Chair. Since that alteration in our procedure I have visited nearly every province of the Indian Empire, and I can assure hon. Members that the change has given the liveliest satisfaction to every section of the Indian community—native as well as European official as well as non-official—and it is regarded as a proof that there is a determination on the part of the House of Commons to exercise at least once a year some controlling influence over the affairs of India. Sir, I desire on this occasion to take advantage of this alteration in our procedure to submit to this House a statement, as brief as I can make it, of some of the grievances of the Indian Uncovenanted Civil Servants in that country. In bringing this subject forward it is especially desired by every one, I think, for whom I speak to-night that it should be made quite clear that it is in no spirit of hostility to the Indian Government, still less with a desire to throw the blame on any particular persons or authorities, either here or in India. The grievances to which I allude have grown up during a very long number of years. And, Sir, these Uncovenanted Civil Servants, for whom I speak, are fully aware that when I was in Calcutta last winter I received from Lord Lansdowne, the present Viceroy, a most patient hearing of every particular connected with their grievances, and the Service, therefore, are assured that they will find in Lord Lansdowne a most sympathetic judge of the merits of their case. The Uncovenanted Civil Servants are also aware that they owe to the Secretary of State for India, through the motion of my right hon. Friend the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Under Secretary of State for India, the Select Committee

  1583
  of this House, to whose Report I wish to draw attention, and from whose inquiries they have obtained the only redress of their grievances that they have ever yet received. The Uncovenanted Civil Service feel that, from the Report of that Select Committee, if carried out in a spirit of reasonable liberality, they can obtain all that is necessary to content them. Sir, they are quite aware that the Secretary of State for India regards himself—and very rightly so—the natural guardian of the Indian taxpayers. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, to whom I appeal to give this statement his favourable consideration, will doubtless tell us that the taxpayers must be considered first of all. Sir, those for whom I speak entirely agree with and support that position, but they desire to point out that the alterations they ask for would certainly not be very costly. Moreover, what they demand from the Government of India is not generosity but justice, and they maintain that native public opinion in India, equally with English public opinion there and here, will commend the resolution that renders that justice. I shall not attempt to go into any detail to-night with regard to these grievances, because various detailed statements in regard to them have already been submitted to Her Majesty's Government, to His Excellency the Viceroy, and to hon. Members of this House. But I do desire to be permitted to advert very briefly to one or two points of the Report of the Select Committee that sat in 1890, and to the evidence upon which that Report was framed, and to the steps that have subsequently been taken by the Government of India thereupon. The inquiry before that Select Committee was distinctly and avowedly of the nature of an arbitration, and that it was so accepted by the Secretary of State is shown by the Despatch of 28th August, 1890, paragraph 4, which says:—
  "Your Excellency … preferred that the grievances of the officers should be investigated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons; and in compliance with your opinion, Her Majesty's Government consented to its nomination. Although, therefore, the recommendation of the Committee would impose on the revenues of India a heavier charge than I had intended, I do not think
  1584
  that it will be right to hesitate in its acceptance."
  And I, Sir, do not think it would be right for the Secretary of State for India to object to the ruling of this Select Committee. That disposes of the argument — an argument which I feel sure no hon. Member will countenance—that the recommendations of the Select Committee will be shelved by the Administration of India, and may be disregarded. I do not think that argument will be used, but I desire to anticipate it by quoting the language of the Secretary of State himself. Now, the reference that was agreed upon between the India Office and those who represented the Uncovenanted Civil Servants is given by the Secretary of State for India in the same Despatch, and included an inquiry into—
  "The alleged grievances of the Uncovenanted Civil Servants of India arising from the change in the relative value of gold and silver money, and their leave and pension rules."
  It will be therefore seen that nothing relating to the leave and pension rules of the Indian Uncovenanted Service was outside the scope of this reference. The Report of the Select Committee was couched in the broadest and most general—and I may add liberal—terms. It practically declared that the alleged grievances, or some of them, were established, and that reform and redress were required. In one particular case, that of the "one-and-ninepenny rupee," it specified the exact amount of the redress that should be accorded. But in addition to that I find it recommends to the consideration of the Indian Government and the Secretary of State for India these points:—First, a general re-adjustment of the pensions; secondly, a "uniform scheme" for pensions and furloughs—to do away, as I take it, with the invidious differences of treatment that have caused so much heartburning between the various Departments in India; and, thirdly, the Committee asked the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council to "the obstacles in taking furlough arising from the insufficiency of the present furlough pay," and they added "that some period of furlough should in all cases count as service for pension." There was one other recommendation,

  1585
  on a minute and infinitesimal point—namely, that "pensionable service should commence at the ago of twenty," but as that has been granted by the Secretary of State, and as it is a matter of very small moment, I need not dwell upon it. But how have these further recommendations been dealt with by the Government of India? All the recommendations were practically put aside; every detail that was left to the Government of India was put aside, and the only concessions made were simply the two points on which the Committee gave definite and specific instructions. I do not wish, and those for whom I am speaking do not wish, to minimise the value of the two concessions that have been made—they are concessions of considerable importance; but it should be remembered that what they did ask is that all payments for pensions, sick leave, or furlough allowances should be paid at the rate of 2s. to the rupee. They pointed out that many of the officers possess this by legal right, because they happened to have from the Secretary of State a written agreement, and where they have this litera scripta it is impossible for anyone to go behind it. The latter, more or less universally, get the 2s. payment; the Government is bound to grant it. It was legally decided that certain officers were under the wording of their contract entitled to the 2s. in payment of their furlough allowances, and the very same words which made this legal claim are used on the contracts with respect to pensions and leave allowances. The Select Committee went very fully into this point, and took the evidence of everyone who could speak with any authority on the matter. Not only did they take the evidence of the officers, but they had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman who was then Under Secretary for India and was the Chairman of the Select Committee (Sir John Gorst), and they also heard the evidence of Mr. Waterfield, the able Secretary of the India Office. They ultimately said, "We advise a compromise. We do not advise that the full sum of 2s. should be given in pensions, but that a sum of 1s. 9d. should be given." That compromise, so far as
  1586
  pensions were concerned, was loyally accepted, so far as I know, by every officer throughout the Service. They said, "We cannot expect to get everything we had hoped for, and we will accept 1s. 9d." But they expected that something of the same kind would be done in the matter of furlough allowances. This was one concession out of a large number. I now come to another one, which I believe it was the intention of the Select Committee and of the Government to grant, but owing to some extraordinary mistake it has not been granted. I refer to the reduction of the term of pensionable service—a service that is compulsory on these officers in that terrible climate—from thirty years to twenty-five, I will, with the permission of the House, quote one or two statements made by officers to the Select Committee. I find from the Report of that Committee that many witnesses declared that the attempt to put in a service of thirty years "imperilled the health and sometimes the lives" of many officers. Mr. Hynes said—
  "A great many of us never live to complete thirty years, and die in the country."
  Mr. Carnac, one of the highest officers in the Financial Department in India, said—
  "As an officer of the Financial Department I can say safely that very few non-domiciled Europeans ever live to take their thirty years' superannuation pension. They either die or they are sent home on invalid pensions; in fact they do not get out of India until their health is broken down."
  I will not quote the evidence of any more officers, though a number of them gave evidence to the same effect. But what did Mr. Waterfield, speaking for the India Office, say? I will take three extracts from the Report—
  "(Question 2,230)—Has not the Government of India repeatedly represented to the Secretary of State that a service of thirty years in the Indian climate is too great a strain upon a European?
  Mr. Waterfield, for the India Office: Yes.
  (Question 2,303) — Has it not come repeatedly under your observation that officers have not been able to afford to take furlough on account of leave not counting towards pension; it must have done so, must it not?
  Mr. Waterfield: I have no doubt it is so.
  (Question 2.307)—Did they [the Furlough Committee of the Government of India] not suggest that of the periods qualifying for

  1587
  pension one-tenth should be spent on furlough?
  Mr. Waterfield: Yes."
  The result was that the Select Committee of this House recommended first of all the general readjustment of pensions, which would allow absence on furlough to count as service for pension, a readjustment in which no distinction should be made in furlough and pension rides between Europeans and natives, and therefore of course none between the various Departments. I believe, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Curzon) will correct me if I am wrong, that the Government of India intended to grant this most reasonable and most moderate concession, and to cut down this inordinate term of service from thirty years to the more reasonable term of twenty-five years. It seems to me clear that the Government of India itself contemplated this reduction, for we have their communication of the 17th December, 1890, to the Secretary of State, who had proposed, and the Indian Government had accepted, a concession of considerable value. That concession was that one year's leave with allowances in fifteen years' service, and two years in twenty-five years' service, shall be allowed to count as service for pension, provided that such leave is taken out of India. There is not one word in these orders about thirty years' service, and yet it is a fact that these unfortunate men have to serve for thirty years in India, except for the two years they may take on furlough at home. But there is another subject which is of even greater importance to the uncovenanted officers—I refer to the claim for improved furlough allowances all along the line. They ask for a levelling-up of the rules as to amount of furlough permissible, to the standard of those enjoyed by the most favoured branches of the Public Works and Telegraph Departments. A minimum furlough allowance, for the benefit of the least highly paid officers; and more liberal furlough pay, in sterling. I will here again quote one or two statements given in evidence before the Select Committee. Practically every witness examined of those on active service bitterly complained of the present state of furlough rules, and
  1588
  said it is virtually impossible to take that leave which is absolutely necessary for every European living in India, whether it be for the sake of body or mind. I will quote one answer of Mr. de Brath, a gentleman of considerable position in the Service. He said—
  "In the first furlough I took, my leave allowances after six years' service were actually insufficient to pay my mere passage out and home."
  That means to say that the furlough allowances are insufficient to pay a man's passage out and home, to say nothing of the necessary expenses of his wife and family. But the real complaint goes far beyond that. Mr. Carnac on the same subject says—
  "The rules do not give us enough leave to keep our health."
  Mr. Hutchinson, a gentleman who holds a position of some importance and who is well known to some Members of this House, also gave evidence, and he is reported to have said—
  "The result in my own personal case is that I have had eighteen years' actual Indian service, and have not been able to take a single day furlough."—"Because of the low rate of, furlough pay to which you are entitled?"—"Yes."
  Mr. Davidson,:—
  "I complain that I have been kept out in India a number of years, because I could not afford to come home."
  Every member of the Service who is now on active service, and was examined before the Select Committee, gave evidence of this character, and at last the Chairman of the Committee, who is now the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir John Gorst), when the question kept cropping up, and when witnesses persisted in giving evidence of the intolerable hardships of these absurd furlough rules, said—and I should like the House to listen very carefully to his words—
  "I think you need hardly give evidence of that kind to the Committee; it is quite clear that if the furlough pay is se bad, men will not take leave."
  I would also ask attention to what Mr. Waterfield, the Financial Secretary to the India Office, said on the same subject. In answer to Question 2,305 he is reported to have said that—

  1589
  "The Furlough Committee of the Government of India of 1868 had reported that 'it was for the benefit of the Public Service that officers, especially Europeans, should be encouraged to take a moderate amount of leave,' and that 'the present rule is strongly prohibitive of their doing so.'"
  These statements were surely enough to make the whole of the Service feel certain that they would obtain that consideration to which they thought they were entitled; and when the Report of the Select Committee appeared it recommended to the consideration of the Secretary of State for India in the strongest terms that the obstacles to taking furlough arose from the insufficiency of the present furlough pay, and the Committee strongly recommended the matter to the consideration of the Secretary of State. I think this House ought to give an ear to the representations of their fellow-countrymen, who, in one of the most fearful climates in the world, have suffered for so many years under this system. I hope the House will give ear to their representations, and I do appeal most strongly to the Under Secretary to utter at least one word which will give encouragement to our Civil servants on this matter. There is one other point which may seem a small matter, but it is of considerable importance to a large number of those who are at the head of the Service. It is a point, moreover, in which the honour and good faith of the British Government is involved, because many of the officers were led to expect that their pension would be £500 a year, and not merely five thousand rupees. The difference is small; it is only something like £80 a year, or a little more. But I gather from a large number of these officers with whom I have spoken that it is a matter of the greatest importance to many of them who have large families to maintain and to start in life; and that whether they shall come home on a little more than £400 a year or £500 means, I will not say whether they shall live in poverty or comfort; but it does mean whether they shall be able to place their children properly or the reverse. I will again ask the permission of the House to quote from the Report of the Select Committee:—
  1590
  Mr. Rowe's evidence, Questions 635–653:—"£500 I was told I should receive, and £500 I expected to get."
  Mr. Hyne's:—
  "I was certainly under the impression that when I earned the maximum pension, I should get £500, and not £350 or £354, of whatever the rate [of exchange for Rs. 5,000] maybe."
  The £350 to which Mr. Hynes referred was the ordinary market rate of exchange, but the concession that has already been made has transformed that £350 into something a little over £400. What I now ask is that full justice should be done, and I ask that, because these men were evidently led to believe that their pension would be £500, and would not be dependent on the value of the rupee. It is not denied that the full sum was contemplated by the India Office, and it is clear from the evidence of Mr. Waterfield, the one gentleman in England who is absolutely acquainted with all the details of this subject, that it was contemplated. Here is what he said—
  "(Question 2.215): In fact, we may take it that, up to 1871, neither party [neither Government nor officers] contemplated the fall in exchange which has taken place?
  Mr. Waterfield: Certainly.
  (Question 2,216): And that, if the £500 were paid, it would be no more than the people at that time contemplated?
  Mr. Waterfield: That, I have no doubt, is correct. It is what was contemplated."
  That admission was honourably and cheerfully made, and I am persuaded that the Government of India will not further resist such a just claim; and with that I will leave the question of the grievances of the uncovenanted Civil Servants of India. I should like now to advert to another matter arising mainly out of my recent travels in India, where I have visited every part of the country, and have endeavoured to make myself acquainted with the condition of affairs. There was, as the House is aware, a threatened scarcity which has not yet been altogether averted; but the last reports are that the monsoon has broken on the West Coast and over the whole of the South of India, and to some extent over Bengal, and that the grave danger of a terrible famine is by God's mercy over for the present year. I have visited every part of the famine dis-

  1591
  tricts, and I say that the very greatest credit is due to the administrative officers there for the precautions they have taken. I have seen, in districts which this House knows are the worst districts for health in all India—I have seen the Government officers under the burning sun carefully investigating the circumstances of all cases, and providing for any possible development of the famine. I have seen them at this work day by day, wanting only a word of approval from those at home, and I think this House will not be slow to speak that word. I think every credit should be given to the heads of the Government for the loyal support they have given to their administrative officers both in Bombay and Madras—both by Lord Harris and by Lord Wenlock—for the energy and foresight they have displayed, and for the loyal assistance they have given to the district officers. Their wisdom and care has been rewarded; but I fear that in Behar, the upper part of the great Province of Bengal, once so ably administered by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Temple), the danger of famine is not yet over. The rains have not yet set in, as we hoped, and I must say that I do not think that the action of the Government there is to be applauded to the same extent as in Bombay and Madras. The Government of Bengal—actuated, I am sure, by the best motives, and desiring mainly to increase the revenue from taxation of land, and thereby, of course, to lighten the burdens of the people—have determined, notwithstanding the scarcity that has prevailed and the danger that still exists of famine, to press on the Cadastral Survey of Bengal, from which they hope to obtain a larger revenue from the land. I have talked on this subject with almost every person in Calcutta who is well qualified to form an opinion, and everyone expresses dissent from the action of the Government of Bengal. There is no doubt that this measure in its execution will produce terrible extortion and terrible oppression, because it must be largely carried on by men who are foreign to the country—more foreign than we are ourselves. It will, I fear, produce endless litigation, and will bring about bitter friction between
  1592
  landlord and tenant. I hope the Government will suggest to the Government of Bengal that, at any rate for the present, considering the scarcity and distress, they should postpone this measure. I can assure the Government from what I hear that this measure will be resisted with the utmost determination not only by the Zemindars, not only by the landlords and the planters, not only by the merchants and bankers of Calcutta, but also by the ryots and the occupying tenants throughout the whole of the province. I hope the Government will see their way to offer some suggestion to the Government of Bengal in this respect. There is one other point on which I should like to say a few words. I spent a considerable portion of last winter in the feudatory estates of Hyderabad and Mysore, and I had also the pleasure of meeting that distinguished Prince who has now come to England, His Highness the Maharajah Gaekwar of Baroda. I hope the visit of that illustrious Prince to this country will be taken advantage of by the Government to make some definite advance in the liberality of the policy with which they will deal with the feudatory States. I wish to bear my testimony, especially to the state of affairs in Mysore. I travelled through that province into its remotest districts, and I can assure the House that the administration of that province and the care with which the interests of the people are looked after will compare not unfavourably with the administration in the best portions of our own territory. The same thing holds good in Baroda and Hyderabad. The concession made in regard to the rendition of the Kingdom of Mysore to His Highness the Maharajah some years ago has turned out a most marvellous success; it has shown us how native statesmen and politicians, possessing fully the sympathy of those whom they rule, and possessing also the enlightenment and knowledge which Western education has given them, are as well qualified as any people in the world to administer Native States in India. I would say that that precedent—which also was followed when the fort of Gwalior was restored to the Maharajah Scindia of Gwalior, which created

  1593
  a favourable impression throughout India—might enable us to carry out some similar recognition with regard to the rendition of the Berars to His Highness the Nizam of the Deccan, to which we have long been pledged. I have travelled through the famine districts of Hyderabad, and I must say that the famine administration was as merciful, as careful, and as sufficient as either in Mysore or British territory. That is a fact upon which those interested in India may fairly congratulate the administrators of India. They may fairly congratulate our fellow-countrymen in India also, who have raised up such a class of statesmen amongst the natives of India as those to whom I have been referring. I hope the present opportunity of the visit of the Maharajah Gaekwar may be taken to make some advance, and I am quite sure in doing that the Government will not only be benefiting the people of the States concerned, but conferring a lasting benefit on the Empire. I thank the House for its patient hearing, and express a respectful hope that my remarks, especially on the grievances of the uncovenanted civilians, may come home to the mind of my hon. Friend, who so ably fills the position of Under Secretary of State for India, and that they may elicit from him some favourable statement with regard to the intentions of the Government which will introduce into official life in India a joy and content to which it has long been a stranger.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): I confess, Sir, I think it is somewhat unfortunate that the practice of raising a general discussion on the Motion that you do leave the Chair, to which we reverted last year, should be made the occasion for the delivery of speeches on a great variety of subjects which, in my opinion, would be more properly raised after the Budget has been introduced.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: We are not allowed to do it afterwards.
  MR. CURZON: Debates on one particular subject may more appropriately be raised, as last year. I shall, therefore, now confine myself to the case of the Uncovenanted Service, which my hon.
  1594
  Friend dealt with in the opening parts of his speech. I must acknowledge the clearness and the sympathetic tone of that speech, and I am also indebted to my hon. Friend for the courtesy which induced him to place before me a tabulated statement of the grievances of his clients on this occasion and of the arguments on which they rely. I have endeavoured to master the details of what is, no doubt a very complicated subject; and, if I am compelled in many particulars to take up an attitude which is hostile to the claims of the officers whom my hon.. Friend so ably represents, I am sure he will believe me when I say that it arises from no want of sympathy on my part or on the part of the Secretary of State with that most distinguished body of public servants. Still less do I desire to shirk any one of the points which he has put before the House. I propose to argue the case point by point, and I think I shall succeed in showing the House that some of what my hon Friend conceives to be the strongest points in his case are in reality based on a misinterpretation or misreading of the Report of the Select Committee, or of the conduct of the Government, which it will be easy to expose. Broadly speaking, my hon. Friend attacks the Secretary of State and the Government of India for having failed to carry out the instructions, or for having ignored the recommendations, of the Select Committee which sat two years ago. To-night he has developed that charge with some moderation; but I am in the fortunate position of having read his speeches elsewhere, and in a less temperate atmosphere than the House of Commons, where he has used language of a more violent character, and has spoken of the delinquent officials expiating their offences in the Clock Tower of this House. With regard to this House, however, it is unnecessary for the House to go further than the Report of the Select Committee, and I am only concerned to defend the action of the Government since that Committee was appointed, and to show how far it is reasonable or unreasonable, not that old grievances should previously have existed or that some of them should still continue to

  1595
  exist—for, after all, this House is not a Court of Appeal to revise the recommendations of the Select Committee—but how far it is just and fair that new grievances should be described as arising from the action taken by the Government on the Report of that Committee. The points of the case I will take one by one, as stated by my hon. Friend. The first is the fixing of a minimum rate of exchange for payment of pensions. The Committee opened their Report with an expression of opinion—
  "That the unforeseen change in the relative value of gold and silver money affords equitable grounds for the re-adjustment of the pensions of Uncovenanted Civil Servants."
  They made that expression of opinion the justification for their two first resolutions—namely, that a minimum rate of exchange for the payment of pensions should be fixed by the Government, and that that minimum rate should be one shilling and ninepence per rupee. This was the precise and definite recommendation of the Committee, and as such it was accepted by the Secretary of State, though a minimum of one and eightpence had formerly been suggested by him. But it still appears that there are a number of uncovenanted officers who are disappointed at not getting the full two shillings, and my hon. Friend has argued that there are some cases in which the Government either ought to have given or should now give the two shillings. That means that this recommendation, which was discussed at the greatest possible length in the Committee, and decided deliberately—
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I should like to explain. I do not mean in the slightest degree to go behind the compromise of 1s. 9d. for pensions paid in England. That was accepted loyally by every member of the Service. The remarks to which my hon. Friend refers simply pointed out what had been the claims of the Service before that compromise was arrived at. It was with regard to furlough I was speaking.
  MR. CURZON: If the claim made by my hon. Friend is antecedent to the Report of the Committee and no longer exists, I can leave the point. Undoubtedly, from certain remarks of his alluding to certain officers who were
  1596
  in exceptional circumstances, I drew the inference that he claims on behalf of the others that similar favourable terms as regards pensions, as well as furlough, should be extended to the general body of servants. I should like to give the House some idea of the extent to which this fixed rate of exchange has benefited the Uncovenanted Service in India, and the extent of the charges which have, in consequence, been laid upon the Government. At the date of the Report of the Select Committee the rate for bills was 1s. 7¼d.; at the present time it is 1s. 3¾d., which is itself some indication of the extent to which the Service has benefited by the fixing of the minimum rate of 1s. 9d. for pensions. But I have other figures more interesting still. In 1889–90, which was the year before the adoption of this part of the Committee's Report, the amount of pensions paid to uncovenanted officers in England was about £90,000; in consequence of this concession that sum rose in the succeeding year by no less than £30,000, and in the following year by £22,000, in all a rise of £52,000 sterling in two years.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: That was not altogether due to the change.
  MR. CURZON: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will explain. The actual increase on pensions paid in England was £52,000 sterling in two years, while the charge entailed upon the Government of India is no less than Rx.75,000, or an increase of nearly fifty-eight per cent. in two years. The hon. Member says, Is this due wholly or mainly to the payment of pensions at a fixed rate? It is undoubtedly mainly due to the direct payment of pensions at one shilling and ninepence the rupee, and the only other cause to which I conceive it can be secondarily due is the fact that many of those officers who previously remained in India have been induced by this concession to come over to England and receive their pensions here at the fixed rate of exchange. Apart from these two causes I know of no other cause which can account for this great increase, and I think it may be put forward as the measure in pounds, shillings, and pence, of the concession made by the Secretary of State. I now come, Sir, to a subsidiary point raised by my hon. Friend

  1597
  in the same context, and that is his claim for the Uncovcnanted Service that the R.5,000, which is the maximum limit of pensions, should be paid in sterling—£500—instead of at a lower rate of exchange. When a number of officers joined the Service who have since risen to the position qualifying for fall pension, it is perfectly true that nobody anticipated this disastrous fall in the rate of exchange; but that fall has occurred quite apart from any responsibility for it on the part of the Government. As regards the merits of the case, I must remind the House that no pensions, fixed in rupees, were payable in England till 1862, and only then on the express understanding that they should be paid at the fluctuating rate of exchange, and yet it was with a full knowledge of these conditions that the officers have continued in the Service. My hon. Friend quoted a sentence from the evidence of Mr. Waterfield, to the effect that a few years ago the Government of India recommended the fixing of the maximum at £500, and argues that the Secretary of State was bound by that recommendation. At the same time, the suggestion also came from the Government of India that the minimum rate should be one shilling and eight-pence instead of one shilling and nine-pence, but my hon. Friend does not say that the Government should be bound by that recommendation. The recommendation was made, but was not accepted by the Secretary of State in Council. I do not, however, think that I need discuss the merits of this case further, since the point was fully examined by the Select Committee, and there is no recommendation made by them upon it, and, therefore, it is obvious that they considered the maximum of one shilling and nineponce just and fair. I next come to that which is one of the principal grievances of my hon. Friend—namely, the claim of the Uncovenanted Service that the term of service qualifying for pension should be reduced from thirty to twenty-five years. I must inform the House that this term only applies to able-bodied men; those who have sick certificates can retire after twenty-five years on exactly the same pensions as those without medical certificates after thirty
  1598
  years, so that all the moving quotations made by the hon. Member as to the injury to health from thirty years' service fall to the ground. Here again he quoted the evidence of Mr. Waterfield, who, in answer to a question, said that representations upon this subject had been made to the Government. But I would point out that the admission of this fact is by no means an admission of the justice of the claim. Upon the grievance as to the term of service qualifying for pension, the Committee had the fullest possible statement before them, and what did they decide? They decided in Resolutions 5 and 6 that some period of furlough should in all cases count as service for pension; and that pensionable service should commence at twenty. The second point, that pensionable service should commence at twenty, was at once frankly conceded by the Secretary of State, though Lord Dufferin had reported in favour of twenty-one. In regard to the point that some furlough should always count as service for pension, it is obvious that the Committee left complete freedom to the Secretary of State; they did not specify the period of furlough, and did not say anything as to the reduction of service from thirty to twenty-five years. The Uncovenanted Service was ably represented on the Committee by the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. King), and it is not to be expected that, had he felt strongly on this subject, he would have allowed the opportunity for an expression of feeling to pass in complete silence. Are we to believe that the Committee, being anxious to reduce the term of service to twenty-five years all round, would have adopted a form of words so little calculated to attain their object? Such an hypothesis may be favourable to the claim of my hon. Friend, but it is uncomplimentary to the intelligence of the hon. Member for Central Hull. Well, Sir, what did the Secretary of State do? Acting upon the expression of opinion by the Committee that some period of furlough should count as service for pension, he accepted, a previous suggestion of Lord Dufferin that one year in fifteen and two years in twenty-five should count as service for pension, thereby reducing the qualifying period for able-bodied men from thirty to twenty-

  1599
  eight years. My hon. Friend may say that is illiberal if he chooses, but not that the recommendation of the Committee was ignored. If there be any fault, it is with the Committee for leaving the discretion to the Secretary of State, and not with the Secretary of State for using it. Here, however, my hon. Friend came in with a new point, and said that these advantages as regards the term of qualifying service are already enjoyed by certain uncovenanted officials, alluding to the officers in the Public Works Department. Here also, as he did in many other parts of his speech, he detaches from its context a Resolution of the Committee—namely, Resolution 4—
  "That no distinction in the furlough and pension rules should be made between Europeans and natives";
  and he argues that, if there is to be no distinction between Europeans and natives, è fortiori, there should be none between Europeans and Europeans, and, therefore, that all Europeans ought to be put on the most highly favoured terms. If all Europeans ought to be put on the most highly-favoured scale—and if, at the same time, we have the instruction of the Committee that there is to be no distinction between Europeans and natives — obviously natives must be put on the most highly-favoured terms also. I am surprised that my hon. Friend does not see the absurd dilemma in which he is placed. All natives cannot be put on the same footing as Europeans, because of the enormous expense it would involve; neither can all Europeans be put on the same footing as natives, because that would amount to a great injustice. As regards the difference of terms in the different branches of the Public Service—between officers of the Public Works Department and others—the Government of India have never admitted, and never can admit, the obligation to give all officers the same conditions of service, irrespective of duties. The principle on which they act is to consider the qualifications requisite for each Department, and then to offer conditions which will attract qualified persons to the different Departments; and, whatever my hon. Friend may think about the terms themselves, he cannot deny that up to the present
  1600
  they have attracted a sufficient number of qualified officers. I should like, however, having impugned the interpretation given by the hon. Member to the Resolution of the Committee, that no distinction in furlough or pension rules should be made between Europeans and natives, which Resolution is quoted by him over and over again in support of almost every part of his case—I should like to> explain to the House what the real meaning of that Resolution was. No doubt, Sir, if these words are taken alone, without reference to the proceedings before the Committee, they appear extraordinary, because they are more or less subversive of the most elementary principles of government in India. They might be held to mean either that all natives ought to have the same furlough and pensions as Europeans, which is impossible on the score of expense, or that all Europeans should have the same furlough and pensions as natives, which would be impossible on the score of justice. The Select Committee meant nothing of the kind. They never meant to question or subvert the whole system of our organisation in India, a system under which there are and must remain two branches in every Department—the higher branch manned chiefly by Europeans recruited in England, and the lower branch manned chiefly by natives appointed in India, with different conditions of service for each. No such suggestion was ever even made. What the Committee meant in putting that statement among their Resolutions was that in the higher branches one scale should be applicable to Europeans and natives, and that in the lower branches also one scale should apply to both; in other words, that in the higher branches natives should not, because of their nationality, be denied the advantages given to Europeans, and that in the lower branches Europeans should not, because of their nationality, be given the advantages denied to natives. How did the question arise? In past years a number of European gentlemen have been appointed in India by the Local Government to posts ordinarily filled by natives. As time went on, this method of appoint-

  1601
  ment was adopted to so large an extent that the Secretary of State thought it was an abuse of patronage, and that it was desirable to check the indiscriminate appointment of Europeans to posts which were intended to be filled by natives. Therefore the rule was introduced that only officers appointed by the Secretary of State, or by the Government of India with his sanction, should have the favourable rules given to Europeans recruited in England, and that Europeans appointed in India, without the sanction of the Secretary of State, should have the less favourable rules given to natives appointed in India. Well, these are the gentlemen who now complain. They appeared before the Committee and stated their case. They asked to be exempted from the conditions of service under which they took their appointments. That request was considered and deliberately refused by the Select Committee; and refused on the ground stated in the Resolution, that no distinction should be made between Europeans and natives in India, which, after all, is merely a re-assertion of a cardinal principle of our administration in that country. This is the history and this is the particular and distinct application of this paragraph in the Report of the Committee, which in the hands of my hon. Friend and his clients is made to do such extraordinary service. There remain two points in the case of the hon. Member to which I shall refer. I have now dealt with the Resolutions of the Committee, and with the manner in which they have been carried out by the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend says that there were only two isolated concessions. Having laid the above facts before the House, I must leave the House to draw its own conclusions, both as to the real number and the quality of these concessions. I now pass on to the last two recommendations with which the Committee concluded their Report. In the first they called attention to the ambiguity in which the terms of service have from time to time been stated, and they recommended that in future there should be as nearly as possible a uniform scheme with reference to pensions and furlough. Acting upon this recommendation, the
  1602
  Secretary of State, in the despatch quoted, wrote to the Government of India, and suggested that the Civil Service furlough and pension rules should be made more simple; and he proposed the preparation by the Government of India of a small pamphlet containing the more important regulations, but at the same time pointed out that one scheme for all branches of the Civil Service was impossible. The Government of India, in their despatch in reply, defended and explained the bulk and apparent complexity of the rules, as being necessary to intelligent administration. But they consented to the preparation of the pamphlet. My hon. Friend cheered the words "uniform scheme," when I used them. Now he uses these words in his speech and in his public statement of the grievances of his friends, and contends that when the Committee used them they meant that every European officer should be treated equally; in other words, that there should be a general levelling-up to the most highly favoured grade. The Committee meant nothing whatever of the kind. Does my hon. Friend contend for one moment that you could have a uniform scheme, say, for a pilot on the Hooghly and some eminent Civil servant such as the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal? Yet this is the position in which he is landed by the use of the words "uniform scheme," detached from their context. A mere reference to the proceedings of the Committee will show that they never contemplated such an assimilation of the conditions of the Civil Service in each separate Department. The object of the uniform scheme was to prevent the ambiguity which had been so much complained of in the past, and to which so many of the grievances were due. The object of the Committee was not to alter the terms of the service, but to expound them for the use of those officers who might be appointed in the future, so that there might be no mistake. If they meant anything else, they would have said so. In fact, I have done them the compliment of assuming throughout that they said what they meant; but my hon. Friend has assumed that, while saying one thing, they almost invariably meant something else. There remains

  1603
  the second and concluding recommendation of the Committee, about the insufficiency of the furlough pay. This is the recommendation—
  "Your Committee have had their attention called to the obstacles in taking furlough, arising from the insufficiency of the present furlough pay, and they recommend this matter to the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council."
  These words contain no injunction whatever. This is not a mandatory clause; it is rather a commendatory clause. The matter is left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. What did the Secretary of State do in deference to this recommendation? The correspondence has been published, and hon. Members can read it for themselves. Practically there were two proposals. The Government of India proposed that a minimum rate of furlough pay of £250 a year, or the last pay of the officer converted at the official rate of exchange, should be given to officers recruited in England. The Secretary of State considered that this would be beneficial chiefly to the more highly-paid officials, and at the same time that it would give advantages to certain classes of artisans coming from England, advantages which would be denied to officers of the higher Departments if recruited in India; and accordingly he declined that proposal, and made the proposal that £200 minimum furlough pay, or three-quarters of the pay, should be given to all officers, whether appointed in England or in India. Nothing would have pleased him more than to have been able to give this concession to all; but on account of the expense he was unable to do so, and accordingly he chose the less highly - paid class, and made the concession to them. There is another point in the case of my hon. Friend—namely, about the right of the Government to make ex post facto alterations in the rules, which he has not raised to-night; so that I need not trouble the House by referring to it, further than to say that the pledges which were given by my predecessor are cordially endorsed and accepted by the Government; and that, while the Government of India, like all Governments, must claim the right of altering the
  1604
  rules, yet they have no desire or intention to alter them to the detriment of any officer serving under them; and they have already signified their willingness to consider the question of compensation in any case where such alteration may have operated to the detriment of any officer. I have now shown the House how the Resolutions of the Committee have been carried out; I have next dealt with its recommendations, and have shown that the Secretary of State has acted upon these recommendations, using the discretion which was designedly left to him by the Select Committee; and, if the exercise of that discretion has been inadequate, then the blame is due not to him, but to the Committee for not having given him more distinct guidance. I have also shown that the sum total of the concessions made by him is by no means slender or illiberal, and that in several particulars the uncovenanted officers, in resuming the agitation, are adopting arguments which will not stand examination, and are reading into the Report what was not placed there, and what never was intended to be placed there. My hon. Friend said to-night that the proceedings of the Committee were in the nature of an arbitration, and that both parties have pledged themselves to accept and carry out its suggestions. I have shown that the Secretary of State has loyally fulfilled his part of the undertaking; and I earnestly hope that those officers for whom the hon. Member speaks so sympathetically will equally fulfil theirs. It would be a most unfortunate thing if this agitation were to be resumed either in England or in India. The Secretary of State would be most reluctant to see a resurrection of any discontent among so important and distinguished a body of public servants. On the Report of the Select Committee his conscience is perfectly clear; but I may add that his responsibility for the welfare of these uncovenanted officers by no means ended with the issue of that Report. On the contrary, certain suggestions having been made in consequence of the Report of the Public Service Commission as to the organisation of special Departments, he has asked the Government of India to

  1605
  consider the conditions which may be applied to officers of the higher grades in future, and how far they may be applicable to officers already in the Service. Until an answer has been received I can say no more on the subject. I regret if the action of the Secretary of State has in any respect not so far earned the complete satisfaction of the uncovenanted officers of all grades; but I hope I have shown the House that there are good reasons for believing that it has been neither inconsistent, illogical, nor ungenerous.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I think the true interpretation of the intention and meaning of the Special Committee on the Indian Uncovenanted Civil Service, as set forth in their Report, is that they intended to equalise the rules in reference to furlough and pensions with regard to natives and Europeans, so that the rules should be identical in both cases. But I do not rise to go into the grievances of the uncovenanted Civil servants of India. I think they have a very powerful advocate in the hon. Member opposite (Sir Roper Lethbridge), and I think their claims have been very fully and fairly considered by the Special Committee which was appointed for that purpose. But I should like the Under Secretary for India to bear in mind that the Select Committee did not deal with any of those cases in which it was stated that the claims of the uncovenanted officers were regulated by special contract, and that there were particular terms of contract by which better conditions in regard to furlough and pensions were reserved. It was held, and accepted by the Government, that in all these cases an equitable construction should be placed upon the contract, even where there was not an absolutely legal contract. With regard to the administration of India. I have heard with great satisfaction the tribute which was paid to the Mysore Government by the hon. Member for North Kensington. That is evidence, if evidence were wanting, to prove to those in this country, who have not personal knowledge on this subject, how very efficient the administration of the natives may be, where that ad-
  1606
  ministration is carried on by honest and able men—and, of course, it goes without saying that amongst the vast multitudes we govern in India there are thousands of honest and able men. The Government of India has already gone some steps forward, I think, in the direction of increasing largely the native officials in their administration of the great Empire of India; but I do not think they have gone far enough, and I am an advocate of going very considerably further. I think all those who, like myself, have had for a very long time a share in the administration of India will take the same view. We do not always agree as to the particular direction in which the movement should be advanced, but I think we all are agreed that the natives of the country are fully entitled to a larger share of the administration of the country than they have had. Some officers of high distinction seem to be of opinion that the higher posts in our administration, particularly in our Civil administration—I am not speaking particularly of our military administration just now—should be reserved for European servants; but I do not share that view at all. I consider that, so far as energy, ability, efficiency, and honesty of purpose, which are considered desirable for good administration, are concerned, the native gentlemen are just as good as European gentlemen. And while I would place the natives on exactly the same footing as Europeans in respect of offices, I must say that the Government of India, backed up by the Government of this country, deserve great credit for the advances which they have made in this direction of late; but these advances, I think, may I be carried very much further with very great advantage to themselves and to this country. Speaking of the administration of Mysore, that province is entirely in the hands of native administrators. I believe in that native administration there is a certain Representative Council. Experience there has shown that the natives are just as good for administration as Europeans. Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham made some remarks on this subject, which I took

  1607
  occasion to object to, and which I wish now to object to more fully than I did then. He stated that while he had no desire to cast any aspersion on the character of our fellow subjects in India, he meant to say and still said that—
  "In the valour, capacity, and energy which are necessary for a crisis of danger, the natives of India are not equal to, and cannot replace, Europeans."
  I entirely dissent from that statement; and I think if the hon. Baronet had been in India during the Mutiny in 1857 he would not have made that statement. Perhaps one of the most remarkable instances of energy and valour and of the wisdom of native administration was given at the very outset of that unfortunate occurrence by the conduct of the Maharajah of Pattialla, who at the outbreak of the Mutiny announced his intention of sending down his own troops to clear the way, and hold the road to Delhi. I only instance this to show that the Mysore Administration is not the only one which can be referred to as one of a very high class, and also to show that native administrators in India are men fitted to take the place of Europeans in a crisis of danger. I may further mention the case of the Tuhsildar of Thanah Bhawan, a Mahomedan official of that district, who remained and fought at his post and died of his wounds, while his European superior had left his charge and disappeared. A great deal has been done in connection with furthering the native administration of India by the efforts of the Government, especially of the Local Government, with regard to municipal administration. There has been in the last ten years a remarkable advance in the local self-government of the municipalities in India; but the municipalities in India embrace a very small section of the Indian people. According to the recent census of 1891 they only embraced some 15,000,000 out of the 288,000,000 who form that huge population. But apart from municipalities, there is that vast remnant of the population who have no share in the government of their country. I am extremely anxious to see a further extension of Local
  1608
  Government amongst the rural places of India, as I believe it would be found to be very advantageous. The village system lends itself completely to local administration; and if there was an amalgamation of some of the villages, situated favourably for such amalgamation, administration in the rural districts might, I think, be very easily conducted by the natives themselves. I do not hope, and I do not propose, that a system of that nature could be carried out in a very extensive manner; at all events I should not propose that the powers to be entrusted to those Local Authorities should be at first, at any rate, more than of a very simple character. I commend this to the attention of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will be able to induce the Government of India to take an interest in this matter and to devote their energies and their wisdom and their experience to some system by which the proposals I have sketched out may be carried into practical effect.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I have listened with much interest to the remarks which have fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and I entirely acquiesce in the liberal views which he has put forward with regard to the more extensive employment of natives of India in important posts of administration. The hon. Gentleman has a large Indian experience, and he has distinguished himself in this House by always taking a very liberal view of the rights and capacities of the natives of India, and I feel sure his speech will do much to lead the Indian people to look hopefully to the future. But I wish, in the few remarks I have to offer, to call attention to a somewhat different class of subject. I desire to call the attention of the House as briefly as possible to the condition of India, as described in the explanatory Memorandum which has been placed in our hands, and I am sorry indeed to have to state that the financial state of India as detailed in this important Paper is in the last degree unsatisfactory. I observe with great regret that last year we showed a small deficit, and I observe in the

  1609
  coming year the Budget Estimate shows a nominal surplus of 146,000 tens of rupees, or £100,000 sterling. I wish to call the attention of the House to this fact: that this apparently small surplus is based upon taking the exchange at the rate of one shilling and fourpence; but the Under Secretary himself has just stated that the present rate is one shilling and threepence three farthings, and it has been as low as one shilling and threepence. I am very much afraid we may again have one of those miscalculations as to the rate of exchange, causing a great deficit. I am afraid we may have the experience of last year repeated, because no one can deny that the present condition of the silver market is in the last degree uncertain and precarious. The price of silver fell recently as low as thirty-nine pence per ounce, and the exchange rate fell to one shilling and threepence. We have seen a little recovery from that, owing in part to the agreement of the Western Powers to hold an International Monetary Conference. A certain degree of hope has sprung up that possibly this Conference may be able to do something in the way of rehabilitating the monetary position of silver. But the House and the country must well understand that if this Monetary Conference should altogether fail to come to any conclusions beneficial to the position of silver as money we may look forward to another very rapid collapse in the price of silver, and I think it is not at all improbable that in the event of the failure of this coming Conference we may see the rate of exchange down to one shilling and twopence before this year is over, and possibly within a few years it will go down much lower, because it appears not at all unlikely that if the efforts of the United States to rehabilitate silver in alliance with the Great Powers of the world should fail, there may arise a strong movement in America to cease altogether the coinage of silver in order to bring pressure to bear on England. Undoubtedly if that policy were adopted we may conclude that we should see the rate of exchange at one shilling and a further loss of three or four million tens of rupees thrown upon the
  1610
  Indian Revenue. I call attention to these facts because they must be faced by the authorities responsible for the finances of India and bear upon the instructions to be given to the delegates of this country at the approaching International Convention. Looking at the table of the losses in exchange, I find that they have steadily increased year by year till they, last year, reached the enormous figure of eight and a quarter million tens of rupees; though, of course, at the present rate of exchange that is only equal to five millions sterling. To show the prodigious increase of this source of drainage I will quote the figures for the past ten years. In 1882 the loss on exchange was under three million tens of rupees, next year 3,200,000, then 3,300,000, then 3,500,000, then 4,300,000, then 5,600,000, then 6,000,000, then 6,300,000, then 6,700,000, then 5,400,000, then 7,200,000, and last year 8,200,000. These figures, I think, are alarming; and so far as I can see it would not surprise me at all, in the event of the failure of this International Conference, if we shall see nine million or ten millions reached within the next year or two. When I look at this question I am filled with apprehension. I think every thoughtful person who is cognisant of the financial position of India at the present time must have grave apprehensions as to the future. When I refer to the main sources of revenue I find some of them are declining, some of them are threatened, and some of them are uncertain. On the other hand. I find that the sources of expenditure are continually rising. As to income, take, first of all, the great opium revenue. It has fallen steadily from eight millions to five and a half millions. No one can doubt, with the present feeling of this country upon the subject, that the opium revenue is bound to decline, for this country will insist upon putting every possible restriction upon the consumption of opium and all other narcotic drugs. Therefore we may conclude that this source of revenue is a most precarious one. The revenue derived from salt also stands in a precarious position, and it is acknow-

  1611
  ledged on all hands that it is cruelly severe on the population of India. It is two and a half rupees per maund against half a rupee at the beginning of the century, and the Government stand pledged to take off the last half rupee as soon as they can; so the salt revenue is precarious and uncertain. I find, on the other hand, a steady and constant increase in the military expenditure. Last year we had the astounding figure of very nearly twenty-two millions, and this year we have an estimate of over twenty-one millions for military expenditure. I believe in the time of Lord North-brook the military expenditure was between fourteen and fifteen millions, so that it has since his time increased by nearly fifty per cent. And we must remember this military expenditure does not cover all that comes under that head in India, for we have a heavy capital expenditure for strategic railways on the frontier, which is a military expenditure, though charged to the railway account. Fifteen millions have been spent on these absolutely unproductive strategic railways. I wish to impress upon the Government, if they do not wish to have national bankruptcy in India, that they must face this question of gigantic military expenditure and take most drastic means to reduce it. In connection with the military expenditure I will just observe that a great part of it is non-effective. It is in the shape of pensions and of furlough allowances, which amount to about four and a-quarter million tens of rupees, or about double what you pay to the whole Native Army of India. That is an item which it ought to be the business of the Government to curtail in the future as much as they possibly can. I would just like to make a single remark on the question of policy. We have contrived to get into bad relations with Afghanistan. I am informed by a gentleman who has travelled over the Indian frontier that the main cause of the ill-feeling which has arisen between the Government of India and ourselves is the making of the Khojak Tunnel without the consent of the Ameer. The Ameer was most friendly disposed
  1612
  towards this country, and if we had waited till we had his consent, I am told there is very little doubt but that it would have been obtained. But our strategists thought it was a more advisable course to take the law into their own hands, and in a certain sense to try to hoodwink the Ameer, and carry this tunnel into his dominions.
  MR. CURZON: This tunnel is not made in the dominions of the Ameer. There has been no intention of conducting the operation in a secret or underhand manner.
  MR. SMITH: Of course, I accept the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, who understands the frontier question much better than I do. My informant, however, is a man of considerable ability, who has travelled all over the country in question, and who told me that it was our present policy which has induced the jealousy of the Ameer. I think that it might have been carried out in such a way as to avoid the friction which has unhappily arisen. As some persons are endeavouring to induce the Government to push on the railway to Candahar, I beg to enter my very strong protest against that proposal. I hope all ideas of the kind will be laid aside. But the main object of these remarks is to press upon the Government the necessity for retrenchment and economy in the Government of India. We are drifting into a position of grave financial embarrassment. That cannot be denied by those responsible for the Government of India. Had the threatened famine arisen, the financial position of India would have been very dangerous; but, even as it is, in all probability we shall have a deficit. That being the case, looking to the extreme poverty of the people of India, and to the strong feeling of discontent which exists there, and which I fear is much more than is generally known—as one who has been a good deal in contact with native opinion for many years, I hold there is much discontent in India at the expensiveness of our government—there is most certainly a strong need for retrenchment; otherwise, there will be a bad time in store for us. There is one direction in which I be-

  1613
  lieve it possible to largely increase the resources of India, and that is to alter the system of laud taxation. As the House knows, the assessment of the land of India is generally fixed for a term of thirty years. The result is that improvements of great value are hindered towards the end of that period in consequence of the uncertainty which is naturally felt as to the assessment. There is no difference of opinion among the educated people of India that if we adopted a policy for India similar to what we have adopted in Ireland, and gave fixity or perpetuity of tenure and fair rent, we should see in the course of time a very great improvement in the productiveness of the soil of India. The wells that are sunk are far too few, for the tenant is afraid that just as he improves the soil he will have his assessment raised; but if he had absolute security for the possession of all additional value he gave to the land I believe you would see a new chapter opened in the agricultural history of India. One other suggestion I wish to press upon the Government. More attention ought to be given to the proposals of Sir William Wedderburn for the establishment of land banks. Sir William Wedderburn has devoted many years to this subject, and he has pointed out, what is perfectly well known, that the great mass of the peasantry are deeply and hopelessly in debt, and that the rate of interest they pay is most usurious, being certainly not less than two or three per cent. per month. I am told that so entirely are the mass of the peasants in the hands of the money lenders that they are debarred from improving their lands from the knowledge that whatever improvements they make are simply grasped at once by their creditors; and, consequently, they are compelled to do with the minimum amount of culture to keep their families in existence. The removal of this crushing load of debt should be one of the main objects of the Government, and the establishment of the land banks is a valuable proposal. These banks would be able to lend the money at a moderate rate of interest and yet make a handsome profit, and the people would through
  1614
  them be able to discharge these usurious debts on which they pay such an enormous interest. I do not propose to go further into general criticisms upon the state of India, for I know that the House is waiting with some impatience for the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for India; but I will just, in conclusion, say that, looking to the poverty stricken condition of India and to the grave financial difficulties that are looming in the future, it is most desirable that we should associate with ourselves in the government of India the ablest natives of that country; and I hope that the Bill which received the Royal Assent to-day, and which contains within itself the seeds of the elective system, if the Indian Government chooses so to interpret it, will be liberally interpreted by the Government, so that out of it may grow a system of elective representation, which will enable the Government of India to associate with themselves the ablest intellects of that country in solving these problems which threaten the future of that great country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. CURZON: I am afraid, Sir, with the shadow of coming events lying so large across our path, that I cannot expect my Budget Statement to have much interest for a jaded and depleted House of Commons. And yet the story of the finances of India, although it does not appear to excite much concern in this House,, must be told, because it affects the prosperity and deals with the welfare of many hundred millions of our fellow-subjects whose interests, even with a General Election impending, this House cannot afford to ignore. But, late as is the period of the Session at which I have to make this statement, and empty as is the House, I at any rate may congratulate myself that opportunities have not been wasting in this Session of Parliament for considering the affairs of India. We had an Amendment upon the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech; later on, the Adjourn-

  1615
  ment of the House was moved by the hon. Member for South Donegal, to discuss the question of the scarcity and distress existing in different parts of India; later, again, we had two full nights' debate upon the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Indian Councils Bill which has just passed into law; and, therefore, at any rate, the reproach cannot be made against us that in the concluding Session of this Parliament we have shown that indifference which is supposed to be so characteristic of the House of Commons to the interests of our fellow-subjects in India. But one source of regret, however, I must admit; and that is that the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the office I now hold, and whose financial abilities have found a larger and better sphere elsewhere, has not been able to make this statement himself. I should have been glad if he could have completed the term of this Parliament in the delivery of a statement to which he always lent the graces both of lucidity and of style; and I should have been all the more glad if he could have done so on this occasion, inasmuch as the tale I have to tell the Committee is less satisfactory than those which on previous occasions he has given. The Accounts which I have to present to the House relate as usual in these statements to three years—the closed Accounts of 1890–91; the Revised Estimate for 1891–92; and the Budget Estimate for the present financial year. Each of these I will take in turn. First, the closed Account of 1890–91, which was the Revised Estimate of last year. Here the gross revenue, in tens of rupees, was 85,711,649, the gross expenditure 82,053,478; while the net revenue was 49,354,219, and the net expenditure 45,666,048 tens of rupees, showing a realised surplus of 3,688,171 tens of rupees. In giving the House the figures of gross revenue and expendidure and net revenue and expenditure, I need hardly explain that the net revenue is arrived at after deducting the cost of collection and certain other refunds and rebates, while the net expenditure is the amount spent in the various Departments, deducting the
  1616
  receipts of those Departments. This large surplus of 1890–91 is slightly better—by 23,071 tens of rupees—than the revised Estimate of 3,655,100 tens of rupees made by my predecessor in the debate of last year. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary of the Treasury explained that this large surplus was due, partly to a general increase of income, and partly to a large reduction in expenditure, but still more to an increase in the value of the rupee to one shilling and ninepence, due to American speculations in silver, and the consequent rise in the exchange value of the rupee. The result of those circumstances was to give the rupee an average value of one shilling and sixpence, which is nearly three halfpence above the Budget rate. I am afraid that I must warn the House that that year was the last of the series of very fat years which the Government of India is likely to enjoy for some time, and that we must look forward to an era of contracted surpluses for some years to come. The next point to which I have to refer is the Revised Estimate for 1891–2, the figures of which were given by Sir D. Barbour in March of the present year as follows:—Gross Revenue, Rx.88,585,900; gross Expenditure, Rx.88,665,900; net Revenue, Rx.49,726,900; net Expenditure, Rx.49,806,900; showing a Deficit of Rx.80,000. Sir D. Barbour, however, explained that those figures were not the final ones, and he expressed a hope that before the close of the year the equilibrium would be restored; and I am now happy to say that the Approximate Account shows that there is a surplus instead of a deficit. The Approximate Account shows a net revenue of Rx.49,927,900, and a net expenditure of Rx.49,573,900, giving a surplus of Rx.354,000. Comparing this result with the various estimates hitherto made, it appears that Sir D. Barbour in March, 1891, estimated a surplus of Rx.115,600, that the Financial Secretary in August, 1891, estimated a surplus of Rx.395,600, while Sir D. Barbour in March of the present year estimated a deficit of Rx.80,000; and accordingly the result is better by

  1617
  Rx.238,400 than the first estimate, and is worse by only Rx.41,600 than the second, and better by Rx.434,000 than the third. The explanation of the fall from the fine surplus of the preceding year mainly consists in the capricious, and, in this case, the calamitous, factor of exchange. The Budget of the year was framed on the estimate that the gold value of the rupee would be one shilling and fivepence farthing, while it has proved to be about one shilling and fourpence three farthings. This fall in value has involved an additional charge upon the year's accounts of Rx.659,000 for exchange. The Approximate Account of 1891–2, which I am now stating to the Committee, and which is based upon later figures than those appearing in the Explanatory Memorandum, compared with Sir D. Barbour's Budget Estimate of last year, shows that, dividing the additional charge for exchange among the various heads to which it appertained, the following were the main alterations: — The improvements on the Budget Estimate have been better in the case of railways by Rx.1,107,900, the increase being due to the unusual traffic in wheat and seeds for export. The revenue has been better in the case of opium by Rx.807,200, owing to the higher price of the article and to the export from Bombay having been greater than was anticipated in the Budget, while there was a reduction of charge in consequence of the small crop. The revenue from salt is better than the estimate in the Budget by Rx.299,900, that from the excise is better by Rx.158,100, and that from stamps is better by Rx.118,600, making a total gain upon the estimate of Rx.2,491,700. The expenditure on the Army is worse than the estimate by Rx.1,329,000, owing to the various military expeditions which the Indian Government were compelled to send out—firstly, for the purpose of protecting our existing frontier from raids by border tribes; secondly, to meet a sudden and isolated outbreak, as at Manipur; and, thirdly, to preserve order in the unsettled regions of North Burmah. There small wars are capricious in their origin, even if they are fruitful in adventure. None of them are wars of
  1618
  aggression. All of them are wars of necessity; and they may be described as the premium which we pay upon the insurance of our Indian Empire. The land revenue is worse than the estimate by Rx.423,800, interest is worse by Rx.374,700, and other heads are worse by Rx.10,200, making a loss upon the Budget Estimate of Rx.2,137,700, and leaving the surplus above-mentioned of Rx.354,000. It must be obvious to the Committee that with so slender a surplus it is impossible to effect any reduction in taxation, especially as even that slender surplus is due to accidental causes, such as arrears not having been paid to the War Office, as was intended. So much for the Approximate Account of 1891–2. I now come to the third table in my statement—namely, the Budget Estimate for the year from the 31st March, 1892, to the 31st March, 1893. Under this head the gross revenue is Rx.88,368,000, and the gross expenditure Rx.88,221,000, while the net revenue is Rx.49,583,000, and the net expenditure Rx.49,436,000, showing a surplus of Rx.147,000. As there is a surplus of Rx.354,000 in the Approximate Account of 1891–2, these figures show a reduction of Rx.207,000, the net revenue being less by Rx.345,000, and the net expenditure by Rx.138,000. The fall in the value of the rupee from one shilling and fourpence three farthings to one shilling and fourpence has caused an addition of Rx.1,049,000 to the charges of the year; but, if that be spread, as I have previously done in the case of 1891–2, over the heads to which it appertains, the alterations may be explained as follows: In railways we are worse off by Rx.1,190,000 arising from the anticipation of smaller traffic and the increased charge for exchange; in opium by Rx.726,000, which nearly absorbs the gain of last year, the reduction in this case being due to the decreased sale of 250 chests per month announced in June, 1891, taking full effect this year, and also to the heavier charges incurred, amounting to an increase of Rx.348,000. The Civil Departments will be worse by Rx.332,000, and the construction of railways out of revenue by Rx.171,000, making a total in which we are worse off than in the Approximate Account of

  1619
  1891–2 of Rx.2,419,000. On the other hand, we are better off in the following particulars: Land revenue and provincial rates, Rx.679,000; interest, Rx.364,000; buildings and roads, Rx.233,000; Army, Rx.420,000, mainly owing to the absence of any provision for special expeditions; provincial agreements, Rx.466,000—upon which point I shall have some explanation to place before the Committee; and under other heads, Rx.50,000; making a total of Rx.2,212,000, in which the Budget Estimate is better than the Approximate Account of last year. The net result of these two tables is that we are worse off by Rx.207,000 than the Approximate Account of 1891–2. The hon. Member who preceded me to-night has anticipated that the small surplus of Rx.146,600 which we contemplate for the current year may, owing to the subsequent fall in exchange, be wholly swallowed up before the end of the year, and that we may have to face a deficit.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: It is 146,000 rupees, not 146,000 tens of rupees.
  MR. CURZON: I think that statement must be a mistake.
  MR. SMITH: What page?
  MR. CURZON: I think, if the hon. Member looks at page 52, the very last figures, he will see an estimated surplus of Rx.146,600. That is the figure to which I am alluding, and he may take it that the figures are tens of rupees, and not rupees. I was about to point out, in answer to the hon. Member's somewhat gloomy prophecy, that the last telegram we received from the Government of India, dated 16th June, for the purpose of this Debate, leads me to anticipate a more favourable result than the hon. Member has predicted. There is reason to believe that the final result of the year will be very much the same as the Budget Estimate framed about three months ago. It is perfectly true that there has been the fall in exchange of which the hon. Member has spoken; but, on the other hand, railways are doing well and the general revenue is satisfactory, while owing to the bad opium crop
  1620
  there will be a considerable saving of charge under that head. On the other hand there has been a fall of a halfpenny per rupee in the exchange, and with the payments to the War Office deferred from the previous year, discount on the loan in England, and minor increase of expenditure, the improvement in the receipts is almost exactly balanced; so that, in giving these figures, the Government of India expects to be better than the Budget Estimate of three months ago in railways and general revenue by sixty or seventy lakhs, while the opium expenditure will be reduced by sixty-six lakhs, making a total of one hundred and twenty-six to one hundred and thirty-six lakhs. On the other hand, they expect to be worse by seventy-nine lakhs on exchange, thirty-four lakhs on Home charges, and twenty lakhs on other charges, making a total of one hundred and thirty-three lakhs—almost exactly balancing those items on which a gain is expected. Although these figures do not justify the sinister vaticinations we have heard, yet I do not pretend to say that this is a very gratifying statement which I am now making to the House; but I think, on the other hand, that it discloses features which may give satisfaction. In the first place, there is the anticipated rise in the land revenue, which is a satisfactory sign as proving the general fairness of assessment and also the general expansion of cultivation, although it is fair to explain that this rise will in part be due in the current year to the anticipated recovery from circumstances that have necessitated the postponement of revenue collection in the distressed districts during the past year. We may also note as a satisfactory sign the absence of provision for special frontier expeditions; and I may say myself that I earnestly hope in the future that the necessity for punitive expeditions may steadily diminish, and that the recurrence of acts of plunder followed by punishment, may be gradually superseded by the conciliatory absorption of the border tribes of whom I have been speaking, not into subjection, but into contented dependence on the Government of India. It is gratifying, too, to know that the main heads of revenue show a steady im-

  1621
  provement, enabling us to cope with the lamentable fall in the exchange value of the rupee, and I venture to submit that, in a year when these great financial difficulties have to be faced, it is no mean achievement to be able to place before the House a Budget Estimate showing such results as I have stated. Undoubtedly the hon. Member is right in saying that the main element of disappointment and disturbance in the finances of India, both now and not unlikely in the immediate future, is the fall in exchange. Perhaps, as no subject can be more interesting in connection with Indian finance than this, I may be permitted to give the figures. The total charge on revenue for exchange has been in recent years as follows: 1889–90 Rx.6,693,000; 1890–1, Rx.5,383,000; Revised Estimate, 1891–2, Rx.7,222,000, Budget of 1892–3, Rx.8,224,000, showing a difference of no less than Rx.2,841,000, in two years. How has this arisen? In December, 1890, the gold value of silver was equivalent to a rate of one shilling and sixpence halfpenny the rupee, in four months the selling rate had fallen to one shilling and fourpence three-farthings, which difference on the remittances for the year would have caused an increased charge of Rx.2,168,000. In 1890–1 bills on India were sold in April at one shilling and fivepence and one-sixteenth, and five months afterwards, in September, at one shilling and eightpence and twenty-nine-thirty-seconds of a penny. The difference between these two rates on a remittance of £16,000,000 is about Rx.4,137,800. When the Budget for 1892–3 was under consideration, the gold value of the rupee from the middle of February to 18th March ranged between one shilling and fourpence and one shilling and threepence three-farthings, and the Government based their estimate on the higher rate. Within eleven days after the publication of the Budget the market rate in India had fallen below one shilling and threepence, at which rate a fall of one penny in the rupee would cause an additional charge in the present year exceeding Rx.1,700,000. It cannot be denied that these figures are serious. They present a problem which is well calcu-
  1622
  lated to appeal to the intelligence and the study of our ablest financiers. This is not the occasion, and I confess that I am not the man, to deal at all exhaustively with the character of that problem; but, in order to illustrate to the House the complexity of the situation which we have to face, I may at least remind the Committee of the number of divergent interests, classes, and persons who are concerned. On the one hand there are the Lancashire cotton spinners, who argue that this fall in the gold price of silver in India amounts to little less than a bounty of twenty to thirty per cent. to the producer in Bombay. In the second place you have the Indian Government, which finds itself cruelly crippled in the matter of home remittances and sterling charges; and you have, thirdly, a large number of Civil servants in India who complain—and it seems to me there is great force and justice in their complaint—that they, too, are seriously affected in the matter of home remittances for the education of their children, and in the provision of those European comforts which may sometimes be described as almost European necessities in connection with life in India. Each of these classes has its own remedy. Some advocate bi-metallism, while a new school which has lately arisen suggests the institution of a gold standard for India. All agree in saying that some action should be taken by the Government, but as to what that action should be no two persons, certainly no two classes, in India agree. But there remains a fourth class whose interests should not be lost sight of, and that is the Indian population itself, the Indian cultivator and artisan. There are many who argue that the fall in the exchange value of silver is an industrial gain to India; that it enables the producer or the labourer or artisan to get more for his produce and to pay his rent and taxes more easily; and that, in fact, the fall in the price of silver may be considered an indirect measure for the relief of taxation to the labourer, inasmuch as, with the taxes fixed, a less portion of his produce goes into the pocket of the Government, while a larger fraction remains in his own. It is not for me to say whether the mea-

  1623
  sure of inconvenience in this respect to the Government of India and the Civil servants is greater than the measure of apparent gain to the taxpayer, or whether it is less; but at least I hope the considerations I have placed before the Committee will show the immense complexity of the problem we have to deal with, and will illustrate the inadvisability of accepting any unduly rapid solution. There is this further fact: that it is not British or Indian interests in the last resort that are considered by other people. These are very little considered by foreign legislation, which shapes its processes without the slightest regard to our interests. The extreme uncertainty of exchange, the fluctuations in the opium revenue, and the demands made upon the revenue in consequence of the recent scarcity, render any prediction at this moment as to the future peculiarly unsafe. On the other hand, they impress upon the Government of India the necessity of exercising strict economy in every direction. I mentioned some little time ago that in the Budget Estimate for the present year we expect to be Rx.466,000 better than last year in the matter of the provincial agreements; and the fact that these agreements are being revised during the present year affords me an opportunity of briefly explaining to the Committee the most interesting points which they suggest. By far the greater part of the revenue in India is collected by officers of the Provincial Governments, and a very large portion of the civil expenditure is under their control; and it is, therefore, highly desirable that the Provincial Governments should have a direct interest in the effective collection of the one and in the economical administration of the other. It is with this view that the Government of India, as a part of their settled policy for over twenty years, have entered into agreements with the provincial Governments, under which the latter receive certain proportions of the main sources of revenue, together with nearly all the departmental receipts, and bear the responsibility of the whole, or a fixed proportion, of the charges under most of the heads. The probable posi-
  1624
  tion of the several local Governments is then carefully examined, and a specific sum in each case is either added to or deducted from the amount of the provincial revenues. The last agreements were made in 1887, and lasted till 1892, so that the present year has seen their revision, and the fixing of fresh terms for another period of five years. The estimate framed in 1887 gave a virtual equilibrium to the revenue and expenditure of the Provincial Governments. Their revenue, however, during the five years was better than the estimate in every case except that of the North-West Provinces; and, on the whole, they received more by Rx.6,101,300 than the estimate of expenditure which they were expected to meet. Of this annual amount they, in 1890–91, contributed Rx.490,000 to meet the wants of the Government of India, and they spent Rx.5,281,700 on their various administrations. According to the revised estimate for last year the total provincial revenues were better than the estimates of 1887–8 by Rx.2,042,700, and of this sum they have now been required, as the basis of the fresh agreements, to contribute to the general expenditure of the Government of India Rx.466,300 annually, or between one-fourth and one-fifth of their improved revenues, the remainder being left in their own hands. This contribution is, in fact, the Return that is demanded of the Provincial Governments for the favourable bargain that was made with them five years ago. No doubt the Provincial Governments would have liked to retain the entire sum; no doubt the Government of India would have been glad to leave it to them, if possible; for there is scarcely a branch of provincial administration that would not be the better for an increased expenditure. But, inasmuch as this would have involved additional taxation, which the Government of India is in the last degree anxious to avoid, such a complete surrender of these funds was impossible. Now, although, unfortunately, I have myself no surplus to dispose of, I may remind the House that in 1889–90 there was a surplus of Rx.2,612,000, and in 1890–91 of Rx.3,688,000,

  1625
  mainly due to the rise in the selling price of opium and to the extraordinary and unexpected rise in the exchange value of the rupee. Well, Sir, the House may like to know what has been done with this surplus of Rx.6,300,000 in the two years. In England, of course, a surplus so acquired is devoted by law to the reduction of debt; but this surplus of Rx.6,300,000 has been practically devoted to the construction of railways and other projected public works in India, and it has enabled the Government to reduce the amount they would otherwise have had to borrow, and to dispense for the third year in succession with the necessity of raising a loan. A word or two now as to the debt of India. Although, as I have just said, the Government have been able to dispense with the necessity of borrowing in India, yet in the three years under review there has been in England an addition to the debt of £8,491,452, more than half of which was applied to the purchase of the South Indian Railway. The remainder has been used for advances to companies under engagement with the Secretary of State for the construction of railways in India, in accordance with the policy sanctioned by Parliament, by which the Government is enabled to borrow on behalf of the companies at a lower rate of interest than they could procure for themselves. Before leaving this question of the debt of India, I may mention that perhaps a better test than any other of the stability of the Government of India is furnished by the high credit which it enjoys in the City of London. In illustration of this I may state than an issue of £1,300,000 India three per cent. stock was offered in April of the present year, and was subscribed for at an average rate of £96 18s. 4d., equivalent to borrowing at somewhat less than three and one-tenth per cent., figures which I think must be extremely gratifying. Another advantage of this good credit is that the Government of India has been enabled in recent years, and is still continuing, to reduce the interest upon their debt. The Committee will perhaps have read in the newspapers of the successful conversion of the four and
  1626
  a-half per cent. rupee loans, mention of which has been made in the speeches of my predecessors. In 1878–79 the Government of India raised debt bearing four and a half per cent. interest, with the view of converting their five and a half per cent. debt into it; and one of the conditions of the new loan was that it should not be liable to discharge till the 15th September, 1893, or any subsequent date of which three months' notice should have been given. The amount of four and a half per cent. debt so existing on the 31st March, 1890, was Rx.20,480,313. On the 25th June, 1890, the Government of India made an offer to the holders to exchange their securities for notes bearing four per cent. interest, receiving at once, in anticipation, the additional half per cent. per annum which otherwise would be payable till September, 1893. The amount so converted was Rx.8,073,620; and, some minor sums having been discharged, the amount outstanding on the 29th February, 1892, was about Rx.12,126,900. The Government have now issued a new notice, dated the 6th instant, by which the remaining holders are invited to accept four per cent. securities from the 30th June, 1892, foregoing the additional half per cent. per annum for the next fifteen months. This offer we can afford to make less favourable than that made in 1890, because the four per cent. stock stands in the Indian market at the present time at 108, while those who do not accept the offer are liable to be paid off at par. The Government of India have reserved the right of withdrawing the offer if it thinks that a sufficient amount has been converted, but otherwise it will remain open till the 15th July, 1892. Well, Sir, the object I have in making these remarks is to show the credit we enjoy and the savings we make. By the conversion made in 1890 there will be an annual saving after 1893 of Rx.40,318, to which will be added upwards of Rx60,000 if the whole amount of the four and a half per cent. rupee loans now outstanding is discharged. After this strictly financial part of my statement, I may perhaps, with the permission of the Committee, before I re-

  1627
  sume my seat, say a word or two upon a question which has attracted great interest in this House—namely, the recent scarcity and distress that have arisen in various parts of India. The matter is one that, of course, has its financial aspect, because it affects very materially the increased the Estimates. The Committee will remember that at an earlier period of this Session a discussion was raised upon this question by the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. On that occasion I did not attempt to minimise the gravity of the circumstances, such as they were, but I assured the House that the Government were conscious of their great responsibility and were acting up to it, and that the prospects were by no means so bad or so serious as some ill-informed persons would lead us to expect, and, as regards the particular charges which the hon. Member thought fit to firing either against the Government or against independent officers, that those charges had not one shred of foundation. I had at that time to submit to the charge of official optimism which is so frequently levelled against this Bench, but I submitted with perfect grace, looking forward to the revenge which I hoped to be able to take when I was called upon to make this statement to the House; and, though the hon. Member for South Donegal is not here on the present occasion, I hope, in the intervals of electioneering, he may find time to read the statement which I now have the pleasure of placing before the House. I am happy to say that both the statements I then made and the predictions in which I indulged—both of which were characterised at the time as unduly optimistic—as to the conduct of affairs and as to the future have been amply verified by results. I have here two recent telegrams from the Viceroy of India, dated the 15th and 19th June respectively. The upshot of these telegrams is that the expected monsoon has set in earlier than usual on both coasts, and, although light at present, has given sufficient rain in Bengal to remove all anxiety and to supply ample food and water to cattle; that the number on relief works
  1628
  has already fallen by ten thousand; that in Madras the monsoon has favourably affected considerable districts, and is expected later on to do the same in others. With a view of showing the Committee the manner and the extent of the steps which were taken by the Government, and are being taken at this very moment, to meet the distress, I may mention that the latest figures give the number on the relief works at 248,000, and 16,000 in receipt of gratuitous relief, while large sums have been advanced to landholders to enable them to provide employment for the poor on their estates, and there has also been a large suspension of revenue. The financial loss to the Indian Treasury up to the 31st March of the present year entailed by this scarcity has been as follows:—Relief Expenditure, Rx. 233,000; Advances on Loan, Rx. 233,000; Suspension of Revenue, Rx. 381,000; total, Rx. 847,000. Some of this will no doubt be recovered in the present financial year, but it does not include the outlay incurred in the Native States. I remember on the former occasion the hon. Member for South Donegal said, with a want of restraint which I noted at the time, that people were perishing by thousands in India from starvation. I am happy to say that the last telegram from the Government of India contains the following statement:—
  "No case of starvation or even of serious emaciation has come to light, notwithstanding the vigilant inspection maintained by the local officials."
  And, although the death-rate, it is perfectly true, rose considerably above its normal level at the end of last year, and at the opening of the present year, due in many cases to cholera and other concomitants of the prevailing distress, yet in the bulk of the affected districts I am glad to say that the mortality is returning to its normal level, while, owing to the great railway development of recent years in India, food supplies have never failed in any one of those imperilled regions, and prices have never anywhere risen to anything like the figures they did in the last great visitation. These facts, which I place before the House, are I think encouraging for the future. If this

  1629
  monsoon brings with it good rain, I hope by the blessing of Providence that the danger which was anticipated may be averted; that scarcity will not anywhere deepen, as it has not hitherto deepened, into famine; and also that the experience gained may fit us to face with equal or greater ability the recurrence of distress in years to come. I will conclude by apologising to the Committee for the necessarily tedious character of the statement which I have been called upon to make, although I am bound to say that hon. Members have to some extent discounted the necessity for that apology by the almost complete unanimity with which they have absented themselves from these proceedings. I thank those hon. Members who have been here to listen to me, and I hope that next year I or someone else in my place may be able to make a more interesting statement to a more interested and a fuller House of Commons. I move the Resolution that stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1891, was Rx.85,741,649; that the total Expenditure in India and in England charged against the Revenue was Rx. 82,053,478; that there was a surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.3,688,171; and that the capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.3,365,632."—(Mr. Curzon.)
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I am not at all dismayed by the spectacle of the desert of green benches around me, because I know well that, through the kindness of our friends in the Press Gallery, what we say here is reported both to England and to India. I desire now to express my satisfaction that at all events my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India has returned to his place, for that gives me an opportunity of congratulating him personally upon the statement which he has just made. It was but likely that he would make such a statement, because I, for one, am inclined to believe in all that he says about India. I recollect that he gave the best account I ever saw of the
  1630
  whole length of the north-west frontier of India—a region with which I am myself intimately acquainted inch by inch—while his subsequent studies in Central Asia and in Persia have given him much preliminary qualification for dealing with Indian questions. I may further congratulate my hon. Friend upon the excellent manner in which he has prepared his case. He has stated his figures with remarkable lucidity and accuracy; and I would commend all his commentaries and remarks to the confidence both of this House and of the country at large. Now, I may report to you, Mr. Courtney, that just before you took the Chair to preside over the remainder of our deliberations this evening the hon. Member for Flintshire, who has had, I believe, to leave us to catch a train, poured forth his annual flood of well-intentioned and sincerely - designed pessimisms over India in the House of Commons; but that flood will have become shallow and almost dried up by the sunlight of official figures which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary has presented, as I shall immediately proceed to show. My hon. Friend said that his statement would not be gratifying. I am afraid he hardly did himself justice; he was far too modest. I contend that it was in all respects a most gratifying statement. I have heard many such statements delivered; but I never heard one which gave me greater confidence in the future stability of Indian finance, despite all sinister anticipations, than the statement to which we have listened to-night. What does it show? There was, in the first place, one year of abundant surplus following the failures of what my hon. Friend calls the famine years. That rich year was followed by two years not so good; but the second year and the third year have both been marked by surpluses. In the second year we have a limited surplus, and in the third year a small surplus, which was disparaged by my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire, but which is shown in the financial statement to be after all better than was at first supposed. My hon. Friend opposite says that the narrow surplus will not be maintained, but the figures produced here show that it will be

  1631
  more than maintained. The House will kindly observe that the first year of abundant surplus is followed by two years of narrow surpluses, and that in these two years this fairly satisfactory result has been achieved, despite the most tremendous disadvantages. My hon. Friend was quite right in using the word tremendous, for the loss by exchange can only be characterised by that term. My hon. Friend further showed that there had been a loss of nearly a million by the famine, meaning thereby a loss in point of revenue and an addition to expenditure. Yet, despite these awful disadvantages, still a surplus has been effected. Could India show stronger evidence of the stability of her financial condition than this? And when one comes to consider the causes why India has been able to keep her head so well above water in certain times of monetary misfortune it cannot but be seen that they are most satisfactory. In the first place the revenue has been not only maintained, but has gone on increasing. The Land Tax yields better and bettor results every year, notwithstanding the temporary suspensions and remissions on account of famine. The Income Tax Returns are also most satisfactory. Then the Salt Tax shows an increase, the Excise Revenue and the Customs Revenue show an increase enough to counterbalance any possible trouble there may be in the opium revenue. It is this constant growth of revenue and receipts in almost all Departments except opium which enables India to sustain the stability of her finances despite these grievous disadvantages, which are admitted. There is another satisfactory feature, and that is the good management of India. The figures which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary has produced give proof of that good management in every Department. I do not know whether the Committee fully follows the details of what my hon. Friend said regarding the provincial finances, but I can assure the Committee that the statement afforded the most remarkable instance of the good financial and administrative management of the Government of India. But there is a still further reason, and that is the
  1632
  progress of public improvements. Her railways and canals have enabled India to bear up against misfortune, and I hope the House observed that these excellent works have during the past three years been carried out with very little addition to the Public Debt. The Under Secretary of State showed that it was by the husbanding first, and the utilising afterwards, of the cash balances which had accrued during the cycle of fat years with which her finances had been visited. Another reason is the general prosperity of the people. The hon. Member for Flintshire has stated, perhaps for the tenth time in the House, that the people of India are poverty-stricken, and I have to repeat my denial, also for the tenth time, that they are poverty-stricken. It has been proved by the extension of their trade, of their agriculture, of their manufactures, of their industries, of everything that constitutes the prosperity of a people. The enormous increase of the population is another reason why India has been able to bear up against monetary misfortunes. Her population is increasing more rapidly than the population of any other country. Every year adds between two and three millions of taxpayers to British India, and that increase is something to go on with. Is it surprising that, with a population increasing at so unique a rate, India should be able to bear up against monetary misfortune? Another reason is the gradual reduction of the National Debt and of the interest upon that Debt. This brings me to the point of exchange. Now, there is no denying the great misfortune which this brings upon the Indian Exchequer, and most of all upon our unfortunate fellow-countrymen. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge) knows as well as I how it affects all branches of the Uncovenanted Civil Service and also members of the Civil Service. Many of them invested their money in Indian Securities on the faith that the value of the rupee would be sustained, and investments coming from such a quarter have always added to the public credit of the Indian Exchequer. These men have suffered enormously. If they had

  1633
  known what was going to happen, they would have invested their savings in European Securities. But I venture to say this cheapness of silver has something to do with the prosperity of India. It has undoubtedly benefited her industries, and, therefore, if India loses in some respects through the fall of exchange, she gains in other respects, and I am not sure whether the loss which she sustains in her expenditure by the fall in exchange is not partially, if not wholly, recouped by the gain in her revenue from the general prosperity of the people, to which the cheapness of silver conduces. All these are very satisfactory explanations of the reasons why the condition of India is so improved that she is able to sustain truly fearful losses through the fall in the rate of exchange. The Under Secretary has explained the magnitude of these losses. They are almost unique in the history of the finance of any nation, and yet, in spite of that, there India is with her public works developed, with her military and civil establishments thoroughly well maintained and developed, and with her public improvements constantly progressing. You have nothing stinted, but everything provided for on an extensive scale for the general good of the country. When I was Finance Minister, if I had had such losses I should have been driven to despair. We must have doubled the Income Tax, and resorted to a hundred dangerous devices. It seems to me astounding that India should have borne such losses, and it speaks volumes with regard to the improvement of the country within the last generation. I think the Committee and the country are to be congratulated on the existing state of things as shown by the Budget this evening. The hon. Member for Flintshire said we were gradually approaching the verge of the precipice of national insolvency. He made the most of any losses from opium, and belittled the progress we had made in the other branches of the Revenue. To hear him describing the finances of India you would think we were in a rapid decline, which must end in insolvency. But at this moment the credit of India in the Money Market stands
  1634
  as high, if not higher, than ever. It is quite clear that those who are best able to judge, who are bound to inform themselves properly, because their own interests are concerned, have come to the conclusion that the credit of India is good, that the people are strong and are rising in wealth and prosperity, and that the Government is thoroughly to be relied upon. Those who are best able to judge and to inform themselves on the subject have come to the conclusion that the credit of India is good, that the country is rising in wealth and prosperity, and that the Government is to be thoroughly relied upon. The power of reducing the interest on the National Debt from year to year is adding still further to the stability of the national finance. The hon. Member for Flintshire has referred to the military expenditure as something which could be cut and carved about at pleasure. That is not the case. The Under Secretary himself, in his excellent book on Central Asia, has indicated the forces which Russia may bring to bear on the Indian frontier, and the forces with which England could reply. Those who understand the military conditions of Asia know that the only question is whether or not our forces are adequate. No man can doubt that the army of India is, to say the least of it, no larger than is necessary, not for aggression, but merely for the defence of India. It is idle to talk about a reduction of the army expenditure, and it would be misleading the House to hold out any hope of such reduction. Neither is there any reasonable hope of a serious reduction in the Civil Service expenditure. That is necessary for the due progress and good government of the country. The only hope is of a constant augmentation of revenue proceeding from the growing prosperity of the country and the physical, moral, and mental development of the people. Of that I have the greatest hope, and I never have felt more confident of it than when I was listening to the spirit-stirring record which has been given to the House to-night. Seldom has there been exhibited a grander and nobler case of a nation of Asiatics struggling successfully against monetary misfortune.
  MR. MORTON: I can understand the speech we have just listened to from the hon. Baronet, who no doubt knows a great deal about India. The hon. Baronet always takes the purely official view of Indian affairs, which assumes that everything is right as it is, whatever Government is in power, so long as they are spending plenty of money on British officials of all sorts and sizes. At the same time, I believe that the hon. Baronet takes a kinder view of the people of India than do some other people. I do not agree with him as to the expenditure on military affairs. I believe that a great deal too much money is spent on the army in India, owing to a scare of what Russia might do with regard to it. If the people of India were allowed to help to govern their own country, the expenditure would, in my opinion, be reduced and greater security would be achieved. Instead of spending so much on military affairs, more money should be devoted towards the improvement of the condition of the people of that country, and by that means make it impossible to attack India from the outside. It has always appeared to me wrong that we should create such a large revenue in connection with an article that causes degradation wherever it goes, and considering the professions we make we ought rather to endeavour to do away with opium and discover other means of raising our revenue. I should like to see a reduction of the salt tax, and to see also more money spent on education. If any country is to be governed properly, it must be by education, and by making the people interested in the conduct of affairs. Then I should be glad to learn of increased expenditure on public works and railways. The late John Bright many years ago said in this connection that if we had spent on public works and improvements one tithe the money devoted to warlike operations, there would be no difficulty or danger in regard to India. Having undertaken responsibility in connection with that country, it is our duty to so direct affairs that the people may live in a
  1636
  decent and proper manner. Surely it ought to be possible to diminish the loss of life and decrease suffering caused by famine. When I consider all these elements it seems to me that we are, in relation to India, spending too much on pensions or superannuation, although perhaps this country has set the Indian Government a bad example. A poor country like India cannot afford to pay the large sums I notice in these accounts for superannuation without the people being impoverished. If the charges for superannuation can be reduced it will be a great benefit to the people of India and a credit to us as the governing country. The hon. Baronet in the course of his speech said that we were governing India on a most expensive scale. I believe he is right. Economy is needed in India perhaps more than in England. The hon. Baronet also made some remarks about Indian credit being good in the City of London. This country is responsible for all the money borrowed by the Indian Government, and it therefore seems to me that Indian credit means British credit, and I do not see why money should not be obtained for various purposes by the Indian Government at the same low rate of interest as it can be borrowed when the British Government requires it for this country or for the Colonies. Considering the large sums concerned in these accounts, I am sorry that we have not taken the people of India more fully into our confidence and given them a greater share in the government of their own country, and by that means obtained their assistance in preventing any outside attacks upon that large Dependency. I believe the only possible way to make that country safe, and at the same time reduce the very large annual expenditure for warlike affairs, is by getting the population of India interested in their own affairs. It is to be regretted that we have not time to consider these financial matters at greater length, and it is especially to be regretted that the Indian Budget is not brought before the House until so late a period of the Session. No doubt when we have given the various nationalities of this country

  1637
  that Home Rule they are crying out for, and so divest this House of a lot of local business that can be better done in the various countries, we shall have more time to consider the financial affairs of India as well as other important questions.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I do not altogether agree with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Richard Temple) as to the impossibility of reducing the civil expenditure of India, which of course forms a large portion of the Accounts that have been presented to us. I admit that the reduction that can be made is not large, but still there is no reason why we should not attempt to reduce the expenditure if it is only by a small amount. And I will again impress upon the Government the propriety of endeavouring to carry out the recommendations of the Army Commission which sat a few years ago with respect to reducing the expenditure upon the military commands in Madras and Bombay. There might certainly be a considerable saving effected in that direction. I should like to obtain some explanation from the hon. Member in charge (Mr. Curzon) with regard to the non-effective charges, which seem to have increased in every way. These non-effective charges are enormous, and an investigation into them would, I believe, show the possibility of their being greatly reduced. I fully concur with the Under Secretary of State with regard to the greatly improved condition of the masses of the population in India. A Report, I understand, has lately been placed in the hands of the Secretary of State dealing especially with the material conditions of the population of Madras. I asked some time ago across the floor of the House whether there would be any objection to placing that Report on the Table and in the hands of the public. Considering that it is a Report drawn up by a gentleman unconnected with the Service, and is of a highly satisfactory character, I think we should have some assurance that it
  1638
  should be placed in the hands of the public.
  MR. CURZON: The remarks which have fallen from the hon. Member deserve some reply. As regards the non-effective charges to which he calls attention, I do not myself observe, on reference to page 14, that there is the great increase of which he complains. We have, on pages 14 and 47, the figures of these non-effective charges, both civil and military, stating in each case the actual increase of the charge and the loss on exchange, and it appears to me that the difference between the charges of this and the preceding year is mainly a matter of loss on exchange. With regard to the Report as to the condition of the population in the Presidency of Madras, I may say that I have not myself had time to study that Report, but I believe it answers to the description the hon. Member has given. Whether it is advisable to publish the Report in its entirety I do not know. I believe it is of considerably greater length than the hon. Member seems to imagine, but I have little doubt that, if it is not published as a whole, the British public will be given the opportunity of reading parts of it in a shorter form.
  MR. MORTON: Is there any intention of reducing the Salt Tax?
  MR. CURZON: The reduction of the Salt Tax, as the hon. Member is aware, is one of those measures which are contemplated, and will be steadily kept in view both by the Indian Finance Minister and by the Secretary of State. The addition to the Salt Tax four years ago was duo to the stress of exceptional circumstances, and a pledge was given that, as soon as financial conditions would allow, the tax would be reduced. That resolution the Government have no intention of departing from. If the hon. Member had paid me the compliment of being in the House and listening to the statement I made earlier in the evening, he would have ascertained that the financial condition of India at present is not of a character to justify any such reduction.

  1639
  I can inform the hon. Member, however, that, so far from the consumption of salt having decreased, as it might have been expected to had this tax been felt to be a serious burden, the consumption has steadily increased from year to year. With respect to the price, I may say that it remains fairly stationary. It certainly has not increased, and there may have been a slight decrease. I mention these points with the view of showing the hon. Member that the burden of taxation is not so heavy as he is disposed to think. As regards the general policy of the duty, the Government adhere to the position they have taken up before, and we look forward to the day when we may be able to reduce the tax on this very necessary article.
  MR. MORTON: I must express my regret that circumstances prevented me from being in the House to hear the statement of the hon. Gentleman. I should like to ask about the revenue from opium, which, so far as I can understand these figures, appears to be less than it was in the previous year. I ask whether that was on account of the decrease in consumption or of a decrease in taxation? I should like to know that it arises in consequence of a decrease in consumption.
  MR. CURZON: The rise or fall of the Revenue is not determined by the considerations the hon. Member refers to. It depends, in the first place, upon the state of the market for opium in China and elsewhere. It depends, in the second place, on the amount of opium kept in the reserves; and it depends, in the third place, on the quality and extent of the crop which is raised from year to year. These are factors which are fluctuating, and cannot, therefore, be relied upon, and it is almost impossible to predict the results from year to year. In one year we get, as I have before observed, a rise to the extent of 800,000 tens of rupees, and the following year there is a corresponding fall. The trade is one of varying character, and it is impossible for anyone to determine it with accuracy. As regards the policy of the Government of India, that
  1640
  I need not enlarge upon, inasmuch as it was the subject of a despatch which the hon. Member has probably seen, and it has more than once been explained in this House by those who have spoken for the Indian Government. That policy is to restrict as far as possible the consumption of opium in India.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION BILL [Lords].—(No. 389.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading road.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. MORTON: I should like to ask the meaning of this Bill. I am always suspicious of anything that comes from the House of Lords, especially when they are in a hurry, and especially when they adjourn without any reason, as they did last week.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that he is not entitled to speak of the other branch of the Legislature in those terms.
  MR. MORTON: Very well, Sir, but I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Richard Webster) will give us some explanation of this Bill. In the Schedule at the end I see an Act for the punishment of idle and disorderly persons, for the suppression of certain games, and so forth. It may be all very well, but what is the meaning of it? I should say it ought to have gone to a Select Committee, so that we might know that the matter had been looked into by the proper persons. If the Government say they have looked into it that would be something.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): The matter has been carefully investigated by those whom the hon. Gentle-

  1641
  man calls the proper persons. Under a number of existing Acts, the periods of time for notice of action vary very much, and the object of this Bill is to reduce the period of notice in all the Acts in the Schedule to one period. Nothing is done beyond that with regard to the Acts in the Schedule, and the Bill is simply a Consolidation Bill to simplify the law.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ORDER (GLASGOW, &c.) BILL [Lords].—(No. 56.)
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL—(No. 374.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 397.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords].—(No. 412.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [Lords] (No. 413.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 6) BILL [Lords] (No. 414.)
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 16) BILL.—(No. 387.)
  Ordered—
  That the Order of 31st May, for referring the Bill to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, be read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.—(Mr. Long.)

  FORGED TRANSFERS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 429.]
  COLONIAL STOCK ACT (1877) AMEND MENT BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 430.]
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 431.]
  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 422.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 417.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 262.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  MAURITIUS LOAN BILL.—(No. 425.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL [Lords].
  Consequential Amendment made by the Lords to be considered forthwith; considered and agreed to.

  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL [Lords].—(No. 362.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill; High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) Bill; Housing of the Working Classes (Scotland) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Bathgate Water) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Allotments Provisional Order Bill. Local Government Provisional Orders (No 6) Bill; Amendment to—Technical Industrial Institutions Bill, with a Consequential Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove doubts as to the meaning of 'The Forged Transfers Act, 1891.'" [Forged Transfers Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend and consolidate the Law relating to Bills of Sale." [Bills of Sale Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend 'The Colonial Stock Act, 1877,' so far as regards the mode of transfer of stock to which that Act applies." [Colonial Stock Act (1877) Amendment Bill [Lords.]
  And, also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the constitution of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and to amend the Law in regard to Sea Fisheries in Scotland." [Fishery Board (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
  Metropolitan Hospitals, &c.,—That they do communicate Copy of the Third Report, &c., of the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships in the present Session of Parliament on Metropolitan Hospitals, &c., as desired by this House.

  BANKS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND (PAYMENTS) [REMUNERATION].
  Resolution reported;
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of an increase in the remuneration for the manage-
  1644
  ment of Treasury Bills, and the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Irish Land Commission, of remuneration for the management of Guaranteed Land Stock, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session for making further provision respecting certain payments to the Banks of England and Ireland."
  Resolution agreed to.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA [LOAN].
  Resolution reported;
  "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to advance, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, a loan of £150,000 to the Government and Province of British Columbia for the purpose of transferring and settling in that Province families from Crofter Parishes in Scotland, and to make provision for raising for a limited period the sum necessary for the said loan, the principal moneys so raised and the interest thereon being charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and Baron Henry de Worms.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 432.]

  NAVY (SEAGOING WAR SHIPS).
  Order [3rd August 1891] for Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and, instead thereof:—
  NAVY (SEAGOING WAR SHIPS).

    NAVY (SEAGOING WAR SHIPS).
    Copy ordered—
    "Of Return of Seagoing War Ships in Commission, in Reserve, and Building, and showing the Naval Expenditure, Revenue, Tonnage of Mercantile Marino, and Value of Seaborne Commerce of various Countries for the year 1891:"
    "And, Return showing Naval Expenditure on Seagoing Force, the Value of Seaborne Commerce (exclusive of interchange with the United Kingdom), and the Revenue of British self-governing Colonies for the year 1891."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
    Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 314.]
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Earl of Clonmell (Claim to vote for Representative Peers for Ireland)—Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Clonmell to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also Ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
Earl of Clanwilliam—Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Richard James Meade, Earl of Clanwilliam, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Viscount Doneraile—Report made from the Lord Chancellor, that the right of Edward Viscount Doneraile to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Sir Henry John Selwin-Ibbetson, Baronet, having been created Baron Rookwood of Rookwood Hall and Down Hall, both in the county of Essex—Was in the usual manner introduced.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

1. Customs and Inland Revenue.

2. Consolidated Fund (No. 2).

1502

3. Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, Amendment.

4. Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Acts Amendment.

5. Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act Amendment.

6. Indian Councils Act (1861) Amendment.

7. Charity Inquiries.

8. Weights and Measures (Purchase).

9. Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Extracts.

10. Statute Law Revision.

11. High Court of Justiciary (Scotland).

12. Housing of the Working Classes (Scotland).

13. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1).

14. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2).

15. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3).

16. Dublin Barracks Improvement.

17. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Abbotsbury, &c.).

18. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction, &c.).

19. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Cambrian, &c).

20. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Cleator and Workington Junction, &c).

21. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (East London, &c.).

22. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Festiniog, &c.).

23. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Furness, &c).

24. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction).

25. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Isle of Wight, &c.).

26. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Lancashire and Yorkshire, &c).

27. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (London, Tilbury, and Southend, &c).

28. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, &c.).

1503

29. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Metropolitan, &c).

30. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Midland and South "Western Junction, etc.).

31. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (North Eastern, &c).

32. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (North London).

33. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (North Staffordshire, &c).

34. Railway Rates and Charges Provision Order (Taff Vale, &c).

35. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Caledonian, &c).

36. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Callander and Oban).

37. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (City of Glasgow Union).

38. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Glasgow and South Western, &c).

39. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Great North of Scotland).

40. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Highland).

41. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (North British, &c).

42. Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order (Athenry and Ennis Junction, &c).

43. Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Milnathort Water).

44. Gas Provisional Orders.

45. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

46. Local Government Provisional Orders.

47. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2).

48. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).

49. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4).

50. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).

51. Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Bathgate Water).

52. Allotments Provisional Order.

53. Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6).

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That the Orders made on the 15th day of March last,
That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 21st day of June next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order in pursuance of a report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next:
And that no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next:
be discharged.

"EVELYN v. HURLBERT."
RESOLUTION.
LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, before drawing attention to the Rule which is the subject matter of this discussion it may be convenient that I should state shortly to your Lordships what was the state of the case before that Rule or Order was passed. When the Courts sat at Westminster before the building in which they sat was destroyed there was no room at all appropriated for keeping documents. Sometimes, as in a very well-known case that was tried twice and lasted along while, these documents were exceedingly voluminous, and the Associate had no place except his own spare room for putting these documents aside; he did the best he could, but he had no strong room, and there were no means of keeping documents safely which, for a time at all events, it was very often important should be so kept. When the Courts moved to the Strand we were more fortunate. The Government of the day gave us a strong room where documents could be properly kept and are properly kept, but it is obvious that a strong room for the keeping of documents is of comparatively little value unless the Court that impounds them has during the time that they are so impounded complete control over them. To put documents into a strong room to which anybody has access is

1505
of course idle, and it is desirable, therefore, that there should be somewhere a proper control exercised over the documents that are impounded. Now, there being no Rule, this matter was left really in the hands of the Associate, the present Associate being Mr. Erle, and personally they cannot be in better hands, but he had no real authority about the matter, and when he was asked, for any purpose, to give over a document to this person or that, he had no authority himself either to give or to withhold. He did for the best; he sometimes consulted me as being the head of the Queen's Bench, but I was consulted only as a friend and unofficially; I had no power whatever to give orders in the matter. He was left very much at sea as to what was the state of the document or documents which the Court had ordered to be impounded. That was so in the month of April last year, in which month, from the 13th to the 20th, a case which is known to many of us through the papers called "Evelyn v. Hurlbert" was tried before Mr. Justice Cave. The case lasted a very long time; there were a number of documents relating to it which were produced. I did not try the case myself, but I have had an opportunity of looking at Mr. Justice Cave's notes, and I have got from the officers of the Court a very clear account of what passed. The action was for breach of promise of marriage, and the letters which were the subject-matter of the discussion were only incidentally produced; the action was not about them, but they were produced for the purpose of showing that the defendant had promised the plaintiff to marry her. The greater part of the correspondence was put in in packets; it was referred to on both sides when necessary, the plaintiff producing and putting in most of the letters. A few only of the letters were shown both to the plaintiff and defendant; the plaintiff swearing that a person called Wilfrid Murray and the defendant were one and the same person, the defendant denying this and denying all knowledge of the letters. The plaintiff was examined and cross-examined as to certain diaries besides these letters. The defendant pro-
1506
duced and put in two letters signed by Wilfrid Murray and addressed to himself; he also produced a photograph with writing on the back from Mr. Murray to Mr. Hurlbert. He also produced a number of letters signed "Hurlbert," which were obtained from persons to whom they had been sent, mostly bankers, as genuine specimens of his handwriting. There is no note of any formal question having been put to the jury either in Mr. Justice Cave's note-book or in any other report which is accessible to me. The jury found there was no promise of marriage. In the report of the summing up the following passage, however, occurs:—
"If the defendant did not write these letters there was an end of the plaintiffs case; but if he did there was still the question whether there had been a promise of marriage, for unless there was a promise the plaintiff had no cause of action,"
and judgment accordingly was given for the defendant. Upon the application of the Attorney General the Judge ordered all the documents to be impounded on the 20th April. In that case the Attorney General was leading counsel for the defendant, but do not let me be supposed for an instant to suggest that in his so being, and afterwards being obliged to act officially in the matter, I, for one, make the smallest complaint. Years ago, when I was in the House of Commons, I resisted to the best of my ability the Motion made by Mr. Fawcett to restrain the Law Officers of the Crown from private practice; I thought then and think now that so to restrain the Law Officers would be a very mischievous thing. Therefore I never have made and never should think of making the smallest complaint that the Attorney General takes part in any case in which he is retained as a private barrister. But it must of course now and then a little complicate the matter when he acts as a private person as a Queen's Counsel on one side or the other of a great case, and then afterwards as Law Officer of the Crown and as representing practically the Government of the day takes some step either for or against the person for whom he has appeared as a private practitioner in Court; it is a con-

1507
sequence, however, that I, for one, am quite prepared to say must be faced. Mr. Justice Cave was asked to allow the counsel for the plaintiff to have access to these documents that had been directed to be impounded. This was mentioned to myself, and I agreed with Mr. Justice Cave, and upon the action of both of us the documents were not allowed to be given. Now, my Lords, I ought to say that of Mr. Hurlbert personally I know nothing whatever; I never saw him; I never met him; I never read a word of his writing; I am absolutely ignorant of him. Whether he is entitled to the description which an illustrious American gave of him—namely, that he is a man of fathomless and measureless turpitude, or whether he is a person entitled to the eulogies that have been passed upon him, and to the respect, admiration, and intimacy which has been given to him by persons of very high rank and position in this country I neither know nor care. He is an absolute stranger to me. But it was obvious to me, and I think it must be obvious to your Lordships, that if he was the person the plaintiff represented him to be, and if he was capable of the production of those letters, three only of which I have looked at, and until I saw those letters the capacity of the human mind for filth was unknown to me, if I say he was the person capable of writing those letters—I say "if," for I do not know or suggest whether he was or not—it is obvious that such a person would spare no means and would spend any money he had got to make himself the possessor of this body of letters, I forget the exact number, I think something over two hundred. I have only seen three of them, but I suppose they were all much of the same character. Under those circumstances it seemed to me that it was right, the officer having no authority of his own and there being no Rule to give him any authority, that there should be some distinct authority to apply to documents which were impounded by Order of the Court and which should authorise the person who had those documents to act under the Orders of the Court as might be advisable; and under those circum-
1508
stances it was that the Rule which I will read to your Lordships and which has occasioned so much discussion was passed. The action, as I have told your Lordships, was in April; the judgment was on the 20th April, and this Rule was passed in May—
"Impounded documents which are in the custody of the Court are not to be parted with and are not to be inspected except on a written Order signed by the Judge on whose Order they were impounded, and by the President of the Division in which they are impounded, or in case of documents impounded by an Order of the Court of Appeal by an Order of that Court. Such documents shall not be delivered out of the custody of the Court except upon an Order made on a motion in open Court."
I pause there only for a moment, because in the correspondence I shall have to refer to presently there is an entire misconception of the meaning of this last phrase—
"Such documents shall not be delivered out of the custody of the Court except upon an Order made on a motion in open Court."
My Lords, the Judges were not so unreasonable or so foolish as to make a Rule which prescribed that nothing should be done, that no Order should be made upon them except upon a motion in open Court which might be the most mischievous possible Rule, and would be felt by any person accustomed to public affairs to be capable of being, misapplied. The meaning of that clause, as anyone who considers the subject will see in a moment, is that the documents are to be in the possession of the Court and are to be kept by the Court as long as is material for the purposes of justice; and then they are not to be kept in the Court which so far as its own function is concerned has done with them, but they are, as soon as they have become useless for purposes of justice, to be, parted with, given out of the custody of the Court, and returned to any person who has a right to their possession. But that is a motion which, inasmuch as some of these documents are very important documents, we thought at all events should be made by counsel in Court, not that every Order dealing with them should be made in open Court, but that the documents having, come into the custody of the Court should only leave the Court for good under such Order as, is mentioned in

1509
the Rule. That, my Lords, was in May, and in June there followed this correspondence which has been laid upon the Table of the House, and with which I do not mean to trouble your Lordships at any length; it was laid upon the Table of both Houses I believe, but it was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on the 13th May of the present year. The first document is a letter from Sir Augustus Stephenson to Mr. Erle, saying that he was informed that it was necessary to make a formal application to see these documents, and he proposed to ask him to be good enough to give him an appointment to attend with the expert for the purpose of making the necessary inspection and comparison. To that Mr. Erle replied, after communicating with us, that we wanted to know for what purpose he desired the documents: that if he wanted them for any public purpose no objection of course could be taken for a moment to their production, but we thought it right to say—I do not wish to deny my full responsibility in the matter—that my learned brother who tried the case was of opinion—and I entirely agreed with I him—that any prosecution of the plaintiff upon these letters was a thing that we were not disposed to encourage. Whoever was inclined to prosecute the plaintiff was at liberty to prosecute her, but so far as any facilities which we could give for such prosecution were concerned we were not disposed to give them. Then Sir Augustus Stephenson writes a long letter saying that he desired to confer with counsel with respect to the particular documents, and he goes on to say—
"The Attorney General has directed me to act under the directions of the Solicitor General, to whom I have, therefore, forwarded a copy of our correspondence, and pending his directions I have only to ask that you will consider my application with reference to the impounded documents as withdrawn."
I cannot help thinking—I do not want to blame anybody—that there was too much form about this. If instead of this a letter had been written to myself or to Mr. Justice Cave saying: "There is no mystery about this; we want for the purpose of a prosecution of the defendant to have the documents compared with undoubted genuine documents by
1510
an expert, and we are going to institute a prosecution," no man in his senses would have interposed the slightest obstacle in the way of such a proceeding. Well, my Lords, nothing takes place from that time until the 7th July when a letter from the Solicitor General is sent giving the information that it is their intention to prosecute Mr. Hurlbert and asking that they may see the documents. Then Mr. Erle says that there is a Rule, and that they can have inspection if they like; but he (the Associate) being bound by the Rule, and no application having been made except to the Associate up to this point, Sir Augustus Stephenson is informed that he may come and inspect them, and compare them, and do anything he likes with them, but he must not take copies. Then he asks for the name of the attorney for the plaintiff, which is given. Then on the 13th August Mr. Erle says—
"By all means let us know who your expert is, and every arrangement shall be made for his convenience."
Then on 22nd August Mr. Inglis is nominated by Sir Edward Clarke, and then on 24th August Mr. Inglis goes, as is stated by Mr. Hullah, one of the clerks of the Associate's Department, as follows:—
"I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 22nd August, 1891. Mr. Inglis is now here, and has commenced his examination of the letters."
From that time to the 27th November, more than three months, nothing takes place. Why I do not know. I have never heard—it is no business of mine to inquire why there was this very long delay of three months on the part of Sir Augustus Stephenson—but it is obvious that every information having been given on 24th August, and indeed Mr. Inglis having inspected the documents and formed his opinion and reported, I presume, to those who represent the Government about this case, nothing was done by the Director of Public Prosecutions from 24th August to 27th November. On 27th November there is a long letter written recounting what had taken place, and then saying that they are going to apply to the American Government for an extradition—

1511
"I have therefore now respectfully to apply for permission to inspect the impounded documents, and to take copies of such as I may consider material. If their Lordships require that this application should be made in Court' (which, my Lords, we never did require or dreamed of requiring), "I can of course instruct counsel on my behalf, but at present, in my judgment, it would not be expedient in the interests of public justice to take that course."
Immediately upon that, on 4th December there is an answer from Mr. Erle saying that he is authorised to say that Sir Augustus Stephenson is quite at liberty to have any inspection made and a list taken of the documents impounded in each case. Then on 8th December there is a letter from Sir Augustus Stephenson saying that meanwhile Mr. Hurlbert, who had been expected to be arrested in New York, had suddenly disappeared, that where he had gone they did not know, and that in consequence no action could betaken at that time; and no action has been taken from that time to the present. That is really the whole of the correspondence. In that last letter there is a statement that I have already by anticipation answered saying—
"I now understand that their Lordships no longer insist on the application of the Rule of Court 33A in this case, and are willing to grant me permission to inspect and take a list of the impounded documents without making a motion in open Court."
I have explained already that that is a misconception; the Rule does not authorise, and certainly the Judges never contemplated that any motion in respect of these documents, as long as they were impounded and remained in the custody of the Court, should be made in open Court at all. The meaning of that Rule was that when the documents were done with, when the Court had no longer any occasion to keep them, when they were a mere incumbrance to the Court, they might properly go back to the persons to whom they belonged, and that that should be upon an application made in open Court, to which there could be no objection, but upon which I could not think it important to insist. So the matter remained till some days ago when in a meeting of the Rule Committee, at the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor, I myself moved a Rule which has been passed unanimously by
1512
the Rule Committee and which provided as follows:—
"Impounded documents in the custody of the Court shall, upon the requisition in writing of the Law Officers of the Crown, or either of them representing the Crown, be given into the custody of such Law Officer."
My Lords, when the Rule was first passed it is true that we had never considered the matter about the Attorney General and Solicitor General at all; we were looking at the matter between party and party, and the interference of the Law Officers of the Crown, especially the Attorney General representing the function of the Public Prosecutor never occurred to us, perhaps it ought to have occurred to us; but it did not, and the words of the Rule therefore did not except them. To the Rule not excepting them I felt at once that great objection might be taken. The Government,, represented by the Attorney General, clearly, in my judgment, if they chose to take the responsibility of prosecution and of the custody of these documents, ought to have them; and not only in relief of the Court, but on the plainest principles, if the Attorney General or Solicitor General, representing the Crown, want documents for the purpose of justice, undoubtedly, on their request, the documents ought to be handed over to them. The result therefore, upon the whole, is that it was important in my judgment, and I think your Lordships will agree with me,, that there should be some Rule to protect the Law Officers; it was important that the words of that Rule should be clearly ascertained which would be binding upon them and upon everybody who comes to the Courts for justice; but the moment it was pointed out that although the Rule might be a right Rule it might nevertheless interfere, with public justice, because it hampered the action of the Attorney and Solicitor General, at once I conceived that it was desirable that that qualification should be made which now is made; and the documents will be handed over to either the Attorney or Solicitor General. If he thinks fit to ask for them and has a use for them that is a matter with which we, the Court, can have nothing to do, because if he should—which is

1513
not likely—in the least abuse the possession of such documents he is responsible to Parliament, as he ought to be, and is not responsible to any other person. My Lords, I thank you for the attention which you have given to me, and I make this Motion, which is really for the purpose of making these remarks, and which I will either press or withdraw as your Lordships think fit.
Moved, "That a copy of Rule 33A in Part II. of the Rules of the Supreme Court be laid on the Table of the House."—(The Lord Coleridge.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, inasmuch as my noble and learned Friend has stated that a Rule has now been made which provides that the Law Officers of the Crown, under whose advice the Director of Public Prosecutions acts, will in future be in a position to require the delivery to the latter of impounded documents if they consider it necessary for the purpose of considering whether there should be a prosecution and against whom it should proceed, all that my noble and learned friend has said is really now matter of past history. It refers to an incident which cannot occur again, and, being matter of past history, I do not propose to take up jour Lordships' time in discussing it. In future no such difficulty can arise as has arisen in the past; and, although different views may be taken perhaps with regard, for example, to the question how far it is for the Judges to consider against whom prosecutions should be maintained by the Director of Public Prosecutions, I do not propose to enter upon such difference of opinion. All that is removed absolutely for the future by the definite Rule which has been passed, and I do not think any useful object would be served by discussing what certainly occurred.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): I only desire to say that when the Rule in its original form was first proposed by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice. I can answer that it did not occur to any one of the Rule Committee that there would be any probability of a conflict arising between any of Her Majesty's Judges and the people representing the
1514
Public Prosecutor. The real object was to have a regular Rule that documents should be placed in custody when they are impounded by the Court, and—in the sense that there was no Rule about the matter—that the somewhat unauthorised and irregular custody by the officers of the Court should be protected by a Rule, and that there should be some authority to whom application might properly be made—the whole intention being to keep back from idle and prurient curiosity documents that might have been received in Court, and for which no legitimate reason could be alleged that they ought to be inspected or seen. The moment it occurred to the Rule Committee that the Rule, so framed, could be so interpreted, and possibly so misunderstood, as to place any bar in the way of the Public Prosecutor, without any exception at all, including the Lord Chief Justice, we came to the conclusion that the Rule ought to be amended at once; and we have passed a Rule, as your Lordships have heard from my noble and learned Friend who last sat down, to prevent any such conflict of opinion arising in future.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

EDUCATION AND LOCAL TAXATION RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, I will ask your Lordships to allow me to explain in a very few words the necessity that has arisen for the introduction and passage of this Bill. Those of your Lordships who are connected with Scotland will be aware that, under the Local Government Act, 1889, the residue of the Probate and Excise Duties, amounting to about £250,000, was assigned for the payment of fees in the public elementary schools. That sum was to be distributed as a capitation grant, but the amount was not a fixed one, because it depended upon the amount of the probate grant for the United Kingdom. For the first year the sum distributed was sufficient to pay a capitation grant of about eleven shillings for every child in

1515
average attendance at the public schools in Scotland; for the next year the amount had rather increased, and it was further supplemented by an additional sum of £40,000 paid out of the Local Taxation, the Customs and Excise Act Fund of 1890; so that the whole amount available in that year was sufficient to pay a grant, not of eleven shillings as in the previous year, but of twelve shillings, for every child in average attendance in Scotland. Last year, as your Lordships know, a grant was made of public funds for relieving fees in elementary schools in England. That however, could not be done out of the same fund as was devoted to that purpose in Scotland, because that fund in England had been already devoted to various purposes under the provisions that had been arranged in the previous year. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided for the payment of fees in English schools out of a Parliamentary Vote, the amount being calculated at ten shillings a head. It is obvious when that was done for England, that Scotland had a claim to an equivalent sum. Scotland, as I have said to your Lordships, had provided for the relief of the payment of the fees of schools out of the Probate and Excise Grant, which had gone in England to the relief of the rates. Therefore, my Lords, when England got the fees paid out of public funds it was obvious that Scotland had a right to have a proportionate sum paid out of the public funds for Scottish purposes. Now the proportion, established by careful inquiry, out of one hundred would be eleven for Scotland, eighty for England, and nine for Ireland. On this calculation the sum which is to be paid to put Scotland on an equality with England in this matter amounts to about £265,000; but it is also obvious that an increased amount will have to be paid to Scotland if the amount paid in future years for England at the rate of ten shillings a head fails to be increased. Now it might, no doubt, have been possible simply to assign this sum of £265,000 a year to the various purposes for which it was thought proper to employ it in England; but I am assured that this would lead to very grave inconvenience,
1516
and it would for all time to come have prevented the proper comparison between the local taxation relief granted in England and that granted in Scotland. It has accordingly been thought better to transfer the payment of the fees in Scotland, as in England, to the Imperial Exchequer, and to set free an equivalent sum from the Probate and Licence Duties to be employed for miscellaneous purposes; but, on the other hand, it was not thought right to make the fee grant in Scotland, as it is in England, a mere fixed capitation grant of ten shillings, because the fee in public elementary schools in Scotland averages more nearly twelve shillings than ten shillings. It has, therefore, been necessary to introduce this Bill; and the way in which this Bill regulates the matter is as follows: The Scotch Education Department will receive from the Exchequer a sum equal to eleven-eightieths of the grant for the payment of fees in England year by year. This year that sum will be £265,000; but it will be eleven-hundredths of the sum which is paid to England, whatever that sum may be. To this amount the sum of £40,000, which I have already mentioned as being given under the Customs and Excise Act, 1890, will be added, and in return that fund will surrender £250,000 out of the Probate and Licence residue, and will receive what is left of that residue. This year what is left will amount altogether, as I have said, to £265,000, and with the £40,000 and the remnant of the Probate and Licence residue the sum available for fees in Scotland is expected to amount to £307,000. Now it has been thought better to deal with the distribution of the £265,000, now paid to Scotland for the first time, in a comprehensive manner, and in terms of an Act of Parliament, rather than to leave it to be distributed year by year either at the discretion of the Secretary for Scotland, or by a Minute of any Public Department; and it has been thought better to place in the Act of Parliament, within certain limits, the objects to which it is to be attributed, rather than to leave the matter to local option. It is thought that, if there is a fund so large as this to be struggled for year by year, it would lead in future to a great

1517
deal of dispute and very likely jealousy and heartburning; and therefore that it is much better to settle it, so far as it can be settled, within the terms of an Act of Parliament. My Lords, in suggesting to Parliament the allocation of this sum, the Secretary for Scotland has considered carefully the various claims that were made upon him for attention and consideration. Of course there was a party who urged that the whole sum should be given in relief of the rates, and anybody who had a special subject which he thought more specially worthy of attention put in a claim for a share of the fund. My Lords, I am bound to say that in the abstract I think the Scottish ratepayer would have a very strong claim to a very large portion of this fund, perhaps to the whole of it, because he had not for three years got the relief which his English brother had got. At the same time I think the incidence of local rating is not, perhaps, so severely felt in Scotland as it is in England, because new rates, as your Lordships are aware, are in that country, for most purposes, divided between occupiers and owners. I must say I think those who are more particularly concerned in the management of the affairs of the Scottish ratepayer are entitled to have it said publicly on this occasion that they have shown a very considerable amount of generosity in this matter, because so far as we could gather, they are quite content with the allocation which is made in this Bill. The whole sum, as I have indicated, has not been given to the relief of the rates; but, on the contrary, £30,000 a year has been assigned to the Universities, and that sum will be distributed according to an Ordinance which is to be issued hereafter by the Universities Commission which is now sitting. Next, your Lordships will find a provision in the Bill for allocating £60,000 to the purposes of secondary education; £3,000 out of that sum will be required to carry out the inspection of secondary schools provided for under a recent Act of Parliament, but which has only been carried on up to the present time with considerable difficulty for want of funds; and out of that £3,000 also will be paid the expenses of the examinations conducted
1518
in most of the higher class schools of Scotland for granting leaving certificates. The balance of the sum that I have mentioned—£50,000—will, I think, be a substantial assistance to the higher education schools. I can assure your Lordships, from my own knowledge, that there is no object to which assistance can be better devoted, or for which assistance is more urgently required, than for the promotion of higher education schools. I had the honour of serving upon a Commission, of which I was appointed Chairman by the noble Lord (Earl Spencer)—who is not in the House now—some ten years ago, and the result of that work, which was to reorganise the educational endowments of Scotland, convinced me that in many districts higher education was suffering from the educational policy of past years—I do not say suffering in any way which might not have been expected, or was not perhaps the inevitable consequence of what had been done for primary education in 1872; but there can be no doubt that, with the exception of a few of the larger centres of population and some districts of the country that were well off for endowments, the provision made from public funds and other sources for secondary education was lamentably deficient, not only for the wants of the population in the abstract, but in proportion to the provision which had been made for primary education; and also in comparison with the attention which has for many years been devoted to University education in Scotland. My Lords, I sincerely hope and believe that this sum of £57,000 will be a really substantial assistance to secondary education in Scotland. A great deal of discussion has taken place as to the terms upon which it should be distributed. That matter is not contained in this Bill; but it has been remitted to a Committee over which Lord Elgin presides, and he has to assist him persons skilled in education, not only as regards the special circumstances of Scotland, but as regards what has been done in Wales, and also with some English experience; and I have no doubt whatever that the outcome of their deliberations will be such that the Secretary for Scotland's Department and the Scotch Education Department will find great assist-

1519
ance in specifying the conditions upon which this money is to be distributed. The remainder of this sum of £265,000 which is dealt with under this Act is devoted in the following proportions: £25,000 goes to the Parochial Boards in addition to the grant they now receive for pauper lunatics under the Local Government Act; £50,000 will go to the same Public Bodies for the relief of local rates; and the remaining sum of £100,000 will be given to the County Councils and to the Town Councils, partly in the relief of the rates which they administer, and partly, as the words of the Bill express it, for any scheme of public utility framed by those bodies respectively, but which shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland. You have therefore, in the apportionment of that large sum, the initiation of the Local Authority, controlled and regulated by the wider experience of those at headquarters. I believe, my Lords, that although there has been considerable discussion about the terms of this Bill in another place, so far as I can now gather from the ordinary channels of information and from communications that reach me, there is no general dissatisfaction, but, on the contrary, a considerable amount of satisfaction at the settlement which has been reached, and to which, by passing this Bill, I ask your Lordships to give your sanction. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time; and I propose to put it down for Committee on Thursday next, if your Lordships are good enough to give it a Second Reading to-day.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".—(The Lord Balfour.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MIXED MARRIAGES, MALTA.
QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a very few words in explanation of the question which I have placed upon the Paper. Your Lordships will remember that some time ago there was very considerable anxiety among many
1520
of Her Majesty's subjects in the Island of Malta on account of the doubt which had been thrown by independent authorities upon the validity of marriages which had been celebrated by other than the Roman Catholic clergy. A question was raised as to the validity of past marriages, and as to the course to be pursued in future. The noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office promised that an inquiry should be made into the true state of the law, and also in March, 1890, Mr. Smith, in the other House, promised that reference should be made to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in order to obtain an exact statement of the existing relations. Some time has elapsed and the anxiety upon this subject has not diminished, although it is known that inquiries have been proceeding and the anxiety has been increased recently by the appearance in Malta in the Government Gazette of the 1st June of a Draft Ordinance on the subject proposed to be enacted by the Governor of Malta with the advice and consent of the Council of the Government thereof. I am aware, of course, that this is of no present value until it has received confirmation in England; but nevertheless as it is a Draft Ordinance, and as it threatens to place the anxious part of the population in a worse position than they were in before, the anxiety has deepened greatly just now, and there is no doubt a strong feeling upon the subject in the island, and amongst those great communities which, one or other, are interested in all the Protestant population of the island. The first Article of this draft states that in future a mixed marriage contracted between a person who is a Roman Catholic and a Protestant shall be invalid. In fact, the statement is that it should have no civil effect either in regard to married persons or their issue unless it be celebrated according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church and by priests of that Church. It is not the less important, but rather more, to observe the third Article, which states that the marriage between persons who, with a view to elude the laws of the Catholic Church, or in fraudem legis, have abandoned the Roman Catholic religion, is invalid. This is

1521
more formidable because it threatens an inquisition into motives of a painful and may be of a destructive character. I venture therefore to ask Her Majesty's Government for an answer to the question which I have placed upon the Paper before your Lordships: Whether the questions of the validity of the unmixed (Protestant) and mixed marriages, celebrated in Malta by clergy of the Church of England and by Presbyterian and Wesleyan ministers since the British occupation of the island, have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in order to obtain an authoritative declaration of law relating to the validity of such marriages; and, if the questions raised have not been so referred, whether the Order of Reference will be completed before the Dissolution of the present Parliament?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): I think I can relieve the mind of the most rev. Prelate. As regards that Draft Ordinance, it is so far as I know a Draft Ordinance which has been introduced into the Legislative Council by an unofficial Member for whom we are not responsible, and I do not think it is likely to get what is called here a Second Reading; but, assuming that it did pass the Council, I can undertake that it shall not receive Her Majesty's Assent in the present state of things. My Lords, the question of the validity of these marriages is about to be referred to the Judicial Committee. A case has been prepared by Dr. Tristram in support of the contention that the marriages are valid, and the other case has been prepared by Sir Giusseppe Carbone, the Crown Advocate in Malta, in support of the view which he contended for, and which I had occasion once before to state to your Lordships, of the invalidity of the marriages. I think I may say that the cases are now ready, and it is intended that an Order in Council shall be passed at the next Council referring these two cases to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

CORONERS' DEPUTIES BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, my attention has been called to two matters in this Bill to which I should like to direct the attention of my noble and learned Friend. I understand that this Bill for the first time makes it necessary for the approval of the Lord Chancellor to be obtained in the case of the appointment of deputies for County Coroners. The approval is not necessary as I understand in the case of all Coroners.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it is.
LORD HERSCHELL: But in some boroughs Coroners are appointed, as I understand, by the County Council?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD HERSCHELL: That is what I had in view; it is the borough county to which, my observations apply, and whether it is necessary in those cases to require the approval of the Lord Chancellor, which has not hitherto been required, I should like my noble and learned Friend to consider. Also for the first time, as I understand, in the case of a County Coroner it is necessary for him to obtain a certificate signed by a Justice of the Peace before he can be absent and his deputy can act. That requirement is said to give rise, even in the case of Borough Coroners, to very considerable inconvenience; and it has been represented to me that it is not an expedient policy to extend that to the County Coroners, as is done by the Hill. I will not say more now, but I ask my noble and learned Friend to consider those matters which have been represented to me.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, this Bill provides for the re-constitution of Galway

1523
Infirmary as a Public General Hospital available for patients in the town as well as in the county. The institution was originally a county infirmary, and will in future, so far as it is not self-supporting, be maintained out of the poor rate.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl Cadogan.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.
REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
Order of the Day for the Report of Amendments to be received read.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, there are a few Amendments, which I am sorry to say are not printed, because there was no time to do so, which I wish to propose to your Lordships.
Clause 4.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I propose in page 2, line 28, to leave out "them" and insert "the Council"; it is purely a verbal Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9.
EARL CADOGAN: I move, in page 4, line 35, after the word "be" insert the word "divided," and leave out the word "let," and insert the same word after the word "assign." In the clause as it was agreed to in Committee, the word "sub-let" was inserted, and the word "let" was omitted. The clause, as I propose to amend it, will read as follows:—
"That the holdings should not be divided, sub-divided, assigned, or sub-let, without the consent of the County Council."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: I have an Amendment to move in page 5, line 5, to meet the objection made by the noble Lord (Lord Basing) to the wording of the sub-section (g) which was moved in Committee. I promised to bring up a new sub-section, which is as follows:—
"In the case of any holding, on which in the opinion of the County Council a dwelling-house ought not to be erected, no dwelling-house shall be erected on the holding without the consent of the County Council."
1524
It is simply an amended form of the same sub-section which was approved in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, before moving the Amendment of which I have given notice, I should like to ask my noble and learned Friend whether something must not be done as regards Clause 10?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have some Amendments to move with regard to Clause 10. I think the form in which Clause 10 was left by the Amendments actually made renders it impossible for the clause to stand as it is. I have to move, in page 6, lines 1 and 2, to leave out "sold a small holding to a purchaser" and insert "purchased the land"; in lines 2 and 3 to leave out "for his registration as the proprietor" and insert "for registration as proprietor"; and to leave out all after "1875" in line 3 to the end of line 9. That would make the clause workable as it was amended in Committee.
Amendments agreed to.
New Clause 11.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in making the proposal to insert the clause of which I gave notice, in place of that which was struck out at the last stage of the Bill, I desire to say at the outset that, if Her Majesty's Government state that they intend, as was suggested at all events by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, to propose a clause in another place, in substitution for that which was struck out at the last stage of the Bill, I shall, on receiving that assurance, at once withdraw my proposal; I have no desire to press the particular form in which I have proposed it before your Lordships, or to press it at all here, if I receive the assurance that the Government intend, as was at one time suggested, to make the proposal in another place. But, my Lords, supposing I do not receive that assurance, I shall ask your Lordships to adopt this clause. Undoubtedly it is a matter to which many persons attach very considerable importance, and I do not think that to adopt it would be making any violent

1525
change in the law; it would be proceeding in the direction in which the Legislature has to some extent already proceeded in the Act which was referred to when this matter was last discussed, which made, in the case of small properties, a provision for the widow whether the estate be real or personal estate. But it is only for the widow that they have made provision where the estate does not exceed £500. Supposing there be no widow in the case of small property, the whole of it will go still to the eldest son, and there is no provision whatever for the younger children. Now we expect these small holdings to be held by persons who will have but little property; very often the whole of that property will be invested in this shape; and they will certainly be of a class amongst whom it is extremely common not to make wills; it is in the case of these small owners of property that the present law of intestacy has the widest operation. The owners of large estates almost invariably dispose of them either by settlement or by will; but amongst the owners of small portions of landed property I believe the practice is exactly the contrary, and that you would find it is a minority only who are in the habit of making wills. I was told in a part of the country where there are a number of small freeholders, by, I forget whether it was the Conservative candidate, at all events it was a Conservative attending a meeting there, that he asked those present among the small owners of land who had made wills to hold up their hands, and then those who had not made wills; and the vast majority had not made wills. And I think that the experience one has had as Law Officer shows how common a thing it is, even in cases where a person, being illegitimate, has no heir, so that the property would go to the Crown, that still no will is made, and the children are left unprovided for, and dependent upon any grant that they may apply for from the Crown. Therefore you have these small owners very often not making wills; and I think that the law ought, if possible, to make, so far as it can, for those who do not make wills, a just distribution of the property. In the case of these small owners it cannot be said to be a
1526
just distribution that the whole of the property will go to the eldest son and nothing be left to the other children. Of course a measure of this sort—and that I think is a justification for dealing with it as is proposed in this Bill—tends to increase that state of things. You are intending here to encourage a number of people to own a small piece of land only; that is the very object of your Bill. Therefore you are going to induce a number of persons, who otherwise might have had such savings as they had gathered invested in a fashion by which, in cases of intestacy, all would be distributed amongst their children, to invest them in such form that, if they die intestate, the whole will go to one child and the others will be unprovided for; and the question is whether, when introducing a measure which would have that effect, the proper course is not that which commended itself to the other House—namely, to deal exceptionally, by way of legislation, with the small holdings, and to provide that they shall descend as personal estate? My Lords, it is said that this will create an anomaly—and that no doubt is the case; but there is a good deal that is anomalous in the Bill itself. You are interfering in this way to induce persons to become the proprietors of these small holdings, and that law is justified on account of the public benefit which will result. I do not think it will create any real confusion or difficulty, because all this land is to be registered; and I should propose, if this Amendment were carried, as a consequential Amendment at the next stage of the Bill, to require that it should appear on the face of the register when it is conveyed under this Act as a small holding. You will therefore have on the face of the register a clear indication that it was land under this Act, and to which therefore this clause would apply. That I think would prevent doubt, difficulty, or confusion, as to whether or not the land came within the clause which I am now proposing. Even supposing that the difficulties are greater than they are, I would submit to your Lordships that they are not at all sufficient to outweigh the injustice that is likely to result from the change in the law which will aggravate the evils of the

1527
existing system. And those who desire that the law should remain unchanged, I should have thought, would have desired to remove one of their difficulties by encouraging a change in the law such as this in the case of small properties. But the fear is, after all, as to its effect upon larger estates and family properties. That is the reason they are apprehensive of the change in the law, and desire that it should not be made. But the views they express really do not apply to such small holdings as these, to which alone the change of the law would be applicable. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will see your way to make this change. I cannot help feeling that it will tend in the direction of a just distribution of the property; that it will tend to make the measure more popular than it is; and that its tendency will be to create more of these small holders of land, in whose case the present law frequently works an injustice. My Lords, I move the new clause which I have put on the Paper.
Moved, after Clause 10, to insert a new Clause—
"Where a County Council have sold a small holding to a purchaser under this Act and he has been registered as proprietor as hereinbefore provided, the land so sold thereupon be and remain personal property; provided that nothing in this section shall render any such land liable to probate duty or legacy duty, or exempt it from succession duty."—(The Lord Herschell.)
THE PRIMB MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, the difficulty that we have to deal with is that there is a balance of advantages on both sides; I do not maintain that the argument is all one side; but there seem to me serious objections to the course recommended by the noble and learned Lord of which he has taken no notice. The first objection is one that I ventured to bring before him the other night, and which I thought he swept away in a summary manner which showed that he had not sufficiently considered it; and it is this: that the operation of your clause in cases of intestacy will be precisely in the opposite direction to the operation which you desire to give your Bill. That is to say, that if we assume cases of intestacy to be
1528
very numerous—I take that as the hypothesis—your small holdings will be re-absorbed in larger estates almost as fast as you make them; whenever there is intestacy, if this clause passes, practically the small holding must be sold; the County Council are not forced to sell it, but they are invited to sell it. But there is another circumstance of which sufficient account has not been taken. By the Act of 1890 where there is real property a scale is given in order to ascertain what its value is, and, on its value so ascertained, the widow must have £500 worth, if there is so much.
LORD HERSCHELL: I think that is whether it is real or personal.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is true; but, in the case of real property, without selling the property, a scale is indicated by which you may ascertain what the value is—it is to be twenty-five years' purchase of the Income Tax value of the land. But if it is personal property there is no such scale; you are simply to take the net value of the property after all debts and liabilities have been cleared up. I submit myself to the noble and learned Lord opposite; but my impression is that, for the purpose of paying a debt of that kind, executors would very seldom be willing to undertake the responsibility of valuing the property, but practically they would always put it up for sale. The result, therefore, of the clause, which the noble Lord has brought forward, will be that these small holdings, in all cases of intestacy, will be sold; if sold, they would be sold by auction; and you know what the state of things is in country districts; you know how many bidders there are for small holdings to keep them in that condition. We are obliged to give special inducements, in the way of a very large advance of capital, and the power of putting off payment, in order to make this kind of purchase as palatable as we desire that it should be. One of two things is true—either intestacies are numerous, or they are not. If they are numerous you will have the small holdings purchased again by larger proprietors, and the main object with which your Bill has been introduced will be frustrated. If intestacies are

1529
very few it is not worth while disturbing the general law of the country and the general uniformity of the devolution of freehold estates in order to provide for such cases. My Lords, I wish that for all these discussions some measure could be taken for ascertaining whether these intestacies are numerous or not. I do not measure my experience by the side of that of a former Law Officer of the Crown; but, such as it is, my experience is entirely in the opposite direction: that intestacy is becoming very rare, and rarer every day; that intestacy is a condition which is produced by want of education, and that, as education goes on, intestacy will become quite an exceptional occurrence. It is possible that the persons with whose estates the noble Lord had to deal were persons who had come to an age of discretion in a pre-educational era; but these holders, the owners of these small holdings—for I do not suppose men will undertake such an enterprise late in life—will all, or very nearly all, be people who were under the age of fourteen when twenty-two years ago provision was made for education in every parish in the country. Therefore, my Lords, I doubt the fact of intestacy being very common; but I repeat again that you have the alternative that, if it is common, you will undo the working of your Bill, and, if it is not common, you will have incurred the disadvantages gratuitously. Now the disadvantages are real. This is a very serious provision; it attaches to the land, no matter what its fate, no matter what vicissitudes it may go through, a peculiar character for all time. The land may be bought, on intestacy, by a neighbouring proprietor of ten or twenty acres, and the holding may be merged in a large forty or fifty acre field,—the very boundaries of which may be forgotten; and yet there will be attached to that land this character; that for all time, on certain occasions, it will have a different devolution and will be assigned differently compared with the land by which it is surrounded. Surely, there is great danger that these boundaries will be forgotten, and people will not remember that this bit of land in a grass field has attached to it a different
1530
law of devolution from that of the land in which it lies; and great doubt, and controversy, and litigation, and loss, and injustice will arise from the fact of the different destinies of those two kinds of land being forgotten, and the requisite precautions for preventing contusion not being taken. I feel that that is a danger; and I think that the noble Lord, with his experience as Law Officer, will bear me out in this: that it is a danger with which we are acquainted with respect to copyhold land; it is a matter of experience that the boundaries of a bit of copyhold land are lost sight of, and you only know that there is a bit of copyhold land somewhere in a big field, but you do not know where you can light upon it; and that causes great difficulty and confusion. That is the evil. Is there any advantage in this Bill that should justify you in incurring that evil? I doubt it very much. A great deal has been said in the other House and in this House of the wife. It was said that by the Intestate Estates Act of 1890 the wife will always have her £500. The limit of a holding is £50, and only one-fifth of that is paid for; and my impression is that, at the prices at which the County Council can buy, ten acres of land will very seldom cost more than £500. Consequently all these holdings, as a matter of practice, will come under the operation of the Act of 1890; the widow will get the land absolutely as her own; and this Act converting it into personal property will not interfere. Therefore I do not think you will confer any advantage whatever upon the widow. The only advantage is of course upon the other children; and, whether it is in accordance with the wishes of the agricultural population that land should be sold and the money equally divided among the children, instead of the land being left to one son, is to my mind a matter of very great doubt. I do not think you are moving on lines parallel to the public sentiment on that point. But finally I want to point out to the noble Lord that, as the Bill stands, it enables every County Council to do exactly what he desires; they have nothing to do but to revert to alarm of tenure with which I am sure he must be very

1531
familiar, namely, a 999 year lease, which is a very common form of tenure in various parts of England. That is personal property. The Council, instead of selling, are perfectly competent to give 999 year leases, and that will answer all the objects of the noble Lord, without running the very considerable danger of the legal confusion which his very unusual and strange enactment may produce. I doubt whether the noble Lord has sufficiently considered all the cases in which the words "personal" and "real" property are applicable, and whether he is quite certain that it is safe, in this sudden way, to substitute the word "personalty" for the word "realty." But, if the House desires to do it, and if the County Councils desire to do it, the provisions of the Bill enable the County Council, instead of granting the freehold, to grant a lease for 999 years.
LORD HERSCHELL: They can only do that where they are satisfied that the persons desiring to cultivate it are unable to buy under Clause 4, Subsection 2. The general law is as to land which they themselves hire or otherwise.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But they may take it themselves on a 999 year lease, which will meet the difficulty.
LORD HERSCHELL: No; they can only do that under Clause 2.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They can do that, I think, up to fifteen acres without hindrance. However, upon that point, if it would meet the view of the noble Lord, I should be ready to introduce modifying words into the Bill. But the advantage of doing that, if you are to do it, by way of long lease, is that, as noble Lords well know, in 1882 an Act of Lord Cairns enabled any subsequent freeholder to convert it into freehold if he pleased. That leaves it absolutely free. If it turned out that the noble Lord was giving a gift to the holder which he did not appreciate and did not want to have, Lord Cairns's Act of 1882 would enable him at once to convert it into ordinary freehold. Therefore, though I do not think myself that any change is desirable, and though I shall certainly vote against the proposal of
1532
the noble Lord as it stands upon the Paper, if he wishes to give the County Councils the power of making this experiment, I suggest that the mode of doing it by long lease is a mode which will not disturb the machinery of the law, and will enable all that is desirable in his proposal to be attained.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think it is pretty clear that the Bill as it stands does not give such power to the County Council as the noble Marquess suggests. There are only two clauses in it relating to the letting of land: one is Clause 2, by which they are permitted to let land where the purchase would be too high, on account of its being likely to be used for building or for other reasons; and the other is Clause 4, Sub-section 2, which enables the County Council to let land where the persons are unable to buy.
EARL CADOGAN: Clause 2 empowers them to hire.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Quite so; but that is not my point. My point is that they cannot let upon a 999 year lease; they cannot feu out the land, as it is called in Scotland, because they are given no such power except in the two special cases to which I have just referred. It is possible, of course, for Her Majesty's Government, if they think proper and desirable, to introduce into the Bill a power to the County Councils to feu or let out land for 999 years. With regard to the supposed danger which may arise from confusion as to the tenure on which this land is held, what the noble Marquess said about copyholds is quite true; but I would point out to him that there is no possibility of confusion arising under this Bill, because every one of these holdings will have to be registered, and, when registered in the Registry Office, they are registered with a map of the boundary as fixed by the map; and, as it would be impossible to deal with that land in any way except through the Registry Office, it is inconceivable that anybody should be unaware that it is land which is subject to this particular tenure. Precisely the same argument might be used with regard to registration generally. You might say that no one can tell

1533
—nor can they without inquiry—whether; any particular land is registered; but you cannot become possessed of land mow by purchase, when once it is registered, except through the Registry Office. It is, therefore, obvious that, if you made the mistake of imagining land was registered when it was not, and you took possession of it without going to the Registry Office, you would not be able to make good the title to it. With regard to the general question whether agricultural labourers are in the habit of allowing property to descend without making wills, one must have an extensive knowledge to make an absolute assertion. I do not pretend to set my experience against that of the noble Marquess; but I have constantly found it the case—far more often than not—that men holding small pieces of land do not make wills. However no individual can lay down a general proposition on such a matter as that, and I should not be so rash; but it is my strong impression that you will find that they very frequently die intestate. And with regard to what the noble Marquess said, that such an Amendment as that which my noble and learned Friend proposes would be in the teeth of the objects of the Bill, which are that there should be small holdings held by one person, I would point out that it is quite a mistake to suppose—at least if I read the Bill rightly—that, when this land is sold by the action of the County Council, it can be sold to a large landowner; because, unless the County Council determine that for special reasons it shall be exempt, it must remain for twenty years subject to the conditions in the Bill. At the end of twenty years, under all circumstances, it would be emancipated from those conditions, and might be sold back to a large landowner. Therefore, for the twenty years, for which you have provided that it shall remain as a small holding, cultivated by one person, unless the County Council otherwise decide for special reasons, it cannot be sold to any large landowner: it must be sold to a single person who must cultivate it himself. Then as regards the effect of the sub-division, the argument of the noble Marquess seems to me to point to this: that the Bill ought to
1534
provide that, under no circumstances whatever, should it be possible to sell this land in consequence of sub-division. But that is not so; because you leave to such holder a perfect power of bequeathing the land, and, if he bequeaths the land to his children generally, precisely the same operation would take place as if it takes place by the course of law. You have not provided in the Bill that it shall unalterably be subject always to these conditions, but you have provided that for twenty years it shall be subject to them unless the Comity Council shall otherwise direct. My Lords, I should have thought it would be a great hardship to the family of a labourer to find that, in consequence of his not having made a will, all the children, except the eldest son, will be left without a share of the property whatever. I cannot conceive anything more likely to cause discontent and discouragement amongst labourers who may have become possessed of land. Under these circumstances, I cannot see the balance of advantages of which the noble Marquess spoke. I do not see any advantage on the other side in maintaining the present system of tenure in this land. The only argument that I can see—and that argument I admit may have weight, with some of your Lordships—is that you are introducing a modification in the Law of Succession, and, if you do that with regard to small holdings, you may be paving the way for a similar alteration of the law in regard to all the land of the country. Apart from that, it seems to me that every one of the arguments are distinctly in favour of my noble and learned Friend. The argument from the desire you have to make this Bill generally popular: the argument from your wish that it shall not in any way lead to sub-division on the part of men who become possessed of small holdings—every one of these considerations seems to me to make in favour of the clause; and I submit that it would be very much to be regretted if the House should strike out a clause put in by the other House, which I think is quite in accordance with the general provisions and objects of the Bill, and which I cannot see could lead to any serious difficulties or dangers.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, it seems to me that a general question is raised by this Amendment under very peculiar and exceptional circumstances. I have some time since given in my adhesion to the general proposition that, on the whole, when the law has to make a will for a man who does not make it himself, the most equal distribution of the property is the best; and, therefore, if it were a question of general law, I should no doubt adhere to that conclusion—which was not arrived at suddenly, because formerly I did not think so. But I have always felt that against that alteration of the general law the strongest argument arose from this very class of cases; because it is not the wish of any of us, I should think, to see the process of absorption of small holdings into larger ones going on, and we should certainly prefer that they should remain in the families to which they belong. But it has always seemed to me that changing the tenure from that of real to that of personal estate would generally make sale necessary; and certainly one is struck with the opposition of that consequence to what seems to be the policy of this particular Bill, which is to create small holdings, and, I presume, that they should so continue. I am further struck with the extreme difficulty of reconciling what is proposed with the conditions which are to be enforced for twenty years—namely, that the holding shall not be sub-divided, let, assigned, or sub-let without the consent of the County Council. Now, unless we assume that in these cases of intestacy the County Council would always allow subdivision, you will be placing this land in a very singular and anomalous position. If the Amendment is made law, it cannot be divided; therefore it must be sold if it is to be dealt with at all.
LORD HERSCHELL: Clause 4, Sub-section 2, contemplates sub-division on death.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That implies the consent of the County Council.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The County Council may require it to be sold; but I see nothing there about
1536
division. So far as assignment is concerned, the objection no doubt would not arise, but it could not be sub-divided amongst the holders as any other estate might be. I confess I am very much perplexed with this. It seems to be introducing a change into the law exactly at the point where the change is attended with the greatest difficulty.
EARL CADOGAN: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord for one explanation. In his clause he proposes to enact that, under certain circumstances, the land so sold shall thereupon be and remain personal property. How long does he mean it to be and remain? Is it to be only during the twenty years, or how long?
LORD HERSCHELL: I meant altogether. I think there would be a great difficulty in making it shift backwards and forwards from real to personal. I think it should remain without any limitation. I might say that I propose to change the word "property" into "estate" in moving the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must say that I think one of the great sources of confusion in the law is where, by Act of Parliament, the Legislature has thought proper to say that something should mean something that it is not. And this is really, in that way, to enact by Statute that a small holding shall be personal and subject to be assigned so by devolution of it upon death. That is the only object I understand that is insisted upon. If that is to be done, I think it ought to be done directly and by a precise apportionment of what is to be done in such and such cases, according to the analogy of the Statute of Distributions. I must say I object very much to simply making it personalty, which, no doubt, from one point of view, may be a small thing, but which may add to it other incidents. I do not think any human intelligence is capable of foreseeing what the consequences would be if you turn this into personalty. I think that if what is sought to be done is to be done, it should be done in a different way. I cannot help thinking that what my noble Friend the Prime Minister suggested would meet the case—namely, that the County Councils should have power to

1537
grant long leases; and, if that power does not exist now—and I am disposed to agree with my noble and learned Friend in thinking that it does not—nothing would be easier than to suggest an Amendment by which the power of the County Councils could be enlarged to give long leases.
EARL NELSON: My Lords, I should like to point out that we have taken it for granted that the agricultural labourer would wish his property to be divided; but I myself believe that one of the great desires of the small holder to have property is that it may continue in his family, and I believe that, if we are making it impossible for the eldest son to continue the holding, we shall be taking away one of the great incentives that they have at present for desiring the possession of small holdings.
On Question, their Lordships divided:—Contents 21; Not Contents 63.
New Clause 11, negatived accordingly.
Clause 11.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have an Amendment to propose in Clause 11, page 6, line 16, after the word "doing" to insert "whether the holding is situate within a town or built upon or not." It is necessary to insert these words, so that the exemption from the right of pre-emption given by the Bill as it stands may not be increased, and I move the insertion of these words.
Amendment agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, I have another Amendment to move to meet the point raised by my noble Friend (Viscount Galway) with regard to the pre-emption in the case of any land which has been acquired by the County Council for agricultural purposes, and is found not to be suitable for agricultural purposes. My noble Friend raised the point that it would be possible that the County Council, before offering the right of pre-emption to the previous owner, would build upon the land or might use it for other than agricultural purposes.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: Or sell it as building land.
EARL CADOGAN: And, therefore, to give the right of pre-emption to the previous owner as building land. In order to provide against that contingency I propose in line 21, after the word "section," to insert, "before any such buildings or works as aforesaid are erected or executed on the land proposed to be sold."
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The object of the Amendment seems to me quite right; but do I rightly understand that it would compel the County Council, in every case where buildings are to be erected, to come to the previous owner?
EARL CADOGAN: That is not quite the object. The object is that the County Council acquire the land as being suitable for agricultural purposes; and, having acquired it, it is found that some portion of that land is not suitable for agricultural purposes. It was then provided that they should sell it, but that there should be a right of preemption to the previous owner, and, I think in the second instance, to the contiguous owner; therefore it was found necessary to provide that the County Councils should not enter into building speculations which should oblige the previous owner to buy back his own land at building land prices.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The operation is that where the County Council think it necessary to erect buildings, in order to sell or let the land, in those cases they must offer it to the previous owner.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: That is before they erect buildings upon it; otherwise they might have bought the land at an agricultural price, and might sell it back at a building land price.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think that is very desirable.
EARL CADOGAN: If I may I will put it in still wider words: "before they use it for purposes other than agricultural."
Amendment agreed to.
EARL CADOGAN: There is a purely verbal Amendment to Clause 20, page 10, line 2, to leave out "their" and insert "its."
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with Amendments; to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this is a Bill brought forward by Her Majesty's Government in fulfilment of a pledge made I think to the noble and learned Lord opposite last year. The object of the Bill is substantially the same as that of last year, namely to put the occupier, under certain circumstances, in the position of the owner for the purpose of carrying out the Drainage Acts. When the noble and learned Lord brought in the Bill last year he was kind enough to withdraw it.
LORD HERSCHELL: I brought before this House the Bill as carried in the other House.
EARL CADOGAN: But the noble Lord had charge of it in this House and withdrew it on a pledge that we would produce a Bill this year. This Bill is substantially the same as that; but there are two changes in it which are intended to meet the objections raised by the noble Lord (Marquess of Waterford). In Clause 3, lines 12 to 16 have been added, giving to the proprietors the same powers as they have at present of putting a veto on the formation of a drainage district, provided that the owners of one-third of the land implicated record a vote of dissent from the scheme. In other words, I must point out to my noble Friend that, if a sufficient number of tenants may vote for a scheme, the landlord still has the power of veto. Then the other Amendment which we have introduced in the Bill is to be found in Clause 6. By last year's Bill, if the tenant's interest was determined, following that which was then believed to be the law, the landlord became liable to the charge of arrears thereof; but, by the present Bill, in the future, if the interest of the person primarily liable is determined, then the rent-charge and one year's arrears only are to become a charge on the landlord. The noble and learned
1540
Lord will remember that there was a matter before the Courts at the time, and it is in consequence of the decision then arrived at that we have introduced this Amendment in the Bill.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Cadogan.)
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I think this is a much better Bill than that of last year; but still I have objections to certain clauses. I object very much to the proposal that the landlord is to pay one year's arrears. I cannot see why that should be inserted. And why, at the termination of the tenancy, when the landlord is likely to be put to a large amount of expense, should he be charged for one year's arrears for work from which he has obtained no benefit? The effect will simply be that the Drainage Board will never attempt to collect the last year's arrears. When a tenancy is falling out at the end of a lease, or when a man is likely to be evicted, they will not take the least trouble to collect the arrears, but will merely apply to the owner in fee to pay them; it will save them a great deal of trouble; but I think it would be most unfair. Then the owner will have no power to collect those arrears from the outgoing tenant; he, the owner, will have to pay them in every case. I hope my noble Friend will agree to leaving that out. I object also to putting charges upon an inheritance to which the owner has never had anything to say. While I think this Bill is very much better in respect of the landlords, in that a certain number of them may object to the drainage improvements being made, at the same time I think they should not be charged with these arrears. The Public Works Department will have no inducement whatever to keep up the maintenance of the work if they can make those charges upon the fee. Then I have attempted to understand Clause 8, but I have been perfectly unable to do so. It seems that the Board have got into some difficulty and have put in that clause to get them out of it; but it is difficult to understand what the advantage of the clause is. I have consulted others who know about these Acts and they have not been able to explain it.
EARL CADOGAN: Clause 8 is put in merely to explain the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: Then there is another alteration in this Bill of which my noble Friend did not tell us in Clause 9, which enables occupiers to borrow as small a sum as £50 for a drainage improvement. It seems very ridiculous that such a small sum as £50 can be borrowed for such a purpose; it is only an inducement to these small tenants to borrow money. I think it would be very much better to leave the law as it is. At the present time £100 is the lowest amount they are able to borrow. My Lords, I remember the noble Duke whom I do not see in his place (the Duke of Argyll) protested against these advances being made to small tenants throughout Ireland, which probably would do the tenants no good and would not be satisfactorily expended upon improvements. I hope the noble Lord will not keep the clause as it is with regard to that. Then I will draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 10 which I think is much too elaborate in its present form to collect such a small sum as £5; it gives enormous powers of creating trustees and everything of that sort for the purpose of collecting a very small sum; and I think that might be amended with great advantage. Then, my Lords, I think there is a mistake in punctuation in Clause 12. If the noble Lord will turn to line 16, it reads thus—
"Means the sum for which a drainage Board assesses rates and taxes, the proprietors of the land."
I think the comma between "taxes" and "the proprietors" must be a mistake. I believe the noble Lord is putting down this Bill for to-morrow, and, therefore, I will put down the Amendments that I have named on the Taper this evening, if that will suit the noble Lord.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I would only say that this Bill seems to me to be a complete redemption of the pledge which was given by the Government when I withdrew the Bill of last year.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ACCUMULATIONS BILL.
COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to order).
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill that Clause 1 as it stood would have no operation, and that the words "loan" and "only" ought to be struck out, with which I think my noble and learned Friend was disposed to agree. But I have considered the matter since then, and it appears to me that even then this Bill would be likely to have little or no operation. It is only to apply to a provision under a will or deed (chiefly wills) for the accumulation of property for the purpose of purchasing land; it does not prohibit any other kind of accumulation, and it does not, of course, prohibit the investment in land of the accumulated money; it would not even render it illegal for a person to express to his Trustees his desire that they should so invest it, provided that he did not impose it upon them as a legal obligation. The real truth is, therefore, that anybody, desiring to do that which you are going to prohibit by this Act, can do it just as well, for all practical purposes, after the Bill has passed as before. If that was not the intention it seems to me that it should be carried out in some more effectual way than is done, or we shall be passing an Act with apparently the intention of preventing accumulations which would not prevent them at all. My Lords, I have had several communications upon the subject of Clause 2; I am not going to allude to them now, as we are on Clause 1, further than to toll your Lordships that serious objection is taken to the form in which the clause stands; and I would ask my noble and learned Friend whether it would not be well to defer this measure to the next Session, or the next Parliament, and really to consider whether there is any use in it in this form, and whether it could not be put into a shape that would render it more effectual?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that the Bill may require more consideration than it can really

1543
receive at this time. I do not know whether, if it passes through Committee now, it will be proposed to negative the Reference to the Standing Committee; but I think this is a Bill which ought to go to the Standing Committee. My noble and learned Friend has pointed out that, so far as the operation of Clause 1, as it now stands, is concerned, it would be so easily evaded as practically to amount to very little. The direction in which the clause points commends itself to my mind now, as it has done always; but I cannot help thinking that it would not be a very easy thing offhand to meet that objection, if the limitation as to investments in land is to remain at all. I will not go into any other criticisms that might arise as to the imperfection of the means provided for determining who is to take that which may be directed to be accumulated. But with regard to Clause 2, I must say that I certainly myself understood it not to be retrospective. Doubts, however, were thrown upon that point on a former occasion, and I am not prepared to say that the words "as from the passing of this Act" may not introduce such a doubt. Certainly I think it would be a very grave matter to pass a measure of this kind which was retrospective, without having clearly in view before you the cases to which it was expected to apply; and, if there is in any part of the country an apprehension that in any cases it might work injustice, that seems to me a cogent argument against dealing too heavily with the matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in the face of the objections that have been made to this Bill, I certainly do not think I could ask your Lordships to allow it to leave this House without its having undergone examination by the Standing Committee; therefore I shall move that it be referred to that Committee; and, indeed, I should have taken advantage of the suggestion made by my noble and learned Friend opposite to remove the same objections myself. I assume that the Bill will have to go to the Standing Committee, and, if there we can agree upon something which will effect the object of the promoters of the Bill, I shall be very glad to have as-
1544
sisted them in their views. But, at present, I do not think it would be a convenient thing to amend the Bill as it now stands here. I shall therefore ask your Lordships to remit it to the Standing Committee.
LORD HERSCHELL: I do not know that this is the time to say so, but it is not very convenient to send the measure now to the Standing Committee to be considered. It is a Government Bill, and, therefore, the ordinary difficulties of private Members do not apply; but I should have thought, if it was a Bill to be pressed, it might have been sent up before. At the present time it is very difficult to get the Members of the Committee together.
Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

POOR LAW SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, this is a Bill enabling members of the Boards of Poor Law district schools in Ireland to charge their travelling expenses. Those expenses are allowed in England, and there appears to be no objection in this case. I believe there is only one school of this character in Ireland; therefore I hope there will be no objection to the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Cadogan.)
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I do not wish to throw any difficulty in the working of these institutions, but this Bill appears to me most unnecessary. These Guardians are persons who have a great many public duties to perform without payment; they have to attend as jurors at Assizes, and at Quarter Sessions and at Presentment Sessions, and it is probable that they are just the men who will furnish our County Councillors in the future. I am not aware that it is proposed to pay them in any of those capacities. And, besides performing all those duties, they are just the men who find time to attend public meetings. And, my Lords, I cannot understand the object of

1545
providing for the payment of clerks of Unions; they are not officers of the district schools, and the District Schools Act provides for the salaries of their officers. And I think I understood the Lord Privy Seal to tell us that there was only one of these schools. The Act providing for these schools I believe came into existence in 1843, and all that time it has not been thought necessary to reform the law. It so happens that I was present last year with a good many Guardians at a discussion as to the value of these schools, and we came to the conclusion that it was not advisable to adopt them. The industrial schools formed under the Industrial Schools Act do a great deal of good in consequence of the stringent powers of the Industrial Schools Act; but these schools have no such stringent powers—they are worked under the ordinary Poor Law Acts.
EARL CADOGAN: I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord disapproves of these schools which it is intended to encourage, because, in the opinion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it is very desirable to establish these schools which are created by the joint action of several Unions. It was pointed out that the Guardians of the Unions close to where the school was would very easily do the work in connection with the school, but that the other Guardians might have a long way to travel in order to take part in the work, and therefore it was thought not only desirable but just that their expenses, in accordance with the English law, should be defrayed.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
MARRIAGES ABROAD BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to.
POLICE RETURNS BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.
Report from the Committee, That the necessary proofs have been given: Bill reported with Amendments; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.
CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons, and consequential Amendments to the Bill, agreed to.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ORDER (GLASGOW, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORTON FEN) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order: Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order).
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered To-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.
NATIONAL DEBT (STOCKHOLDERS' RELIEF) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered (according to order), and agreed to, with a consequential Amendment to the Bill; and Bill returned to the Commons.
ALKALI, &c. WORKS BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSITS AND BONDS BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF EXCHEQUER BONDS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
POST OFFICE ACT (1891) EXTENSION BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
NAVAL KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR BILL.
Amendment reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow.—(The Lord Macnaghten.) (No 205.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 206.)
House adjourned at five minutes past Seven o'clock.