Sitting of 10 March 1892

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  EASTBOURNE IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1855, AMENDMENT BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have to ask the House to read this Bill a second time. It is exceedingly brief, in character, and proposes simply to repeal one clause in the Act passed in 1885 for the improvement of the town of Eastbourne. It is necessary that I should give the House in some detail—and nobody deplores the necessity more than I—the history of the transactions, or, rather, I may say, Of the legislation, which led up to the legislation of which we now complain and which we ask the House to repeal. The House is aware that the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, subsequently consolidated with all amending Acts by the Act of 1882, and the "Public Health Act of 1875," are the two Charters by which the action of alb our Local Authorities, whether Municipal or Urban and Sanitary, is regulated, and for many years—I may say, for a long period of years—there was no fault found or complaint made of the use of the powers given to Municipalities and Local Bodies by those two great Acts of Parliament. But as the work of Committees increased and sanitary science developed itself, Local Authorities asked Parliament to give them greater powers than were contained under those two Acts, and financial difficulties also, arose, Bills being brought into the House asking for very great financial powers, and Committees—perhaps too easily—
    460
    gave those powers. The period for the re-payment of debt was extended, and extended, and extended, until at last, it reached, I believe, in one case, a period of 100 years. Parliament, felt that the time Lad arrived for dealing with this state of things, fraught with the utmost danger, and in 1882 the attention of the House was called to it in a very long and able speech on the then state of affairs by a gentleman who is not now a Member of this House, but who is very much respected by all who know him; I mean the Recorder of Liverpool (Mr. Hopwood), and I may Say in passing, and I am sure there are many hon Members who will endorse; the remark, Mr. Hopwood in this House showed himself a sincere friend to Local Government, and he was the last man to advocate centralisation in any shape or form. In the speech, in, which he drew the attention of the House to the extraordinary powers which were being asked for by Local Authorities, he almost, I might say, prophetically marked out what has happened, and especially in reference to the case which is the cause of this Bill before us. Having shown that the powers sought in the Bill he referred to had not been fully discussed, Mr. Hop-wood went on to say—
    "The House would see that, in the form in which legislation of this kind noted—namely, in the shape of a Private Bill, it acquired the status of a Statute, and the matters prescribed in it went down from the Legislature, not to be debated in the Town Council, and ordered as it thought fit, but to become at once the future rule of right in the locality. If anyone said—'Why is this the law? Is the law so severe as this? I certainly was not aware of it.' He was answered at once by the assertion—It is the law, and, therefore, you must obey it."
    He pointed out to the House—I am not going to trouble the House with a large number of details—various matters in relation to police and sanitary administration, for which extensive powers had been asked by Corporations. He contended that no power in excess or, variation of the general law of the land should be introduced without the application of a uniform guiding rule by Parliament; and he proceeded to raise his point by a Motion for the rejection of the Private Bill then before the House. He was immediately followed in that Debate by Sir Richard Cross, and I think no one sitting on

    461
    either side of the House will dispute the statement that Sir Richard Gross was one of the ablest and fairest Ministers who ever held the office of Home Secretary. Sir Richard Cross expressed his concurrence in Mr. Hopwood's view, and said the House was indebted to that Gentleman for having brought the matter forward; then, after dealing with the facts generally, Sir Richard Cross suggested:—
    "That all those Bills might go to a Committee upstairs, whose duty it would be to deal with those portions which belong to the Private Business of this House. But I think that there ought to be a special Instruction from this House to the Committee, to report to this House on all the particular Clauses to which objection is taken on general grounds. Further, there ought to be a distinct understanding that the Third Reading of these Hills should not be taken until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee, so that the House itself may be able to pass an opinion upon the general principles involved in these different measures."
    I will show the House how this suggestion was dealt with and how it has been totally departed from. There was, in relation to the Eastbourne Act, no such Special Report before the Third Reading. Sir Richard Cross was followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), then Home Secretary, who concurred entirely in what Sir Richard Cross had said, and he proposed a Select Committee with an Instruction that when a Bill contained exceptional powers, the Committee should make a Special Report to the House. Sir Richard Cross proposed further—for this my right hon. Friend had omitted—that these Bills should not be read a third time until the House had had the opportunity of considering the Report of the Committee, and my hon. Friend said "certainly." It was under these circumstances that in 1882 a Committee was appointed to deal with all these Bills. Now, that Committee was, I think I may say, a fairly representative one. I was going to say a strong Committee, but perhaps that would be impertinent, as I happened to be on that Committee myself. At all events it had a strong Chairman in Mr. Sclater-Booth (now Lord Basing) who for many years, was President of the Local Government Board,
    462
    and intimately acquainted with matters of local administration. The Committee included Members from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and was fairly ^representative; it sat several months and considered all the Bills brought before it. At the close of its proceedings it presented a Special Report to the House, and I must ask the attention of the House to two or three paragraphs of that Report. The Report says—
    "It must be admitted that Parliament has given encouragement to the practice of seeking this House for variations from or amendment of the general law for the convenience of particular localities."
    The Report further recommended—
    "That where such a proposal is made, some step should be taken, by the House to secure more uniform and stringent supervision of the unopposed clauses in Private Bills."
    I omitted to state that the Reference to the Committee was in the following terms:—
    "That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding seven in number, to consider and report on any provisions in Private Bills promoted by Municipal and other Local Authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations which deviate from, or are an extension of, or repugnant to, the general law; and that it be an Instruction to such Committee to make a Special Report to this House in respect of any such provisions as aforesaid as the Committee may sanction, together with the reasons on which the grant of such powers are recommended, and the recent precedents applicable to the case."
    Well, the Committee went on to say in their Report—
    "The Special Report which the Committee are instructed to make divides itself into two branches—namely, I. Sanitary and II. Police Regulations."
    I have not to trouble the House with the Sanitary branch of the inquiry. The Committee, under the able guidance of Lord Basing, drew up a large number of model clauses in relation to sanitary matters, wisely extending the existing law, and these were subsequently enacted in general legislation by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Now before this Committee arose the question of these street processions accompanied by music, and this question was very fully considered by the Committee, and the

    463
    Committee reported to the House that they had drawn a clause which, in their opinion, was a proper extension of the general law, and which they advised the House to adopt. This was the clause the Committee drew, and I think the House will see it is a clause which may fairly be said to meet the exigencies of the case. The Committee reported—
    "Many applications in excess of the general law for police powers were made, which the Committee felt themselves unable to sanction, except where such powers were already in force Within the borough, and as to which their re-enactment was only in the way of a consolidation of previous Acts.
    Clauses, however, dealing with (1) street music, (2) street belling, and (3) the sale of coal in small quantities, (4) obstruction of footway," &c.—
    A variety of other things with which I need not trouble the House, but which were proved to be much needed to be dealt with. The Street Music Clause was as follows:—
    "Any householder, personally, or by his servant, or by any constable, may require any street musician or singer to depart from the neighbourhood of the house of such householder, and any person who shall sound or play upon any musical instrument, or sing in any street near or within hearing of such house after being so required to depart, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings."
    According to Parliamentary practice, this was submitted to and approved by the House, and that was the new legislation inserted in a variety of Bills. Nothing further was done in this matter of street music until 1884, two years later, when the town of Brighton came to Parliament and asked for the necessary clause to give the Mayor power to interfere with street processions of all sorts and kinds. That clause was discussed before the Committee, and the House will see that the question we are called upon to settle was raised eight years ago. A representative from the Corporation said—
    "There is another matter that we very much wish to regulate, large meetings such as the 'Salvation Army' processions going through the town."
    The Chairman—who I think was my hon. Friend the junior Member for Oxford—said—
    "It is very desirable you should be able to control them, but it is a question whether you
    464
    should not be able to do so under the ordinary law. I should have thought that ordinary police powers would have been sufficient."
    Then another Member of the Committee asked—
    "You actually propose that the Mayor with the Watch Committee, should have the power to forbid any kind of popular-procession they think likely to create a disturbance. Of course you mean to use it for the Salvation Army, and could against a political procession. We have refused this to a Local Authority in a case we had before us." The Chairman: "If there was no breach of the peace intended of course the police would not prevent the procession."
    Then another Member of the Committee asked—
    "Why do you want an alteration in the general law for Brighton? Can you give us an illustration of any breach of the peace more likely to arise in Brighton than in any other town? Can you give us an illustration of any difficulty you have had?" Witness: "We have had great complaints of processions on Sunday mornings, disturbing the quieter parts of the town. A large number of people are constantly coming to Brighton. This is a thing that is growing, and we desire to take the opportunity to get the power of regulating these proceedings. In fact the objection to the Salvation Army is their going among other classes of people where they are not wanted." The Chairman: "I do not think you were in the room when the other Bill was discussed. I do not carry in my memory the conclusions we arrived at, though I know the question, came before us."
    Well, in the result the Committee unanimously struck out this section in the Brighton Bill, although they gave Brighton what is called the "Bury Model Clause," and this clause has remained in the code of Brighton administration since, and under it Brighton is governed at the present time. When the Session terminated, this Committee, presided over by my hon. Friend opposite, reported to the House, and I must call the attention of the House to a paragraph in that Report, because upon this the House of Commons and a Department of State acted. Alluding to various matters that came before them, the Committee went on to say it was obvious that to many matters upon which the Committee were pressed for a decision. Parliament must give due consideration on general grounds,
    "and the Committee were strongly advised that pending the enactment of a general measure care should be taken in succeeding Sessions to control the attempts which local bodies not unnaturally made to arm themselves with

    465
    powers which the General Law does not sanction, and for this purpose they suggest that the Local Government Board should continue their valuable representations upon those Bills, and further that the Home Office should report upon matters coming within their province."
    I need hardly say that the Home Secretary adopted the recommendation of the Committee, and in the next stage I shall have to bring before the House the Home Office intervenes for the first time; hitherto it has been the Local Government Board only. In 1885 the two towns of Eastbourne and Hastings came before Parliament with Bills in which this clause now in dispute relating to street processions with music was proposed. So far as Hastings is concerned, I only mention it because it was the Hastings case that came before the Committee first and settled the decision in the Eastbourne case. I cannot put my finger on the evidence at the moment, so I am not in a position to say how the case was presented; but it came before the Committee in the month of May, and on Clause 104 (Processions on Sundays) the room was cleared, the Committee deliberated, and the question was put, "That this Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided, and for the Ayes there voted Mr. Hastings, Mr. Charles Parker, and Mr. West, and for the Noes Mr. Arthur Arnold. Therefore the House will see the clause now under discussion was inserted in the Bill by a majority of two in a Committee of four, and the three Members whose names I have mentioned were responsible for the insertion of the clause. Well, I am happy to say, so far as Hastings is concerned, no difficulty whatever has arisen. Common sense and common justice have prevailed in the town of Hastings, and no difficulty has arisen there. It is in regard to Eastbourne I ask the House to repeal the clause. Upon this clause the Home Office reported for the first time, and this is what the Home Secretary said:—
    "Clause 271 (Processions on Sundays). It is suggested that this is a question for general legislation, and that the clause should be struck out."
    That was the opinion of the responsible Department of the day. This Committee, as we have seen, was
    466
    to report specially upon clauses they might sanction which deviated from the general law. They were now dealing with a perfectly new clause, against which the Home Office protested. Let us see how they reported upon it. The! Report from the Home Office was—
    "This Bill, in some respect, gives power relating to the police in excess of the provisions of the ordinary law."
    This Report and the representations of the Local Government Board were referred to the Committee, and the manner in which these recommendations were dealt with is set forth in an appendix to this Report. Of this Clause 271 the Report states—
    "The Committee have amended these clauses and, as amended, consider them expedient."
    Now the case I am going to submit to-the House, or, at all events, a prime part of my case, is that this legislation was enacted behind the back of the House of Commons, that the House knew nothing of what was going on, the Committee did not say a word about the deviation from the law in the clause they inserted, and the clause which the Home Office refused to sanction the Committee did not report as Sir Richard Cross said they should report, specially. I say the House had no opportunity of discussing the clause, and I venture to say that outside the four Members of the Committee nobody in the House, Liberal or Conservative, Government or Opposition, knew anything about what was going on in this matter. But the Committee had to make a general Report to the House, telling the general result of what they had done. They called the attention of the House again—and I hope that again and again the attention of the House will be called to it—to the necessity of a general measure extending and consolidating the laws relating, to police and sanitary matters. Then they say—
    "In the meantime, continuing the practice of the Committees of 1882 and 1884"—remember what they did in 1882—"the Committee have to the best of their ability enforced two leading principles which they believe to be accepted by the House, viz.: (1.) That no local powers should be given in excess of the general law unless there can be shown either (a) strong local reasons for such powers, or (b) general reasons so strong as to render desir-

    467
    able the preparation of clauses which (pending public legislation) may be granted to every community that shall think fit to apply for them and (2) that as a rule on statutory enactments should be permitted for purposes which can be effected under bye laws. The local reason which have moved the Committee to sanction special legislation have been of two kinds: (1.) In a few cases where exceptional powers already existed under old local Acts, the Committee have consented, while repealing the greater part of these, to keep alive (sometimes in more modern from) such portions of them as were in use and working well. This, however, they have done with much reserve, lest such clauses should be quoted as precedents for similar legislation, elsewhere. (2.) In other cases regard has been had to special wants of the community concerned. At watering places, for example, where there is a great influx of summer visitors, larger powers have been granted for regulation of pleasure traffic, boating, and bathing."
    Well, is this clause concerned with pleasure traffic, boating or bathing? Is it pleasure, traffic? Here is not a word of the very serious alteration in the general law the Committee had sanctioned:—
    "On general grounds the Committee have sanctioned the insertion, in most of the Bills submitted to them, of the 'model clauses' referred to in the Report of last year, for the preparation of which they are indebted to the Committee of 1882."
    I may say, in reference to this Eastbourne Clause, which was passed in this perfunctory manner and referred to in a general paragraph about clauses dealing with pleasure traffic boating, and bathing, that the only mention I can find of it is in the speech of the counsel, Mr. Littler, who brought the Bill before the Committee. He said:—
    "I should like to call your attention to Clause 271. You have passed something similar to that, though not in the same words. I am told that in the exact form you have passed it, therefore we may go on."
    That is all, and I do not think that anything further passed. Then—and I am sorry to trouble the House with so many details, but they are necessary to show how these matters were dealt with—Torquay followed in the footsteps of Hastings and Eastbourne, and, of course, the same Committee granted to Torquay the same powers. The result was that great disturbance arose in the town of Torquay. I believe upwards of 100 people were sent to prison. The Torquay case was brought
    468
    before this House in July, 1888, when I had the honour of moving the repeal of this clause. I see in the statement circulated among Members the extraordinary allegation is made that the Torquay clause was repealed "under pressure." Well, the pressure of an adverse majority is certainly very powerful pressure, but I am aware of no other pressure. The Torquay people came to the House asking for further powers for the Local Authorities, and I took the opportunity to ask the House to restrict some of the power already granted in ignorance. I asked the House to refer the Bill to a Committee of nine Members—five chosen; by the Committee of Selection and four by the House. That Motion was unanimously accepted by the House, it, was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—it had, in fact, the support of the Government. It went to the Select Committee, and that Committee, without a dissentient voice, repealed that clause. It was repealed, and I am happy to tell the House, on good authority, that peace was restored in Torquay, and, no, difficulty has arisen since, or any conflict between the authorities or the people and the Salvation Army. There, I think, is a justification for the "pressure" which this extraordinary statement says was put upon the Torquay people. Well, we have had the subsequent proceedings at Eastbourne, but for the purposes of my argument I need not detain the House with an account of these proceedings. I believe that many Members, notably the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. E. Ellis), have been on the scene and can tell the House, if necessary, what they have seen with their own eyes. It will be admitted that the state of things is disastrous at Eastbourne. This legislation has not worked well. It has embittered local feeling, it has engendered the bitterest phases of religious bigotry, and has stirred up in a peaceful town, every Sunday, a scene of disorder every right-thinking man must deplore, Whether the character of this legislation be good or bad, it will be accepted on both sides that the legislation has worked—is working—most unsatisfactorily. There are statements in the Paper circulated

    469
    among Members showing what attempts were made to meet the special difficulties of the case; how terms were proposed by which the Salvation Army should confine their operations to one part of the town, and how every one of these proposals were rejected; that a large number of constables were sent into the town; how litigation ensued—and, I think, the effect of the litigation in the judgments of Mr. Justice Hawkins were not very commendatory of the proceedings of the Local Authorities. But I want to argue the case rather on general principles that such legislation should not be passed behind the back of the House of Commons. But I have been told, and sometimes in language most offensive and disgusting, what an inconsistent politician I must be to advocate devolution to Local Authorities of certain matters of administration and yet to object to devolution in the case of this town. But, Sir, this is not a case of devolution. This is the case of an Act of the Imperial Parliament; there is nothing said in the clause about Local Authorities at all. It is an enactment, the law of the land, and the Local Authorities are bound, I think, to enforce the law so long as it stands. I find no fault with them for the performance of their duty. Let me proceed a step further. Local Administration, Local Government, Local Option, means a delegation from the supreme authority—you do not mean that the Local Authority may say "We will not have this or that." Let me put the case, by way of illustration, of the Episcopalian community in Scotland. In many towns, in many counties of Scotland, Episcopalian opinions are in a very small—I may say an insignificant minority. Would Parliament sanction for a moment, that the Local Authority should have power to interfere with the religious liberty of this body, because it is in a minority? ("Oh, oh!") Hon. Members opposite seem amused. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Johnston), who is a representative of Protestants in Ireland, would strongly object, as I would object, to putting the Protestants of Ireland under the heel of any other denomination, to interfere with, to prejudice, to embarrass, one jot or tittle of their religious rights. But the
    470
    Imperial Authority has already delegated to Local Authorities, by the Municipal Corporations Act, powers on this very question. Parliament has said what Local Authorities may do By Section 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act it is declared that—
    "The Council may from time to time make such bye-laws as to them may seem meet for the goodwill and government of the borough, and for the prevention and suppression of nuisances."
    That is a delegation to the Local Authority of an exercise of power no man in his senses will object to. But if they go beyond, and for other purposes attempt to make that a nuisance which is not a nuisance, then they are subject, not to the control of this House but to Her Majesty's Courts of Law, and when one impulsive Town Council did prohibit these Sunday processions by a bye-law, what said the Court of Queen's Bench? Mr. Justice Hawkins said—
    "I am of opinion that this bye-law is bad, as being unreasonable and not warranted by the statute under which it is made; the conviction, therefore, must be quashed. It does not seem to me unreasonable to suppose that there might be a case in which the inhabitants of a street might desire to have music of a certain kind played, and which would cause no annoyance. This bye-law would include any sort of music played under any circumstances, however harmonious and free from offence. If the Town Council desire to put a stop to music of such a character as is offensive and likely to cause annoyance, I think, probably, there might be a means of amending the bye-laws to effect that object. It is not for us to suggest how such a bye-law should be limited as to become reasonable."
    I need not read the rest of the judgment. There are limits, not only to bye-laws, but to the powers of all delegated bodies, in matters of this description, with reference to powers, which Imperial legislation alone can deal with; but Mr. Justice Hawkins was dealing simply with the case of a bye-law made under the 23rd section of the Municipal Corporations Act-Lord Basing's Committee recommend Parliament to enact that when a householder objects to music before his house, that music shall cease. I say at once that if this Bill is read a second time, and referred to a Committee, I have no objection to the insertion of a clause similar to the model clause which governs this matter at Brighton,

    471
    and in all other boroughs but Hastings and Eastbourne. Let me say, in passing, for I forgot to say it before, that in no other town in Great Britain or Ireland does such a law exist as exists in Hastings and Eastbourne; there is no precedent for it; no example for it; no parallel to it. Under these circumstances I submit to the House that the clause ought never to have been inserted in the Eastbourne Act. It was a miscarriage of legislation. This is no interference with local control. If Parliament by a Bill, openly discussed in the face of the country, chooses to delegate to a local authority the widest and amplest powers, then I say, if Parliament does that, it is the duty of those who become subject to those powers to obey the law of Parliament. But there is no parallel in this case; this was not open legislation, it was not legislation by Parliament, it was private legislation, and it assumed the form of a statute never having been properly reported to Parliament as Parliament directed. ("Oh, Oh!") "When and where was it reported to this House? Let the hon. Member who interrupts me point to one jot or tittle, line or syllable, where this was reported to the House of Commons. This legislation ought never to have been passed. It is legislation which has been most unhappy in its consequences, and it is to some extent, I do not shrink from saying, an infringement of the religious liberties of the people. Whether this be so or not hon. Gentlemen may differ, but evidence brought before a Committee upstairs may modify the judgment of the House, and the Committee may offer suggestions it may be wise for the House to consider. But wise or not my point is this. I impute nothing of deceit to Members of the Committee. These three Members of the Committee are as much entitled to consideration and respect as any other three Members sitting in the House, but legislation such as this should not be passed by any three Members. Before I sit down let me make an appeal to the House on behalf of a religious community against whom avowedly this legislation is directed, and against whom it has been ruthlessly enforced. I know they are a poor despised sect.
    472
    ("No, no!") I rejoice to hear that "No." I know they have no representative in this House belonging to their body, but I know also there are Members on both sides of the House who strongly appreciate their work and sympathise with them in it. I imply no imputation on any Member of the House of a different character; but because they have no representative in this House to speak on their behalf they are entitled to some consideration at our hands in dealing with grievances of this description. Disagree as we may with their methods and their machinery, and perhaps with some of their tenets, the Salvation Army have achieved a great and noble work in reforming and reclaiming among the population. They have in London and in our large towns confronted vice and intemperance and misery in the most odious slums, and in the most loathsome shapes. They are fanatics. Yes; and so were the early Puritans fanatics, so were the Quakers, so were the Methodists fanatics. But let me ask any man—I do not care what his opinions are—is there a man who desires to blot out from the pages of our religious history the magnificent results achieved by the fanaticism of Puritans, Quakers, or Methodists? When the records of the Salvation Army are made up, though they may have made mistakes—and what religious movement, ancient or modern, has been without mistakes?—I say they will have a bright record to present to the people of Great Britain. They are endeavouring to grapple with problems of the greatest gravity affecting the social life of our people, and they are doing this by means of an organisation no other Church possesses or has used. I say, on behalf of these poor Salvation Army people, persecuted as they have been, harried as they have been, sent to prison as they have been, that I ask the House of Commons to wipe from the Statute Book a section which has enabled religious persecution to be carried on to the disgrace and shame of the last decade of the Nineteenth Century.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I second the Motion for the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman in his able speech has

    473
    clearly shown that the granting of these powers in excess of the ordinary law to Local Authorities, is contrary to the spirit and intention of Parliament; and that the power so granted in the Eastbourne Act is contrary to general law has been clearly laid down by the Lord Chief Justice in reference to Salvation Army bands, who said that every Englishman had a perfect right to go about his business and perform a legal act under the protection of the law, and that walking through the streets in procession even accompanied by music was perfectly lawful, and in doing that a man was entitled to protection. Parliament was not asked by special Report from the Committee to sanction a clause outside the provisions of the general law, for reasons shown. This clause was passed against the recommendation of the Home Office, and, therefore, I think it is fair to say the clause was passed behind the back of the House of Commons. Now, the question arises: The Local Authority, having been given that power, is it reasonable to take it away? I say it is, because the use of that power by the Local Authority has, unfortunately, resulted in making Eastbourne a bye-word for lawless disturbance, and brought the town into unenviable notoriety. It certainly seems to me the town cannot be worse off without the clause than with it. We must look also at the way the clause was passed, and the animus with which it has been used against the Salvation Army. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that the gentleman who fills the position of Mayor of Eastbourne, and on whom rests the responsibility of executing the law, should have committed himself to the statement some time back that he thought the Town Council should do all in their power to put down the proceedings of the Salvation Army, which were opposed altogether to the spirit of true religion. It was very unfortunate that he should have expressed such an opinion. I know it was said the remark was made in a jocular vein, but the result has been anything but jocular. When we look at the way the clause has been put in force, we find that the utmost penalties have been enforced against members of the Salva-
    474
    tion Army. Seventeen of them have been fined £5, with the option of a month's imprisonment, and seventeen, of them have been sent to gaol. On the other hand, when others were brought before the Magistrates charged with assaulting the police, they were only bound over to keep the peace, or light fines were inflicted, except in the case of the man Mason in August last, when the Magistrate put his foot down, and sent the man to prison for seven days. What was the result? The Magistrate's windows were broken that night, and the consequence has been that no more of the assailants have been sent to prison. If the evidence before me is to be relied on, the Magistrates have proved themselves to be helpless in the face of the mob, and the mob since then has had its own way. And what about the conduct of the Salvationists themselves? There is a strong feeling against them I know, and the feeling has been expressed in letters from all classes. So strong is the feeling that some courage is required to get up and deny that these people should be placed outside the protection of the law because they have contravened the law. No doubt they are not a popular body. Their commander is not very modest, and in the instructions he issues to his lieutenants he rules with an almost papal authority. Nevertheless, we must bear testimony to the honesty of their intentions, and the courage with which they carry them out. We must realise that these Salvationists have set themselves to reach a social stratum which churchmen avowedly have proved themselves unable to reach. ("No.") I am glad to think there has been a great deal of success, but, at the same time, I must adhere to my statement that we deplore our inability to raise the masses to the extent we wish. The Salvation Army claim that they have a special mission to that end, and under the law of the land they claim to do that in their own way. When they find themselves confronted by a legal enactment they feel it their duty to go forward, facing abuse, outrage, and even imprisonment, in carrying out what they believe to be their sacred mission. When men and women showed themselves ready to face punishment, there was some

    475
    time ago a great deal of sympathy for them throughout the country, and I remember strong representations were made to the Home Office not to carry out a sentence which seemed to be contrary to the spirit of the law. But now the question is, Are we prepared to let the present state of things continue? The enforcement of the law has resulted in all these disturbances. Let us be guided by what happened at Torquay. There were disturbances there, but when the law was repealed there were no further disturbances. Why should Eastbourne continue to possess a power which was refused to Brighton and other towns? The Salvation Army is working in harmony with Local Authorities in hundreds of towns; take away the cause of offence, and we may expect harmony at Eastbourne. Eastbourne is not strongly sabbatical—there is no objection to Sunday music. The inhabitants and visitors enjoy the band at the pier head on Sunday, but the people in other parts of the town enjoy their music too. The remedy is to let these people alone, not to interfere with them by special legislation, and if their work has reality in it it will prosper, if not it will fail.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    ADMIRAL FIELD: I rise very reluctantly and with very much diffidence to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is a very old Member of the House and much respected for his ability and eloquence. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that nearly the whole of his speech was quite irrelevant to the issue before the House. He talked a great deal about the ancient history of this clause. Whether it is ancient or not, so long as it is part of the law of the land, it ought to be observed. Who is to blame for the present state of things in Eastbourne? My hon. Friend who seconded this Motion thinks that if the clause is repealed there would be peace and quietness in Eastbourne. If I shared that view, I would hold up both hands for the repeal of the clause, but I believe nothing of the kind would happen. If the clause were repealed,
    476
    it would be doing violence to the principles held by hon. Members opposite—that the inhabitants of the locality should be the first consideration; in other words, that local option should prevail. I am surprised to find that a champion like the right hon. Gentleman should be found to champion this attempt on the part of Mr. Booth and his party to trample down this particular law. I should have thought that a lawyer of his eminence, and other lawyers associated with him, would rather have addressed this observation to Mr. Booth:—
    "There is the law; as long as it is the law, it is your duty to obey it, and resort to constitutional methods to get the law repealed."
    (Opposition laughter.) Hon. Members laugh at that sentiment. I will give them a quotation which, perhaps, they will respect. There is a great European orator on the Continent of Europe—Signor Castellar. Many years ago, during the time of the Spanish Revolution, Signor Castellar said, in the Cortes at Madrid:—
    "If the laws are bad, obey them; if they are good obey them; if they are bad, obey them that you may expose their badness, and that, you may hasten their reform."
    I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have given that same advice to. Mr. Booth. It is an amazing thing to me that the lawyers should be found on the side of the law breakers, and that we laymen are to be found on the side of the law. I can only account for that extraordinary circumstance by this idea, that the great lawyers of the country are so constantly occupied one day in prosecuting the law breakers, and the next day in defending the law breakers, that their minds get a little mixed, and they scarcely understand what side they ought to go for, whether for the law or against it. I had hoped—but it is a vain hope now—that I should have had the benefit of the burning eloquence of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General on my platform at the next election. But I will say "Good-bye" to the Solicitor General. It appears that Mr. Booth wrote to him for his views, and the following extract from the reply of the Solicitor General was published in the Press:—

    477
    "I fully admit the force of what you say, as to the necessity of maintaining an active protest against the Eastbourne Act in order to have any chance of getting it repealed."
    (Irish Nationalist cheers.) I quite understand those cheers from the Irish benches. I think hon. Members have a perfect right to cheer such a sentiment as that from their point of view. Then the Solicitor General goes on to say—
    "I personally should be glad to help in securing the repeal, on the grounds I have before stated."
    I do not know what the grounds are. What does my hon. and learned Friend mean by "maintaining an active protest?" Anything from arguments to blackthorns? Some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite may have been shut up inside Tullamore for inciting persons to break the law, and not using stronger language than that used by the Solicitor General. If my hon. and learned Friend, in some other capacity, had been found in Ireland making such an observation, do you think he would not have got into difficulty with the late Chief Secretary for Ireland? But that is not all. We have an interesting correspondence between another hon. and learned Queen's Counsel, my hon. Friend the Member for Asbton (Mr. Addison), who writes to the Solicitor General for advice, and the Solicitor General writes him a long letter of advice, in which he says—
    "I hope you will help to repeal this exceptional law. The right of public meeting and the right of public procession are so important that I view with jealousy any attempt to limit these rights."
    Then this other learned Q.C. writes to the editor of his paper, the Manchester Courier, to this effect—
    "I will not add more because I enclose a letter from the Solicitor General which puts the matter powerfully and concisely, and serves to show what is being done."
    I have always had great respect for learned Q.C.'s, and I have still respect for them, but after this my respect will not be of the same kind as it was; and I rather think the naval view of the Q.C. is a very sound one. Though we admire them in the abstract we rather think Q.C. stands for "Queer Customer." The right hon. Gentleman opposite made a statement that Justice
    478
    Hawkins had condemned the action of the Local Authority of Eastbourne. Judge Hawkins did nothing of the kind. I have his Judgment here, and it goes entirely against the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman, for it strongly supports the Mayor of Eastbourne, the Local Authority, and the police. What does he say in summing up?—
    "The facts in this case lie in a very narrow compass. It is only fair to say that, as regarded the police, nothing has been brought forward to justify me in saying that they had not to the best of their ability properly discharged the duties imposed upon them. The Mayor also appeared to have done all he could. It was he doubt to be regretted that the police had not at their disposal a sufficient force to put down and disperse a meeting of irresponsible men gathered together to make an attack on others who were doing no harm. He gave the Salvation Army credit for honesty and sincerity in the discharge of their duty; but the Salvation Army, like all other people, must be bound by the existing law."
    If they had been bound by the existing law not one of these troubles would have risen, not a single scene of violence would have occurred. How can the right hon. Gentleman stand by the Salvation Army and Mr. Booth when they deliberately break the law? Persons in various positions in life subscribed liberally to Mr. Booth in Eastbourne. One gentleman, I am told, actually gave £200 on the condition that the Salvation Army were to observe the law. They built their citadel; they never brought out their bands on Sunday for a long time; and the loeal leaders never would have brought out their band if they had been left alone by the leaders in London. Is there any other religious Nonconformist Body under the dominion of one man? Is the right hon. Gentleman a believer in one man rule in religious life? If he believes in one man rule in political life it is more than I do. Mr. Booth sends down his order, and the band is brought out at Eastbourne, and then the row commences. Let Mr. Booth obey the law and there will be no disturbance. Mr. Justice Hawkins says—
    "Whatever might be the verdict of the jury, whether it was for or against the defendants, no one would understand by it that it could or would sanction disobedience to the law existing. It could not be too often proclaimed that while the law was known and was in existence, however much it might be disliked, it must be obeyed; and if there was

    479
    a grievance, or a supposed grievance, legitimate Steps must be taken to obtain a repeal of the Act."
    What becomes, then, of the accusation that the Mayor and the Corporation were condemned by the Judge? They were praised by the Judge, and it is not fair of the hon. Gentleman to make such an accusation unless he is sure of his facts. I am much obliged to Mr. Justice Hawkins for vindicating the Mayor and the Local Authority, and he did it much more admirably than a humble sailor like myself. I think it rather hard that I should have to stand up and be wounded in the house of my friends. Now a word to those who are friends of the Unionist cause. The Unionist cause rests upon law. That is what we have been fighting for all along. No wonder right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are against this law. I have noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite are often on the side of the law breakers and lawlessness, notably in the discussion on Mitchelstown and the riots in Trafalgar Square. All the rioters were defended by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was us, the Unionists, who were on the side of law, but now some of my friends are in favour of lawlessness and the law breakers. I also appeal to gentlemen identified with Local Option. Is Local Option to apply only to liquor? Here is Local Option in its best sense. If logic is to have any influence upon the minds of men, I appeal to their understanding. Can they vote against Local Option in its best form? I notice, on this very question of local control, that the Prime Minister, in a memorable speech in 1888 at Carnarvon—the words of which I may paraphrase—the Prime Minister said: "I have thought for many years that the soundest method of dealing with this controversy is to allow each locality to decide for itself whether it will close public-houses or whether it will not. This is agreeable to an obvious principle of liberty, and it has also this advantage over closing them by Act of Parliament, if you do not like what you have done you can go back."
    An hon. MEMBER: Home Rule.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Yes, I have no objection to Home Rule in that form. I am anxious that the right hon. Gen-
    480
    tleman, who is a Local Optionist and a Home Ruler, should be consistent. I am sorry to trouble the House at such length, but we are in for a big fight on this question. Everything has been done by the Local Authority which possibly could be done to bring about peace, and to induce Mr. Booth to conform to the law. Mr. Justice Hawkins suggested a compromise at the first trial and Mr. Booth's counsel accepted the proposal. The Mayor said he would do his best to see whether it could be carried out. Very properly the Mayor took the people into his confidence. And the Watch Committee of the Town Council decided that it would not be fair to give the Salvation Army leave to use certain streets in the east end of the town without consulting the ratepayers in the locality. A requisition had also been presented to Mr. Booth signed by clergymen of all denominations asking him to suspend the procession with bands, if only for two Sundays, in the hope that peace might be restored. But this Dictator—and religious Dictators were the worst of all—would have none of it. The Corporation, as I have said, refused to give the Salvation Army permission to break the law without consulting the ratepayers. Therefore they sent out voting papers—"Are you in favour of any compromise as to the Sunday processions?" The answers from the district marked out as that which would, be used by the Salvationists showed that only 47 out of the 298 were in favour of a compromise. The number of votes1 against was 224. If after that the Corporation had allowed the processions: in the east end of the town they would only have brought about worse riots and disturbances. Now we come to another test of public opinion. The Mayor and Corporation summoned a public meeting to consider whether the town should spend money in opposing this Bill. By an enormous majority the Town Council were instructed to oppose the Bill. The minority demanded a poll, and the result is very remarkable: 4,692 voting papers were issued and 4,284 were collected by the police. The result of the poll showed 5,331 votes in favour of the resolution to oppose the Bill and 738 against.

    481
    The number of persons in favour of the resolution was 3,257 and the number against 470. Another objection which very clever men have addressed to me when I asked their support on this matter was, why should Eastbourne have an exceptional law? Eastbourne has no exceptional law. The Local Authority have endeavoured by means of the Municipal Corporations' assistance to find out how many towns and Local Authorities have a similar or identical law; and there are no less than 36 large towns and Local Authorities which have a similar or the same law. In order to mark their sympathy with Eastbourne it has also been ascertained that 187 other Local Authorities in England are in favour of such a law if they can obtain it. The whole of Scotland has a more severe law. Why does not Mr. Booth go to Glasgow and play his bands on Sunday? Let him try this action in Scotland; let him act in an equal way in all towns; but I suppose he is too wise a man to do that. He does not want to outrage Scotch feeling and Scotch opinion. The whole of Scotland has got a more severe law than the present law; and I have a decision here of a Scotch Judge on this very point where a conviction was obtained, but I need not read it. The number of towns that have got this law is a large one. I will mention a few:—Liverpool, Reading, St. Albans, Birkenhead, Birmingham, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Leicester, Shrewsbury, Chatham, Portsmouth, Manchester, Tunbridge Wells, Hereford, Sheffield, Chester, Ramsgate, and many more, and 187 Local Authorities, as I have said, are in full sympathy with Eastbourne in this matter. I have here the reply of the Town Clerk of Birmingham—I was very anxious to get the support of the Members for Birmingham. (Laughter.) You would like to get it too, if you could. But to refer to the opinion of the Local Authorities for a moment, this was the question put to them—
    "Do you approve of the principle contained in the section of the Local Act as a provision for the good government of the town? Would you be prepared to support a Bill making the provision applicable where the Town Council adopted the Act?"
    482
    The answer in reply to that question was in the affirmative from all those towns quoted, thirty-six in number. From Birmingham the answer is somewhat different. It says:—
    "We inserted a clause, above quoted, in our Local Act because we thought it a necessary provision for the good government of the town."
    Will the right ton. Gentleman bring in a Bill to repeal this clause which they enjoy in Birmingham?
    An hon. MEMBER: It is not the same clause.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: It says:—"We inserted the clause"—I am quoting the Town Clerk's answer. I cannot guarantee whether it is correct or not; but I believe him to be an honourable man—
    "We inserted the clause above quoted in our Local Act because we thought it a necessary provision for the good government of the town. I think every town considers it is a serious matter for itself, and a good deal depends on the discretion with which such a provision is enforced."
    If you grant every town a special power you must accept the manner in which they use that power. ("No!") Then you would be passing Acts and repealing them next day. But I was speaking of Scotland. In Scotland all the burghs have got the same law or a more severe law; and of the burghs in Scotland 29 in number are in favour of the provision in the Local Act, and not one against it, and only four remain neutral. Will the Scotch Members give me their support or vote with the right hon. Gentleman for the repeal of the clause? I know I have a wall of prejudice to beat down. I cannot hope to beat that wall in every case, but as I said to a number of hon. Members, if they retain an open mind on this question, I hope to convince some that it would be unfair and unjust to repeal this clause simply at the bidding of a Dictator at the head of an organisation in London. Some hon. Members have already prejudged the case. Now, I do not like hon. Members to prejudge a case; but if they are all so clever as to prejudge a case, I cannot possibly hope to convince them. But it is a remarkable thing that most of the hon. Members who prejudge a case are lawyers, not laymen. One of them is the son of

    483
    the Chief Justice of England. I should state that the Mayor of Eastbourne addressed a circular letter to every Member of Parliament, asking them if 'they professed an open mind to suspend their judgment. A copy of this letter was addressed to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield, who, I believe, is a son of the Chief Justice of England, and this was his reply, which was published in the papers:—
    "The letter of the Mayor of Eastbourne, asking Members of Parliament to suspend their judgment on the proposal to repeal the now notorious Section until," quoting the circular, "the authorities have had an Opportunity of placing before you their views on the question."
    The hon. Member goes on to say—
    "You ask me to suspend my judgment with regard to the conduct of Eastbourne towards the Salvation Army. I shall do nothing of the kind."
    The hon. Member, I presume, has the very reasonable ambition that he should some day sit as a Judge on the seat of justice. If he has not an open mind on this matter, how can he be expected to adorn the Bench later on, in company with the hon. Member for Ashton and others? No doubt the Solicitor General for England hopes to be Lord Chancellor some day, and if he prejudges such a small matter as this, how can he be expected to have an open mind as regards larger questions? As I have said, I have been wounded in the house of my friends. This letter has caused much mischief in Eastbourne. I did my best to minimise it. I told my good people in Eastbourne it was only his private opinion, worth no more than mine. Of course, I admit it would be worth a great deal more on a matter of law. When Mr. Booth returned from Australia, why there were special steamers sent to meet him, and special trains. Nelson, returning from Trafalgar, could not have had a better reception. And he made a speech in Southampton afterwards, in reference to which the Times said:—
    "The General is reported to have indulged in something like a threat, in his speech at Southampton, that if the law at Eastbourne was not altered to suit him, he would defy it. He is stated to have said that if the Local Act to which he objects were not repealed, it would not be for the peace and quiet of Eastbourne."
    484
    Is this the map you are going to support? He defies, all law, and wants the law repealed for his own sake. Some day, perhaps he wall come down to the House and ask Parliament to pass a law in his favour.
    "Possibly," it continues, "he might meet any attempts to restrain his operations elsewhere in a similar spirit, but he is too shrewd a man not to know in his heart that bluster of that kind docs not pay. The people of England are pre-eminently law abiding, and they will be slow to believe in the worth of a creed which, under any pretext, bids them assume an attitude of disobedience and defiance to the powers that be."
    The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) says Eastbourne is a pleasure town, and left us to infer that the people there occupied their time with pleasure. Well, I admit it is a pleasure town, and a residential town, and I venture to think that many hon. Members who work hard would improve their health by going there. I think the right hon. Gentleman was not very wise if he meant to impute the slightest—
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I read the order made by the Select Committee on the Bill, and said they inserted a clause dealing with pleasure traffic, and I asked the House whether a procession of the Salvation Army was pleasure traffic.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Eastbourne is a residential town, and it dislikes these Sunday bands, and by its present, law desires to put a stop to them. It wishes to have no controversy, no trouble of this kind with the Salvation Army. And I desire to recognise all the good that it is doing and endeavouring to do, although I do not like the methods adopted in carrying out that work. But it is a lamentable thing that Mr. Booth should insist upon defying the law and upon acting, as I venture to say, contrary to the faith which he is supposed to teach. I ask, would any other religious body in England defy the local law anywhere? Would Mr. Spurgeon, that distinguished Nonconformist who has gone to his account, do as Mr. Booth is doing in Eastbourne? The right hon. Gentleman knows he would not. Would the ministers of the great Wesley an body do it? He knows they would not. All the religious bodies

    485
    are watching the action of this House to-day; and I ask it to be just and fair in this matter. The Roman Catholics, of whom we ought to speak with respect—they live amongst us, and a great body of them live in Ireland—their bands are suppressed. The Roman Catholics in this country rest under a very severe law. We prohibit their processions through the streets; we prohibit the clergy of that persuasion from even wearing canonicals, except in places of worship and private houses. We know very well that if we permitted them to go in procession through the streets the things which they hold sacred would call forth the worst passions of the mob. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 these prohibitions were carefully retained by Parliament. This is a serious matter. We cannot legislate in favour of one religious body, and leave others outside the pale. As to what has been said about the Mayor and the Local Authority, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have been to Eastbourne of late, or he would have known that there is no more popular matt in Eastbourne than the Mayor. He is so popular that the people of Eastbourne have decided to present him with a testimonial on account of his services. Over 2,000 persons have subscribed towards the fund, which at present amounts to over £600. Mr. Booth is a very powerful man, and I am not sure that he will not be a danger to some of us later on. But I wonder he does not take example from the Highest Authority, and follow in the footsteps of the Apostles, who were bidden by the Great Master, if a town did not receive them, to shake the dust off their feet and depart out of that city. As I have said, we have all denominations represented in Eastbourne. Even the National Church of Scotland is represented by a very efficient member.—(No!)—All denominations have free scope with us in Eastbourne. Scotland is represented. ("No!") Well, I do not know what you mean then. I recollect that, not many years ago, I have seen some of the clergy of the Church of England shut up in prison, because they did not obey the law as laid down by
    486
    the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They did not come whining to this House, asking to have the law repealed, but cheerfully accepted their imprisonment. I was sorry to see them going to prison, but every person felt that they brought their fate upon themselves. Are the clergy of the Church of England to be imprisoned because they break the law, and Mr. Booth allowed to come to the House and agitate to get the law repealed, because, he does not like the law? I wish to read one extract from an authority that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will appreciate, Sir Henry Maine, on Popular Government. In the second essay, on the Nature of Democracies, Sir Henry Maine says—
    "If any Government should be tempted to neglect even for a moment its function of compelling obedience to law—if a Democracy, for example, were to allow a portion of the multitudes of which it consists to set some law at defiance which it happens to dislike—it would be guilty of a crime which hardly any other virtue could redeem, and which century upon century might fail to repair."
    I venture to make an appeal to the House to put aside prejudice. We all deplore the riots. Who was responsible for them? Not the inhabitants, but the men who disobeyed the law—the men who deride the law and execrate the law. This is the best form of Local Option; and I challenge any man, who puts aside prejudice and personal feeling, he cannot fail to vote against this Bill and support those who are endeavouring to do their duty. I beg to move that this Bill be read this day six months.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I rise to second the Resolution. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that in the case of Hastings, when the Hastings Bill came before the Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, in 1885, the Committee divided upon the question; three gentlemen voted on one side, and one on the other. All the Members that voted for that clause were Members of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. This is simply a historical point. I believe the right hon. Gentleman imputes to us—
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I imputed no motive.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I know he did not. I think it right to point out that the Local Authority of Hastings represented to us that they were in favour of this special provision. I have a very distinct recollection that this matter on that occasion was put before us with very considerable minuteness of particularity, and we took care to ascertain the feeling of the locality and not to act unless we were acting in accordance with the expressed opinions of the Local Authority. Then Eastbourne came before us in the same Session, and here again we took particular pains to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants and to act accordingly. As I understand it, the Salvation Army processions are not prohibited unless they are accompanied by bands of music. In that small compass lies the whole of this vexed question. The majority of the inhabitants of Eastbourne are as much opposed to bands of music accompanying processions now as they were in the year we passed the clause. Although I do not wish to go so far as to say that the Committee reported with all the particularity with which we reported in the case of Hastings, I cannot admit, and it is not right to say that this Clause in the case of Eastbourne was smuggled through Parliament. The only remaining argument is as to the present condition of things, and on that point I should like to read to the House a letter which I have received from a member of the University of Oxford. He says—
    "I see that the subject of Eastbourne and the Salvation Army riots will come before the House in a few days, and I hope you will not think me very officious if I (as one who has spent three or four months every year for the last nine years in Eastbourne) put before you some points that ought to be presented to the House. The element of religious principle has long disappeared from this painful controversy. On one side are the Army, who persistently attempt every Sunday to break what they know to be the existing law by marching with music through the (once so peaceful) streets of Eastbourne. Their plea is that the law they try to break was passed in some unfair way, that is, they assert the principle that if you disapprove of a law you are justified in breaking it—a principle that,
    488
    of accepted, would simply do away with all our laws. And they advance the monstrous plea that all this noise is necessary to Christianity. On the other side are also lawbreakers (for their main object is to smash these illegal drums and trumpets), the roughs of the place, who enjoy the whole thing as much as undergraduates enjoy a 'town and gown' row. For a wonder they are on the side of law, and cheer the police, but the blasphemous parodies of sacred words which they yell about the place tends to destroy all feeling of reverence in the youth of the place. The gross absurdity is committed every Sunday of the Army openly going forth to break the law, claiming the protection of the police, and actually getting it. It is as if a burglar, in the act of robbing a house, should call on the police to protect him against the assaults of the owner of the house. The main point I wish to urge is that whether it is or is not desirable that the local Act empowering the Eastbourne Town Council to forbid Sunday bands should be repealed, to do it just now could not, certainly, be interpreted otherwise than as an encouragement to lawbreakers. The householders of Eastbourne are, I believe, almost unanimous in their wish that the existing law shall be maintained."
    Now, Sir, it is in the name of religion that all this has occurred. If these people were truly religious would not they have refrained from having those demonstrations with musical accompaniment so long as the law was against them? They could preach what they liked, have as many processions as they liked, so long as they did not have bands of music, and I should like to ask whether it is contended that music is necessary to make their views effectual. Sir, whatever may be the merits of this case, I trust the House, as a whole, will not now pass this Bill, because it will be a direct encouragement to persons, when their convenience is interfered with by any law, to break that law, and then to come to Parliament and ask that it should be repealed. I beg to second the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Admiral Field.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE,): Mr. Speaker, after the references that have been made to me and to the letters that I have written upon this

    489
    subject, the House will think it only fair that I should, with a brevity appropriate to the occasion, say something on the controversy that has been brought before the House. The speech that has just been delivered by my hon. Friend has afforded two contributions to the discussion. The hon. Gentleman objects to a phrase which I was not aware had been used in those terms by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—the phrase that this clause had been smuggled through the House. I do not think it is quite fair to the Committee that they should be charged with smuggling the clause through the House, but the unfortunate thing is that when that Committee came to make a Report, having altered the decision arrived at in previous cases, they did not call the specific attention of the House to that alteration; and those who knew that in the earlier case of Brighton the Committee had acted upon a principle which they had definitely and clearly expressed might reasonably hope that they would not cover a departure from that principle by such a casual reference as was made in their Report on this Bill. I think it is fair to say that, without at the same time passing any censure on the Committee. Now, Sir, there is another observation I should like to make; it always seems to me that the argument of inconsistency is the weakest argument in the world. It has been said that if you are in favour of Local Option, you ought not to be in favour of this Bill. If my hon. Friend behind me were in favour of Local Option, and having that principle in his mind were urging its acceptance, I could understand the weight of the argument; but that those against Local Option should refuse to vote for this Bill because their opponents will be inconsistent if they support it is not to my mind a very rational mode of proceeding. Now, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne has made a good-humoured attack upon me, and I will only say of his speech that he has done his duty like a man. I am sorry to have been warned off the platform of Eastbourne, and I think it is unfair and inconsistent on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend. He objected
    490
    to my assisting a friend of mine by expressing an opinion for publication, whilst he says he would gladly have had my assistance to commend him to the people of his borough. He said he intended—the right hon. Gentleman opposite having introduced an utterly irrelevant matter—to say nothing that was not absolutely relevant. I do not think he kept his word. There were matters in his speech not so relevant as the manner in which this clause was put upon the Statute Book. It got there without any discussion, and without the knowledge of the House, and that alone, entitles the House to deal with it as if it were a fresh subject altogether. Now, Sir, I have not taken part in this controversy because of any special sympathy with the work or methods of the Salvation Army, but I do not disavow sympathy with that great organisation in the work it has been doing in this country, and I desire to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said in that matter. Anyone who knows anything of the work of the Salvation Army knows this cardinal fact, that every one of the hundreds of thousands of persons who join it becomes an abstainer from all intoxicants, and also, which often involves a greater self-denial, an abstainer from the use of tobacco in any form; and anyone knowing that, can realise the extraordinary importance and value of this religious organisation. It is the only organisation, so far as I know, which the world has ever seen which makes the only test of membership personal purity and holiness of life, and not a religious creed. But the merits or demerits of the Salvation Army are not the most material questions in this case. I look at the matter on another ground. I do not think we should give to each locality power to do just as it pleases with the lives and the conduct of the minority in that locality. Parliament should insist upon definite limits being assigned to the powers of local authorities, and in the Municipal Corporations Act Parliament did impose definite and limited powers on Municipal Corporations. If it could be shown that the Salvation Army processions constituted an interference with the convenience

    491
    and comfort of the lives of the people of Eastbourne, then the Corporation of Eastbourne could make a bye-law and put it into force to control their processions. Every Municipal Corporation in the country has that right, and it has probably been, the exercise of that right by many Corporations which misled my hon. and gallant Friend when he said that there were 36 towns in this country which have a law similar to that obtaining in Eastbourne. My hon. and gallant Friend is entirely mistaken. There are two towns, Carlisle and Reading, which have such a law in a qualified form, one being the form that the Mayor has a right to prohibit any procession from passing. With regard to other towns, if they have made any bye-law in the terms of the clause which it is now proposed to repeal, it is a bad one and would be set aside by any Court of Law. But I am quite sure there has been some misunderstanding, though the bye-law, which was not read, would have cleared up a difficulty. I look at this matter very much from the point of view of the right of public meeting and public processions. I have always held and I hold strongly now the belief that the right of public meeting and the right of public procession, which is another form of the exercise of that right, are two cardinal and invaluable rights, rights so invaluable that Parliament should not allow them to be tampered with at all by any local regulation, but should insist on dealing with them here openly and in the face of the country. It is for that reason mainly that I have interested myself in this question. Now, Sir, an attack has been made upon me, good humouredly I admit, for the letter which was written by me to, one of the officers of the Salvation Army; and with my full consent printed in the newspapers. Now, what did I Say—
    "I feel the force of what you say as to the necessity of maintaining an active protest against the Eastbourne Act, in order to have any chance of getting it repealed."
    In previous communications, with my correspondent I had expressed my views, and he pointed out to me that if the Salvation Army were to stop within its
    492
    barracks, or discontinue its processions with music, no notice would be taken of it at all, and it would be perfectly hopeless for them to come to Parliament and endeavour to get the law repealed. But, Sir, the Salvation Army has never resisted the enforcement of the law; it has done something which is entirely different. Believing that there existed in Eastbourne an exceptional rule of limited application, which had been brought into force, without the knowledge and sanction of Parliament, the controllers of the Salvation Army determined that on each Sunday there should be a violation of that rule by some of its members. Having violated the rules, they at once yielded to the authorities and were prepared to suffer any punishment that might be inflicted. It was represented to me that they felt it an absolute duty to maintain their protest in the only way they could, by committing a breach of the law and suffering, without remonstrance or complaint, the penalty that was imposed. I could not say in answer that I thought there was no force in their contention. If they had given that up there would have been no hope of getting this clause repealed. The hon. and gallant Member drew a contrast at the end of his speech between the conduct he imputed to the Salvation Army and the action he described as having been followed by the clergymen of the Church of England who were sent to prison for violating the law. But, Sir, those clergymen did precisely the same thing as the Salvation Army; absolutely the same thing. The object of their knowingly breaking what had been declared to be the law was that their sufferings and the punishment following the infringement might attract the attention of the country and obtain the intervention of Parliament. It was not necessary for me to discuss that question with my correspondent, but I did, and do, admit the necessity of maintaining an active protest. Now, Sir, I only rose to say a few words, my desire being to have an opportunity from my place in this House of maintaining the opinions that I have expressed elsewhere, but I should like, before sitting down, to refer to some instances in

    493
    point which the House ought to consider. It is said that there are local circumstances at Easthourne which make it important to maintain this Clause. We have two examples: one is the case of Torquay. In Torquay, unhappily, the same rule was set up, and immediately there began scenes of confusion and disorder of the most painful kind. Fortunately Parliament repealed the clause, and since then there has not been the smallest difficulty in Torquay between the Local Authorities and the Salvation Army. There has not been the slightest nuisance, and it is by a Member representing a Division near Torquay that the Bill now before the House has been seconded. There is another instance. I was in the habit some years ago of spending some time every Autumn at Folkestone. At Folkestone there was no law such as that we are now discussing. There was set up at Folkestone an organisation which, I am sorry to say, has received some sanction from the gentleman who is now Mayor of Eastbourne, and which called itself the Skeleton Army, which met every Sunday evening and harassed the processions of the Salvation Army, and most serious riots took place. The Magistrates did their duty. The offenders, some of them young lads, were sent to gaol for from four to six months, arising from committing assaults upon the Salvation Army. Their only desire was to get into a row. But what was the result of these convictions? Why, that the annoyance absolutely stopped. If anyone goes to Folkestone he will find the Salvation Army processions passing along the Lees, and along the road running parallel at the back, in the afternoon, and through the main streets in the evening. Nobody hears their music for more than two or three minutes, and most of those who do hear it like it. ("Oh!") Yes, they do. Hon. Members must not judge everybody's taste by their own refined and delicate taste. No one hears it for more than two or three minutes. There is no nuisance to anybody. The Salvation Army is doing its work in its own way, and there is no interference with the comfort of the inhabitants of Folkestone. I support as strenuously as I
    494
    can this Bill for the repeal of this clause, and what I am hoping for is not only the assertion of a definite principle in regard to Parliamentary action in this matter, but I also hope the repeal of this clause will bring the speedy restoration of that quiet for which Eastbourne is longing.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: Sir, I fully admit that we are dealing with a very grave subject, which ought to be treated with consideration, and as a matter of principle. The question has been raised as to the extent to which a locality should have the right to deal with local subjects. I fully recognise that localities should have absolute power to determine purely local matters. In respect, however, to the Bill now before the House, I would ask the House to consider whether the question is now a local one. We unfortunately every Monday morning during the past year have had to read in the newspapers of a renewal of disturbances at Eastbourne on Sundays. We have had to read that assaults have been committed by one body of the community upon another, and we have had to recognise that, while in this country the law is definite, there is no power in the Local Authority properly to assert that law; therefore, Sir, it is not Eastbourne alone, but it is the country generally, which is standing upon its trial. After a trial of twelve months the Local Authority has proved itself unable to maintain the peace, and it is impossible that the state of things existing at Eastbourne can be allowed to continue. What should be done? At any rate, Parliament has a right to proclaim that the time has come for its judgment to be taken. There is one principle upon which the hon. and gallant Gentleman relied in his able speech. He appealed to many of us when he said it is a dangerous precedent to allow a law to be repealed by the action of those who have been breaking that law. That argument received the approval of those who think it contains the expression of a great principle; but let the House consider the circumstances of the case at Eastbourne, and see how far that principle can be maintained. When there is a conflict between men who

    495
    are breaking the law, and those who are maintaining the law, it is generally found that law and authority are ranged against the evil-doers who are breaking the law. But what is the condition of things now existing at Eastbourne? You have a law which it is now sought to repeal, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "I will maintain that law, because those who seek to repeal it have been engaged in contesting and violating it. But, Sir, I am told that for twelve months there has been no attempt to enforce that law. In July proceedings were taken, not under this statute, but at Common Law, for the Law of Conspiracy. The conflict, therefore, is not between the law-breakers and those who have a law which they do not enforce, but between the law-breakers—if you call them so—and the men who, having power to enforce the law, yet do not do so. What is Parliament to do? Parliament has to recognise that there are law-breakers besides those who constituted the Salvation Army. For twelve months there have assembled every Sunday a great number of men acting in absolute defiance of the law, and yet, unfortunately, within the shadow of it. That mob received some moral shadow of justification for its conduct, because it is said there is the section of the Local Act which is broken by the Salvationists. But has the hon. and gallant Gentleman nothing to say to the maintenance of the law against those law-breakers who use violence, and almost place life in danger—
    ADMIRAL FIELD: There have been a number of prosecutions against that crowd.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: Be it so, but notwithstanding those prosecutions this state of things continued. In these circumstances let moderate men who sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Friend) ask themselves this question—What must be done? Does my hon. and gallant Friend wish things to remain as they are?
    ADMIRAL FIELD: No.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: Then what is the remedy he proposes?
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Stop the bands.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his remark.
    496
    Does he wish the bands to cease by virtue of maintaining that local Act? You have had that Act during the last twelve months and have not been able to cause the bands to cease. You have such a zealous Local Authority, supported by public opinion, and backed up as they are, and during the last twelve months they have failed to suppress these disturbances. This disorder is now increasing instead of diminishing, and it seems to me that some active steps must be taken by the Legislature if we are to stop the bands. You have no power to stop the bands unless you take some step. What is the best course to take? I think it is one of conciliation, and so long as this Statute remains in force, unrepealed and unaffected, I do not think this feeling of conciliation is likely to arise. If the Statute should be repealed in accordance with the Bill, the Municipal Authority of Eastbourne will be in a different position from the present. It will have the power of regulating everything short of prohibiting the music; it will have power to regulate the extent to which the music may be played on Sunday. I ask every one who desires to see peace whether they are not in favour of conciliation? There are two distinguished persons—one of them the Duke of Devonshire and the other my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampten (Mr. H. H. Fowler)—in regard to whom I may say that if they would endeavour to deal with this matter in a spirit of conciliation there would be no difficulty in arriving at a decision. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he would not agree to the music of the Salvation Army being played under regulations, so that they might have the right at some time, in some part of Eastbourne, to play their music? By passing this Bill you will be enabled to tell the Local Authority of Eastbourne that there are conditions under which their power can be exercised, and by which they can regulate the extent to which this playing should take place. Refuse to repeal this present Act, leave it as it is, and the conditions of the past twelve months must continue, we shall witness again the scenes which have been referred to in an intensified degree. And in regard to the observa-

    497
    tion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, "Stop the bands!" you cannot stop them except by force, and, if you do that, scenes of violence will occur. Unless, therefore, this Bill comes into force, and the Municipal Authority of Eastbourne regulates the extent to which this music should be allowed, they will not be able to remove that which we all wish to see removed—a state of things which is a disgrace not only to Eastbourne, but to the whole country.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I rise only for the purpose of saying that the Government see no reason, in regard to this Bill, to depart from what has been the almost invariable practice of Government in regard to Private Bills—namely, to remain absolutely neutral. I myself shall offer only my own personal opinion just as the Solicitor General has expressed his. I would rather say nothing about the work of the Salvation Army, its merits or demerits. I would still more wish to avoid that very critical and burning question of "active protest" about which there might be a great deal to be said. I must express my strong disapproval of protests which take the shape of disobedience to the law. I cannot help feeling that that is a most disturbing topic to have introduced into this Bill. That disturbing topic I will endeavour to shut out of my mind, and not allow it to influence my judgment on the Bill. The reason why I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill is that I have uniformly protested before the Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations against any enactment which alters for a particular locality what I may call the general Criminal Law of the country. That seems to me a principle of very great importance. I was not in office when the Eastbourne Act was passed, but in all the other cases I know of the same course was pursued. The only other precedents are Torquay, Carlisle, Hastings, Reading, Darwen, and Lancaster. In all these cases my action was uniform; I urged the Committee not to introduce into a Private Bill anything that would alter the Criminal
    498
    Law of the country and so make acts unlawful in one place which would be lawful in another. Any change of that kind ought only to be made after full consideration by Parliament itself, and not by a Committee. That contention was successful in all cases but four—namely, Hastings, Eastbourne, Carlisle, and Reading. And in the last two cases the clauses adopted were somewhat different. They enabled the Mayor of the city to prohibit processions on Sunday if he thought fit. The Committee departed from ordinary precedents in introducing those exceptional clauses. I wish to add that I can conceive possible cases in which a special law ought to be made; but for these special cases, certainly, overwhelming evidence of exceptional circumstances in the particular locality ought to be given before exceptional legislation of any sort is adopted. I am bound to say, examining the proceedings of the Committee, it does not seem to me that the evidence before them did warrant exceptional legislation in Eastbourne, and I therefore thought it was an unfortunate and ill-advised step to insert this clause. I believe my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) and the inhabitants of Eastbourne can get all they can legitimately desire under the powers of the Municipal Corporation Act by bye-laws: they can prevent processions by Salvationists or any other persons that are a nuisance to the inhabitants, and they ought not to desire more. I therefore endeavour to shut out of my mind all prejudice against one side or another, and I give my vote for this Bill on the simple grounds I have stated, and which seem to me sufficient grounds for taking that course. There are, of course, many considerations which arise connected with the circumstances of Eastbourne, but I think these considerations ought not to weigh with the House.
    MR. NORRIS: I will not make any apology for detaining the House even at this late period of the Debate, as, having been intimately associated with Eastbourne for many years, I think it necessary to say a few words on the subject, and I can assure the House I will be brief. There was a tendency

    499
    in the speech of the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) to call in question a decision of a Committee of this House. I was under the impression that whatever had been passed by a Committee in a previous Session had been submitted to, and authorised by, this House, and whatever departure from the usual course had been made by the Committee was duly sanctioned by the House, and I regret the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman as a bad and unfortunate precedent. With regard to the reference to Hastings. I know Hastings well, after a residence of 25 years, and I say it was never tried as Eastbourne has been in the matter of these unlawful processions with bands of music on Sundays. The Solicitor General argued that the Salvation Army was justified in the course they had taken, and that they never resisted the enforcement of the law, but everyone knows that it was owing to the enforcement of the law that these disturbances occurred. My own view is that the Municipal Authorities deserve every credit for their endeavours to maintain peace and order by and with the authority of the law, and for their efforts to suppress disorder with a firm hand. Everyone is aware that Eastbourne is a health resort, and that invalids require quietude. I entirely endorse what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton with regard to the Salvation Army. I am a believer in the Salvation Army, and my only reason for speaking and voting against the Bill is the opposition of General Booth to the authorities at Eastbourne, and his open defiance of the law. The Bill of 1885 was framed, owing to disturbances caused by the Salvation Army at Worthing, and other towns in the county, and the same clause is in the Bill of the Hastings Corporation. Surely Eastbourne must be the best judge of its own affairs. On a poll of owners and ratepayers in the town, 3,257 voted in favour of opposition to the Bill before us, and only 470 against. This is purely a question of Local Self-Government, and I cannot understand any plea for outside interference. There was great sympathy with the Army when they first went to
    500
    Eastbourne, and many of the inhabitants gave liberally towards its support. The processions are objected to by the poor, in the East of the town, as well as, by the more wealthy classes—in fact, by the tradespeople and all alike. The opposition to this Bill comes from ministers of every denomination and religion, school superintendents and teachers of every grade, and all who are interested in the well-being of the place. The opposition is founded on legality and justice, and I earnestly beg hon. Members not to be led away by sentiment or feeling, but to support the law, and neither to surrender to "General" Booth, or the mob, under any pressure whatever in the circumstances.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY,): I would not have risen but for the speech of the Home Secretary, and I simply wish to express a little dissent from the view he has taken. He has recommended, as no doubt his predecessors have recommended, the Police and Sanitary Committee not to embody in the Bills submitted to their notice provisions in excess of the ordinary law. And he has expressed considerable jealousy of an increase of the Criminal Law. I think these words are not accurately adapted to describe perfectly such provisions as are now under discussion. Police regulations, in order to be effectual, must be connected with a penalty; but a police regulation connected with a penalty does not extend the Criminal Law even in a locality where that police regulation is brought into force. Now, the Police and Sanitary Committee exercised great caution in considering additions to the police regulations, which may be required in one district and not in another. I will explain why I am going to vote for this Bili. The particular regulation now under discussion does not appear to me one improper to be adopted on due cause shown. The due cause shown must be considered with reference to particular cases. The Police and Sanitary Committee paid great attention to this; they divided upon it, not in respect to the clauses in the Eastbourne Bill, but in respect to the clauses in the Hastings Bill, which was also considered. The

    501
    clause was introduced after all due notice, was voted upon, was considered by the Committee, and was adopted. It may be that the Committee did not call attention to it in their Report; but I must not be understood to admit that that is really a matter of substance rather than of form. No doubt they ought to have called attention to it. But how many hon. Members are there in this House who read the Reports of the Police and Sanitary Committee and are cognisant of what they do? I conceive the clause, in point of form, rightly adopted, and that it cannot be impugned as having been smuggled through Parliament. Now, I must admit that no clause could well be presented to the House with a greater command of local feeling. Why, then, send this to a Committee upstairs? A great deal depends upon the discretion with which the law is administered. It appears to me, from the evidence which one reads in the newspapers, and which comes before us in many ways—I recently spent a Sunday in Eastbourne and saw what was going on—that the ground for the disturbances is not the lawlessness of the Salvationists, but the lawlessness of the 'upholders of the law—lawlessness with which the Eastbourne Magistrates have shown themselves incapable of dealing. That is a grave statement to make, but it may be substantiated by a sufficient amount of trustworthy evidence. If it be true that the lawlessness of those who presume to uphold the law and take the work out of the hands of the Magistrates is of such a character that it cannot be endured, and if the Magistrates cannot keep that lawlessness under; then I confess there is a strong case for sending the Bill upstairs to see whether the clause of the Bill would work, or whether the Committee could adopt a reasonable working clause. The position is intolerable. The Eastbourne Magistrates are the law makers, and if they cannot be the law keepers, where are you to go?
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Not to the law breakers.
    MR. COURTNEY: The law breakers might not have prevailed if certain persons had not presumed to take the law into their hands and presented spectacles which it is impossible to endure.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 269; Noes 122.—(Div. List, No. 25.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  QUESTIONS.

    "CLUB" TRAINS AND "THE CHEAP TRAINS ACT."
    MR. LEVESON GOWER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the so-called "Club" trains between London and Dover, and the steamers run in connection therewith between Dover and Calais, which are advertised in the South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railway Companies' time tables as starting every day at fixed hours, are trains within the meaning of those Companies' Acts; and, if not, whether the fares charged by these trains and boats are illegal, as being considerably in excess of the maximum fares authorised by either of the Companies' Special Acts; and also whether he is aware that, whereas the French law entitles each railway passenger of all classes to 66 lbs. (30 kilos.) of luggage free of charge, and the Acts governing the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Companies entitle each first and second-class passenger to considerably greater free weight, each passenger via Boulogne or Calais to the interior of France is charged excess rates on all luggage over 56 lbs. in weight, and what legal justification there is for such charge being made; and whether, if he be satisfied of the illegality of these charges, he will consider the propriety of taking proceedings against the companies under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act 7 & 8 Vic., c. 65, commonly known as the Cheap Trains Act?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I have been in communication with the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies with regard to the matters referred to in the hon. Member's questions. I am informed by both com-

    503
    panies that the fares charged by the club trains are within their statutory powers. The trains are run under an arrangement with the International Sleeping Car Company, who provide saloon cars and attendants and render special services as regards registration and Customs examination of luggage, for which they make a charge. As regards the charge for baggage referred to by the hon. Member, the South Eastern Railway Company inform me that no charge is made for the conveyance by the club train of passengers' luggage unless it exceeds the weight and dimension specified in the Company's Acts. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company state that every passenger is allowed the full statutory weight of luggage free, when conveyed in the ordinary way unregistered; but that, for the registration to the Continent, conveyance between the train and steamer at Dover, conveyance between Dover and Calais, transhipment from the steamer to the train at Calais, and for other services incidental to through registration, the Company, in conjunction with the foreign Railway Companies, does, as a matter of special contract with the passengers for their convenience and at their option, provide special facilities in return for a fixed payment in respect of the excess in weight beyond 56 lbs.

    POACHING IN CORK HARBOUR.
    COLONEL WARING(for Mr. PENROSE FITZGERALD,): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the recent affrays in Cork Harbour between water bailiffs and poachers; whether he is aware that shots have been interchanged; and whether it is his intention, considering the grave danger to the public peace and to the lives of the inhabitants, to order the coastguard to patrol the river, and prevent this illegal fishing as they formerly did?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex,): The coastguard officer has reported that shots were fired, not at, but by, the water bailiffs of the River Lea on three occasions during the past month. The affrays occurred, however, a considerable distance
    504
    inland, and beyond the limits of the guards supplied by the coastguard station. The coastguard have received instruction to report any infraction of the Salmon Fishery Laws which they may observe, and they will co-operate so far as they can with the authorities who enforce these fishery regulations, but I am very doubtful if it would be expedient to take the coastguard away from the performance of their duties along the sea coast, in order to undertake police duties in inland or river waters.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: May I ask if the Government intend to prosecute the bailiffs who fired the shots?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: That is not a question which ought to be addressed to me.

    THE SECRETARY TO THE COUNTY LEITRIM GRAND JURY.
    MR. SEXTON(for Mr. T. M. HEALY,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the secretary to the County Leitrim Grand Jury has died since the introduction of the Local Government Bill; and whether the Government will suggest that the appointment of a successor should be suspended till that measure passes, or provide that it shall not apply to officers appointed since the Bill was brought in?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I am informed that the Grand Jury of County Leitrim filled the vacancy referred to, and the Government have no control over the action of the Grand Jury in regard to these appointments.

    THE HARBOUR AT CLOGHER HEAD.
    MR. SEXTON (for Mr. T. M. HEALY): I beg to ask the Secretary to-the Treasury will he explain why, although the Fishery Commissioners in 1885 granted £12,750 to erect a fishing harbour at Clogher Head, and the locality contributed £4,250, the Board of Works changed the plans and ordered the contractors to build a straight pier, as the Royal Commission had meantime recommended the place for a harbour of refuge; is he aware that

    505
    the pier was subsequently damaged by storms, costing an extra £7,000 to repair, and that, although a total of £25,950 has been spent on it, the harbour is practically useless to the fishermen except when the wind is due south, and is absolutely useless in an east, north-east, or north wind; that, to make it available in all weathers, it should be extended 300 feet into deep water, with a "bend" on it and a groin on the west side; is there any intention of acting on the Report of the Royal Commission and making the place a harbour of refuge; will the Board of Works do anything to make the money spent profitable, and after the repeated complaints about this Board, will the Government ask for the Report of an independent engineer?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): I am informed that the original plans were changed, and that the pier was carried further in a straight direction expressly in order not to prejudice the question of eventually making a harbour of refuge when funds are available. The damage done by storms cost £2,251, and not £7,000, to repair, and the total cost was £19,251, and not £25,950. My information does not confirm the accuracy of the other allegations contained in the question. The end of the pier is already in deep water. I am advised that with the addition of a "cant" 80 feet long at the end of the pier (which the Government intend to commence as soon as funds are available) the harbour may be considered a harbour of refuge. I see no grounds for consulting an independent engineer.
    MR. SEXTON: When will funds be available?
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

    COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it has now been definitely settled that the advantages which the United Kingdom derives under the Most - Favoured - Nation Clauses in the Treaties with Belgium and Germany extend also to all British Colonies and Possessions; and whether the reduced rates of duty
    506
    and facilities of transport, accorded to each other by the various Treat Powers under the recent Treaties negotiated in Central Europe, will also be accorded to all British Colonies and Dependencies?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Her Majesty's Government interpret the Treaties with Belgium and Germany to mean that the advantages derived by Great Britain under the Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses in them extend to all British Colonies and Possessions, and that the reduced rates of duty and facilities of transit (not transport) recently granted by Germany and by Belgium are given to British Colonies and Dependencies, under Great Britain's Treaties with those two countries1. From a statement which appeared in the Times a few days ago, I gather that this view has been acted upon by the German Government, but I have no official information on that point.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND THE PAYMENT OF RATES.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can now state when he expects to introduce a Bill for exempting elementary schools from the payment of rates?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The question has already been twice answered within a short time. The Government can make no statement as to the time when the Bill referred to will be introduced by my right hon. Friend; probably not till the Public Business is more advanced than at present.

    DISTRICT REGISTRY AT BELFAST.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the establishment of a Local District Registry for the issue of Writs of Summons at Belfast, whether he can state if any action has been yet taken in the matter?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I communicated to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, as I stated in answer to a former question. The matter can I only be dealt with by a majority of the Judges. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has the matter under consideration; but as most of the Judges are now on circuit, he has not hitherto been able to ascertain their views on the matter.
    MR. SEXTON: May I take it that the Lord Chancellor will ascertain their views?
    MR. MADDEN: Yes, Sir.

    THE SCARCITY IN MADRAS.
    MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been directed to an article in the Whitehall Review of the 5th March, 1892, which alleges that 94,229 deaths above the normal death rate have occurred in the famine areas in the Madras Presidency during the period of seven months from August, 1891, to February, 1892; whether the Secretary of State for India can give any explanation of the causes of this mortality; and whether any steps have been taken to obtain prompt statistics of the progress of mortality over the entire famine area in India, and to lay these statistics upon the Table of the House?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The Secretary of State has, seen the article. The total of deaths which it, gives is admittedly conjecture, being, calculated, on the assumption, that the death rate for August, 1891, given in my answer to the hon. Member last week, would remain the same in the affected districts till February, 1892, But while the Returns for the subsequent months—down to December which were the last received—exhibit a rise in five of the affected districts, there is a marked improvement in the other five. The cases of increased mortality are: Chingleput,
    508
    52 deaths in December per 1,000 of population against 35, in August. North Arcot, 39 against 30; South Arcot, 59 against 34; Salem, 38 against 23; Coimbatore, 41 against 27. On the other hand, the cases of decrease are: Bellary, 21 deaths in December per 1,000 against 49 in August; Kurnool, 22 against 59; Nellore, 19 against 27; Amantapur, 15 against 52; Cuddapah, 25 against 40. As regards the districts in which there has been an increase in the death rate, the Madras Government have explained that this is mainly due to cholera resulting from the low water supply and to other indirect results of the drought. It should also be remembered that there is a normal increase of mortality in September, November, and December of each year in India. The Secretary of State will lay on the Table a despatch just received from the Viceroy, which contains a review of the situation throughout India, and a forecast of the operations which will be necessary till the end of June when the rainy season sets in. The Secretary of State has asked for detailed monthly Reports in addition to the weekly telegrams, regarding the progress of relief and distress and also the statistics of mortality in the affected districts.
    MR. MACNEILL: I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to this subject.

    THE SLIGO AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.
    MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the result of the interview of a deputation to the Treasury consisting of Members of Parliament, gentlemen, and merchants of the towns of Sligo and Enniskillen, and railway directors, in August last, with suggestions for placing the Sligo and Northern Counties Railway on an independent footing; and whether the Treasury are prepared to adopt their suggestions; and, if not, whether they have any alternative scheme to propose?
    SIR JOHN GORST: The deputation having been received by my predecessor I am not aware of the details, but I am informed that the proposals made to him were not such as the Treasury would accept. I do not think it any part of my duty to propose an alternative scheme.

    THE EVICTIONS AT LETTERILLY.
    MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that no fewer than 12 families, tenants of Mr. Orr, in the townland of Letterilly, near Glenties, in county Donegal, have been decreed in ejectment processes with heavy costs, and are now about to be evicted from their holdings; and whether, having regard to the fact of the extreme poverty of these tenants, who promised severally before these ejectment proceedings to pay immediately the full rent for two years up to May, 1892, and were ready and willing to fulfil that promise, he will decline to allow Forces of the Crown to be employed in the eviction of these tenants?
    MR. JACKSON: I am informed that decrees have been issued for the ejectment of the tenants on the estate mentioned, but I have no official knowledge of the circumstances referred to in the second paragraph. The Government cannot undertake to withhold police protection from sheriffs and bailiffs in the due execution of the law.
    MR. MACNEILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if I am able to prove that the tenants here are willing to pay two years' rent and that it is a mere question of the costs of the land agent, he will consider the question of allowing the employment of the Forces of the Crown in the extermination of these poor people?
    MR. JACKSON: I am afraid, Sir, I am not fitted to act as arbitrator between the parties concerned.
    MR. MACNEILL: I must again press the right hon. Gentleman. Will he not allow the police of the town to be employed? It is in his option to do so. The President of the Board of Trade refused the use of the Forces of the Crown on similar occasions.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    MANUAL TRAINING IN SCHOOLS.
    MR. MATHER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any of the Public Elementary Board and voluntary schools in the country have established classes for manual training in accordance with the Regulations of the Code of 1890; and if any have done so, how many, and in what places; whether provision has been made by the Science and Art Department for the examination of such classes at the next ensuing annual examinations of elementary schools; and whether sufficient evidence has been supplied to the Department of the educational value of any classes that have been so formed, as to warrant the issue by the Department of a Circular to School Boards and the managers of voluntary schools throughout the country, urging upon them that they should at once form classes for manual training in every elementary school under their control?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,): I find that schools for manual training have been established in 213 schools, of which 115 are Board schools and 98 voluntary Schools. I can give the hon. Member a list of the places if he cares to have it. Provision is made for the examination of such classes on or about the same date as the annual examinations of the schools in drawing. Sixty-three classes were examined in the year ending 31st August, 1891. In twelve of these the instruction was reported to be excellent; and as good in the other 51 cases. The Minutes authorising grants for manual training was first published in June, 1890, and since that date Circulars giving full information on the subject have been from time to time issued to all schools in which boys are taught drawing, and the Department does not think that a further Circular is required urging the immediate foundation of classes for manual training in every elementary school throughout the country.

    THE ERECTION OF WEIRS AT KNOCK.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whose authority were the police engaged on Sunday, the 28th ultimo, in assisting a man named M'Auliffe, who holds an evicted farm at Knock, County Clare, to erect weirs; and will he take steps to prevent such employment of the police on Sunday?
    MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the police did not assist as alleged in the question; they only afforded personal protection to M'Auliffe.

    THE NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of submitting to Parliament an annual grant from Imperial Funds to the National Lifeboat Institution?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have received no intimation from the responsible committee of the National Lifeboat Institution that any pecuniary assistance is required from the Government, and I am averse to the interference of the Government in the management of any institution so long as its affairs are properly administered, and the voluntary support it receives is adequate for the purpose.

    THE RAISING OF A VOLUNTEER CORPS IN SHETLAND.
    MR. LYELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is correctly reported to have refused the request of the inhabitants of Lerwick to be allowed to raise there a corps of Rifles or Artillery Volunteers, on the ground that he would be unable to assign a definite post for its operations in the event of its mobilisation for Home defence; will he state whether any force has been assigned for the defence of the Shetland Islands; and, if so, what force; what is the destination of the Orkney Artillery Volunteers in the event of mobilisation; and whether he will re-consider his decision and permit the people of Shetland to maintain
    512
    one or more batteries of Artillery, and prove themselves as able to contribute to national self-defence as their neighbours?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): Any attack on Shetland would be met by naval defence, and in view of the heavy expenditure which has been incurred in the defence, by Land Forces, of more vulnerable places, it has not been considered advisable or necessary to establish Volunteer corps in Shetland.
    MR. LYELL: What is the case with regard to Orkney?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The same answer applies to that question, Sir.

    SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON:: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that page 590 of the Local Government Board's Annual Return (1890–91) only gives the number of officers under Local Authorities to whom superannuation allowances were awarded during the year, together with the total amount of these allowances, he will state what was the total amount of money expended during the year by the various classes of Local Authorities upon pensions and superannuation allowances; and whether he will agree to a Motion for a Return dealing with the matter?
    MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board have particulars of the superannuation allowances awarded by the Poor Law Authorities in each year, but they have no Return of the amounts actually paid by the Authorities in respect of pensions during the year. If the hon. Member will give notice as to the Return which he desires to move for, I will consider whether the Motion can be assented to.

    THE EX-SULTAN ABDULLAH OF PERAK.
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Ex-Sultan Abdullah of Perak has yet been transferred from the Seychelles to Singapore; and what has been the cause of the delay?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Abdullah and the other Malay exiles delayed their departure from the Seychelles to Singapore of their own accord, in order, as it is understood, to realise their property and arrange their private affairs; but they can set out, if they have not already done, so, whenever they please.

    MISSING VESSELS.
    SIR JOHN PULESTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House what number of vessels were reported missing in the last year for which accounts are available, and also the number of cases into which inquiry has been made?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: The number of British vessels reported missing in the last year for which accounts are available is 79. Inquiry was made by the Board of Trade officers in every case, but official inquiries were held in only seven cases. I have no reason to believe that an official inquiry could have been usefully held in any case in which it was not actually ordered.

    THE NATIONAL DEBT CONVERSION ACT, 1888.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £96,988,849 18s. 4d. Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consols, now held by the several Government Departments, as stated in Parliamentary Paper, No. 401, of the Session of 1891, and of the £34,625,777 15s. 11d. Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consols, recently held by the Court of Judicature, as stated in the same Return, was converted under the provisions of "The National Debt Conversion Act, 1888;" and, whether any commission was paid in respect of such conversion?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The whole of the Three per Cent. Stocks held by the Government Departments at the tune of the conversion, including the Stock held on Chancery account that had
    514
    been un-replaced by the Annuity created in 1883, were converted into Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consols under the Conversion Act of 1888, with the exception of a certain amount of Stock belonging to the Chancery suitors and the Savings Bank depositors, amounting in all to £6,376,000, for which assents to the conversion were not received, and which accordingly was paid off in money under the Redemption Act. The amount so converted did not, of course, correspond with the figure quoted by the right hon. Member, because that figure represents the amount of Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consols held by the Government Departments on 31st March last—three years subsequent to the conversion, during which period there have been many sales and purchases of Government Stocks. No commission was paid in respect of the Stock held by Government Departments which was converted, except as regards so much of the Stock belonging to Chancery suitors and converted as required the intervention of recognised agents.

    COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
    Mr. BUCHANAN(for Mr. WALLACE,): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the age of the officer in the sorting department of the Edinburgh post office, who retired at the end of last year after 49 years' service, and ten days afterwards resumed duty, was at the date in question considerably beyond 65 years; and if he will explain on what grounds it is held that this officer is not subject to the operation of the Order in Council of the 15th August 1890, by which it is ordered that "retirement shall be compulsory for every officer on attaining 65 years of age?"
    BARON H. DE WORMS (for Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have been asked to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend, who has just gone to see a deputation. The words quoted from the Order in Council appear in Section 10. But this section, like every other, is controlled by Section 1, which provides that the Order shall apply only to Civil servants drawing salaries or placed on scales of salary

    515
    in excess of those of the second division. The officer in Question was outside this condition.

    THE PIER AT BALLYBUNION.
    MR. STACK;: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have received a statement and appeal from the inhabitants of Ballybunion and neighbourhood with regard to the erection of a pier, and what action has been taken in the matter; whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the adjacent districts of Ballyconry, Gullane, and Ardagh, which are scheduled as congested districts, are at present in great distress and require immediate relief, such as would be afforded by the construction of this work; whether complaints have reached him that the Ballybunion fishermen at present labour under serious disadvantages, there being no pier or landing place at Ballybunion, and that, although a large number of English, Scotch, Manx, and French boats are always engaged in mackerel fishing in the bay, the people of the locality are shut out from this source of industry and wealth owing to the want of a pier; and, whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the advantages which the pier will confer on the locality, he will direct the work to be proceeded with at once?
    MR. JACKSON: The Congested Districts Board have received the statement referred to, and will make inquiries and consider whether the electoral district mentioned is an area which ought to be included.

    THE CASE OF JAMES HAWKINS.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of a man, named James Hawkins, aged 24, who was arrested at Carlow on the 13th ultimo, on a charge of assault, and committed to Kilkenny Gaol, on remand, on the 15th, and who died in the police barrack Carlow on the 23rd; is he aware that Hawkins was placed on punishment diet, bread and water, on the 17th, 18th, and 19th, because a small piece of tobacco was found con-
    516
    cealed in his clothes when they were taken from him; did Hawkins complain of illness in the prison, and was he sent to hospital; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds; was he medically examined on arrival at the prison, and again before he was put on bread and water; is he aware that the Coroner's jury found that Hawkins died from influenza and congestion of the liver caused by the treatment he received in gaol; censured the prison doctor for want of care in the treatment of Hawkins; and condemned the rules that permit a Governor to inflict such punishment for so slight an offence on an untried prisoner; whether he will cause a sworn inquiry into, the prison treatment of this man; and whether he intends to advise the Government to give any compensation to his mother and sister, of whom he was the principal support?
    MR. JACKSON: The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. The prisoner was charged with deliberately breaking the prison rules by having tobacco concealed in several parts of his clothes. On the 21st he was reported sick to the medical officer, but his temperature was normal, and the medical officer did not consider it necessary to place him in hospital. But as influenza was prevalent in the district, he offered to detain the prisoner, who, however, insisted on going to Carlow to get his trial over as soon as possible. The answer to the inquiry in the fourth paragraph is in the affirmative. I understand the verdict of the Coroner's jury was to the effect indicated in the question. The Government see no necessity to adopt either of the courses suggested in the last two paragraphs.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tobacco was in this man's clothing when he reached the prison? The Governor-had power to search him when ha entered; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that to punish this, man two or three days afterwards was going beyond the circumstances of the. case?
    MR. JACKSON: According to the information supplied to me, he was warned to give up anything he had, and I take it that this tobacco was subsequently found.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: The Act gives the Governor power to take the clothing from prisoners, and the Governor swore at, the inquiry that he took the clothes from the man because they were in a bad sanitary condition. If that is so, I think it is pretty clear they must have been in a bad sanitary condition when the man was received at the prison.
    MR. JACKSON: That does not arise in the hon. Gentleman's question on the Paper, and I have no information as to that particular matter.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: I will put another question on the subject.

    THE CASE OF JAMES OONVERY.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a tenant named James Convery of Longfield, South Derry, signed an agreement to purchase his holding under the Ashbourne Act from the Drapers' Company (London), in November, 1887; that the Company undertook through their solicitor to complete the sale free of charge to Mr. Convery; and that the Land Commission advanced the purchase money, but sent the conveyancing order or deed to another solicitor who refuses to deliver the same to Mr. Convery except on payment of fees; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter, and state the result?
    MR. JACKSON: The Land Commissioners report that in the case in question the vendor agreed to pay the cost of the vesting order, and this agreement was carried out. The tenant had employed a solicitor, and the copy of the vesting order was sent to his solicitor, who was entitled under an existing general rule to claim a fee of 10s. 6d. from the tenant purchaser.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: The conveyancing order was sent to another solicitor with whom he had no dealing.
    MR. JACKSON: No; that is not the information that comes to me. The information that comes to me is that the conveyancing order was sent to the solicitor who was employed by the tenant to examine the order on his
    518
    account, and that the conveyancing order was sent to the solicitor on condition that it was made a charge at the fee mentioned—namely, 10s. 6d.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: I put the; names of both solicitors in the question, but they were struck out at the Table, Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether there were two solicitors engaged in the case?
    MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member will send me the names of the two solicitors, and will put the question again, I will endeavour to answer him.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: I included the names in my question. Will the right hon. Gentleman give them?
    MR. JACKSON: I cannot be responsible for what is handed in at the Table.

    JUDGE BARBER.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether County Court Judge Barber (of Derbyshire) has retired on a pension; and, if so, will he state the amount of such pension, and the length of his services as a Judge?
    SIR JOHN GORST: Yes, Sir; His Honour Judge Barber retired on a pension of £1,000 per annum in November last. He was appointed on 26th September, 1889.

    THE CASE OF CONSTABLE HENRY LYNAM.
    MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Constable Henry Lynam, who was discharged from the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 13th February, 1892, as unfit for further service, with a pension of £12 per annum; whether he is aware that Constable Lynam became disabled in consequence of a fall off a ladder while endeavouring, at great risk to his own life, to extinguish a fire at Mullingar on the night of the 10th March, 1891; and that he is now in very weak health, with no hope of recovering sufficient strength to enable him to earn a livelihood; and whether, as Constable Lynam received the injuries which necessitated his discharge

    519
    while on duty, and that he bore an excellent character while in the force, he will re-consider his case with the view of increasing his pension?
    MR. JACKSON: The constable referred to was incapacitated from service under the circumstances recorded by the hon. Member. The Medical Board considered his case and reported it to be one of partial incapacity to earn a livelihood, and the pension was fixed at £12. The maximum pension would have been something under £15. The period of service was short, and the constable would not have been entitled to any pension in respect of it had he not met with this accident.

    CHURCH TEMPORALITIES IN IRELAND.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the following remarks in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland, dated 4th January, 1892:—
    "The arrears on the collection rentals show an increase as compared with the same Return for 1889–90. For that year the arrears due at its close averaged 29·1 per cent. of the total amount receivable, while for 1890–91 the percentage rose to 31·9. In the following cases there is even a larger growth of arrear shown: (1) Renewable leaseholds (including fines and other tenures); (2) mortgage account (convertible leaseholds) interest.
    "I called the attention of the Land Commissioners to these classes of receipts, and to the increase of amounts uncollected at the close of the year; but their reply with reference thereto did not appear to me of a satisfactory character."
    What was the average number of years' purchase of the rental in these cases of arrear; and whether he will lay upon the Table similar particulars concerning them with respect to localities, vendors, purchasers' accounts, &c. as are prescribed in Section 33 of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," with respect to purchases under its provisions?
    MR. GOSCHEN: The Comptroller and Auditor General reports that the arrears on the collection rental of the Irish Church Fund bore a higher proportion to the total amount collectible
    520
    on the 31st March, 1891, than on the same day in the previous year. I think that in this Report it has been oven-looked that the rental column on which the percentage has been calculated by the Auditor General includes, besides rental proper, capital sums paid in redemption of income. These capital sums vary from year to year, and the proper course is to deduct them from the total amount collectible, and then, if you like,, to measure the arrears by the proportion which these arrears bear to the true income of the Fund. Measured by this test, the arrears bear exactly the same proportion to the income in both years. The actual amount of arrears has decreased. The Comptroller and Auditor General notes also an increase of arrears on two special heads—namely, (1.) Renewable Lease holds, and, (2.) Mortgage accounts in respect of Convertible Leaseholds. The first item represents the income of unsold Church property of various kinds.. It is small in amount, being only £1,762 in 1890–1. The sources of it are scattered and difficult to collect, but the arrears have only increased by £200. The second represents the charge of renewable leases, which, under an Act of William IV., have been converted into perpetuities. The collectible amount in this case also is small, and the increase in the arrears only £200. There is nothing significant in either of these two cases, and neither of these two heads are in any way connected with or analogous to purchases under the Land Act. They represent perpetuities, and therefore there is no question of "number of years' purchase." It will be evident, therefore, that with regard to them I cannot give account of sales which have not taken place; and as regards the account of the Church Temporalities, I have stated that there is no increase in the percentage of arrears, whilst there is a decrease in the actual amount.

    THE CASE OF ARTHUR BUCKLEY.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inquest held on Monday 22nd February, at the Booths, Pontefract, on Arthur Buckley, who was killed whilst shunting at Monkhill

    521
    Station, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway; whether he is aware that it appears from the evidence that Buckley was only 15 years of age, was sent at 8 p.m. to hook on waggons, and was crushed between the buffers, and that Buckley was doing the work of an ordinary platform porter named Higgins; whether he is also aware that the staff at this station have been working on and off for months past with two or three men short, and with boys occasionally set to do the work usually done by men; and whether he will make a strong representation to the Company on the subject of employing inexperienced boys for duties involving so much danger?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I have seen the Coroner's Return, but not the depositions in reference to the case in question. I have communicated with the Railway Company, and I am informed that—
    "Buckley, who was 15 years and 11 months old, was in the employ of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company from November last, and it was no part of his duties to couple or uncouple waggons in the goods yard. It has, however, transpired that Thomas Higgins, in the Company's service upwards of 20 years, and employed in the goods yard, told Buckley very improperly to do the work of coupling the waggons, but he had no authority to do so, as he should have coupled the waggons himself with a shunting pole with which he was provided for the purpose."
    With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, the Company state that—
    "In consequence of the foreman porter having been off duty owing to sickness, a man was drafted from the goods department to take his place, and an additional man was also sent to the station several days each week to assist generally in the passenger department, and it is not correct to say that the station is being worked with two or three men short. It is also incorrect to state that boys are occasionally set to do the work usually done by men, as junior porters not less than 17 to 18 years of age are employed for the purpose. No doubt during the past winter there has been sickness at this as well at other stations, and the vacancies thus caused have been filled up as speedily as possible."

    THE IRISH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION BOARD.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what have been the receipts and expenditure of the Irish Interme-
    522
    diate Education Board in respect of the Customs and Excise Duties Grant; and what proportion of their total annual income the Board have recently expended?
    MR. JACKSON: The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education report that the receipts in respect of the Customs and Excise Duties Grant have been £39,042, and the expenditure thereunder, up to the present, has been £5,108. Exclusive of this grant the Board report their income amounts to £33,756, of which they expended about 94 per cent.
    MR. SEXTON: Is it a fact that this Board has only expended one-eighth of the money? I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make any financial proposals?
    MR. JACKSON: Of course it is rather early to ask that, because it must be borne in mind that, having received the money, it was their duty to make rules for the disposition of the amount. These rules have now been issued, and no doubt the next year's expenditure will show a large increase. But so far as I am at present able to form an opinion the sum allotted for this purpose is really in excess of the requirements of the case, and I have been considering whether I should not make some proposals to allocate some portion of this money for technical education and for other purposes.

    THE TENANTS OF THE DALWAY ESTATE
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five tenants of the Dalway Estate (Carrickfergus), who purchased their holdings in the Landed Estates Court in 1884, paying down one-fourth of the purchase money, and who, about two years since, were awarded small sums as compensation for a narrow cut made through their farms by the Belfast Water Commissioners, have been ordered by the Land Commission to pay over these moneys to them; whether the Commission refused the offer of the tenants' solicitor to pay the cost of a valuation to determine whether the value of the holdings had been materially affected; and that, in addi-

    523
    tion to the fourth part of the purchase money deposited in 1884,; the instalments falling due since then have all been regularly paid; whether the Commission suggest that the holdings, i.e., the value of the combined interests of the landlord and the tenants, are not security for the price of the landlord's interests, less one-fourth already deposited, and seven years' instalments, of the remainder; whether the Commission have claimed to impound the sums awarded to the tenant purchasers till the end of the term of 49 years; and whether, they intend to persist in. their demand?
    MR. JACKSON: The Irish Land Commissioners apprehend from the terms of the question that their practice in such cases as this referred to is misunderstood by the hon. Member. The Commissioners are of opinion that where any portion of a holding purchased under the Land Purchase Acts is subsequently sold, the capital sum received must be applied to reduce the mortgage debt due to the State. The effect of this is not to impound the sums awarded till the end of 49 years, but it causes an immediate reduction in the capital amount due by the tenant purchaser to Government, with a consequential immediate reduction in the amount of half-yearly instalments payable. The tenant purchaser benefits by the reduction, and the security to the State for the original advance is preserved. The Commissioners do not consider that it would be advisable to adopt any other course.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners whether they will consider that these tenants had to incur considerable cost and loss of time, in proving their case before the arbitrator, and will they allow the amount of these costs and the value of the loss of time to come out of the award?
    MR. JACKSON: I see the particular point raised by the hon. Member, but I apprehend that the purchaser gets all the advantages of the payment, and I do not see the inconvenience. I apprehend that when land is taken under the Land Clauses Act compulsorily, the ex-
    524
    penses are paid by the purchaser. I think the principle acted upon by the Commissioners is a sound one, that the tenant purchaser really gets all the advantages.

    ESQUIMALT DOCKYARD.
    MR. MUNRO PERGUSON (, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the position of Her Majesty's Government towards the harbours and fortifications of Esquimalt, whether the land upon which the dockyard buildings stand is reserved to the Crown, or is it the property of the Dominion Government; if it is, the property of the Dominion Government, by what tenure is it in the occupation of the Admiralty; if any rights are exercised over this land by Her Majesty's Government, by what Statute or other instrument are they secured; what rights of control, if any, has the British Admiral commanding on the Pacific Station over the harbours or anchorage of Esquimalt; are any advantages secured to the vessels of Her Majesty's Navy at Esquimalt which would not be accorded to them in any foreign port; is the land upon which it is proposed that the Canadian Government should erect fortifications at a cost of £11,000, to be armed at a cost of £50,000 to the people of the United Kingdom, the property of Her Majesty's Government, or of the Dominion Government; when the fortifications are erected, and the guns mounted, whose property will they be; will the garrison be under the orders of the Canadian Government or that of the United Kingdom; if manned by Canadians under Canadian Government, will Her Majesty's Government have any means of insuring that they shall be available for the defence of the British Fleet; and if, as was suggested, Canada should join the United States, to whom would the guns belong?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: In reply to the first three questions, the land upon which the dockyard buildings at Esquimalt stand is the property of the Crown? By an Order of the Dominion Privy Council passed in 1889 a portion of Esquimalt Harbour was reserved for the exclusive use of Her Majesty's

    525
    ships. The sites for the fortifications will be provided by the Dominion Government, with, whom also will rest the responsibility of providing the garrison. The remaining questions seem to have been framed for the purpose of suggesting that in time of trouble or danger the Imperial Government could not rely upon the Canadian Government taking common action with them in defence of common interests. I must decline to answer any hypothetical questions which seem to me to be prompted by suppositions which are both injudicious and baseless.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in the event of Canada leaving the Crown—
    MR. SPEAKER: That is an exceedingly hypothetical question.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Whether the guns would in any case belong to the British Government?
    [No reply was given,]

    THE SCOTTISH INSHORE FISHERIES.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate where the ship recently commissioned for the further protection of the Scottish inshore fisheries is now stationed?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): The station of the ship referred to is the North East Coast of Scotland, from Kinnaird Head to Cape Wrath.

    H.M.S. "VULCAN" AND H.M.S. "BAR-RACOUTA:"
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the total cost of the alterations in the boilers of H.M.S. Vulcan and H.M.S. Barracouta since the boilers were taken over by the Admiralty from the contractors?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The expenditure incurred on the boilers of the two vessels in question has been up to the present time—Vulcan, £230; Barracouta, £12.

    THE NAVAL STORES DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTS.
    MR. THOMAS ROBINSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state when the management of the Stores Department Accounts of the Navy may be expected to be placed on such a footing so as to comply with the requirements of the Comptroller and Auditor General; whether he has observed those portions of the Auditor General's Report in which he calls attention to the unsatisfactory condition of the store accounts at the foreign yards, and especially at the Jamaica and Bermuda yards, and also of the store accounts of Her Majesty's ships and the victualling yards; and whether anything, and, if so, what, is being done to guard the taxpayers against the serious state of things disclosed in this part of the Appropriation Account 1890 and 1891 just issued, especially from such loss as that of the stores sent out to Sierra Leone in 1890, which were condemned on arrival at that place, and which cost this country the sum of £1,100 7s. 6d.?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,) (for Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The attention of the Admiralty has been directed to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the apparent absence of proper care in accounts for naval stores at Jamaica and Bermuda, and these establishments have already been requested to furnish explanations in the matter, which it is hoped will be received before the Public Accounts Committee meet to consider the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report. In regard to the delay in examination of ships' stores, alterations in the establishment of stores, rendered necessary in the types of ships, have been a cause of delay. The increase of vessels in commission has also added to the difficulties. Steps will be taken to accelerate the completion of the examination of accounts. The victualling accounts have also been delayed from increased work, and the whole matter is now under consideration. With respect to the matter in the third paragraph, the

    527
    hon. Member erroneously quotes the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The stores consumed were not, as the question suggests, sent out in 1890 to Sierra Leone, and condemned on arrival there. They were articles that had been stored at Sierra Leone for various periods, and, owing to a reduction in the requirements of that station, were returned to England, and being, from the effect of the African climate, unfit for re-issue to the Fleet, were sold.

    THE NAME OF AN IRISH POST OFFICE OFFICIAL.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has any objection to give the name of the Irish officer who elected to take a place in the Irish post office, in preference to one offered him in England, and name the English office which he was offered?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I have to-day heard that the officer to whom I alluded prefers, on personal grounds, to remain where he is, and I therefore think it unnecessary to give his name.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: That is not the point of my question.

    THE WINDING-UP OF COMPANIES ACT, 1890.
    MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Official Receiver under the Winding-up of Companies Act, 1890, has been, or will be, authorised to employ any public money, and, if so, how much, in connection with the liquidation of any, and what, companies respectively; and in what cases the shareholders have made themselves liable to the Official Receiver for his costs and expenses; and, if so, up to what amount?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: In two cases certain payments not exceeding £80 have been authorised to be paid out of public funds on the ground that inquiries were necessary in the public interest, the facts being in each instance such as to disclose a primâ facie case of fraud. I am not prepared to state the names of the companies. In addition to the above sum there may probably be a charge
    528
    against the Vote for the Bankruptcy Department for the cost of shorthand notes of public examination of Directors and others in cases where there are no available assets. With regard to the latter portion of the question, the Official Receiver reports that he has not found it necessary in any case, up to the present, to ask the shareholders to become liable for any costs or expenses incurred by him.

    LIFE SAVING AT LOWESTOFT.
    MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the suitable acknowledgment of the bravery exhibited by the Lowestoft fishermen in saving life in the North Sea on 13th December last, which he has already promised to consider?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; a silver medal for gallantry has been awarded to the skipper and a bronze medal and £2 to the third hand in the case alluded to by the hon. Member. The Board of Trade have also offered to pay for the boat lost and to defray any expenses incurred for the subsistence of the rescued crew.

    THE MARTINI-HENRY CARBINE.
    MR. GODSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Volunteer Artillery will be supplied with the Martini-Henry carbine; how many there are ready for issue, and if there should not be sufficient to supply the whole force; will he direct a certain number to be issued to each brigade or battery, thus following the precedent set in the preliminary distribution of Martini-Henry rifles to the Rifle Volunteers?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: A large number of the Martini-Henry rifles are being converted into carbines, but I am sorry to say there will still be a little delay before they are ready for issue.

    THE EXPRESS POST.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in order to simplify the express delivery of letters, he will have provided for sale to the public crimson stamps similar in shape to

    529
    those used in the United States, and having the word "Express" printed across them, so that a person who wishes to send a letter by express post may do so, as in the United States, by affixing such a stamp and posting the letter, without the necessity of giving his name and address to a postal official; and whether he will also provide crimson envelopes marked "Express," and each impressed with a 3d. stamp, to be used as aforesaid for the express post?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: A person wishing to send a letter by the Post Office express service can do so without giving his name and address to any postal official. Also, by marking the letter in the manner prescribed by the regulations, he can, if he wishes, post it in any letter-box, and it will be picked out from the ordinary correspondence and delivered as an express letter. In these circumstances, it does not seem necessary to issue a special stamp for express letters. Moreover, there is a serious objection to the use of a special stamp, because persons would often not have one in hand at a moment of emergency. If the use of the stamps were optional, so that some express letters bore them and others not, there is a serious risk lest letters not bearing such stamps might be overlooked. The same objection applies to the use of special envelopes. If a special stamp or envelope were issued, about 17,000 offices would have to be supplied with them, and this would involve a good deal of labour and cost.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding his statement, with the very express letter which I sent to him, enclosing this question, I had to give my name and address to the officials, who would not accept it otherwise?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I am told it is quite unnecessary.

    THE TRANSMISSION OF BOOKPOST MATTER.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, now that permission has been given to transmit bookpost matter in open envelopes, he will provide envelopes
    530
    for sale to the public, and embossed with a halfpenny stamp, and at what rate; whether he will make arrangements for the halfpenny stamp to be embossed on envelopes provided by the public, and what will be the charge for such embossing; and whether, now that adhesive halfpenny stamps may be affixed to open envelopes containing circulars, &c., he will allow such adhesive stamps to be affixed to privately provided postcards?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The expedient mentioned in the first paragraph is being considered with reference to the probable demand. I may mention that the public have never taken much to the Post Office envelopes with embossed penny stamps. If it be adopted there would probably be no objection to emboss private envelopes with a stamp of the same value. The charge for so doing would be settled with the Inland Revenue Department. The question of allowing privately printed cards with an adhesive halfpenny stamp to pass as postcards is still under consideration.

    THE NEW "LETTER CARDS."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the new "letter cards" are printed by contract; and whether he is aware that they might be printed for 11d. per ten, leaving a fair trade profit to the printer?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The letter cards are printed under an arrangement which admits of a re-consideration of the price whenever a fresh order is given. There is no contract for a period of time. In the second paragraph of the question 1d. for ten is no doubt meant, not 11d., as the latter would be the price to the public including the postage. So far as the information obtainable by the Inland Revenue Department enables them to judge, the cards cannot, in view of the difficulty of manufacture, be supplied at anything like so low a charge as 1d. for ten.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Who is the present printer, and does he at present charge 2d. for every ten cards? And I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be good enough to take into consideration the whole

    531
    facts of the case; and whether, if I will bring a printer who will print these cards at 1d; for ten and still make a profit, he will entertain the offer?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: As I have already stated, the Inland Revenue Authorities considered that the price was not more than, sufficient to cover the expense; but I shall always be glad to receive and consider any information which may be given to me.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the price per million we are paying for printing these cards?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I cannot answer that question offhand.

    THE RIFLE RANGE IN THE NEW FOREST.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House what instructions have been given to the representative of the Board of Agriculture, who is to hold a local inquiry respecting the proposal to form a camp and rifle range in the New Forest; and whether such instructions extend to an inquiry into the injury that will be inflicted upon the cottagers of the New Forest, who exercise common rights, and upon the public, who resort to the New, Forest, for purposes of recreation and art and scientific research?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Mr. Pelham's instructions are to inquire into the suitability and safety of the proposed rifle range, for which purpose he will hear and report upon any objections which may be made by the commoners or others resident in the locality. I think the instruction to the Commissioner is sufficiently, wide to cover any question which can arise in connection with the use of the New Forests. As to the appointment of. Mr. Pelham, I may add that he in no way represents the Board of Agriculture, and that he has been selected in consequence of his having had so much experience in holding public inquiries for Boundary and other Commissions.
    COLONEL CORNWALLIS - WEST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware
    532
    that the proposed rifle range in the New Forest actually comes Up to a road much frequented in summer between Lyndhurst and Hythe; and whether it is intended to close this road during the annual camp?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I cannot identify on the map any road between the places named which can be interfered with by the proposed rifle range; or which can be rendered unsafe to the travelling public. The matter is one, however, which would naturally be included in the local inquiry about to be held. If the hon. Gentleman would care to point out to me more particularly the road to which he alludes, I would be prepared to give him the information.

    THE BEHRING SEA COMMISSIONERS.
    MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British and American Behring Sea, Commissioners have signed a Joint Report, embodying a statement of facts as regards all points connected with the seal industry on which there is no dispute; if so, will he state what these are; and whether any agreement has been arrived at on the main questions at issue, regarding a close season and the prohibition of pelagic sealing; and, if not, will these and other points, upon which no agreement has been arrived at, be referred to arbitration?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The British and American Commissioners have signed a Joint Report as stated in the hon. Member's question, but the details of the contents thereof have not yet reached the Foreign Office. No agreement has yet been arrived at regarding the establishment of a close season or the prohibition of pelagic sealing. These points and others, upon which the two Governments are unable to agree, will be referred to arbitration under the Convention recently signed and now under the consideration of the Senate of the United States.

    THE COST OF THE BRITISH ARMY FOR 1892–3.
    MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will inform the House what is the estimated total cost of the British Army for 1892–3; and what portions of this amount will consist of receipts from British taxes, sundry receipts, and receipts out of taxation from India and certain Crown Colonies?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The House is already informed, on page 231 of the Army Estimates, that the total gross cost of the British Army, including the Auxiliary Forces, but excluding that portion of it serving in India, is £18,611,450. Of this it is estimated that £980,250 will be paid by India, the Colonies, and Egypt, leaving £17,631,200 to be met by taxation in the United Kingdom.
    MR. SUMMERS: Does that amount include the Indian contribution?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: That is, of course, part of the deduction which is made.

    THE COST OF TRAINING RECRUITS FOR INDIA.
    MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the basis on which it is estimated that the expenditure for raising and training recruits for India was £750,000 in 1891–2, and will be £850,000 in 1892–3; whether his attention has been called to the statement that this large sum of money "is simply a tribute paid by India to the War Office for the privilege of receiving British regiments on loan at India's expense from the moment they leave England until the day when they are safely landed back again"; and whether the increase for the coming year of £100,000 under this head has been made with the sanction and approval of the Indian Government?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The sum to be paid by India for effective charges in 1890 exceeds that of the previous year, because there is included an estimated sum for arrears for 1887–88, of which the final adjustment has not yet been made. The exact amount to be awarded will be determined by Lord Northbrook's Committee. The state-
    534
    ment referred to in the second paragraph of the question seems to me quite inaccurate. India pays partially the cost of raising and training the drafts required to keep the European Army in that Dependency complete and efficient.
    MR. SUMMERS: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last paragraph of the question, which I think he has omitted.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I think it is apparent that the precise amount will be settled by Lord Northbrook's Committee, and neither by the Indian Government nor the War Office.
    MR. MACNEILL: Is it not the fact that the people of India pay all the expenses of the troops in India?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Certainly.
    MR. MACNEILL: And is it not the fact that the removing charges are being increased this year by £100,000?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman must ask the representative of the India Office about that.

    STOPPAGES FOR SEA-KIT.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost entailed by doing away with the stoppages for sea-kit; and whether this expenditure is to be borne by the British or Indian Exchequer?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The estimated cost entailed by doing away with the stoppages for sea-kit will amount to about £1,000 a year on the British funds, and to about £3,500 a year on the Indian Exchequer.

    PAROCHIAL CHARITIES.
    MR. ARTHUR ACLAND: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when a Bill will be introduced to enable County Councils to contribute towards the expense of inquiries into parochial charities, in accordance with his communication of January last to the Conference of Joint Education Committees, under the Intermediate Education Act for Wales?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I should be disposed to introduce such a Bill at once. It, however, will have to be understood

    535
    that the Government will not press the Bill if Amendments are brought forward for the purpose of enlarging its scope. If it is generally understood that the discussion on the Bill will be confined to this one point, I should endeavour to pass such a measure.

    CASH ON DELIVERY—PARCEL POST.
    MR. ARTHUR ACLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has considered the desirability of providing for a cash-on-delivery system in connection with the Parcel Post, similar to that in use in other countries; and, if so, whether he proposes to adopt the system?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Such a scheme as that suggested has been very fully considered, but the Treasury have intimated that in their Lordships' opinion it is not expedient to adopt it.

    CASTLETOWN BEREHAVEN MAIL CAR SERVICE.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether tenders have been invited for a mail car service from Castletown Berehaven to Lehanmore; whether he has received a tender to give such service at the same or even less remuneration than is paid at present to two rural messengers; and whether, in view of the fact that a mail car service will be a great convenience to that district at no extra expense to the State, he will at once sanction it before the fishing season commences?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: Tenders have not been invited for a mail car service, and no tender has been received for such a service at the same rate as that now paid or for less. The posts in this neighbourhood already entail a loss on the Revenue, and no arrangement is practicable for securing the improvement desired.
    MR. GILHOOLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider any proposal which may be laid before him on the subject?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Certainly.

    THE CONDITION OF PAHANG.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the present condition of Pahang is satisfactory; and whether Sir C. C. Smith, Governor of the Straits Settlements, was able successfully to suppress the late disturbances with police in a few days; and, if so, whether any considerable expense was incurred?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: The condition of Pahang is satisfactory in so far as a disturbance has been quelled without any disposition being shown on the part of the general population to side with the disturber of the peace. This result was attained in a few weeks (not days) with police and local levies. The amount of expense incurred is not yet known, but was probably very moderate.

    THE NAVY ESTIMATES.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the detailed accounts of the Shipbuilding Votes will be presented; and whether they will be in the hands of Members, in accordance with practice, before the Navy Estimates are taken in Committee of Supply? I should also like to ask when the Navy Estimates will be taken?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In reply to the question on the Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the information now given by the Shipbuilding Votes is very voluminous, and far exceeds in detail and minuteness that given a few years back. Owing to the Audit Act passed two years ago, all these details are now subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General; and, therefore, this information has to be prepared and checked with an amount of care not previously considered necessary, and as the future Estimates are regulated by the expenditure of the past, the Return cannot be finally completed until the latest and most accurate Return is available as regards the past. I am afraid that this detailed information will not be in the hands of Members before the general discussion, but I have arranged that 150 copies of the abstract of the Shipbuilding Programme shall be distributed on Saturday morning, and any Member

    537
    requiring this abstract who leaves his name at the Vote Office will have a copy sent him. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's further question, I have to state that we hope to take the Navy Estimates on Monday.

    THE FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN SHEPPEY.
    MR. HERBERT KNATCHBULLHUGESSEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there has been any further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Isle of Sheppey since the first case reported some weeks ago; and if not, whether, considering the enormous loss which will be occasioned to Sheppey farmers if they are not permitted to receive back their sheep which have been put out to keep, many thousands of which would, under ordinary circumstances, be now returning to the island, he will now either withdraw the order of isolation or reduce the area of isolation to the places that have been infected?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): The first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on the Isle of Sheppey occurred on the 12th February on premises at Cowsted Marshes, near Minster. On the 27th the disease broke out on a farm about a mile distant belonging to the same proprietor. To-day, I regret to say, a further outbreak is reported on a farm about three-quarters of a mile from the last-named place, as occurring among sheep on the marshes. In these circumstances, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that I am not justified in withdrawing the order for isolation, nor do I think it would be safe, having regard to the peculiar position of the Island of Sheppey, to reduce the area of isolation in the manner suggested.

    THE IMPORTATION OF CATTLE FROM DENMARK.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, the importation of cattle from Denmark having been prohibited by Order in Council since 1st February, and it having been clearly shown by evidence
    538
    officially taken in that country that no foot-and-mouth disease has existed there for many years, or exists now, he will intimate when he proposes to remove the prohibition, and so re-open a very important branch of trade materially affecting the wants of consumers in the Metropolis and elsewhere?
    MR. CHAPLIN: It is true that, according to the latest official information which I have received, there is no evidence of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease in Denmark, and I believe that that country is free from it, and I have received assurances to that effect; but it does not follow that the Danish beasts, among which it was first discovered in the Metropolitan Market, had not contracted the disease before their arrival in England. The disease is known to be extremely prevalent across the Danish frontier, especially in Schleswig-Holstein; and, as hon. Members are no doubt aware, it can be conveyed with the greatest ease in a variety of ways; and I am still of opinion, from all the information I have before mo, that the Danish animals were infected with the disease before landing in this country. I must also demur to the assumption that the wants of consumers in the Metropolitan area and elsewhere are materially limited by the prohibition of the import of live animals from Denmark. The hon. Member is probably not aware how trifling these imports are in proportion to the whole meat supply of the country, and perhaps I may be allowed to state to the House, as it is a matter of some importance, what these imports are. It is estimated that the home produce constitutes nearly 70 per cent. of the whole consumption. Over 22 per cent. consists of imported dead meat. Seven per cent. consists of live importations from other than European countries; the live animals imported from European countries constitute less than 1 per cent. of the whole consumption of this country; and of that 1 per cent. less than one-third comes to us from Denmark. In view, then, of these facts, and of the loss and the inconvenience already entailed upon this country by the return of foot-and-mouth disease, and of the further loss which

    539
    I am afraid, in spite of every exertion which has been made, and will be made, is still before us in the future, I am clearly of opinion that this is not the time to relax any precautions on the imports of cattle from abroad, and that, on the contrary, if I take further action at all, it must be in the direction of an increase of those restrictions rather than a diminution.

    THE LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for. War whether he is able to state the exact results of recent experiments conducted with a view to ascertain the effective range of the Lee-Metford rifle, and especially what is found to be the extreme range of a ricochet shot fired from that rifle?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The recent experiments show that the Lee-Metford rifles, at the extreme range, give an average of 3,500 yards, and the longest obtained was 3,700 yards. I am informed that a ricochet shot would certainly not travel so far, and that the extremest point of possible danger from ricochet may be taken at 3,000 yards.

    THE BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have received a Copy of all laws promulgated by the South Africa Company in Mashonaland and Mata-beleland, and whether, if so, he will lay it upon the Table of the House; whether the Company possesses any power to legislate in regard to the natives of these countries; and, if so, from whom it derives this power; and whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Proclamation of the High Commissioner of South Africa in regard to the worthless character of all land concessions alleged to have been granted by Lo Bengula, which Proclamation was issued in July last or thereabouts, and state whether the land concession now owned by the Chartered Company of South Africa is one of these concessions?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: Three Ordinances have been passed by the British South Africa Company. There will be no objection to lay them on the Table, as well as any future Ordinances of the Company which the hon. Member may desire to see. The power of the Company to legislate for the preservation of peace and order, which involves to a certain extent the exercise of authority over natives, is derived from the Crown by Clause 10 of the Charter. As regards the third paragraph of the question, the hon. Member will perhaps state more specifically what proclamation he refers to. I do not know of any answering the description, but there is no doubt that the recent Land Concession of Lo Bengula is not of a worthless character.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Am I to understand that the Crown claims authority over all natives within the sphere of British influence—sovereign authority?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: No; I said that the power of the company to legislate for the preservation of peace and order is derived from the Crown by Clause 10 of the Charter.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: But whence does the Crown derive it, and claim sovereignty over all natives within the area of British influence?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I must ask notice of the question.

    THE WATER RATES.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that by law the water rates become due quarterly, and on the first day of each quarter in advance; that persons neglecting to pay the rate when it becomes legally due are liable to have their water out off; with the result that most householders are usually legally in arrear owing to the custom of the water rates being demanded only half yearly, when one quarter has expired, and another is partly due; and of the abusive power that this difference between law and custom places in the hands of the Water Companies, he contemplates legislative action to amend the law on this point?
    MR. RITCHIE (for Mr. MATTHEWS): I do not know, Sir, whether, my right

    541
    hon. Friend the Home Secretary supposes that I should answer this question, but as he is not in the House I will do so. The Acts of the Water Companies usually provide that the water rates shall be paid in advance by equal quarterly payments, and I believe it is the case that the water rates, as a general rule, are only demanded half-yearly. The Acts also usually empower the companies, where the rates are payable by the occupiers, to cut off the supply if the water rate is not duly paid at any of the times of payment specified in the Act. The result of these provisions would appear to be that a company might cut off the supply if the rates were in arrear, although they had not actually been demanded. The question of the continuance of this power is, I think, one which should be considered when there is any further general legislation with regard to the Water Companies. At the same time, I may say that I have never had brought under my notice any case where this power has been abused by a company.

    THE BRITISH EAST AFRICA CHARTERED COMPANY.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the mode in which a Treaty between the King of Uganda and the British East Africa Chartered Company was received from that Monarch by Captain Lugard; and whether any steps were taken to learn whether the King was a free agent in the matter before the Treaty thus obtained was recognised by Her Majesty's Government?
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Reports respecting the conclusion of the Treaty were carefully considered. They show that the King signed voluntarily, after full and careful explanation of its contents and after having taken time for consideration. The force with Captain Lugard was far too small to coerce or overawe so powerful a Chief.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Am I to understand that Captain Lugard was wrong in his conclusion when he wrote in his Report that the Treaty was signed by the King in the presence of a body of picked men with fixed bayonets?
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The hon. Member must not understand anything more than the Report contains. If my memory serves me aright, the Report says that there were 20 men with bayonets in a tent, but that the tent was surrounded by a large crowd of the Uganda people.

    THE REVISION OF THE STATUTE LAW.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in performance of the pledge given by the late Leader of the House on 6th July last, he will move for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the whole question of the revision of the Statute Law?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have to say that a Statute Law Revision Bill will shortly be introduced in another place, and the Government propose to redeem the pledge given by the late Leader of the House last year, and to ask for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the general question of the Statute Law Revision, to which this Bill may be referred. I hope this will meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
    In reply to Mr. HOWELL,
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR said: I think it would be better to leave it to the Joint Committee to decide for themselves what is to be the scope of the Statute Law Revision. I agree with the hon. Member that it is for the House, and not for the Statute Law Committee, to determine what living Acts of Parliament should be repealed, and what Acts should be consolidated.

    THE IRISH TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before taking the Report of the Vote of £91,000 in aid of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund, he will lay upon the Table, or communicate to the House, the actuarial Reports of 1885 and 1891, and the Report of the Committee of Actuaries recently appointed to investi-

    543
    gate the alleged error of 1885, in consequence of which it is proposed to subtract £91,000 from the Irish education grant?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There will not be time before the end of the financial year for the Government to lay on the Table an exhaustive Report on this subject; and it would be inconvenient to present a too early actuarial valuation. A Treasury Memorandum is being prepared, and it will be laid on the Table of the House and in the hands of Members in plenty of time for the discussion on the Report of this important Vote.

    THE REGISTRATION OF MIDWIVES.
    MR. FELL PEASE; I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is prepared to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the question of the registration of midwives, with power to take evidence on oath?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this question.

    THE GRESHAM UNIVERSITY.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Draft Charter of the Gresham University being referred back to the Privy Council, it is understood that it will be brought before a Royal Commission?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to my hon. Friend is in the affirmative. It is not possible to refer this Charter back to the Royal Commission. All that can be done is to refer it back to the Privy Council; and if that be done, as I trust it will, it must be on the understanding that it will be subsequently referred to the Royal Commission. The Commission, however, must be a new Commission, because the old Commission has come to an end. Care will be taken to make the Commission a stronger one; but my answer must not be taken as indicating that the members of the old Commission are not to be asked to serve again.
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: Will the whole question of University education in London be referred to the Commission?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that would be too large a question. I think the inquiry should be confined to the establishment of a teaching University in London on a broad basis, and in accordance with the views of the House.
    MR. J. STUART: If the Commission is dissatisfied with the present proposal, will they have power to make a new proposal themselves?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very full powers will be given to the Commission. It will be a vain machine if it has no power to make a proposal.
    SIR HENRY ROSCOE: Will the Commission have power to inquire into the arrangements made by the examining University?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be a misfortune to interfere with the existing examining University. The object of the House generally is to obtain a teaching University worthy of this great centre, and I do not think we should gain by adding to the labours of the Commission an inquiry into the examining University.
    MR. A. ACLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman propose any Motion on the subject to the House?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Some Motion must be accepted to-night, because the Draft Charter is on the Table of the House, land must be got rid of in some way or other. The Motion to be accepted by the House ought, of course, to be drawn in conformity with the answer I have given.
    MR. MORTON: Does the hon. Member for Islington propose to bring on his Motion to-night?
    MR. BARTLEY: Yes; I propose to bring it on at 12 o'clock.

    THE REPORT OF THE TITHE COMMISSION.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Report of the Tithe Rent-Charge Redemption Commission, will be presented to the House; whether his attention has been called to the fact that a statement, purporting to be a précis of the

    545
    Report of the Tithe Commission, has already appeared in the Times and other newspapers; and whether it is according to the practice of Parliament that such communications should be made to the Times or other papers before a Report of a Commission has been presented to Parliament and circulated amongst Members of the House of Commons?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Report of the Commission was presented to the House on Monday last, the 7th March, and there is nothing irregular in the circumstance that a summary of the recommendations contained in it has appeared in the Times and other newspapers.

    HORSE ISLAND BUOYS.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any intention to remove the buoys at either end of Horse Island, in Bantry Bay, which were placed there in pursuance of a promise from the First Lord of the Admiralty; whether, he is aware that, previous to the laying down of these buoys, many accidents occurred from time to time to Her Majesty's and other ships by grounding on Horse Island bars, while no such accident has occurred since the buoys have been placed there, and, if any orders have been given to remove the buoys, will they be countermanded?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to reply to the question. As I understand that the Commissioners of Irish Lights have no objection to the retention of the buoys in question, they will not be removed for the present. It is, however, a question as to how long these buoys can be maintained within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, who alone have charge of the lighting and buoying of the coast of Ireland.

    THE CLERKSHIP IN THE ACCOUNTANT'S OFFICE, DUBLIN.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General (1) whether a principal clerkship in the Accountant's Office, General Post Office, Dublin, has been recently filled by the transfer thereto of an officer from the Controller's Office; (2) whether there was no one in
    546
    the former office competent to fill the position; (3) whether, since this transfer, a superior position has fallen vacant in the Controller's Office; (4) and whether the grievance complained of by the clerks of the Accountant's Office, as to the curtailment of promotion, can now be remedied by the re-transfer to the Controller's Office of the gentleman referred to?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph of the question. Some of the clerks in the office were competent for promotion, but not the seniors. No position with a salary at all equal to that of the officer transferred has fallen vacant in his former office. The officer in question cannot be re-transferred, as that would defeat the object with which the transfer was made—namely, to appoint the officer best qualified to discharge the duties.

MOTION.
  FAMINE IN INDIA.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. MACNEILL, Member for South Donegal, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the famine at present raging in various parts of India, more especially in the Presidency of Madras, and the neglect of the Government in taking measures for the preservation of the lives of the people now perishing by thousands from starvation;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. MACNEILL: I feel a great responsibility for every word I shall say with reference to this matter. I make the charge that the Government of India are attempting to burke the truth regarding the real state of things in India. The effect of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to-day is, that the statistics are pretty much the same, as regards the death rate, as they were in August, 1891. Of course, we have not got the statistics, but, taking one

    547
    thing with another, we may take these as the statistics. The consequence is, that they show for the hon. Gentleman that the Indian Government is the best Government that the sun ever shone upon, except our own precious Government here at home. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, a few days ago, asked for particulars as to the population in the various districts of India. The Under Secretary was away in Derbyshire at the election, which is far more important than the lives of the people of India; but the Secretary to the Treasury answered for him, and said that the statistics were not out, and that he could not get the information. I have got the information in spite of the India Office, and shall show that there is an enormous death rate in India from starvation. The Under Secretary told us that the Census of India for 1891 was not out. That was true; but it was not the whole truth. When my hon. Friend asked for these Returns of the population, the answer was that he could not have them, because the Census of 1891 had not been made out; and we could only estimate the death rate in reference to the Census of 1881. But I have found out what it has been, according to the Census of 1891. From a Report of the Census of the population of the Madras Presidency I find that there are preliminary notices coming, as they come in this country before the Census is given, in this Report. It first tells the population in the Madras Presidency, and then tells how much it has increased since last Census. The population has increased since the last Census 15·28 per cent. That is the average increase. By simply adding the decimals we get the total number of the population in these districts in 1891. This has been done in a very able article which has been sent, I believe, to every Member of Parliament; and it has been left to the zeal of an English journalist in the Whitehall Review to do what the English Parliament has been trying to keep from the people of England—namely, to give us some information about the starvation and misery of the people of India. By this article we find out the exact amount of
    548
    the population of all these districts by a simple arithmetical calculation. The normal death rate per thousand, as ascertained in 1890, is 26; the normal death rate since 1891 per thousand is 52, the difference between the two being 26. If you take the average abnormal death roll for the 12 months as represented in August, 1891, by the calculation of seven-twelfths of 12 months, you will find it comes to the enormous sum total of 94,229 deaths; but we believe the death roll is infinitely greater. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why it was not until November or December that any relief works at all to speak of were instituted in this locality?
    MR. CURZON: The statement of the hon. Gentleman is perfectly untrue.
    MR. MACNEILL: I should not have made the statement unless I believed it to be true. Has the hon. Gentleman ever known me to make a statement which I knew to be untrue? On a point of Order I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order for one hon. Member of this House to say that another hon. Member has made a statement which is untrue?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has a right to say that a statement is untrue. There is no offence to the hon. Gentleman in that.
    MR. MACNEILL: I understood he did what he once did before, to impugn my veracity. ("No!") Dare he say that I have ever made in this House or anywhere else a statement which I did not believe to be true? If the House will allow me to prove all the facts or statements on which I grounded what I said, it will see whether I was right or not in saying what I did say, and I believed what I said to be true. I state again that no relief was instituted in these districts until November or December; and if my information be correct, and if that statement be true, I say I have no word to describe or exaggerate the wickedness of the Government and the Administration, when these people were dying, and the abnormal death rate in these districts was 1,400 per month; and the late Secretary of State was thanking

    549
    Heaven for the merciful providence and benevolence of Indian rule. The Under Secretary stated that—
    "The Indian Revenue, is always liable to be disturbed by famine."
    The Under Secretary thinks far more of the Revenue than of the lives of the people—
    "But in the last ten days the danger of anything like a general famine or scarcity which would affect the finances of India has thank God, disappeared."
    He ought not to bring the Deity into a thing of this kind. He speaks of its influence on the revenue or finances: he has got no feeling for these people—no sense of humanity. All these people are to be ground down and crushed down for the purposes of the revenue and finances. It is a sort of gambling transaction with human lives; and is Heaven to be thanked for a gambling transaction with human lives? "Scarcity" is the euphemistic word used by the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman himself had only one day of the "scarcity," I wonder how would he like it. Did the Government ever consider that all these poor families could be supported on I the salary of Lord Cross or the salary of the Under Secretary; and what do they do for their money? "This scarcity will not be likely to seriously affect the revenue, &c." Everything is to enforce this mercenary despotism—a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence. I wish the people of India were able to assert their position—perhaps they will some day. The Viceroy of India stated, in a telegram, dated from Simla, that there had been no change of any importance since his telegram of 28th July; that the prospects were very good; that in 55 districts the prices had risen; and that the relief measures were sufficient. And yet 94,229 people have died from starvation, or the effects of starvation; and it is no exaggeration, to say that every one of these people have been killed by this Government in India. These people do not care how many people die, provided only the justice-loving people of England are kept in the dark about this nefarious transaction. I shall have something to say about the Under Secre-
    550
    tary bye-and-bye; he need not provoke me before the time. I want to prove every one of these statements from official documents. I do not know whether the Under Secretary is going to abuse me for using, official documents. My experience in Ireland leads me to distrust official documents; but I am able to prove from official documents that the Government in India have culpably neglected their duty; and having done so, I will tell the House how that was, done. We can arrange, at any rate, to have everything published in the vernacular Press, and I am perfectly sure that all the statements made here will not be burked. This is the Report of the late Sir James Caird, which was presented in 1880. The late Sir James Caird was a Tory protégé, and he was made Right Honourable by the Tory Government. He collected statistics and made reports for them. He still had some instinct of honesty and of humanity, which is sometimes absent from officials, especially in Ireland. [The hon. Gentleman having read extracts from this Report, which dealt with the condition of the people of India and the means of relieving their distress, continued]: I accuse the Government of misappropriating a sum which would have supplied every hungry person in India with ample food. The Report says—
    "It would appear that the animal Reversion Fund of £1,500,000, if so applied, would amply meet these calamities."
    What was done with it? The first thing which Lord Lytton did was to grab it and to apply it to the Afghan War. It was not applied for relieving the extreme poverty of the people, but for making what has been called the scientific frontier of Afghanistan. I wish Lord Lytton had only spent his time in a way I cannot characterise while in India, and that he had kept his hands out of the pockets of the people. There were two ways described in 1878 by Sir Charles Elliot (then Mr. Charles Elliot) of meeting famine. One is to watch well the approach of famine, and, having watched it, to do the best you can to meet it with a reserve fund. The second way is doing nothing until the wolf is at the door, and then leaving it to officials to report.

    551
    Now, Sir, I call an unwilling witness, the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham, and I ask him whether it is not a known fact that these natives will not apply for relief unless under the pressure of the extremest necessity, and, in fact, would rather starve than go to these places and beg? They rather go, like wounded and hunted and dying beasts, to dark corners, where they are found in the last stage of disease. Ordinarily the hearts of officials do not search for the people, but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham did search for them, and he saved thousands of lives thereby. There was an official there before the hon. Baronet, and I do not know whether he remembers him; his name was Price. Does the hon. Baronet remember him?
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: No.
    MR. MACNEILL: The hon. Baronet does not remember him. He was a collector. I will pass from that to the appointment of Lord Wenlock, who holds his office simply because of the fact that he is a nephew of the Duke of Westminster. His administration has throughout been characterised by mismanagement. He has shown himself regardless of the lives and of the liberties of the people under his power, and, like the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he has simply thrown himself into the arms of the officials. Lord Wenlock is a man of very moderate abilities indeed. He was given this office because he was in financial difficulties at home, and it is because of these difficulties that he has been provided for out of monies voted by Parliament. The administration is scandalous that can allow a state of things such as this. There is a wholesale robbery, not alone of the property of the people of India, but of the lives of those people, simply to support a class of officials. Into the hands of those officials Lord Wenlock has thrown himself, in the same way as the late Chief Secretary threw himself into the hands of the notorious Captain Plunkett.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman having obtained leave to move the Adjournment of the House
    552
    in order to call attention to a definite subject is under obligation to keep closely to that subject. I am bound to say he is now speaking in the most discursive manner.
    MR. MACNEILL: I was trying, Sir, to keep myself most strictly to the state of the famine-stricken population.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is out of Order.
    MR. MACNEILL: Very well, Sir. Then I will ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India whether when, a fortnight ago, he gave me an answer across the Table of the House, he understood the state of matters in August, 1891? If so, I should like to ask why were not the necessary relief works made; why, when the rainfall was known to be decreasing, were the people allowed to die as they are now dying in thousands? Sir, I have taken up this matter with some little care, and it is my duty, no matter what obloquy I may incur, to bring before the people of England the starvation and the misery of the people of India for which we are responsible, and I denounce in the strongest possible way the maintenance of a system which leads to the enforced extermination of the Indian people.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. MacNeill.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) has failed to observe the courtesy which, I believe, is customary on these occasions, of giving notice, to the Minister concerned, of his intention to raise a question on the Motion for Adjournment. I do not, however, complain of the action of the hon. Member in taking the latter step, nor of the attitude of those hon. Members who rose in their places to support him, inasmuch as I cannot conceive a question of more vital or more pressing importance than one which affects the welfare and the lives of many hundreds of thousands of British subjects, nor a question upon which the House of Commons is entitled to more ample, more explicit, and more speedy information. The hon.

    553
    Member (Mr. MacNeill) has accused the Government of India of neglect in taking measures for the protection of the lives of the people. I listened to his speech attentively, but I did not hear one scintilla of evidence in support of that undoubtedly serious statement. He accused the Government of India of burking inquiry upon this question. There has been no desire upon the part of the Government, either here or in India, to withhold any item of information. On the contrary, they have supplied all the information without reserve that has been asked for. And if the hon. Member himself (Mr. MacNeill), or if any other hon. Member of this House, had put a question, or had raised any of the points on which they wished for information, it would have been immediately forthcoming. I shall be able to show, I hope, in the course of my remarks, that the charge that the Government have in any way neglected their responsibilities is one for which there is absolutely no foundation; that, in the districts affected by scarcity, the amplest measures have been taken from the earliest possible period; that the local Governors have addressed themselves with earnestness and with despatch to the emergency that confronted them; that the Government of India has spared no pains in the supervision of the entire problem; and that the Secretary of State has addressed repeated inquiries as to what was going on to the authorities in India, and has followed with minute interest and with unremitting support the efforts which have been made to cope with this condition of affairs. It will, perhaps, be to the advantage of the House, before proceeding to describe the present state of things, that I should briefly indicate to them what are the areas which have been or are subjected to this scarcity. The first are the Deccan districts of Bombay and Madras, together with parts of Mysore and Hyderabad, as well as certain contiguous districts in the Madras Presidency to the south and east. The circumstances under which this scarcity developed were as follows:—Last year the south-west monsoon, which is ordinarily expected to break on the southern coasts of India in the months of May and June,
    554
    was unusually weak in character, and terminated at an abnormally early period. Most unfortunately it was followed by a south-east monsoon, the arrival of which is expected between October and the month of December, of very scanty volume. Hence it was that there occurred a failure of the Autumn crops, of grass and fodder, great difficulty in the cultivation of Winter crops, and a serious and considerable exhaustion of the water in the irrigation tanks. The second district affected has been Rajputana and some neighbouring districts in the Bombay Presidency. It was the early cessation of the same monsoon, the south-west, in the middle of last year that led to a similar failure of the crops of grass and fodder, to a deficiency of water in the tanks, and to a contraction of the cold weather cultivation. The third district affected has been Behar, in the northwest district of Bengal, and the fourth District was Upper Burmah. These are, broadly speaking, the districts which have been affected by the conditions which I have described, and with which it has been necessary to deal, I do not know if hon. Members in this House are fully aware of the machinery already in existence in India for the purpose of meeting distress of this description; but, as it may facilitate the consideration of the matter, I will, with the permission of the House, briefly place it before them. The House will be aware that the last serious failure of crops in India occurred in 1876–7. After that famine, an Indian Commission sat and reported, and it was upon its suggestion that separate Famine Codes were prepared and published for the various districts of India, with special reference to the exigencies and requirements of the several localities. And those Famine Codes have since then been revised from time to time according as local experience has suggested new methods of action. The object of these Famine Codes was as stated in a Despatch of the Secretary of State in 1885—
    "That on the occurrence of the calamity of famine, time might not be lost in improvising a system of relief, mistakes might be avoided, and Government itself and its officers might, without hesitation and vacillation, be able at once

    555
    to decide what was to be done, and to organise the machinery for carrying into effect the measures determined upon."
    MR. MACNEILL: From what is the hon. Gentleman quoting?
    MR. CURZON: I am quoting from a Despatch of the Secretary of State.
    MR. MACNEILL: Was it published?
    MR. CURZON: Yes, it was a published Despatch. I would now remind the House of the measures which are taken under these Codes for relief of the scarcity that is found to exist. Under the provisions of these Codes, district officers are required to report to the Government directly they anticipate, either from a failure of rain, or from an increase of grain prices, or from the general conditions of food supply, that any scarcity is apprehended. Under the same provisions a skeleton relief organisation is drawn up in times of plenty before any danger or distress is anticipated, relief works are planned and designed beforehand, relief centres are chosen, and a scheme of operations is constructed in advance, in order to be ready for the calamity, should it arise. These Codes also prescribe conditions for the management of relief works, and for the scale of wages to be given to those occupied upon them. They frame conditions further for the distribution of gratuitous relief either in poor houses or from house to house, and they contain elaborate schemes for the organisation of the medical, administrative and other staffs required. Finally, they lay down the conditions under which financial assistance should be given by the various Local Governments, either in the form of advances or loans to distressed communities or individuals, or in the shape of suspension or remission of the revenue itself. I have stated to the House the districts which are affected, and the machinery already existing and at the disposal of the Government for meeting that distress. Perhaps the House will, now permit me to place before them a brief but connected history of the scarcity, as it has arisen in different parts of the country, to unfold to them the measures which have successively been adopted, to meet it, and at the same time to explain the action which
    556
    has been taken ever since, fears were entertained by the Secretary; of State on the subject. It was in January last year that reports of the failure of rains in the Madras Presidency were first received. The Secretary of State immediately ordered that fortnightly telegrams should be dispatched to him as to the prospects of the crops, and as to any scarcity that was likely to arise.
    DR. CLARK: What was the year?
    MR. CURZON: 1891. From July, when the situation became more acute, when other districts were affected, and more distress prevailed, weekly telegrams were sent by the Government of India, and, so far from there having, been any attempt to conceal the information thus received from the House and the country, these weekly telegrams were in every case handed immediately to the Public Press. In February, 1891, the Governor of Madras represented
    "That portions of North Arcot and Chingle put were affected by the drought, and that it would be necessary to open public works at convenient centres, and that largo remissions of land revenue would be required."
    In May, 1891, these works were started.
    MR. MACNEILL: Were they extensive works?
    MR. CURZON: Yes, they were extensive relief works. I will state to the hon. Member and the House the number of persons employed upon them, and I can give no better idea of the extent of the works than by doing so. In July, 1891, the Secretary of State telegraphed to the Viceroy, saying he relied on all needful arrangements being made in Madras for an adequate relief staff, and for the suspension of revenue demands, if the distress was found to be severe. Five days afterwards the Government of India replied, that adequate arrangements had been made for all contemplated contingencies; and again, three days later, that in Madras the grain stocks were sufficient, that the land revenues on the last harvest were being freely suspended, and that liberal loans were being given In July, 1891, Coimbatore was found to be distressed, and relief works were started there. Already at that, time there were employed on those works 15,000 persons, as well as 1,500 in receipt of gratuitous relief. The hon.

    557
    Member stated in his speech that no relief works had been opened till the months of November and December, and when I interrupted to correct him, appeared to be very much hurt at my conduct. I have shown that they were opened in July. My argument is that these works were opened at the earliest possible moment. These numbers were maintained till September, 1891; they diminished in the districts to which I have referred in October, November, and December, and were discontinued in the latter month. Unhappily, however, in proportion as the necessity for relief diminished in the districts to which I have referred, other districts were drawn into the area of suffering, and required relief. In August of last year relief works were started in Nellore; in October in the district of Salem; and in December in Kurnul, Bellary, Anantapur, and Cuddapah; and Members of the House may not be averse to learning the figures relating to these operations. On 2nd February, 1892, there were employed on relief works in the Madras Presidency a total of 26,500 persons, while 1,000 were in receipt of gratuitous relief. On 16th February there were 29,300 in the former category and 1,240 in the latter, while on 1st March, which are the last figures we have received, the numbers were 32,855 in the former category and 1,218 in the latter. I turn now from Madras to the other areas which have been affected. On the 23rd July last year the Secretary of State, hearing that scarcity was threatened in the North West Provinces, telegraphed—
    "I shall fully support your Government in taking every necessary precaution without delay."
    The answer received was that the prospects of the North West Provinces were improving, and I am happy to state that that favourable forecast has since been fulfilled. The next place to which I will refer is Upper Burmah. On the 24th July last year the Viceroy informed the Secretary of State that there was a want of rain in Upper Burmah. In August relief works were planned, and in September it was found necessary to open them. On the 11th August the Secretary of State, anxious for the fullest information from all the
    558
    areas, telegraphed both to the Government of India and to the Governors of the Presidencies of Madras and Pombay—
    "Are you quite sure every precaution has been taken to meet any emergency forthwith?"
    The Governor of Bombay replies—
    "Ample rain has fallen in all districts except Ahmednagar, Sholapore, and Bizapur, but there is nothing describable as emergency anywhere."
    The Governor of Madras replied—
    "All possible precautions taken, Present arrangements sufficient to meet immediate necessities which are clearly defined."
    And the Governor General replied—
    "Extent to which autumn harvest will be affected and State assistance required will not be definitely known until September, but Local Governments are on the alert, and programme of relief works ready to be started should the necessity arise. Good general rainfall recently. There is no danger at present, except as regards Madras and Upper Burmah,"
    We now come to August of last year. On the 28th of that month the Viceroy telegraphed that there was cause for anxiety in the Eastern districts of Hyderabad and Ajmere, and unhappily there was no improvement in Madras or Upper Burmah. On the 4th September, in consequence of statements that had been made in the public newspapers about the state of affairs in Madras, the Governor of that Province sent a telegram from which I should like to read a few extracts to show the hon. Member for Donegal the manner in which that noble Lord met and discharged the high responsibilities which devolved upon him. In answer to the charge which had been made that coercion had been applied in the collection of revenue, he telegraphed on the contrary—
    "Large remissions, amounting to four lakhs of rupees out of 22 revenue granted this year, Chingle put, and over three lakhs outstanding uncollected. Collections suspended in case of all except ryots paying land tax 50 rupees and upwards. Eighteen thousand irrigation wells in good working order. Government, advanced 2¾ lakhs for construction wells; 1,900 under construction; 840 completed, this year. Supply of food grains ample. Prices high, but ragi, principal grain, poor classes, 100 per cent. cheaper than in famine 1877, and far below rates Famine Code. Concerning North Arcot, no land sold for arrears of revenue; cattle, only 20 cases. Population district about 200,000. Prices affected parts 100 per cent. below famine 1877, and far below

    559
    Famine Code rates. In affected Government tracts large remissions given. Numerous works provided since January, Chingleput; February, Arcot. New works freely sanctioned everywhere where large demand for employment exists. Kitchens opened wherever recommended by Commissioner. About 18,000 people employed on relief works, and 5,000 being fed, kitchens, at cost about 8,000 rupees monthly."
    These facts alone will, I think, show to the House that the Governor of Madras was at the earliest possible period alive to the duties of his position; that he conducted himself with vigour and energy in the discharge of those responsibilities; and that the charges of neglect of duty which have been brought against him by the hon. Member cannot for one moment be sustained. Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of seeing the private letters which have been addressed weekly, since the inception of this unhappy state of affairs, by the Governor of Madras to the Secretary of State, and I can state that no step has been spared, no activity been wanting, on the part of Lord Wenlock to meet the crisis by every possible means that ingenuity, or energy, or resourcefulness could, suggest. The hon. Member gave us to understand that Lord Wenlock had never visited the districts affected.
    MR. MACNEILL: I said nothing of the kind.
    MR. CURZON: The Governor of Madras has already paid three visits to the affected districts, and from his letters I find that he was giving directions for the distribution of cooked food, and was in constant communication with the various collectors and civil engineers carrying out the relief works. On the first day of next month he proposes to start again for the affected districts, and will not, as announced by the hon. Member, go to the hills until the south-west monsoon, which is expected in June, has arrived, and all anticipation of further danger removed. I have only been tempted to go into these details about the Governor of Madras in reply to what are, I think, the completely unfounded aspersions cast on him by the hon. Member. To continue my narrative. In October, last year, the Viceroy gave notice that the state of things in Rajputana was
    560
    unsatisfactory, and on 10th December the Secretary of State telegraphed—
    "I am glad to feel assured that your Government as well as the Local Governments, and all public servants under them, are doing everything in their power."
    The hon. Member in the terms of the Motion which he submitted to the House accused the Government of India of being responsible for the fact that the people of India are now perishing in thousands by starvation. I listened with great attention to his speech, in the expectation that there would be some evidence forthcoming in support of so serious a statement. Mr. Speaker, no such evidence was produced to the House; the hon. Gentleman did not bring one shred of evidence to show that deaths were occurring from starvation, not by thousands, nor even by hundreds. So far as our information extends, we have only heard of four deaths from actual starvation. Undoubtedly want has increased, and that mortality has increased is proved by the figures I have given to the House, but that increase has been due to a variety of other causes; in the main to cholera, which unhappily broke out in the Madras Presidency, and at one period carried away as many as 85 per 1,000 in one week. It has been due also to low water in the tanks, and no doubt to the generally debilitated condition of the people resulting from the scarcity. But that does not justify the hon. Member in putting in a Motion for Adjournment the serious and unfounded statement that the Government are responsible for the deaths by starvation of thousands of people in India. So much for the history of the scarcity, and the measures which have been taken to meet it in chronological order to the present time. The House will perhaps allow me to place briefly before it the information we have received in the last few weeks as to the action which is going on. I have already given the figures of the relief works and gratuitous relief in the Presidency of Madras, the totals being 32,855 persons employed in the former category, and 1,218 in the latter, and it is gratifying to know that in this Presidency there has been since January a slow but continuous fall in the prices of food. In Ajmere

    561
    the figures for the first week in February were 19,151 on relief works, and 3,193 in receipt of gratuitous relief; in Bombay 945 on relief works, and 377 in receipt of gratuitous relief. Prices were rising in four districts, but were stationary elsewhere. In Bengal there was no employment on relief works, and no gratuitous relief was required. In Burmah, 17,190 were employed on relief works, in receipt of gratuitous relief none. The totals for British India during the first week of last month were 70,141 employed on relief works, and 4,788 in receipt of gratuitous relief. I have already mentioned that provisions exist for the advance of money to agriculturists. The following are the figures, so far as we have received them: In Madras, Rx92,000; Mysore, Rx20,000; Hyderabad, Rx30,000; Ajmere, Rx10,000; Burmah, Rx35,000. As regards the Revenue suspended or remitted, it is calculated that in Madras, which are the only figures we have at present, 20 lakhs have been so treated. Then, as regards relief expenditure, it is calculated that in Madras, up to June of the present year, there will be expended Rx180,000; Ajmere, up to January, Rx24,000; Rajputana, up to June, Rx140,000; and Burmah, Rx120,000. The land revenue for 1891–2 was 76 lakhs below the figures estimated up till the end of December; and it is estimated that the total cost to the Indian Treasury of this failure of rain and crops will not be less than 100 lakhs, and may be 150 lakhs in loss of revenue and cost of relief works. So much for the past. I may, perhaps, be allowed to refer to a Despatch which has been received from the Government of India, dated 17th February, which will shortly be laid on the Table of the House. From this we learn that, with the exception of Burmah, where fortunately an improvement is taking place, in the other districts affected, Deccan, Rajputana, and Behar, relief works will for some time be required, and no general amelioration can be expected till the south-west monsoon breaks in June. The facts and figures I have placed before the House are no doubt legitimately calculated to appeal to the sympathies of hon. Members; but I am glad to be able to say before I sit down
    562
    that the dark cloud has its silver lining, and that there are cheering elements in the situation. Perhaps the most marked feature of the scarcity has been the low prices of food, in consequence of the great extension of railways in the past few years. Since the famine of 1876–7, up to the end of 1891, close upon 9,000 miles of railway have been opened in India. The effect of these upon prices has been that in Ajmere, where the population is being fed almost entirely on imported grain, prices are very little higher than in normal seasons, while in the affected districts of Madras and Bombay they have been hardly more than three-fourths of those prevailing at corresponding periods of 1876–7, even in districts where the rainfall of 1891 has been less than that of 1876. In Behar there has been no alarming rise in prices. These facts will tend to allay the apprehensions which have naturally been felt, while they also justify the policy of public works which has been so strenuously pursued in India during the last few years. The second satisfactory feature to which the Government of India call attention is the extent to which local Governments and Administrations have made use of their powers to grant advances for works of agricultural improvement and the purchase of seed and cattle. In Madras especially large sums have been advanced with most beneficial results in securing the construction of works calculated to increase the productiveness of the soil, as well as in providing work for the people in the villages. In Ajmere considerable sums have been advanced to the larger landholders, who have thereby been enabled to support their tenantry and dependants upon estate works. Lastly, Sir, I may say that the Secretary of State has despatched a telegram to the Government of India, in which he asks that fortnightly telegrams may continue to be sent concerning the state of the relief works, and also for a monthly Report and tabulated statement showing the progress and results of the relief operations in each of the Provinces—these Reports, I need hardly say, will be at the disposal of the House—and pressing the most strenuous efforts on all the officers of the State. I am

    563
    obliged for the patience with which the House has listened to a statement which has necessarily been of a business-like character, and free from any element of excitement. I hope I have succeeded in showing the House that the Government of India are guiltless of the indictment that has been, as I think, so hastily framed against them; that they are fully aware of the immense and overwhelming responsibility that rests upon them, and have neither been Wanting in sympathy with those vast communities who have been so unhappily distressed, nor in such practical measures as an enlightened foresight or liberal Statesmanship could suggest to them.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: I do not rise, to supplement the very complete statement which the House has heard with satisfaction from the Under Secretary. I rise to challenge and to give, some contradiction to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. MacNeill); The speech was delivered in a thin House, but it will be reported by the Press, and may reach India, and I should not like my brother officers in India to know that these statements had been made without someone getting up to give some contradiction to them. The officers impugned are not here to defend themselves, and it is only right that somebody who knows what the conditions of life and service really are should stand up and give evidence in their favour. These officers are our own countrymen and countrymen of the hon. Member for Donegal, and instead of defending his own countrymen I ask the House whether the speech of the hon. Member was not the greatest travesty and caricature of what is going on in India. I have no feeling of anger against the hon. Member, who referred to me in kindly terms, but I feel bound to stand up for those who are not, here to vindicate themselves. I know what the conditions of service are in India. In my time we spared no exertions, we bore every kind of exposure we injured our health, and even risked our lives in order that these poor people might have something to eat, and their suffer-
    564
    ing be mitigated, and, to some extent, under the blessing of Providence, we succeeded. I do not mention this for self-glorification; we are no better than those who preceded us, or, than those who succeeded us, but I am sure that the efforts which were made in my time are now being made by the Government of Madras and the other Governments. I can assure the House that the officers there must be doing everything that their brains can think of and their hands find to do in order to save their Indian fellow-subjects. This mortality, to which the hon. Member refers in somewhat exaggerated terms, has arisen from sporadic and epidemic disease, and these diseases have arisen not from want of food, but from want of water. When the wells run low and the tanks dry up and the people begin to grub water out of the sand, then it is that the deficiency in water supply breeds sickness of a most pestilent and dangerous kind. It is impossible to save the people from that. You may bring them food, but you cannot bring them water, and it is the defilement of the drinking water that is the main cause of the mortality. Then the hon. Member speaks of what he is pleased to call the "wicked" conduct of the authorities, because they have failed to prevent this misery "Wicked" was the word he applied to our officers, who are doing their duty and are trying to put food into the mouths of a famishing people. The Governors are doing their, best to feed the people, and they are effecting all they can in the matter of relief by means of the railways. These beneficent works are carried out by the British Government, constructed by capital that was mostly raised in this very Metropolis. The hon. Member further speaks of all the persons who have died not only from hunger (of which the instances are very few), but from cholera or other forms of epidemic sickness, as having been "murdered" by the neglect of the Government of India. I should hardly have credited it if I had not taken down the word from the hon. Member's mouth. Then he proceeds to allude to the Irish famine of 1846, and he might as well have said that every Irishman who died from sickness and

    565
    from the potato disease in 1846 was murdered through the neglect of the English Government.
    MR. MACNEILL: Precisely.
    SIR. R. TEMPLE: Then the hon. Member spoke of some of the Revenue officers of the Government as licensed robbers. It was necessary that inquiries should be made before the Revenue was remitted on the drought-stricken lands; and because certain officers reported that in certain districts the scarcity was not so great as to affect the Revenue; he spoke of them as mercenary taxgatherers and licensed robbers. Then he speaks of the Government as being responsible for all this misery. Why the Government? What is the actual cause? It is the failure of the monsoon, and this arises from causes relating to atmospheric conditions. How can the Government be responsible for this? You might as well say that if in London there should be, say, a protracted frost, followed by a great cessation of employment, severe suffering of the unemployed, and some mortality, this House or Her Majesty's Government are responsible. That kind of responsibility, and that only, attaches to the Government of India, and yet the hon. Member says that the Government officials are answerable for any misery that is now occurring. Then the hon. Member talks of what he calls the financial cheating practised by the late Lord Lytton.
    MR. MACNEILL: The word was Lord Lytton's not mine.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: It is difficult to imagine that Lord Lytton would accuse himself of cheating. But what the hon. Member alleges is that Lord Lytton and his advisers practised fraud upon the people of India because the Famine Insurance Fund was diverted from its proper purposes. I strenuously deny that. The Famine Fund has been applied to the construction of canals and railways for the prevention of famine. It did happen in one or two years, when the cash balances were abnormally low, that the famine works were not prosecuted with the same energy as previously, but that was more than amply made up by the progress which has since been made, and I can
    566
    confidently affirm that a much larger sum than the Famine Fund has been spent on the objects for which it was instituted. The late senior Member for Northampton—I suppose I may now mention his name—Mr. Bradlaugh, raised this very important matter before the House, and laid the figures before the House. In reply to him at the time I showed in detail what I have now stated in general terms. The hon. Member seems to think that if this Fund of £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 for the year had been properly spent, all this misery would have been avoided?
    MR. MACNEILL: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I know nothing, except from official information. Sir James Caird said that £1,500,000, if properly applied, would meet a famine.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: I cannot now verify the exact words, but I think the hon. Member must have misunderstood or misquoted Sir James Caird.
    MR. MACNEILL: I have certainly not misquoted.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: Well, I cannot answer for Sir James Caird's dictum unless I see the context. But he could hardly have meant what the hon. Member conveys. For if he had meant it he would have been egregiously wrong, and the commonest examination of the accounts would prove the absurdity of such a proposition. A great famine would cost more by far than this in relief alone, irrespective of railways and canals. In one single year of the Bengal famine I spent £10,000,000 in my own territory. I subsequently recovered half of it by the grain I sold to people in distress, and by various other recoveries. It really cost not more than £5,000,000 net, but that is a great deal. Take this famine of 1884 and the subsequent famines of 1887, then in the Governments of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay the total famine outlay was from £13,000,000 to £15,000,000 sterling out of the Indian cash balances. The late Sir James Caird was very careful, and I think he must have been misunderstood somehow. If not, I can only say that the facts are quite different from what Sir James Caird supposes. The hon. Member has re-

    567
    ferred to what may be called the house-to-house visitation which I undertook in times of famine. I acknowledge the kind manner in which the hon. Gentleman has been pleased to refer to the little that I have done. But it is quite true that there was such a visitation, and that is I think the most correct statement he has made. I believe I had the honour of conversing with the hon. Member, and I explained to him what used to be done. There is in that country a degree of pride and fortitude under suffering which is most honourable to the native character, and it is really a pleasure to give them relief in time of famine with a generous hand, because we are certain they will not abuse it. They are most unwilling to apply for relief, and often would rather sink gradually down from feebleness and debility into death than go on the relief works. This tendency of theirs was so grave in Bengal, that I had to institute a house-to-house visitation, to send my officers into every single cottage and search to find whether there were not in darkened corners some pitiable objects pining away to death. Then we drew these poor people forth and placed them in field-hospitals. I do not mention this in the way of self-laudation, but merely to show the House what the servants of England did in those times, and what I did then Lord Wenlock and his officers are doing now. My remarks have necessarily been discursive, but I have attempted to answer the hon. Member and give back shot for shot. No doubt he is actuated by the purest motives, but I would ask him to extend some of his philanthropy to his own countrymen, and to accord to them the same compassion under all their cares, and labours, and anxieties that he extends to the native population. Let me remind the House that India is a progressive country, and despite these occasional famines and sickness the Census which has just been taken speaks in most eloquent terms of the successes which have been vouchsafed by Providence to British Government in the East. During the last decade there has been the finest increase of population ever known. Thirteen millions have been added by natural increment
    568
    to this teeming population, and in no country in the world during such a period has there been such an increase accompanied by a moral progress arising from the efforts of the Government for the elevation of the people.
    SIR UGHTRED KAYSHUTTLEWORTH: The House is always glad to hear the hon. Gentleman (Sir Richard Temple) on Indian questions, because he never speaks without contributing something interesting and instructive. I simply rise because I thought, having held the office which is now held by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Curzon), I should be wanting in my duty if I did not say a word or two on the speech which he has delivered. I confess that I had only one anxiety before the horn Gentleman rose, and that was lest he might be betrayed by the fact that this was a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and that this subject was brought forward without notice to him or to the House, into treating the subject more lightly and less seriously than he has done. I think it is only due to the hon. Gentleman that we should all acknowledge, as I desire to do, the readiness, grasp, and ability he has displayed in the way he has dealt with an extremely important subject, and that he has not given the go-by to a subject of so much gravity—a subject upon which the House and the country generally feels considerable concern. I will go further. I, for one, am prepared to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the facts which he has been prepared to communicate to the House. I did not altogether rejoice that this subject was brought forward on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, but after hearing the statement of the Under Secretary for India my feeling has been considerably modified, for we have been put in possession of information which, I think, ought to be communicated to the country and to the House. We have been promised at least one despatch, and from what the hon. Gentleman has stated I gather that he is prepared to lay Papers on the Table of the House which will give us fuller information as regards measures for the

    569
    relief of the famine; the expenditure which has been incurred; the number employed upon the relief works; and the number receiving gratuitous relief. The primary feeling of the House in considering a question of this kind must be a great anxiety as to this native population—this enormous number of subjects of Her Majesty in India. They are, unfortunately, exposed as we have learned from experience to these periodic famines, and they are entitled to all our sympathy in these visitations of Providence. But very active measures of foresight seem to have been taken by the Government of India for some years past. The hon. Gentleman has detailed to the House the nature of the Codes that have been drawn up by the Governments of the different parts of India for dealing with these famines, and I must say that these are evidences of foresight on the part of those Governments. I will speak of another great body of persons for whom this House must feel keen sympathy in the position in which these visitations have placed them—I mean the great body of English, Scotch, and Irish officials in India upon whom the burden of this heavy responsibility falls. At a vast distance from their native country they are entitled to the greatest justice from every Member of this House and from every friend whom they have left in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and not only to justice but to the most patient consideration, and we should not hastily rush to conclusions adverse to their administration under trying circumstances so different from any with which we are acquainted. With these thoughts in my mind, I would strongly deprecate our indulging in any exaggerations in this House on Indian administration, and especially Indian administration in the face of these famines. Let us stick only to such facts as we can prove, and I would ask hon. Members to pursue that course, and I would ask the Government of India and the India Office to furnish this House with the amplest information so that we may really have the facts upon which to base our judgments and that we may know how to do full justice to the administration. The issues are much too grave and much too far-reaching to be
    570
    handled lightly or to be the subject of rash conclusions. I hope they will not be handled lightly either by one side or the other. The reason why I ventured humbly but emphatically to offer my congratulations to the Under Secretary is that I think he has dealt with becoming gravity with this exceedingly serious matter. One subject on which he did not tell us much is with regard to the scheme for establishing a Famine Insurance Fund. I am afraid that the benevolent object which was originally in view when that fund was started has been lost sight of, and that there has been a tendency to take other points into consideration—grave points, with respect to taxation, and as to the importance of certain objects of expenditure which arise from time to-time; and these have diverted the attention of the officials of India from the great importance of retaining this Famine Insurance Fund for the purpose for which it was originally established. I think assurances upon that subject, in view of the fact that we have not escaped the visitation of another famine, would be very welcome to the House. I rejoice to hear of the great utility of the railways constructed during the last few years. We have gained experience of their utility in meeting famine, and we remember that some of the authorities were timid at the large expenditure of money in the making of these railways. I venture to express the opinion that, having got that experience, we may be encouraged to go on. I now simply desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for having given us such a full and complete statement at very short notice, and also to express a hope that on a mere Motion for the Adjournment of the House this Debate will not proceed to any great length, and that we shall have an opportunity for discussing Indian questions in a more appropriate way.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not rise for the purpose of continuing the Debate, or of adding anything to what has been said by previous speakers. I simply rise to make an appeal to the House to proceed as fast as possible with business of a most imperative and pressing

    571
    character. This is not an appeal made on behalf of the Government for progress with purely Government Business. The Estimates have to be got through by a certain date in order to conform with the law; and if the time of the House is taken up by Private Business, by Motions for Adjournment, or in any other way, the only result will be that the Government will be forced to ask the House to give them the whole time of private Members next week, and to do a way with the Twelve o'Clock Rule. The whole of Tuesday afternoon, which was taken by the Government, was occupied by a Private Bill, and we have now reached 10 o'clock on Thursday evening without having said a single word with regard to the pressing question of the Estimates now before the House. I hope all the Members present will be content with the discussion we have had upon a subject the importance of which I freely acknowledge, and on which we have had the advantage of hearing on one side the Member for Donegal at considerable length. The Under Secretary for India has stated the case for the Government. We have had a most able and interesting speech from the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Temple), and another from a late Under Secretary for India. I hope, therefore, that the House will feel that they have dealt sufficiently with the subject for to-night, and that they will now hasten to deal with the pressing matters which require their consideration and decision.
    DR. CLARK: I think the Under Secretary has clearly shown the House that the charge of my hon. Friend cannot be sustained, and that the officials in India have been doing all that they possibly can in the circumstances, and that the Government are stimulated by the action taken. I think the statement is very satisfactory. However, the defence of the hon. Member for Evesham compels me to say a few words in support of the hon. Member for Donegal. The hon. Member opposite had experience of the last famine, when 5,000,000 people died. I happened to be there also, and I think the course taken by Lord Wenlock compares very favourably with the course taken by the last Governor. In the last famine in No-
    572
    vember people began to drop down dead. In December the death-rate very much increased. The Governor went away to Delhi to take part in a Durbar. What did he do afterwards? Instead of going back to the Presidency he went for a tour through India. I met him some time afterwards in Lucknow. No doubt my hon. Friend expected that the present Governor would act in the same way. But before going to the hills the Governor is going back again. I believe the Government are, to a large extent, responsible for the distress because of the system of rack-renting, which is worse in India than in Ireland. Rents were so high that whenever famine occurred there was no individual landlord to appeal to, and there was no margin to meet failures of crop. There is no doubt that a good deal could be said against the Famine Fund. It is used for wars and for railways to the frontier which do the country little good; but after the statement of the Under Secretary I think we may rest satisfied that the Indian Government are doing all that they can to cope with this famine.
    MR. MACNEILL: I think the statement of the Under Secretary very fair and reasonable, and with the leave of the House I hope I may be permitted to withdraw the Motion. But I think what has occurred has justified the course I have taken in a matter of such extreme importance. I think I was fully justified in bringing forward the subject.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,), in rising to move—
    "That the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and the Proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5,"
    said: I do not think many words will be required on the subject of this Motion. The House is aware that for several

    573
    Sessions it has been found necessary in the interest of Public Business that the Report of Supply should be excepted from the general rule which makes our controversial Business conclude at 12. I think we must all feel that it is inconvenient that it should be in the power of any one Member to stop the House proceeding with Business which it desires to dispose of. I have no doubt the House will grant us this without much debate. I will not add anything as to the condition of Public Business. Everybody knows that the state of things which justified us in asking a few days ago for the time of the House are now considerably aggravated by the fact that so much time has been taken up by Private Bills. Only one further observation is required. It may be in the recollection of the House that I promised we should not take Report of Supply on Tuesdays and Fridays so long as there were Morning Sittings. I am ready to renew that pledge, if desired, and to say that any objection to a Vote of Supply on those days will be sufficient reason not to attempt to proceed with it. The Motion only covers the time up to Easter. I hope, with this pledge, hon. Gentlemen will find no difficulty in acceding to this very necessary demand on our part.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour though opposed; and the Proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (, &c.): As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this is not a very large demand. It seems to me it is a little departure from our ordinary Rules to take this Motion so early. It can only be justified by the necessities of the case. Undoubtedly there is a strong claim for such powers at the present moment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I should have said that in 1889 the Motion was made on the 19th March; in 1890 on the 15th April; and in 1891 on the 13th March.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am much obliged for the information. I think, however, that the House will have to be careful in parting with its control of the time of the House, although I think there is considerable force in the appeal now made. I wish to refer to one point, however. The right hon. Gentleman has referred, not unnaturally, to the large part of the time of the House taken up by Private Business. He does not, of course, imply that this has been done with any sinister motive so as to interfere with the Business of the Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find in each case where a Private Bill has occupied the time of the House it has been only in consequence of the importance of the subject, and not for the mere object of forcing a debate where one was not required. But the fact remains that a good deal of time has been expended in that way, which has added to the difficulties of the Government, in meeting the financial requirements this month, and I cannot see how we can object to the Motion.
    DR. CLARK: I would like to insert after the word "That," the words "except on Tuesdays and Fridays, when Morning Sittings are taken." Last Session we got a pledge that Supply would not be taken on Tuesdays and Fridays, and yet it was twice put down upon those nights. I think the Government ought not to object to this proposal.
    Amendment proposed, after the word "That," to insert the words "except on Tuesdays and Fridays when Morning Sittings are taken."—(Dr. Clark.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: With reference to the complaint that this Motion is being made so early in the Session, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that when the First Lord of the Treasury brought it forward last year Parliament had met in the November previously, and that the Session had run many more days than in the present year. I shall certainly support the hon. Member below me (Dr. Clark) if he goes to

    575
    a Division, and I should like to say a few words with reference to another point. The whole claim of the right hon. Gentleman for taking this time is based on the necessity for getting Supply between this and the end of the financial year. The necessity disappears after that time, and I hope the tight hon. Gentleman will consent now, as he consented upon the question of Morning Sittings, to insert in his Motion after "That" the words "until Easter."
    MR. SPEAKER: The other Amendment must be withdrawn first.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I might appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) on this Subject. If his Amendment were carried, I gainer its effect is to prevent the Government ever, under any circumstances, putting down Report of Supply on Tuesday and Friday, however uncontroversial the Supply may be.
    DR. CLARK: No, no. I take it that all Supply which is not objected to will be taken on Report. It is only controversial Supply that my Amendment contemplates.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman expects to gain by his Amendment.
    An hon. MEMBER: Until Easter.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is an Amendment which is adumbrated, not yet moved, by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire. (Mr. J. E. Ellis): But I think I am right in saying that, if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness: (Dr. Clark) were carried, it would not be in the power of the Government even to put down the Report of Supply on these two days, and that I think the hon; Gentleman himself will feel would inflict considerable inconvenience not only on the Government, but on the House itself. It will be sufficient, I think, that I have pledged myself on behalf of the Government that, if Report of Supply be objected to on these two days, I will not take it after, midnight. I trust the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to insert words which go beyond his wishes and the wishes of the Govern-
    576
    ment and the object of which is covered by my promise on behalf of the Government.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: I have expressed my satisfaction at the action of the Leader of the House when the Motion for Morning. Sittings was proposed, in consenting to the recommendation that we should close Debate at twelve o'clock, I am not disputing the backward position of the financial business at the present time, but I want to protest most strongly against the Business of this House being conducted in the early morning hours. I believe the one thing we have to do in this House is to see as far as possible that the Business of the House is done within rational hours. It is because I desire to see that, that I am protesting against the action of the right hon. Gentleman this evening in wishing to keep us here after midnight for Supply. I can only repeat what I said last week that if the financial business is in a bad condition at the present time, the Government, and the Government alone, are responsible. They knew distinctly what had to be got through before the end of the financial year. There is nothing extraordinary about it, and they have no right to so pinch themselves up for time that a mere debate on a Private Bill lasting a few hours should have brought about the position we are in at the present time. We have been asked during, the past few years, since 1889, to grant this particular privilege which the right hon. Gentleman is asking for at the present time. To-night we have it quoted as a precedent against us, with the implied suggestion that it is wrong on our part to oppose it; but all the conditions of the dates quoted just now by the right hon. Gentleman prove that on no other occasion has the Leader of the House asked for this power at such an early period of the Session as the right hon. Gentleman has.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but that is because the House gave it us before that.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: The dates are fully in the recollection of the House—the date of last Session in particular.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But the Government never asked for this compulsory power, if I may so use the phrase, until the House refused the indulgence of taking Report of Supply after twelve o'clock. It was given them without a Motion before. I would never have asked for it if it had not been that an hon. Gentleman, quite within his rights, on two nights objected to Report of Supply being proceeded with.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: I am not responsible for the action of the hon. Gentleman. What I particularly wish to protest against, and shall continue to protest against, is being required to continue these Sittings during the early hours of the morning. It is a great inconvenience to many Members of the House, which, perhaps, some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen might not realise, and I think it only right that we should make this protest.
    Mr. MARK STEWARTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. MORTON: I want a fair opportunity for debate and discussion, and I am certain that taking Business after twelve o'clock means that it is not done in a proper manner at all. It is not reported, so that the public outside cannot see what is done, and it is not properly discussed inside the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has just said that he has not asked for this until he has been obliged to. I do not think that is quite a fair and open course. As far as my limited experience goes, there has been no difficulty whatever with this Report of Supply. It has generally been acceded to without debate. What is the objection at the present moment? The objection taken the other night to Report of Supply was owing to the circumstance that the discussion on the Mombasa Railway and Nyanza Survey business had not, in the opinion of some of us, been properly discussed, and we wished to discuss it on Report. It is well known to the Members of this House that the discussion on that
    578
    Nyanza affair was confined practically to the Front Benches, with the exception of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouehere). Now, I think we are fairly entitled to ask that we shall have reasonable time allowed to us to discuss that question. Up to the present time, owing to the Closure having been moved by the right horn Gentleman the Leader of the House, we have had no opportunity of discussing it. We below the Gangway are the Members who voted against that. Many of the Members on the Front Opposition Bench voted against that waste of public money; but, at the same time, owing to the action of the right hon. Gentleman, we have not been allowed an opportunity of discussing the matter at all. I do not think that is fair either to us or the country which we are supposed to represent. I quite agree with the remark of the hon. Gentleman who preceded me that we ought to get our Business done by twelve o'clock, and that no Business done after that is properly done or the interests of the people of this country properly looked after, and I hope the time is not far distant when we shall insist on closing this House at twelve o'clock without regard to what the position of Business may be at that hour. I do not know whether I shall divide the House on this occasion, but I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept both Amendments—the one that has been moved and the other that has been suggested. I trust also that the Government will not continue to improperly obstruct proper discussion of their proposals to spend money which does not belong to them, but to the whole country. I deny that there has been any waste of time on our part. The obstruction with regard to the Business of the country has all come from the Government Bench. I have always had a difficulty in charging anybody with wasting time or obstructing, but I have no difficulty whatever in charging the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues with the waste of time during the present Session. I do not know why. People say they do not want to do any business. I do not know whether they want to do any business, but it is an absolute fact

    579
    that time has been wasted by the Government during the present Session day by day, and in the most extraordinary fashion. I will not take up the time of the House with giving full particulars. Everyone knows it is a fact; and everyone bewails it, especially the hon. Gentleman opposite, that they have not been better led as regards the business of the Government. I trust, we shall have an opportunity of properly discussing the spending of our money.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am in these matters a thoroughgoing old Tory. I like regular hours and regular, rules. Now, when it was agreed that we should break up at twelve o'clock, and that no further business should, be done after that hour, the only exception that was made was in regard to a Money Bill. But we did not then make a Standing Order that the Report of Supply should be taken after twelve o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has said that for three successive Sessions he had to ask for this. That is no reason why he should go on asking for it Session after Session. If that is to, be the rule, let it be a Standing Order; but if it is not a Standing Order, and the House has agreed that, we ought mot to take the Report of Supply after twelve o'clock, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made out his case. The right hon. Gentleman says that the financial business of the House is behindhand, but, as my hon. Friend, behind me said, Whose fault is it that the Government sprang their own Bills upon us at the commencement of the Session, with really, so far as I could see, no great desire, that they should be passed? When he took the Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays for financial business, the right hon. Gentleman absolutely introduced fresh business. Surely it would be more, reasonable to deal with the Bills actually brought in. I have the greatest suspicion of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. I am beginning to ask myself, after having got these facilities for business, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in that Bill
    580
    called the Small Holdings Bill that was foreshadowed; for I confess that seeing the action of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, first challenging us to speak, and then abusing us for speaking, I feel that by the arrangement of business a great deal of time has been wasted during the present Session. I am beginning to think that the right hon. Gentleman has got some covert design. I want the right hon. Gentleman to make a clean breast of it. Tell me, when are you going to dissolve? That is what I want to know. If you will undertake to dissolve when we consider it the most desirable time (laughter)—not for ourselves, for we are most ready to make any sacrifice. By the most desirable time I mean, when the agricultural labourer and others are not prevented by their avocations from voting; then I am perfectly sure the right hon. Gentleman would find no difficulty in getting us to assent to let him take all the mornings, and to let him take all the nights; it is this uncertainty that dangles over us like the sword of Damocles. We want the right hon. Gentleman to be frank, open, and candid with us in regard to these matters. The right hon. Gentleman tells us there is a necessity. My right hon. Friend here admitted the necessity. Well, Ministers' necessities are the Opposition's opportunities. No sooner does a Minister get himself into a mess than we have a repetition of the old story of the wolf and the lamb. He seizes upon some time belonging to private Members. No Minister that I have ever known in this House has, ever since I have been here, cut his coat according to the cloth—they have always been taking parts of our cloth and adding it to their coats. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to take the Report of Supply after twelve o'clock. What I regard as infinitely more important than a Money Bill being brought in is to look after the national expenditure. Some Ministers say they wish to let business go on a little. They allow themselves a little time like the Secretary of the Treasury. They do not make the speeches they would have made, and reserve them for the Report. Now,

    581
    they make them in the conclusion of the night. I object to that. I do not know why—I wish the right hon. Gentleman to tell me—I do not know why when Ministers get into a mess they say—Take Report of Supply after Twelve o'clock, and they do not say, take this Bill or that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman complains of the length of time that Private Business has taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURexpressed dissent.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact. Whose fault is it that time has been wasted? Why not give us Home Rule? Why not give larger powers to your County Councils? We come down here and spend hour after hour discussing some twaddling little question that ought to be decided by the locality. (Admiral FIELD: Hear, hear!) I think there was a certain amount of reason in what was said this afternoon; I believe there was more or less. But most unquestionably the reason why Session after Session gets into a muddle—why private Members days are being taken, why after all possible business should have come to an end at twelve o'clock, we are called upon to go on till one o'clock—the reason is I say that this House has far too much business to do; and I say that that will always be the case until you give Home Rule to all parts of the country, allowing Ireland to legislate for Ireland and giving the County Councils power to manage their own local affairs. I shall certainly challenge a division.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to withdraw my Motion, if you, Sir, think it will prevent unopposed Supply from being taken.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, after the word "That," to insert the words "until Easter."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
    Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CONYBEARE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he agreed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
    MR. CONYBEARE: That puts a very different complexion on the
    582
    matter. We have our days filched from us by the right hon. Gentleman, at least to some extent, and now not content with that he is going to rob us of our sleep. It is a practice which always lends itself to renewed Opposition whenever the Government of the Day has attempted to push through Government Business after twelve o'clock. Now we are asked to commit ourselves for the rest of the Session—Heaven knows how long it may last—to the position that we may be kept up to any hour of the morning before being released from duty, in order to please the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think anybody complained of myself personally that I have been wasting the time of the House during this Session. Indeed, it has been a matter of reproach to me that I have not interfered more in the Debates that have already taken place; but I have not seen any occasion to do so, and it is only the importance that this question has assumed in the face of the attitude of the right hon Gentleman that has induced me to interpose for a moment in this Debate. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that whatever difficulties may surround the Government with respect to the conduct of Public Business is brought on themselves entirely. If it had not been for the extraordinary incompetency—I will not use stronger language—that has been displayed by the Leader of the House, there is no doubt business might have advanced much more than it has done at this period of the Session. It was not our fault if the right hon. Gentleman chose to waste a whole evening upon a Scotch Debate before he had mastered the A B C of the conduct of Parliamentary Business and discovered that he ought to have introduced a Money Bill in Committee. It was not our business to tell him that. I was not present on the occasion, but I frankly confess that if I had been in the House that evening I would have taken very good care not to have in formed the right hon. Gentleman of his mistake until a late hour in the evening. This is undoubtedly a bad retrogressive precedent for the right hon. Gentleman to have started at this early part of the Session to compel us to sit here all through the night; that is

    583
    practically what his Resolution means. All experience shows that after midnight no reasonably useful business is done. In the old days, when the hours were unlimited, there was a prolonged wrangle; everybody was put in a bad temper, our time was destroyed, our energies wasted, because it is futile to attempt serious work at an early hour in the morning. I resist this proposal on this occasion, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that we shall certainly not curtail our remarks whether it be 1, 2, or 3 o'clock in the morning. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks by destroying our hours of repose, as well as by robbing, us of our liberty of action, he will succeed, he is very much mistaken. If he wants to facilitate business let him get up and tell us what measures he wants to pass, and with what programme he wants to go to the country in order to support this tottering Government.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not keeping to the Question before the House.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I quite see that, Sir, and I was going to pass on to what I was saying—an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. If, instead of asking us to sit during reasonable hours, he proposes that we should sit here until the early hours of the morning, I shall consider myself at liberty to make it impossible for him to pass those measures.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: Sir, I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one matter that has not already been pointed out. It is this: that, supposing this Motion is carried, after Report of Supply, which may not be concluded, it may be until 3 o'clock in the morning, all the Orders of the Day will then have to be gone through. There may be on the Orders of the Day some Bills which are objectionable to private Members, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that last Session the then Leader of the House undertook to object to the private Members' Bills passing stages after midnight when Report of Supply was proceeded With. I have had to wait here night after night to oppose such Bills. A few nights ago there was
    584
    a Bill—the Cathedral Churches Bill—on the Orders; and although the name of the Leader of the House was not on the back of that Bill, and although it was not a Government Bill, the right hon. Gentleman moved the Second Reading. That Bill, it appeared, from something that you, Mr. Speaker, said, had been postponed to the 15th of March by the hon. Member in charge of it. Notwithstanding these facts, the right hon. Gentleman moved the Second Reading. Now, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the Orders of the Day, he will see that No. 3 is Supply, and that No. 14 is the Cathedral Churches Bill, and it therefore follows that we must sit here until that Order is reached. I would ask the Government to give the House a pledge that when the Report of Supply is taken, after 12 o'clock, the Government will object to progress being made with any subsequent Orders upon the Paper.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: So far as I understand the point of the hon. Gentleman, it was raised last year, and the then Leader of the House stated that he would undertake to object to any Bills being taken after 1 o'clock. To that pledge I am prepared to adhere.
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The hour when Debate on contested business closes is now 12 o'clock, and 12 o'clock stands for 1 o'clock.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The House will see that Supply must be taken first. If the House still sits till 1 o'clock, it is a hardship to Members to stay to oppose these Bills, and I am quite willing to prevent any of these Bills being taken after a quarter to 1.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: I am very loth to quibble about a quarter of an hour, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, many Members; go by train, and half past 12 would be a convenient hour.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well, then, we will say half-past 12.
    MR. H. S. CROSS: I think, Sir, that undertaking should be confined, to Bills to which notice of objection has been given. There are many useful measures in respect of which the proceedings are comparatively formal, and it would certainly

    585
    almost prevent the possibility of such measures passing this House if such a hard-and-fast rule as that just mentioned should prevail. I understand the hon. Gentleman was anxious to confine this Resolution to Bills to which notice of objection was given; and if the notice was given, the promoters of those Bills would have an opportunity of satisfying hon. Gentlemen who were opposing on the points of their objections.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I point out that if the Bill is objected to by any individual it is rather hard the objection should be taken after 12 o'clock; on the other hand, if not so objected to, there are plenty of nights when the hon. Gentleman opposite, or any other Members, will have ample opportunity of proceeding with the measures in which he or they are interested.
    Question put.
    (10.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 156.—(Div. List, No. 26.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as to an Amendment which I think ought to find favour with him. The object of it is simply to limit the operation of the proposed new Rule, so that the Sitting shall close in any case at one o'clock. If we give the Government an extra hour up to one o'clock for the rest of the Session, I think they might agree to what I now propose—namely, "Provided that the discussion shall in all cases close at One a.m."
    MR. SPEAKER: I will not put the Motion. It is inconsistent with what the House has already passed.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I thought the Amendment which has been passed inserted the words "till after Easter," and that the Motion had not yet been passed.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the Amendment is added at the end of the Motion it will stultify the preceding part of it.
    MR. CONYBEARE: My object was simply to limit the operation of the Rule to one o'clock. Should I not be
    586
    in Order in moving to omit the words "at any hour" in order to add the words I have suggested?
    MR. SPEAKER: The Motion was to leave out the words "at any hour," in order to insert "after Twelve o'clock."
    MR. CONYBEARE: May I, then, withdraw my Amendment for the purpose of moving the omission of the words "at any hour"?
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I now move the omission of the words "at any hour." I do so with the view of introducing the words, "Provided that the discussion close at One o'clock."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "at any hour," and insert the words "after Twelve o'clock."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'at any hour' stand part of the Question."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It appears to me, Sir, as far as I can gather from the Amendment you have just put from the Chair, that the Resolution, if passed in the shape which the hon. Gentleman desires, would not be English, and still less sense. In that I may be wrong. I will, therefore, confine myself to saying that if the Resolution were amended as the hon. Gentleman desires, the result would not be that our discussions would be shorter, but that they would probably be lengthened. Hon. Gentlemen, seeing the magic hour of 1 o'clock drawing nigh, and that if the subject under discussion were not disposed of it must be deferred to another day, would drive their eloquence into a gallop, and thereby compel us, instead of getting to bed, to sit longer. I hope, therefore, he will not ask us to divide on an Amendment which will not conduce to shortening debate.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 65.—(Div. List, No. 27.)
    Main Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 185; Noes 80.—(Div. List, No. 28.)
    Resolved, That the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed; and the Proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY [4TH MARCH]—REPORT.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th March],
    "That the Resolution [4th March],'That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, as a Grant in Aid of the Cost of Preliminary Surveys for a Railway from the Coast to Lake Victoria Nyanza,'
    be read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. MORTON: I hope the Government will not go on with this matter tonight.
    DR. CLARK: I have very much sympathy with the Government in spending this money, but I think they have adopted a bad way of doing it, and a very much better way is that which I propose. The way I propose is to stop the whole of the caravan routes, and not one of them, and the formation of this railway would only affect the central trade route. It would not affect the Slave Trade coming down from Lake Nyanza, nor from the German sphere of influence. The one way by which you can stop all these slave caravan routes and develop the trade of Africa is to use the great water ways; and now, since the mouth of the Zambesi has been cleared, and we know it to be open all the year round, you have a splendid water way right through from Liverpool to the centre of Africa. Water ways are cheaper than railways, and you would affect all the slave caravan routes. If the Government had done as they ought, and put a gunboat on the Lake, they could have stopped the Slave Trade. From the top of Nyassa and by the
    588
    Victoria Albert and Alexandra Lakes you will have an influence on the whole trade of Central Africa. It will be cheaper, and you may develop trade to ten times the amount you can under the present project and at one-tenth of the cost. Why not utilise the waterways? You can check the Slave Trade and carry your commerce anywhere. It would be almost impossible to make a railway except by a punitive war against the Masai. They will resent the entrance of strangers by that route. They did not murder Bishop Hannington because he was a missionary, but because he came that way; and Mr. Cotrell who was 14 years with the Uganda Mission, sent messengers to the coast to try and stop the Bishop from approaching that way. In the present condition of Uganda this project of yours will do much harm. The Arabs lead the people to believe that the Sultan of Zanzibar has lost all his power, and that the lands will pass into the hands of the white men. The position is further imperilled by the entrance of Colonel Lugard by a route and in a manner that gave colour to the rumour that he was come to take possession of the land. You may have another civil war in Uganda. If you are going to make this railway you must protect your surveying party, your constructors, and your stores. You must guard your iron, for the Masai will regard your railway as a splendid iron mine; they will steal your rails to convert the metal into weapons. Supposing your railway made, you tell us you can carry goods at £3 per ton. That railway will have a length of 500 or 600 miles. How do the African railways pay? There is a railway to the Diamond Fields, 540 miles from end to end, and this railway has considerable coal and other traffic; but the charge is £8 10s. for coarse goods and coals to the coast. That railway scarcely pays. We have experience in Africa of railways that do not pay their running expenses. There is no place in the world except, perhaps, India, where railways are so difficult and so costly to maintain. You have the tropical rains that sweep away banks, culverts, and bridges; you have the rapid growth of rank vege-

    589
    tation, and the keeping up of the permanent way is a most costly business. From an economical as well as political aspect, I oppose the scheme. When the Charter was granted to this Company and they were permitted to receive a concession from the Sultan and were allowed to tax everything coming into their neighbourhood, then the Company should be required to pay their own money on a survey if the railway is to be a commercial success. The Company is to have full control over the lands and this railway, and I say they have no right to ask us to put our hands into our pockets and subscribe £20,000 for a preliminary survey. I have not heard a definite or intelligible reason for the course taken except that by this means the Government hope to be able to carry out one of the intentions of the Brussels Conference. They will do little against the Slave Trade; and when this preliminary survey is paid for, and we read the correspondence between the Treasury and the Foreign Office, we shall see that we are to be asked for something more as a subsidy or guarantee. This is the first step. It is not justifiable, and with the greatest pleasure I vote against it.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): I do not think I can complain of the spirit in which the hon. Member has spoken. On questions affecting Southern and Equatorial Africa he speaks with authority, and what he has put forward fully deserves the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman has urged that the Government ought not to have considered for a moment the possibility of the adoption of a line of railway from Mombasa to the Victoria Nyanza. The route is, however, much shorter than that suggested by the hon. Member. The mouth of the Zambesi lies hundreds of miles to the south, and as the water-ways to which he has referred would not extend the whole way, there must be transhipment of goods and a railway would have to be built between the lakes to connect the water route, or else the cost of carrying goods would be as prohibitive to trade as it is at this moment. So far as the
    590
    Slave Trade can be stopped by commerce, in the neighbourhood of Nyassa and the southern lakes, it will be stopped by the development of that water-way, but that alone will not be sufficient; and as to the Slave Trade from the north of the Lake Nyanza down the Nile towards Wadelai, as well as along the route towards the coast to the east and also along the route to the west of the Lake, all three routes will be stopped by a railway running from Victoria Nyanza to Mombasa. I understand that one of the chief slave routes goes from the North-West and West side of Lake Victoria Nyanza to the South of the Lake, and passes through the German sphere of influence, arriving somewhere in the neighbourhood of Bagamayo. That slave route would clearly be tapped, not so much by the existence of the railway, as by the existence of steamers upon Lake Victoria Nyanza, and the railway alone could afford the means of placing the steamers there. The hon. Member dealt with the recent history of Uganda. I shall not follow him into these matters. He advises Her Majesty'3 Government to have nothing to do with Uganda. He said he thought the present was a dangerous time to interfere, and that the Waganda are in the habit of murdering all those who arrive amongst them. Captain Lugard has been in Uganda now for a year and a half, and, so far as my last information goes, he is alive and well. Captain Lugard came up by the very route to which the hon. Member takes exception. He came to Uganda by the South-Eastern route, and so did those who immediately preceded him. That does not seem to me to be relevant to the question before the House. The question is not our relations with Uganda, but whether prima facie there is sufficient reason to suppose that it is possible to make a survey of the territory lying between the Lake and Mombasa. The hon. Member said that if the railway was to be made at all, it should be made by the Company, and that it was their business to make the railway. When I submitted this Vote to the House, I submitted it solely on the ground of the responsibility which lay on this country to take some

    591
    steps to carry out the Brussels Act. The East Africa Company received their Charter before the Brussels Act was signed. At the time the Charter was given to the Company, there was no obligation laid on the Company to take any steps to put a stop to slavery by means of making a railway such as this. It was two or three years after the Company had received their Charter that this obligation was placed on the country by adding their signature to the Brussels Act. I do not think there are any other points which the hon. Member raised, and I trust the House will allow the Report on this Vote now to be taken.
    MR. CONYBEARE: As a matter of commercial importance, I do not know that I have any great objection to this railway being constructed, but I do take exception to the manner in which it has been brought forward by the Government. The Government shelter themselves for what they are doing and propose to do under the old cry of the triple duty which England has undertaken for the purpose of putting down the Slave Trade. I have my doubts as to whether this will really effect the purpose which the Government have in view. But the question I should like to have some information from the Government upon is this. Assuming that they meet with all the success they anticipate in the way of checking the Slave Trade by means of this railway, do the Government intend to relieve us of the heavy charge which we are now incurring by keeping cruisers running up and down the coast? If that is not part of their plan—and I do not gather from the statement of the Under Secretary that it is—I think we should be burdening ourselves with a very heavy extra expenditure, without any certainty of deriving very much benefit from it, and with the certainty that we shall also have to pay through the nose for the prevention of the Slave Trade. I do not believe that this idea of putting down the Slave Trade is the real motive of the Government. The question of the
    592
    survey for the railway is, to my mind, undoubtedly wrapped up, in the welfare of the East Africa Company. I have not voted for the railway, nor do I intend to do so, although I feel strongly convinced that the interests of the Company are extensively bound up with the question of the railway. It is an open secret that if this Vote was not passed, and the railway was not constructed, the East Africa Company would have little chance of maintaining itself in the long run. The question we have a right to ask ourselves is this—"Is it a reasonable policy, upon which we, the guardians of the public purse, can rightly enter, to take a step which, although it may be a small matter at present, must necessarily lead to the expenditure of vast sums of money by this country?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other evening admitted he would have to come to the House later on in order to ask for a subsidy or guarantee for this railway. What we have to consider is this—If we take the initial step by voting this £20,000 for a preliminary survey, later on we shall have an application made to this House for either a subsidy or guarantee. £2,000,000, I should say, is a very moderate estimate of the amount that would be asked for. Is it right to saddle this country with an expenditure of this kind? The Government fall back upon the Brussels Act. They say that we have declared slavery by that Act, and that the other civilised Powers have also given1 their adhesion to it. But it has been contended that, whatever the Brussels Act amounted to, it did not bind us or require us in any way to undertake such active measures as are now proposed for the suppression of the Slave Trade. If that be so, we are not more bound to involve ourselves in what are called in the City these "wild-cat schemes" than any other civilised Government of Europe. If we are bound to do anything in this respect, surely other Governments of Europe, which have equally with us given their adhesion to the Brussels Act, should also be bound to assist in this work of the suppression of the Slave Trade? If

    593
    that be so, why is it that the German Government, which has large interests in this part of Africa, should not be called upon to undertake a portion of the heavy liability to be incurred in putting an end to the Slave Trade? Do what you will you will still have slave caravans passing down through German territory. Why should not Germany assist us?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I have seen by the papers that the German Government have voted two and a half million marks to put down slavery in their sphere of influence.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I hope that is true, although the sum named is very small compared with what we shall have to spend in the long run. I hope, at the same time, that the Germans within their sphere of influence will be successful in putting down the Slave Trade. But this information as to the intentions of Germany shows the desirability of having some decision on the part of the Government. Are we to be perpetually saddled with the expenditure on the cruisers employed in putting down the Slave Trade on the coast? If the German Government and our own are able to attack the Slave Trade at its source, there ought to be but a small amount of slavery at the coast. But until you carry your railway up to Khartoum—which I hope will yet be done—there will be a large amount of slavery down to the Red Sea Coast. If the Government had acted with their eyes open when they entered into negotiations with Germany, we might not have been called upon to make these large sacrifices. It was open to the Government, when they handed over Heligoland, and when we bartered away the possible future rights of the natives of South Africa, if they had put some backbone into their negotiations, to have prevented the Germans cutting us off from the South. We might have had the whole of the great waterways of Lake Nyassa and Lake Tanganyka, and a line of railway carried up through this
    594
    district where the Slave Trade flourishes most. But as the Government chose a different course, there is no good crying over spilt milk. Although it is very desirable that this railway should be constructed, it is not a policy upon which we in this House should lightly embark and pledge British resources for the purpose. I have no doubt that in a territory like India, where railways are of strategical importance, and not merely of commercial value, it is quite right that the railways should be constructed at Government expense. The policy of this country, of late, has been, where railways are purely a matter of speculation and prospective commercial importance, to leave them to private enterprise. I am astonished to find this Government lending themselves to a policy so different. Although I see that the construction of this railway, under British guarantee, will be of immense service to the British East Africa Company—however much I may be personally interested in the Company—I shall not desist from trying to prevent the House embarking upon an expenditure the limits of which are wholly unknown.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution read a second time, and agreed to.

    PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.—(No. 28.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 15th June.

MOTION.
  GRESHAM UNIVERSITY CHARTER.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. BARTLEY: I have to move the Address in the terms of which I have given notice. I think under the circumstances it will not be necessary for me

    595
    to detain the House, but I thank the Government extremely for having agreed to the arrangement which has been come to on all sides of the House. We are quite satisfied with what the Government have done, and think outside the House it will be agreed that the right step has been taken in carrying out the very difficult measure of establishing a really efficient Teaching University for London. I regret extremely to find our motives have been somewhat challenged in the Times, and we have been accused of raising trivial objections. We are all interested in a large Teaching University for London, and the only objections we have made have been made from an educational standpoint. I do not intend to weary the House with the various objections, for we may consider the draft Charter as now dead. Our objections were directed to securing a real Teaching University sufficiently great and important for London, which should be one of the great centres of education.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent to the proposed Charter for the Gresham University until it shall have been remitted for further consideration and report, in accordance with the recommendation of the University of London Commission, to the late Royal Commissioners, or to such other persons as Her Majesty may be pleased to appoint."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    MR. A. H. DYKE ACLAND: I do not propose to detain the House at any length. Although many different interests were engaged in opposing the draft Charter, I think we are all agreed that on the whole benefit will arise from the consideration given to the subject. A great deal of public interest has been excited and although some slight delay will occur, I think in the long run we shall gain by referring this back to a new Royal Commission. It was absolutely essential, if we were to have a Teaching University worthy of this Metropolis, that we should take exception to the details of this draft Charter. I do not wish to raise the question in any Party sense, but certainly there
    596
    were provisions bearing on the position of King's College which were not similar, though it was said they were, to the position of Keble College, Oxford, or Selwyn College, Cambridge. We may look upon the draft Charter as dead, and I need not refer to the objections. I know fears have been expressed that if this were thrown out the whole movement would go to pieces, but I would rather say, with all deference, that I agree with the anticipations of the Prime Minister which he expressed the other day when receiving a deputation:—
    "Whatever is done, whether our action is positive or negative, it will not be such as, on the one hand, to put a stop to the agitation, development, and growth of this question, and, on the other hand, that if it takes a positive character, it will leave the door open for the introduction of such improvements and extensions as shall bring together all the educational power and all the educational enthusiasm of this Metropolis in the common search after one end."
    SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I should like to say a word with reference to what passed this afternoon when the First Lord of the Treasury answered a question I put to him. I understood the First Lord to say that the present University of London would not be included in the scope of any new inquiry, and that the combination of any new Teaching University with the University of London would not be included. I hope there will be no such limitation or restriction. I acknowledge the difficulty of combining the two, but it is by no means impossible. The London University provides for a large class who cannot give the time to be taught, but who are willing to be examined in the hope of having their knowledge stamped. I hope that the combination of this great supplementary function of a modern City University with any Teaching University will be found feasible, for, in my opinion, the University of a great City should be many-sided.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My answer seems to have given the impression that I desired to exclude the consideration of a scheme which would include a Teaching University and the

    597
    existing London University in one combined body. I had no intention of so limiting the scope of the inquiry. I desired to convey that we do not wish to investigate and criticise the way in which the London University has carried on its great examining work, and which I believe is excellently done. That I think would be outside the inquiry by Royal Commission. If it should be found possible to associate with the existing examining body a new teaching body, that would be a good thing, as making it wider, and of course, so much better.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made the matter quite clear, and that the whole question is to be referred back. I am glad most of the educational institutions are of opinion that it would be a misfortune to have two Universities in London. The Senate of the University of London which I have the honour to represent, have not indeed formally opposed the proposed charter, but they concur in this view, and the Convocation of the University have opposed, and will oppose, any similar charter. I speak also for the Working Men's College and kindred institutions, which would prefer to be affiliated to the University of London, the degrees of which deservedly occupy so high a position. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) draws a distinction between a teaching and an examining University. It is admitted that the University of London has done its work well, but we are told it is not a teaching University. The great plea for some change has been that it is desirable to have a teaching University in London. At present the teaching is given in various colleges, and the degrees are conferred by the University of London. Under the new system the teaching would have continued in the present colleges, and the degrees would have been conferred by the new University. The Gresham University would, in fact, not be a teaching, but only a second examining, University. It is a general opinion of those interested in University education that the multi-
    598
    plication of Universities would be a mistake, and it should be avoided if possible. So far as the Senate of the London University are concerned, we are most anxious to approach the subject with the most friendly spirit towards the colleges, and a desire to cultivate the most cordial relations. I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that this will be admitted into the reference to the Commission. I venture to express the hope that it will be suggested, and I think there should be no considerable difficulty in effecting this object, so that there may be one great University worthy of this Metropolis.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I am glad to have taken a humble part in opposition to this charter as a matter of justice to Victoria University. There are many who have taken strong objection to the charter, but who by no means share in the objections raised by my hon. Friend opposite as regards King's College. Our opposition must not in any way whatever be supposed to be connected with the subject of tests. When the question of tests was raised some of us hesitated very much in opposing the charter.
    MR. ROBY: I quite concur that the announcement of the First Lord of the Treasury has saved us a great deal of trouble. My objections were in common with those of many other Members. I should like to point out one particular with regard to the Commission to be appointed, and that is that it would be well to give it greater powers than are conferred on an ordinary Commission. The charter bears on its face the term "Gresham University." Obviously, the suggestion is that the Gresham foundation in the City of London may in some way be made serviceable in forming a University. Now, the Gresham Trust is 300 years old, and it was for four lecturers, to be appointed by the City of London, and three by the Mercers' Company, besides some other Trusts. Sir Thomas Gresham gave them only £50 a year, but now they get about £100. My

    599
    point is this: I think it is desirable that something more should be done for the University than to give it a name: the foundation should be connected with it. Before, however, the Gresham foundation can be associated with the new University, an alteration of the trusts will be required, and this cannot be done by a Royal Commission. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he could not give the Commission Parliamentary powers. I believe a real analogy is to be found in the Commissions for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. A body of competent men might draw up schemes for dealing with some of the foundations intended to be joined with the University. It is quite certain that the Gresham Trust could not be joined with the proposed institution except under Parliamentary powers; and it is not desirable to give the name until you are sure the Gresham Trust could be associated with it. With Parliamentary powers a body of competent men might set to work in a businesslike way, to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of the Metropolis, preparing schemes and submitting them to the approval of Parliament.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent to the proposed Charter for the Gresham University until it shall have been remitted for further consideration and report, in accordance with the recommendation of the University of London Commission, to the late Royal Commissioners, or to such other persons as Her Majesty may be pleased to appoint.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors.

    SHOP HOURS BILL.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Shop Hours Bill do consist of Eighteen Members.
    The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Arthur Acland, Mr. Baumann, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Harrison, Mr. Samuel Hoare, Mr. Seager Hunt, Sir Guyer Hunter, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Macartney, Mr. Walter M'Laren, Mr. Blundell Maple, Mr. Mather, Mr. Murray, Mr. Francis Powell, Mr. Provand, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Webb, and Mr. Stuart-Wortley.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Provand.)

    RAILWAYS (TRAINS PASSING OVER SINGLE LINES).
    Return ordered—
    "Showing the number of all Trains booked to pass over the single lines of the Great Eastern Railway Company between Beccles and Coke Ovens Junction, Lowestoft, and Reedham and Coke Ovens Junction, Lowestoft, and any points short thereof, giving the point of departure and the point of destination, and including all Trains, viz.: Passenger, Goods, and Ballast Trains for the months of February and August in each year, as follows, that is to say, in the years 1861, 1871, 1881, and 1891; and also for the last-named year the number of Trains actually run under the following heads:—Date and length of journey; description of Trains (Passenger, Goods, Ballast); total number of Trains; average number of Trains run daily."—(Mr. Colman.)

    DEATHS FROM STARVATION (COUNTY OF LONDON).
    Address for—
    "Return of the number of all Deaths in the administrative county of London in the year 1891, upon which a Coroner's Jury has returned a verdict of Death from Starvation or Death accelerated by Privation (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 245, of Session 1890–91); together with any Observations by the Local Government Board with reference to those cases in which applications have been made to the Poor Law Authorities for relief."—(Mr. John Talbot.)

    PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES.
    Address for—
    "Return showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the number of Electors on the Register now in force (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 316, of Session 1891)."—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

    ARMY GUNS (RIFLED, IRON, AND STEEL).
    Address for—
    "Return showing the number, description, name of designer, place of manufacture, and actual cost of the various Rifled, Iron, and Steel Guns supplied by the War Department to the Naval and Land Service during the year 1890–91, showing whether each Gun is Land or Naval (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 140, of Session 1891)."—(Mr. Duff.)

    BETTING AND LOANS (INFANTS) BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]
    House adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock.

CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 19.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY): Before putting the Question that the House resolve itself into Committee, I should like to say a few words on the subject of the Bill. My Lords, I desire to express my own earnest hope, and indeed that of Her Majesty's Government, that a very much-needed reform of the law may no longer be delayed. I cannot help thinking that a very interesting speech which we heard on the last occasion—which might have been very appropriate to the Committee stage, but which was not so appropriate to the Second Reading, recognised the fact that the principle of this Bill is one upon which it is impossible for anybody to entertain a doubt. That a clergyman, who has been convicted of treason or felony or the great misdemeanour which is involved in the description of misdemeanours included in the Bill, or the other moral offences to which it refers, should be no longer permitted to exercise public functions, is a matter upon which I do not believe anybody can be found seriously to entertain a doubt; and I cannot help feeling that it is extraordinary that that which would not be permitted in any other public employment whatever, I do not care what it is, where the most ordinary qualification of good character is required, should nevertheless continue to exist in a profession where the teaching of morality and religion is essential to the public function which is performed. I myself should think it would be a grave reflection upon any body of Christian men if they permitted such a state of things to continue. Everybody of course recognises how serious is the effect upon any community where a clergyman is known to have been guilty of such offences as these.
  446
  It is not confined in these days to the immediate vicinity where the offence has been committed, or where the clergyman is known. One effect of the great diffusion of knowledge of events is that, although, as the most rev. Prelate most accurately I believe represented, the number of cases in which a clergyman misbehaves himself are very small in proportion to the number existing in the Church of England, yet any one single case is known all over the Kingdom next day; and the scandal of a continuance of such a state of things is one the effect and operation of which, on every one who reads it or hears of it, is so evil that I think no one can possibly exaggerate it. Those who have known the immediate neighbourhood where a clergyman has been guilty, and has been known to be guilty of these offences, well know that the operation of it is not confined, as I think my noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell) said, to the members of his own religious community, but it is acted upon and considered as a reproach to professors of religion generally; and it is surely an evil which ought to be abated, if it can be. It is principally in the Church of England that the difficulty arises, because other forms of religious communities have a very sovereign mode of dealing with such persons occupying the position of ministers in their communities—they are speedily disposed of. But it is the technicality of the Queen's Ecclesiastical law in England which makes the difficulty; and, whatever may be the value of that Ecclesiastical law, those, who have had either to argue upon it or to preside as Judges in respect of it, will not say that either in respect of speed or absence of technicality it is entirely free from reproach. The consequence is that time after time that, which ought to have been speedily and at once decided, has been kept hanging a long time in abeyance, and the result has been I believe very disastrous indeed, in more instances than one, to the immediate parish concerned. I would appeal to my noble and learned Friend, to whom I have already referred (Lord Grimthorpe). I trust he is not going to abide by the resolution he intimated last time that he would not move Amendments, or endeavour to

  447
  improve this Bill. I should be glad to see him apply his great learning and facility of dealing with such questions to improve this Bill, so far as it is capable of improvement. I am now speaking of the substance of the Bill, of which I understand he does not disapprove, but, on the contrary approves the principle. After all, what a small question it is that remains! I would suggest to my noble and learned Friend that he has given an importance to this small question which I certainly, and I think probably a great many of your Lordships do not attach to it. His suggestion is that it has been put in in order to establish something in the nature of an ecclesiastical aggression of which he does not approve. My Lords, I read this Bill with some care, and I confess such an idea never entered my mind; it may have been owing to my simplicity and innocence; but I cannot helping thinking that a great many other people, equally simple, and equally uninformed of the knowledge of good and evil which my noble and learned Friend communicated to us, would have been equally innocent to. After all what does it come to? It is a question of whether or not the principal ecclesiastical authority in the diocese should pronounce the sentence. What possible difference can it make? It seems to me to be a question that might very well be debated, and, if we could arrive at any conclusion, I should be very glad; but what I do earnestly suggest to my noble and learned Friend is this: Given an admitted state of things, an undoubted condition of scandal—to which it does occasionally reduce a parish—is it wise, is it decorous to a body of Christian men to allow that scandal to continue, because, upon some such question as this, they cannot agree upon the particular person who is to pronounce the sentence? I should have thought there would have been an effort upon the part of all persons concerned to get rid of any difficulty of that sort, so as to have the substance, at all events, of the proposed legislation, put upon a right footing, and not to prolong the existence of what no one can deny to be a great scandal because you cannot agree upon such a minor point as that. I say it is a minor point; I know my noble and learned
  448
  Friend says it is not, because it is an "ecclesiastical aggression," which it is his great vocation in life to resist; but he must forgive me for saying that other people may take a different view. And is it necessary to insist upon his own view in that particular? Supposing some foolish people have said some Very foolish things—and I am not prepared to deny that they have—are you to crystallise them, and make that body an absolute impediment to doing that which everybody admits ought to be done? I earnestly hope that such a proposition will not be insisted upon. My Lords, as to the question who is to pass sentence, there are many analogies. I might remind my noble and learned Friend, who is himself a very learned lawyer, that in times gone by (I do not know whether the practice continues at the present time) whenever a person was tried in the Court of Queen's Bench sitting in banc the sentence was afterwards passed during Term time by the Senior Puisne Judge. I do not think any Puisne Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, however much he might disapprove of the verdict (and it is an extraordinary hypothesis to suppose that he would disapprove of such a verdict) ever felt called upon, in spite of his disapproval, to refuse to perform the duty which the Court called upon him to do. But there seems to be, in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, a difficulty in making the Bishop do his duty. I think it is rather hard upon the right rev. Prelates to assume that they will not do their duty; they will have had, by hypothesis, the finding of the fact to justify the calling upon them to do what the Bill calls upon them to do. I will not go into the question whether there ought to be a mandamus or any other form of compelling them to do so; for I will not believe that any right rev. Prelate would refuse to do his duty in that matter; but, if he should, although it might give occasion, to scandal in that particular case, I am sure, were such an event as that to happen, there would be very little difficulty in persuading either your Lordships or the other House to pass an Act of Parliament rendering such intervention unnecessary. I do not

  449
  believe any real practical difficulty ought to arise in such a case as this. I believe, the Bill is absolutely required for the purpose of removing a most serious scandal from the Church; and I do earnestly hope that no impediment will be placed in the way of passing it into law.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: After my noble and learned Friend's appeal, your Lordships will of course expect me to say something. I agree with most of his speech, but upon one point, upon which I troubled your Lordships the other day, my noble and learned Friend has forgotten that I am only asking to have the Bill put back, in substance, to the condition in which it was settled by your Lordships last year with singular unanimity for such a Bill; especially if we compare it with the Bill of 1888, which failed from this cause as well as from others. My noble and learned Friend also forgot that I was not so much using my own words, or expressing my own views, about this particular point, as those of very much greater persons, namely the two Archbishops of York, who have, unfortunately, passed away. I cannot help thinking that if either of those great Prelates were present now we should not have seen this alteration in the Bill to which I chiefly object. I merely say that by way of justifying my taking action in the matter at all. But I will now say further that, although I said the other night that I should not move any Amendments, I merely meant that, if Her Majesty's Government chose to say they would not let the Bill pass except on the terms of keeping it exactly as it is, it was not likely that I should waste time and strength in trying to mend it. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Herschell), however, in the course of his speech, made what I think a valuable suggestion, which I am quite prepared to accept, if I understood it rightly: that if the Bishop should not be able physically, or should not be willing (which your Lordships will remember Archbishop Magee put strongly as a possible case), then some other ecclesiastical officer (I am quite willing it should be an Ecclesiastical officer) should come in and do for him exactly what that ecclesiastical officer does now, in cases
  450
  of necessity, in admission to benefices. That is the very analogy which the party, who have been moving for the last six months about this matter, have been continually talking about. They said "Bishops admit to livings; therefore Bishops only ought to deprive from livings." I answer that Bishops admit to livings if they choose; if they do not, they leave it to the Vicar General—there is a Vicar General in every diocese. I was in hopes that my noble and learned Friend would himself propose an Amendment in the sense he indicated the other night; that is the reason why I abstained. If anybody would move an Amendment of the kind proposed, I think it would be satisfactory to all Parties, and I am quite willing to do it if my noble and learned Friend does not.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 18, after ("preferment") insert—
  ("If any act required under this section to be done by the Bishop is not done within twenty-one days it shall be done by or with the consent of the Archbishop of the province.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, this will be a convenient opportunity to mention that I have given notice in the proper quarter yesterday, but that notice has not reached your Lordships, of an Amendment to be moved in the shape of an additional clause which, if adopted, would come in before Clause 8. Clause 6 provides, amongst other things, for rules to be made as to the place of holding Courts; but this might be satisfied by regulations intended for the greater convenience of trial where no question of jurisdiction can be involved; and to avoid any such question I shall propose to move, in terms similar to those of the Bill of last year, that
  "subject to rules the provincial court in each province may be held in the administrative County of London, or in such place as the Judge may direct."
  The reason is obvious; because, whether counsel are employed or not, to compel the Judge of the Provincial Court of York always to go into that

  451
  province to exercise jurisdiction might often be a disadvantage to everybody and might create expense. Arid in fact it has for some time past been the law under other Acts. I know the learned Judge of the Provincial Court of York is of that opinion, because he has communicated with me upon the subject. Of course I do not mean to suggest that this matter should be withdrawn from rules. Subject to rules I propose to use the language of the Bill of last year. My Lords, I thought it right to mention my intention for two reasons: first, because the notice that I gave has not reached, your Lordships; and, secondly, because it may perhaps be the opinion of others that the words of Clause 6 make it unnecessary; but, as the question may involve a point of jurisdiction, I think it prudent to be on the safe side, more especially when you consider what the consequences might be of holding that the Provincial Court had acted without jurisdiction, and that the rule power did not extend so far: namely, that a clergyman, convicted of immorality, might escape. I do not propose any amendment of this clause; but I thought it the proper place to give notice of my Motion.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I wish to move, if it seems good to your Lordships, that the quorum should be "three" instead of "two." Two is a very small quorum, and I think the Act would work better if we were to have three.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: I must point out that in that case two ecclesiastics might make the rules against the Lord Chancellor, and I confess I do not like the idea.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 4, omit ("two") and insert instead thereof ("three").—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  After Clause 7, new Clause proposed:
  "Subject to rules the provincial court in each province may be held in the administrative County of London, or in such place as the Judge may direct."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: Is not that a little too large without any sort of guide? It might enable the Judge,
  452
  merely for his own convenience, to hold the Court in any place he pleased, although it might not be the best place for hearing the case. It is going a little too far to enable the Judge to fix his Court in London whenever he thinks, fit, even for a York case.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It was in that form last year that it passed the Standing Committee and the General Committee of this House; and it is the form, I believe, of an Act of great importance, relating to muck more controversial subjects now in force. I thought putting in the words "subject to rules" would obviate any difficulty upon that score. If a general rule were passed, the discretion of the Judge would be taken away of course to that extent.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not intend to oppose it at all; there will be an opportunity of considering it when it goes to the other Committee.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: In regard to line 40 "notwithstanding that he resides elsewhere," would the word "elsewhere" apply to a Conviction of treason or felony by a foreign Court?
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: It is intended that it should; it is to bring foreign chaplains under the cognisance of this whole procedure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess I doubt very much whether the-most rev. Prelate has effected it, if that is his object. There is no such thing; as felony abroad—it is treated generally Probably the most rev. Prelate does riot, mean treason committed against a foreign country. And with regard to misdemeanour, it is conviction on indictment and sentence to hard labour; which I think points to procedure in this country—you cannot go upon that. I think. There are other words applicable to those offences which I think might receive application to a foreign country; but the whole framework of the Bill means procedure in this country.
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is considerable force, no doubt, in what my noble and learned Friend says as to cases Of conviction of felony Or misdemeanour; but the latter provisions

  453
  which provide for the improved procedure in Ecclesiastical Courts here would of course apply.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes: I am not speaking of that. It would be a question of proof here of offences committed elsewhere.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: The question would arise whether proof of conviction in a foreign Court would, under this Bill, be accepted in an Ecclesiastical Court in this country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, certainly it would not be.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as Amended. (No. 41.)

GAMING ACT, 1845, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 23.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in asking you to read this Bill a second time it is not necessary to detain you with more than a very few words. When I brought before your Lordships a Bill some little time ago I alluded to the fact that I proposed to introduce this Bill. Your Lordships are doubtless aware that by an Act of 8 & 9 Victoria any contract by way of gaming or wagering is rendered null and void, and it is provided that no action shall be brought or maintained in respect of it. Therefore no action can be brought in a Court of Justice in order to enforce the payment of a sum due in respect of a bet. But it has been held within the last few years that that Act does not apply to the case of a payment which is sought to be enforced of a sum due in respect of a bet when an agent has been employed to make the bet; that is to say, if an agent be employed to bet, and he is paid money in respect of that bet, it has been hold that he can bring an action to recover the money he has so paid—that the implied promise to pay that money is, not rendered void by the Statute of Victoria. The consequence is that there have been a number of actions brought in recent years in the Courts of Justice which have involved several days' inquiry into betting transactions; and I think everybody has felt—cer-
  454
  tainly the Judges who have had to administer the law have felt—that that was a scandal: that when you have made bets irrecoverable, and the Courts of Law have refused to recognise them as creating, an obligation, it is not seemly that you should have these actions brought, and should,, indirectly, in that way enforce betting and engagements which the law considers it to have been mischievous and inexpedient to do directly. The present Bill proposes simply to remedy that state of things by making null and void any promise, express or implied, which would give rise to any obligation already made null and void by the 8 & 9 Victoria. The Bill provides for that in a single clause, which requires no further explanation, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill road 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

COLONIAL PROBATES BILL [H.L.] (No. 36.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, the Bill, to which I now ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is the outcome of a discussion which took place at the Colonial Conference in 1887, and is framed to give effect to the wishes of the Colonial Governments as represented at that Conference by their delegates. Acts have been passed in several Colonies—Victoria, New Zealand, Tasmania, South Australia, and West Australia—which have provided that where probate and letters of administration have been granted for deceased persons who have property in the Colonies, if the probate or letters of administration have been granted by a competent Court in this country, they are to have the same validity in the Colonies as if they had been granted there. The delegates at the Conference asked, and I think with great reason,

  455
  that similar legislation should be passed in this country, so that probate and letters of administration granted in the Colonies for persons having property in this country should be recognised in this country. I may also add that similar provisions exist with regard to Scotland, Ireland, and England; probate or letters of administration granted in England for persons who have property in Scotland or Ireland are recognised in those countries. This Bill has been prepared and has met with the assent of the Colonial Governments generally, and it has been approved by the Treasury and Inland Revenue. I need hardly detain your Lordships by reading through the clauses. By the 1st clause Her Majesty the Queen may, on being satisfied that the Legislature of any British Possession has made adequate provision for the recognition in that Possession of probates and letters of administration granted by the Courts of the United Kingdom, direct that this Act shall apply. A duplicate of any probate or letters of administration granted in the Colonies and sealed with the seal of the Court, or a certified copy, can then be produced here and will be re-sealed: provided that the Court, before sealing probate, is satisfied that probate duty has been paid in respect of so much (if any) of the estate as is liable to Probate Duty in the United Kingdom; and, in the case of letters of administration, that security has been given in a sum sufficient in amount to cover the property (if any) in the United Kingdom to which the letters of administration relate; and the Court is also empowered to require evidence of the same. There is also a power given to make rules to effect the carrying out of this Act.
  Moved," That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Knutsford.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.] (No. 42.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); further amendments made; Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended.
  SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.] (NO. 12.)
  Amendments reported (according to order); a further amendment made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
ROYAL NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS—COMPENSATION.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL COWPER: My Lords, I need not go into the question of the disbanding of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, because that has been already decided upon; it was referred to in this House last year, and I think all your Lordships, like everybody else, seemed to be of opinion that, whether it is right or not to disband these men, they are at all events a most praiseworthy body and deserving of every consideration, on account of their patriotic and energetic services, and the way in which, for the whole of the last 18 years, they have performed the duties which they have had to do. My Lords, it is now decided that these men are to be disbanded, and they are too loyal a body not to bow at once to any decision of the Admiralty deliberately come to, and which is to be carried into effect. They are most of them, I may say almost all of them anxious to continue to serve their country in one form or another; in this they hope to be under the War Office, for which I believe every facility will be given to them. I believe the War Office are now taking into consideration how far they can meet their wishes and make them into companies; so that they may remain together as much as possible. The question of compensation, to which I desire to call attention at this moment, is rather a pressing one; for I believe a Committee has been appointed, and is now sitting, to determine what compensation they are entitled to. I may say that a report has got about, whether rightly or wrongly founded I do not know, that they are not to receive compensation for these particular matters which I have noted down—for money expended on drill batteries and premises and on the fittings of ships. Now, my Lords, these amount, I believe, to a good deal. I hope this report may not be true. It may be said perhaps that

  457
  we ought to wait until we see whether this report is well-founded, or whether these things are to be taken into consideration, before moving in the matter; in other words, that we ought not to cry out before we are hurt. But we should remember the common answer to that remark—that it is no use crying out after you are hurt: it may be too late; the moment this Committee has reported the whole thing will be wound up, and it will be too late to do anything. That is my excuse for moving at the present moment. As I say, it will make a great deal of difference whether these things can be taken into account or not. Nobody, of course, would propose that the whole value of what they have spent from the beginning, in this or any other matter, should be paid to them; but I think it is only fair that the value of these improvements should be taken as it now stands, and that they should be treated very much in the same way as a tenant farmer is treated when he is turned out and receives compensation for what he has spent upon buildings. My Lords, I need only say further that an enormous amount of money—I may say tens of thousands of pounds—has been spent by the officers of these corps during the last 18 years, for which they can receive no compensation; anyhow they must be very much out of pocket. I think, therefore, there is all the more reason for being liberal where you can be liberal. I am quite sure your Lordships will feel that a body of men who came forward at the invitation of the Government, who have been praised in every Report which has been made year by year by those who have inspected them, should be not only justly but generously treated, and that, if necessary, a point should be strained in order, as far as possible, to meet their wishes in a liberal spirit, instead of the contrary, which is what I am very much afraid is going to be done. Without more remarks I will ask Her Majesty's Government the question of which I have given notice: whether the compensation proposed to be given by the Admiralty to the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers on their disbandment is to include compensation for money expended on drill batteries and premises, and on the fittings of ships?
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: My Lords, when this question was before the House in June last, I, among other noble Lords, bore ample testimony to the value, the deal, and the ability which this corps had shown, and to their ability in gunnery. I then stated, in answer to Viscount Sidmouth, that the Admiralty, having decided that this corps should be disbanded, would appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into all just claims for compensation. That promise was carried out, and the Committee was appointed in November last. It consisted of Mr. Scott, Assistant Accountant General; Mr. Maxfield, Surveyor of Coastguard Buildings; Mr. S. Smith, of the Artillery Volunteers; and also an officer to be nominated by the commanding officer of each brigade to represent his old corps when the circumstances of that particular corps were under the consideration of the Committee. The instructions given were, I think the noble Lord will bear me out in saying, extremely liberally worded. They were as follows:—
  "The official members of the Committee are instructed to deal with all claims for compensation in a spirit of liberality; they are to assume, on the part of the Admiralty, all financial obligations undertaken by the various corps; and they are to recommend grants of compensation to the officers and men for the unused value of their uniforms."
  The drill sheds, of course, come under this qualification. The Committee have been down to Brighton and investigated the claims of that corps; but the Report has not been received by the Admiralty, because the official members have recommended certain things from which the members of the Volunteer Corps dissent—therefore the Report has been sent back for the Minority Report to be appended. The Committee are now at Glasgow inquiring into the expenses which that corps has entailed However, no steps can be taken until we have got a full Report on the whole of the different districts before the Admiralty; and, that being the case, it would be premature for me now to say what or what not will be considered just claims for compensation. But I will repeat again that, according to the

  459
  terms and, instructions to the Committee, the Admiralty are anxious to deal in every respect with extreme liberality.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock.