Sitting of 15 March 1892

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

KIRKCALDY DISTRICT OF BURGHS.
Mr. SPEAKER called the attention of the House to the Return to the Writ for the Election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Kirkcaldy District of Burghs in the room of Sir George Campbell, deceased, by which it appeared that Mr. James Henry Dalziel, returned as Member for the said Kirkcaldy District of Burghs in the room of the said Sir George Campbell, deceased, was by a clerical error described in the Return as Mr. James Henry Dalzell instead of Mr. James Henry Dalziel; and Mr. Hunter, Member for North Aberdeen, having stated upon his own knowledge that the surname of the Member for the said Kirkcaldy District of Burghs was Dalziel and not Dalzell:—
Ordered, That the Clerk of the Crown do attend this House forthwith with the last Return for the Kirkcaldy District of Burghs, and do amend the same by altering the surname Dalzell to Dalziel.
The Clerk of the Crown attending amended the Return accordingly.

QUESTIONS.

  LOTTERIES AT GLASGOW.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. W. D. Ford, postmaster at Uddingston, some time ago got up a lottery in aid of the family of a letter carrier who had lost his appointment through ill-health; that over 66,000 tickets were sold, and over £800 realised; that of this sum £367 had been accounted for as bonuses to the persons who sold the tickets, and only £33 paid to the letter carrier's family; and that, with a balance of over £300 in hand from this lottery, Mr. Ford had started another lottery in England with the same avowed ob-

  873
  ject, tickets 3d. each, and amount realised estimated at about £600; whether letter carriers or other servants of the Post Office were among the persons who sold the tickets on commission; and, if so, whether he will warn them in future to avoid such transactions, and whether he proposes taking any steps in connection with Mr. Ford?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): In December last attention was called to the fact that Mr. Ford was engaged in a lottery for the benefit of the family of a Post Office servant whose health had broken down. On inquiry being made, he expressed regret for having done what was disapproved of, and abandoned the issue of tickets and circulars; but until this question appeared on the Notice Paper there was no idea that the practice had gone so far as it now appears to have done. In view of the allegations brought to my notice by the Hon. Member, an immediate and thorough investigation will be made.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to four public lotteries organised by Messrs. William Hunter, of the Inland Revenue Office, Glasgow, and W. D. Ford, postmaster at Uddingston, and to the fact that the carrying out of these lotteries was characterised by an absence of those precautions as regards drawing and accounting which would be thought necessary, as a guarantee of fair play, in the case of a legalised lottery; whether the lotteries in question came within the class of lotteries forbidden by the law of Scotland; and whether he proposes to institute any legal proceedings in connection with them?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): My attention was first called to this matter by the question of the hon. Member. On inquiry I find the subscription sales referred to were promoted for purely charitable purposes, and there is, on the information before me, no trace of fraud or even of advantage to the promoters. While these sales appear to fall within the definition of lotteries under the Statute, the
  874
  Public Prosecutor has always exercised a discretion as to the classes of lotteries which are fit subjects for prosecution, and I do not consider that any of the cases referred to call for my intervention.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to give notice that in Committee I shall move to reduce the salary of the Lord Advocate in order to call attention to this subject, and the persistent neglect of the Lord Advocate to enforce the law.
  MR. CALDWELL: Does the Lord Advocate hold himself entitled to carry out the law in any particular case or not, as he thinks fit?
  [No answer was given.]
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue has been called to the fact that Mr. Wm. Hunter, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, Glasgow, about two years ago got up a public lottery in aid of a lad named Miller; that, although repeatedly challenged to do so, he has never published any account of receipts and disbursements in connection with it; that again, a few months since, he advertised "A Grand Prize Drawing on the Art Union principle, in aid of a seaside home for cripple and deformed children," with prizes valued at £1,000, and tickets at 3d. each, but subsequently, "in consequence of reflections cast upon the scheme," resolved to abandon it; and whether the Commissioners propose to take any steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): The attention of the Board of Inland Revenue was not called to the lottery got up in aid of the lad Miller. Mr. Hunter states that he has never been personally challenged to publish a statement of accounts in the case, and that no suggestion of the kind was made to him previously to the publication of the anonymous letter to which, as it was anonymous, he did not consider it necessary to reply. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have, however, supplied me with figures showing the disposal of the gross receipts, and they show that the balance now in hand is

  875
  vested in Trustees. The "Grand Prize Drawing on the Art Union principle" was brought to the Board's notice last January, and Mr. Hunter was at once ordered to sever his connection with it. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue see no reason to doubt that Mr. Hunter's object was purely philanthropic, and, though his conduct has no doubt been highly injudicious, they do not feel it incumbent upon them to take further steps in the matter.
  DR. CAMERON: Does the information of the right hon. Gentleman go so far as to show how much money was paid as commission on sales of tickets?
  SIR JOHN GORST: A considerable amount, but I am unable to answer without notice.

  THE CLARE ISLAND PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to proceedings under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act against 80 of the inhabitants of Clare Island, women as well as men, for resisting the seizure of their cows for arrears of rent; whether the islanders so prosecuted have been recently depending for their existence upon relief administered by the Government; why the hearing of the charge did not take place on the island where the alleged offence took place; is it a fact that the two Resident Magistrates, after bringing the islanders to the mainland at Louisburgh and partially hearing the case there, adjourned to Westport, a town 13 miles further inland, obliging the islanders to undertake this long journey in a severe snowstorm, and at Westport threatened to issue warrants for the arrest of such of the islanders as were detained upon the journey; and if he will ascertain from the Magistrates the reason for the adjournment, and whether any allowances will be made to the islanders for the expenses and hardships caused to them thereby?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The prosecutions referred to, against certain inhabitants of Clare Island, arose out of an unlawful assembly in November, 1891. It may be the case
  876
  that the defendants were among the islanders who were given employment on relief works on Clare Island in the spring and early summer of 1891. They also were provided at that time with seed potatoes on easy terms. They had fine crops in the autumn and they are represented to have been fairly well off and able to pay their rents when demanded in November. The Petty Sessions Court-house for Clare Island is Louisburgh. The Magistrates did adjourn the case from Louisburgh to Westport, as the place in which the Court is held at Louisburgh is merely a small room and wholly inadequate to accommodate the defendants without danger to health of all concerned. The defendants did not travel in a snowstorm. In the case of only two defendants did the Magistrates say they would issue warrants to secure their attendance; but this was unnecessary, as they subsequently appeared. No women travelled from Louisburgh to Westport. The defendants were merely bound over to keep the peace, and appeared to be well pleased at the leniency of the Magistrate's decision. The Government are not aware of anything in the circumstances of the case suggesting remuneration.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I do not know whence the right hon. Gentleman derived his information, but I happen to know there is very sufficient accommodation at Louisburgh. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether really the only persons convenienced by carrying the case to Westport were the well-paid Magistrates themselves, who consulted their own comfort at the expense of these unfortunate islanders?
  MR. JACKSON: From full and careful inquiry, which the Report shows has been made, I am sure there is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. The room at Louisburgh, if the hon. Member knows it, is, I understand, a very small room. There were quite a considerable number of persons; it was impossible to provide even seats, and the atmosphere of the room was unbearable. It should be borne in mind that the case was adjourned in the first instance at the request of the solicitors for the defendants. I think a wise course was followed in the interest of

  877
  everybody concerned, and I heard of no complaint until I saw the notice of the hon. Member's question.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, if these poor people were able to pay anything it was simply because they had been relieved by the Government. Now, I put it to him whether the case of these poor islanders was not one for the Congested Districts Board rather than for the Criminal Law? I would put it to him whether really there is any public service to be done by carrying out these raids upon the poor people; and whether the Government intend to lend the forces of the Crown again for the seizure of the cattle of these poor people for arrears of rent? If they do this, do the Government intend to make any provision for the relief again of the people whose cattle are seized?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Gentleman desires any further information I must ask him to give notice of a question.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether one of these Resident Magistrates, at whose instance these poor people were brought a distance of 13 Irish miles—
  MR. JACKSON: Ten Irish miles.
  MR. MACNEILL: Thirteen English miles—is a gentleman who was specially promoted for services rendered to the Pigott Commission?

  LAND COMMISSION APPEALS IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Land Commission will proceed to dispose of the large number of cases of appeal which remain over for the district of North Tipperary; and whether steps will be taken to arrange that the Commissioners do hold their sitting at Nenagh (as formerly) for the hearing of such appeals, and so obviate the necessity for tenants and their witnesses from North Tipperary being obliged to attend at Limerick at great additional inconvenience and expense?
  MR. JACKSON: The Land Commissioners report that in the list of cases for hearing before the Court of Appeal at Limerick on the 21st inst. there are only nine appeals entered from the County of Tipperary, all of them being appeals on points of law. No date has yet been fixed for the sitting of the Appeal Court to hear the outstanding cases from the County of Tipperary. When arrangements are being made for a sitting for North Tipperary cases, the convenience of suitors and all persons interested will be carefully considered, but at present it is not possible to state the name of the town at which the sitting will be held.

  IRISH EXHIBITORS AT THE "WORLD'S FAIR," CHICAGO.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Irish exhibitors at the "World's Fair," Chicago, are to be charged 5s. per square foot for ground space by the British Commission recently appointed; and, if so, why is the charge to be made, in view of the fact that the Chicago Committee propose to make no charge for such space, and that exhibitors will be put to considerable expense in costs of transit, expenses of attendants, and other charges?
  SIR JOHN GORST: Irish exhibitors, as well as British, will be charged 5s. a square foot for spaces not exceeding 100 square feet, and on a diminishing scale for larger spaces, because the funds placed at the disposal of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition will not suffice to defray all the expenses without being supplemented by payments from exhibitors.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it the fact that the Chicago Committee make no charge for space, and will he recommend that the charge should be reduced by the Commission?
  SIR JOHN GORST: I have explained that the charge is made to cover expenses.
  MR. FLYNN: But the Chicago Committee make no charge for space.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I do not know, but I have no control over the Chicago Committee.

  THE CASE OF MICHAEL COUGHLAN.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, at Ballinspittle, County Cork, on the 8th instant, an evicted tenant, named Michael Coughlan, was charged before Messrs. Irwin and Cronan, Resident Magistrates (under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act), with re-taking possession of the home from which he had been evicted, and was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, and at the expiration of that period to find bail to keep the peace for twelve months or go to gaol for a further term of two months; under what section of the Act was the prosecution brought; what sections of the Act are at present in force in that district of Cork; and, being brought under the said Act, why was it that the prosecution was conducted by the solicitor for the agent, Mr. J. H. Carroll, Cork, and not by the Crown prosecutor for the district? Also, is he aware that Mr. Humphreys, clerk to Mr. J. H. Carroll, the agent of the landlord, admitted in cross-examination that he caught Coughlan by the collar, and ordered him to "clear out;" what steps were taken by the policemen present, who witnessed this alleged assault; and why was not the case tried under the ordinary law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): It is a fact that Michael Coughlan was prosecuted under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act for taking forcible possession, with the result stated in the question. The prosecution was brought under Section 2 Sub-section 3 (b) of the Act. The portions of the Act at present in force in the district in question are Sections 1, 3, and 4, and Sub-section 3 of Section 2. The prosecution was conducted in the manner stated because it was a private prosecution at the suit of the landlord, and not at the suit of the Crown. I am informed that the act referred to was done by Mr. Humphreys, on behalf of the landlord, in assertion of his legal right to remove Coughlan from the premises of which he was holding forcible possession. There was no occasion for the police to
  880
  interfere. The agent for the landlord, at whose suit the case was brought, elected to proceed under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, as he was entitled to do.
  MR. FLYNN: I should like to get an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the fact that a policeman was present, was the agent of the landlord or clerk entitled to assault the man?
  MR. MADDEN: Neither in England or in Ireland can the police interfere when a person in the assertion of a legal right has to remove another person from his house, using no more force than is necessary for the purpose. Of course, if there should be excessive force used, the person against whom it is used may have his legal remedy; but it is not usual for the police to interfere.
  MR. FLYNN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if a prosecution can be brought by a private person under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act instead of proceeding by the ordinary law?
  MR. MADDEN: Certainly.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland if he has any objection to give the names, titles, salaries, and length of service of all officers and clerks who have served under the Land Commission (Ireland) up to the 1st March, 1892?
  MR. JACKSON: I am not sure that I understand what information the hon. Member desires to obtain; but if he desires to obtain a Return of the officers and clerks in the employment of the Land Commission on the 1st March, 1892, and if he will move for it, I shall make no objection.

  THE CASE OF PATRICK DONNELLY.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why Patrick Donnelly, who has been a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, since December, 1883, when he was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude for larceny by Judge Lawson, has not been allowed the usual period of three months' diminution off each year of his sentence; and whether, having regard

  881
  to the lengthened period of imprisonment to which this man has been subjected, his case will be considered, with a view to reducing the original term of his sentence?
  MR. JACKSON: The General Prisons Board report that there is no convict at present in custody in Ireland under the name of Patrick Donnelly.

  THE DOWLING ESTATE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case before the Hon. Judge Boyd, in the Land Judges' Court on 10th inst., in the matter of the Dowling Estate; whether it has been brought to his notice that the tenants on the estate declared upon affidavit that they were evicted in 1881 for non-payment of a single year's rent (in which was included a hanging gale), and that upon the death of Thomas Dowling the tenants asked to be reinstated upon the condition of paying one year's rent, and in order to take advantage of the Land Purchase Act; will he explain why, by the sanction of the Receiver of the Court, the two sons of the deceased were accepted as tenants at a less rent than the original tenants offered and were willing to pay: whether he is aware that the two sons referred to have practically paid no rent at all; and what action does the Land Court intend to take in the matter?
  MR. MADDEN: I have not called for a Report in regard to this question, nor have I any right to do so. The matter appears to be one entirely within the jurisdiction of the Judge, with whom the Government have no right to interfere.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not competent for the Irish authorities or the Irish Government to communicate with the Judge in question (Judge Boyd) on the subject?
  MR. MADDEN: No, Sir; when a Judge exercises his jurisdiction in a matter he is clearly within his province. It is not customary, and it would be improper, for the Executive Government to interfere with him.
  MR. FLYNN: I will call attention to this on another occasion.

  THE LEWISHAM DISTRICT BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the reported proceedings in the Greenwich Police Court, on the 12th instant, in the case of the Lewisham District Board of Works against the New Land Development Association, in the course of which Mr. E. Wright, clerk to the Board, is alleged to have sworn that the Board were in the habit of dining sumptuously at the Crystal Palace, and driving in carriages to the Board meetings at the cost of the ratepayers, and disguising such items in the Board's accounts under the heading "Sundry Expenses;" whether he has made inquiries into the case; and whether it is his intention to take any action with regard to it?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have no information respecting the alleged expenditure of the Lewisham District Board of Works beyond that which appeared in the report of the proceedings in the case of the New Land Development Association at the Greenwich Police Court on the 12th instant. The accounts of the District Board of Works are not subject to the audit of the District Auditors appointed by the Local Government Board, and I have no jurisdiction whatever with regard to the expenditure of that authority. I have not, therefore, made any inquiries respecting the allegations, nor am I empowered to take any action in the matter.

  THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE AT ELEUTHERA, BAHAMAS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the post of Resident Magistrate at Eleuthera, Bahamas, has been vacated by the retirement of Mr. Bethel; and, if so, whether it has been filled by the appointment of any legally qualified gentleman?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): The post of Resident Magistrate at Eleuthera has been vacated by Mr. Bethel's retirement. No special qualifications are required for the post by the law of the Bahamas; but it has been filled by the appointment of an officer of long experience as a Magistrate in another Colony.

  THE WATER BAILIFFS OF CORK HARBOUR.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Government that certain water bailiffs employed at Cork Harbour recently fired shots at persons alleged to be poachers; and whether the bailiffs will be prosecuted?
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that for some time past water bailiffs employed by the Cork Board of Conservators have been seizing nets illegally used in fishing, the use of which has threatened the destruction of a valuable fishery, which has been the means of livelihood of a number of fishermen. The bailiffs while engaged on this duty were attacked with stones, and fired shots they allege into the air. No person was injured, and, as at present advised, the responsible authorities do not propose a prosecution.

  THE ARRESTS UNDER THE FRENCH ESPIONAGE ACT.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what grounds the assistance given by the Foreign Office and the British Embassy at Paris to Mr. Purdie was denied to Messrs. Cooper and Bednell, who were arrested and imprisoned at St. Etienne under the Espionage Act; whether the Foreign Office at the time of the arrest of Cooper and Bednell was furnished with testimonials to the good character and respectability of Bednell from the heads of the Technical Institute at Coventry, who had sent him to St. Etienne to complete his studies there, and from the Mayor and Authorities at Coventry, in which city Bednell had passed the whole of his
  884
  life, and what efforts were made by the Foreign Office to obtain his release; and whether the Foreign Office will now endeavour to obtain compensation from the French Government for the imprisonment which Bednell has suffered?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The two cases mentioned by the hon. Member are quite dissimilar. Mr. Purdie was arrested on suspicion, and was not permitted to communicate with Her Majesty's Embassy for some days. When his case was investigated he was at once discharged. Messrs. Cooper and Bednell were tried upon a charge of "espionage" and convicted. There are no grounds for saying that the proceedings were irregular. The British Vice Consul watched the case, and rendered to them all the assistance possible. Her Majesty's Government have made unofficial representations to the French Government, with a view to obtain a mitigation of the sentence passed on Bednell; but there are no grounds for claiming compensation on his behalf.
  MR. BALLANTINE: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it was that the Foreign Office and the British Embassy interfered so promptly in the case of Mr. Purdie, and that they absolutely refused to interfere in the case of Messrs. Cooper and Bednell?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I do not think the statement of the hon. Member is quite borne out by the facts, so far as the Foreign Office is aware of them. I am not aware that the attention of the Embassy was called directly the gentlemen in question were arrested. So soon as it came to the notice of the authorities that he was arrested, the Vice Consul at Lyons, who was the nearest official to the spot, at once proceeded to St. Etienne and took such steps as were in his power to obtain his release, but was unsuccessful.
  MR. PICTON: I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in future, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to secure that, in cases similar to that of Mr. Purdie, British subjects, when arrested in France, shall be allowed at once to communicate with the British Embassy?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I answered the question of the hon. Member, in reply to a question put to me by an hon. Member yesterday, in the affirmative. I said that steps would be taken to make arrangements with the French Government that the attention of the Embassy should be at once called to the fact of an arrest of a British subject having taken place.

  GUARANTEED RURAL POSTS IN IRELAND.
  VISCOUNT EBRINGTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if, in the case of guaranteed rural posts in Ireland, it is true that, in calculating the cost of the post messenger, the number of letters and papers delivered by him is alone taken into account, no allowance being made for the letters and papers he receives from the district; and, if so, on what grounds is this method of calculation justified to the guarantors of the post?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: It is the invariable practice, in calculating the revenue available to meet the cost of rural posts throughout the United Kingdom, to take into account only the letters, &c, delivered, those collected for despatch being considered as providing the revenue for the service of the places to which the letters are addressed. Both could not be counted at each end.

  THE NORTH WALES LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORSHIP.
  MR. LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Mr. Murray Browne, Local Government Inspector for North Wales, is about to be promoted to another district; and whether he can see his way to appoint as his successor a gentleman who is conversant with the Welsh language?
  MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Murray Browne is about to be removed to another district. Arrangements are in contemplation which, if carried out, will render a new appointment unnecessary.

  THE FAMINE IN INDIA.
  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 the telegram in Monday's Times, from the special correspondent in Calcutta, that the reports from all the districts threatened with famine, except Rajputana, are to the effect that the prospects are unchanged, and distress is slowly increasing; would the Under Secretary for India state to the House the result of any communications between the Secretary of State and the Viceroy on the subject; and when will he lay upon the Table the various despatches of the Viceroy, which he promised last Thursday would be submitted to the House at an early date?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): The Secretary of State has seen the telegram referred to. I explained on Thursday, on the Motion for the Adjournment, that no improvement could be looked for till the rains in June, and that the Government of India had made the necessary arrangements for relieving distress. The Secretary of State has received no information of a later date than that given on Thursday. The periodical telegrams received from India are communicated to the newspapers as soon as received. The despatch from the Government of India, promised on Thursday, will be laid on the Table at once.

  SCIENCE INSTRUCTION.
  MR. MATHER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received an application for permission for a deputation, representing institutions interested in science instruction, to wait upon him relative to the proposed changes contained in the circular issued by the Department of Science and Art, dated 12th November, 1891, Form 349 S.; and whether, seeing that there is a very widespread objection to the proposals contained in the circular, he will kindly undertake not to lay the

  887
  proposed regulations upon the Table of the House until the deputation has had an opportunity of laying their views before him?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,): I have already informed the deputation, to which I believe the hon. Member refers, that I did not think any good purpose would be served by my receiving them; but if they still press it, and my hon. Friend after hearing what I have to say thinks it would remove misconception, I shall be prepared to re-consider my objection. The Minute of the 12th November last, which, I may say, does not require to be laid on the Table of the House before coming into operation, was passed after very full and careful consideration. If the payments at the last examination had been made under its provisions, the total grants would have amounted to within a few pounds of the amount actually distributed under existing rules. But the administrative and central charge would have been considerably less, and the results of the examination announced much sooner. Some schools will benefit pecuniarily under the new rules, while no doubt others will receive diminished grants, unless they improve their methods of instruction. There is no reason why they should not do so, and earn even larger grants than at present, if they carry forward the instruction of the pupils, instead of satisfying themselves, as they have hitherto done, by teaching the merest elements. Some modifications of existing rules have become, for the reasons given in the Minute, absolutely necessary. Those we have made, which will not take effect till after the current Session, will, while making the minimum of disturbance in the present system, greatly stimulate and reward more advanced scientific instruction. I am glad to say that the Minute has been very well received in the better schools and by educational authorities as a step in the right direction; and though we have carefully considered all the arguments that have been addressed to us we have heard none which would justify us in modifying it.

  MILITIA OFFICERS.
  MR. NOBLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a Captain of Militia, ordered to act as Major, during the annual training is entitled to allowance for hire of horse; if not, whether he is allowed Major's pay and allowances, and relieved from all his "company" charges?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK,): Such a case would be specially dealt with. In a recent instance the officer was allowed horse hire, but no increase of pay and allowances. The same course would probably be again followed in a like contingency.

  KILLINCHY CHURCHYARD.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the rights of persons having burying ground in Killinchy Churchyard, County Down, and whose families for the past 260 years have used the said churchyard as a burying place, have been infringed by the present incumbent, who has locked the gate, and admittance being refused unless accompanied with payment of a fee for each interment; and whether the Government will, by the insertion of a clause in the Local Government Bill, or by separate legislation, take some means of vesting all parish churchyards either in the Poor Law Guardians or County Councils, subject to existing rights of burial?
  MR. JACKSON: The Government have received a memorial from certain persons complaining of the alleged action of the present incumbent in regard to the burial ground at Killinchy, County Down. This graveyard appears to be vested in the representative church body, pursuant to the provisions of the Irish Church Act, 1869, subject to any existing rights, and I am advised that such rights can be maintained by the parties concerned without any alteration in the present law.

  LAND COMMISSION APPEALS.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Land Commission will proceed to dispose of the large number of cases of appeal which remain over from the district of North Tipperary; and whether steps will be taken to arrange that the Commissioners do hold their sitting at Nenagh (as formerly) for the hearing of such appeals, and so obviate the necessity for tenants and their witnesses from North Tipperary being obliged to attend at Limerick at great additional inconvenience and expense?
  MR. JACKSON: The Land Commissioners report that in the list of cases for hearing before the Court of Appeal at Limerick on the 21st inst. there are only nine appeals entered from the County of Tipperary, all of them being appeals on points of law. No date has yet been fixed for the sitting of the Appeal Court to hear the outstanding cases from the County of Tipperary. When arrangements are being made for a sitting for North Tipperary cases the convenience of suitors and all persons interested will be carefully considered, but at present it is not possible to state the name of the town at which the sitting will be held.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS AFTER EXECUTIONS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Coroner's jury in the case of Dr. Cross, alleged to have been hanged in Cork about five years ago for poisoning his wife, failed to record a verdict because the executioner Berry refused to obey the Coroners' summons to attend and give evidence as to the cause of death; whether he is aware that in the case of a man decapitated during execution in Kirkdale Gaol the Coroners' jury required the evidence of Berry, who left the gaol and avoided giving evidence; and whether, in consequence of these cases, he will arrange that the executioner to succeed Berry shall attend all inquests on persons executed by him to give evidence if the Coroner's jury so desire?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I have no knowledge of the particular circumstances relating to the inquest on Dr. Cross which took place in Ireland, and which, therefore, concerns the Irish Government and not the Home Office. It is not the fact that the convict executed at Kirkdale was decapitated. According to the newspaper reports, one member of the Coroner's jury asked whether Berry was in attendance, and was informed that he was not, as it did not appear that his evidence was necessary. It is not usual for the executioner to give evidence at the inquest after an execution. I see no reason for giving any directions in the matter. The executioner will, of course, obey the Coroner's orders when the occasion arises.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: In the case of Dr. Cross, who was executed five years ago, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the executioner admitted that the reason why he deliberately went out of the prison was in order to evade giving evidence before the Coroner's inquest as to how the man was executed? And did not the right hon. Gentleman say, in reply to a question in this House, that the man deliberately walked out of Kirkdale Gaol and refused to give evidence, and did not Berry afterwards explain that he was put out of the way to prevent him giving evidence that would tell against his own department? Is there any reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not see that his successor would attend, if required by a Coroner's jury, and give evidence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Coroner in that distinct case could order him to attend; and if he did not, the Coroner could order process to be taken against him. There is no difficulty whatever about that. The hon. Gentleman has not quite accurately cited the answer I gave on a former occasion. I stated that when Berry left Kirkdale Prison he had not been desired to attend the inquest; nobody wanted him to attend. His evidence was not required by anybody.

  THE IRISH COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Judges, in whom it is proposed to vest the exclusive jurisdiction in all bankruptcy matters arising within the jurisdiction of the existing local Courts of Bankruptcy, are also Judges of the local County Courts, and are also Recorders for Belfast and Cork respectively; whether their duties as such Judges and Recorders compel them to hold Courts from time to time at various places scattered over the large areas comprised within the jurisdiction of their respective County Courts; are such Judges obliged, in addition to transacting the ordinary business of their County Courts, to hold special sittings from time to time at various places for the purpose of holding Land Sessions; and have they, in addition, to preside over the local tribunals for disposal of Admiralty business, and also to hold Courts as Recorders of Belfast and Cork; and, if so, how often do these Judges hold Courts for the transaction of bankruptcy matters?
  MR. MADDEN: This question has appeared without notice, but I am in a position to answer the first three paragraphs in the affirmative. If the hon. Member requires to know when these Courts sit for bankruptcy matters, I must ask him to repeat that portion of the question.

  TRADE RATES OF WAGES.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Thornycroft, Chiswick, who have obtained a contract from the Admiralty, have sub-let a portion of the contract to the firm of Ransome and Co., Battersea, who refuse to pay trade rates of wages; and what steps have been taken to ensure the observance of the Resolution of this House on 13th February, 1891?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The hon. Gentleman only put the question on the Notice Paper last night, and, therefore, I cannot answer it. With regard to the first part of the question which he
  892
  puts to me, Messrs. Thornycroft have contracted with the Admiralty for the building of a vessel. Their firm has a very high reputation for excellence of work; and, therefore, I think it unlikely that any portion of the contract should be sub-let to a firm that would not pay adequate wages. The Resolution passed on the 13th February, 1891, has been circulated to all the Admiralty contractors, and we have informed them that they are all expected to comply with it.
  MR. FENWICK: Perhaps it would be more convenient if I put the question down again for Thursday, in the hope that the noble Lord may have the opportunity of inquiring into the question of sub-letting, and the character of the firm to which this sub-contract is sub-let.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes, but I may inform the hon. Gentleman that in every shipbuilding contract there must necessarily be sub-letting. What the hon. Gentleman wants is information that tends to substantiate his statement. Of course I shall give him all the information in my power; but I must protest against the assumption that any employer of labour may be paying inadequate wages, unless the hon. Member shall have had an explanation from the employer, and heard his part of the case.

  THE CONDEMNED POACHERS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has come to any decision as to the two men Rayner and Eggleton, now under sentence of death?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I can only return the same answer as that which I gave yesterday.

  CRIMEAN VETERANS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether special campaign pensions for the Peninsular War up to the 1s. 6d. a day were awarded, irrespective of length of service, to men without sufficient means of support, and who, by reason of wounds, age, or infirmity, were unable to earn anything towards their support; and whether he will submit a Warrant giving like dis-

  893
  cretionary powers to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital in favour of Crimean veterans?
  MR. BRODRICK: Special provisions were granted in 1874 to the survivors of the campaigns ending in 1815. As 59 years had elapsed it was not expected that any large sum would be required; but the cost amounted to £112,440 to the present time, which was the more remarkable as enlistment had been then practically for life, so that nearly all soldiers would have earned pension in the ordinary course. Only 35 years have elapsed since the Crimean campaign, and to pension all survivors, irrespective of the length of service, would, it is calculated, cost a sum the present value of which would be £1,160,000. The Government are not prepared to recommend so extensive a grant.

  POOR LAW ELECTIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN (for Mr. SEXTON,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the new conditions as to voting at Poor Law elections in Ireland which have arisen in consequence of the purchase of holdings by occupying tenants under the Land Purchase Acts, the Irish Local Government Board will secure legality and uniformity by issuing instructions to the Returning Officers, in time for the forthcoming elections, as to the issue of voting papers and the reckoning of votes, with particular reference to the cases of persons who are occupying proprietors of farms and also occupy leased or rented holdings, and in order to insure that voting papers may be duly issued to them for the votes they are entitled to give in respect of the fee-simple holdings, the valuation of the rented farms, and of any excess of valuation over rent?
  MR. JACKSON: The mode in which votes are to be computed and allowed in cases where holdings have been purchased by the holder is clearly provided for by the Statute, and the purchase of a holding by an occupier does not give rise to any new condition which is not so provided for. The Local Government Board, therefore, are not aware of any necessity for issuing general in-
  894
  stuctions to Returning Officers on the subject. When complaint is made to the Board that a Returning Officer has in any case allowed a smaller number of votes than that to which a ratepayer is entitled by law the matter receives attention, and when necessary instructions are given to the Returning Officer concerned.
  MR. FLYNN (for Mr. SEXTON): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the instructions of the Irish Local Government Board, having fixed the 21st of February as the last day for lodging claims to property votes in the Poor Law elections, certain Returning Officers have expressed doubts whether they will issue voting papers in respect of claims lodged this year on the 22nd February, the 21st having fallen upon Sunday; whether, as the voting papers cannot be taken up before the 21st instant, the full period required by law intervenes between the 22nd of February and the 21st of March, this being leap year; and whether instructions will be immediately issued that voting papers are to be given out in respect of valid claims lodged on the 22nd ultimo?
  MR. JACKSON: I am having inquiries made about this.
  MR. FLYNN(subsequently): Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he would be good enough, if notice is given, to answer the last paragraph, as the question is one of urgency?
  MR. JACKSON: As I said I have not got the Report to enable me to answer this question, but I shall certainly communicate at once with the Local Government Board, drawing their attention to the fact that it is a question of urgency.

  THE COLONY OF LAGOS.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice—whether there is any truth in the statement published in today's Manchester Guardian, that the Government have prohibited the sale

  895
  of munitions of war and salt in the Colony of Lagos?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I have received no information on the subject.

  THE CONSTABULARY ACT, 6 & 7 WILLIAM IV., c. 13.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Return directed to be made by the 57th section of the Constabulary Act, 6 & 7 William IV., c. 13, will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. JACKSON: I find that the last Return under the Act referred to was laid on the Table in 1869; and from that time it appears to have been discontinued.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: This, Mr. Speaker, is a case in which an Act of Parliament directed that a certain Return should be laid on the Table of the House, and by the authority of the Treasury that Return has been discontinued, and I desire to ask you, Sir, where I can obtain the Return? I know no authority to whom I can apply except you.
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to supplement what I said just now. As the hon. Member is probably aware, the Treasury, under 32 & 33 Vict., has the power to discontinue any Return they consider unnecessary, and I understand they have done so by that Act.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it had ordered the Return to be discontinued before that Act?
  MR. JACKSON: No, no!
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause a Return to be made for the last financial year?
  MR. JACKSON: Of course, that question would require to be considered. The Return was prepared by the Treasury, and was considered unnecessary, and we should have to consult them again. If the hon. Member desires any information with regard to any particular question, and if he thinks the matter of sufficient public importance to have a Return made, I shall endeavour to obtain it for him.

  THE FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN ESSEX.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that loss is inflicted on Essex farmers by the recent Order as to petty sessional districts, and prohibition of sending animals to London; and whether he would consider the possibility of allowing a radius of five miles round the infected spot instead of the petty sessional district, and also permit beasts to be sent into the Metropolitan area with a licence and marked with a broad arrow, as in 1878?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Nobody is better aware than I am that loss is inflicted, unhappily, by the regulations which are imposed in the districts where foot-and-mouth disease prevails, and no one regrets it more than myself; but I am afraid it is inseparable from the measures which are necessary to cope with the disease. The radius of five miles which he proposes would, I am afraid, be impracticable; but with regard to the last suggestion in his question, I have already directed an Order to be passed, which, I hope, will have the desired effect, and permit of beasts being sent to the Metropolitan Market under proper restrictions.

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the resolutions recently passed by both Houses of Convocation of the Province of York, expressing strongly their desire and conviction that no measure dealing with Clergy Discipline should be presented for Second Reading in either House of Parliament before Convocation has seen and considered such measure; and whether the Government will, under the circumstances, consider the advisability of not proceeding with the measure introduced in another place by the Archbishop of Canterbury until after the clergy of the Northern Province shall have expressed their views upon it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand that a resolution of the character referred to by the hon. Member was passed by one of the Houses of Convocation—the Lower House; but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a Bill at present in the House of Lords in charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The interests of the clergy are therefore fully protected, and I think that before the Bill has been read a second time in the House of Lords there will be a full opportunity for Convocation to discuss it. I should be sorry to interfere with the course of the Bill, especially as it might prejudice its chance of passing.
  MR. PICTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether the Government consider the consent of the Northern Convocation necessary?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is an abstract question which I cannot answer.
  MR. PICTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if there is any precedent to show that the consent is necessary?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a question which I cannot answer without notice. I am not very sure that I could answer it with notice. I have no machinery for making the kind of archæological research which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

MOTION.
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Jesse Collings, Bill to promote Agricultural Education in Public Elementary Schools, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Robert Reid, Sir John Kennaway, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, and Mr. George Dixon.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 221.]

MOTION.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF ACT (1829) AMENDMENT.
  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to remove the disabilities imposed on Roman Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829."—(Mr. Patrick O'Brien.)
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to oppose the Motion for the introduction of this Bill. This is an attempt to do away with all the safeguards supposed to be introduced in the year 1829, when Roman Catholics were admitted to sit in this House. Thus we see one by one these safeguards done away with, and pledges broken that were given with regard to the maintenance of Protestant institutions; and hon. Gentlemen opposite (or their predecessors) gave a certain undertaking if Parliament passed the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act, which has not been fulfilled. I will not occupy the time of the House at this stage of the proceedings by making any lengthened statement, reserving that for the Second Reading; but I beg now to propose that this Bill be read a first time this day six months.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is competent for the hon. Member who has brought forward the Motion to reply.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I confess I am surprised at the opposition of the hon. Member opposite, and I hope he will not persevere with his opposition to this Bill. I think he might withdraw his opposition and allow the Bill to be introduced, so that he and the House may know what it actually proposes. Probably when the hon. Gentleman sees the Bill he may support it. I was encouraged to move in this matter by the vote of the House the other day, when the enormous number of 269 Members voted in favour of religious liberty in a particular borough of this country. I only ask that what the House would do for the Salvation Army they would do for the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty. Sir, it is not generally known that there is a penalty of £50 attaching to any minister of the Roman Catholic Church who appears outside his church in the robes of his office. It is likewise not generally known that any member of a Monastic Order who is not duly registered is liable to be fined and to be expelled the country. I quite admit that this Act has been encroached upon, and has been practically winked at, and if the feeling of the country is such I do not see why you should not remove altogether the stain resting upon those professing the Roman Catholic faith. There is also a

  899
  penalty attaching to the use of the title of Archbishop; but I should say that not even the hon. Member for Belfast would have proposed the prosecution of so eminent a person as Cardinal Manning. If he did I feel assured he would neither have been supported by the House nor by the country.
  MR. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Order relating to the introduction of Bills before the Orders of the Day are entered upon, I shall now put the Question, "That leave be given to bring in this Bill."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Clancy, Mr. Harrison, Dr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Carew, Mr. Blane, Mr. Dalton, Mr. W. A. Mac-donald, and Mr. Mahony.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 222.]
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading, I will move that the Bill be read a second time "upon this day six months."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESSES), 1890–91.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £907 2s. 3d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services, for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891."
  MR. PICTON: I should like to have an explanation of the somewhat enigmatic statement in respect to one of the Votes on the Paper. The excess is said to have been incurred owing to the expense of an officer upon a Special Mission. Perhaps the Under Secretary for the Colonies will explain?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The excess was due to the sending of a Mission to Paris in connection
  900
  with the West Africa Railway. It was difficult to see what the expense of that Mission would be.
  MR. PICTON: It is precisely those arrangements with France that have given offence to many traders in this country. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his connection with Liverpool that the West African merchants are irritated and indignant at the hindrances to their trade arising from these very negotiations with France. They are of opinion that the Government has been remiss in its attention to the commercial interests of the country, and that the French have been behind our settlements all along and have cut off access to our branches in a manner in the highest degree discouraging to British trade. I should like to have some explanation of this, and also whether these grievances are being considered?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: That is a question which only indirectly affects the Colonial Office. It is really a Foreign Office question, and to the Foreign Office the hon. Gentleman should address himself.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I think we ought to have more information on the point which has just been raised with regard to the West Africa Mission; but, Sir, I rise not for the purpose of emphasising that point, but in order to call attention to the next item on the Paper. I think, Sir, we should have some more efficient control over the system of these Votes in respect of the Police Courts in the Metropolis. They postpone payments, and then come to this House and ask for an excess sum. We ought to know as to how this extra sum was incurred, and we ought also further to know whether the recommendation which has been made from year to year by the Public Accounts Committee, who made especially last year a recommendation which was most distinctly against the practice of postponing payments from one year to another, is to be carried out?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: No explanation of this Vote will satisfy me because of the principles involved, and I have often asked the House to divide in regard to that prin-

  901
  ciple. I find these Police Courts not only in London but all around London are charged on the public expenditure of the country. The Police Courts in every other town in England and Scotland and in Ireland, except in Dublin, which shall meet with my opposition, are not charged in this way. Whether you take the Ordinary Estimates, the Supplementary Estimates, or the Excess Votes, the Committee will always find something put down for these Police Courts. I ask hon. Gentlemen representing divers parts outside London whether they can justifiably vote for a Police Court in Sheerness? In respect of the Sheerness Vote I beg to move its reduction by the sum of £6 7s. 11d.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That Item £6 7s. 11d., for Police Courts, London and Sheerness, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  The Committee divided:—Aves 101; Noes 130.—(Div. List, No. 33.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. MORTON: I do not know, Sir, whether it is too late to say anything about the first Vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The first item has passed.
  MR. MORTON: Then with regard to the third item I should like to ask for an explanation. It appears that there is a sum of £888 16s. 8d. which is a fifth quarterly instalment paid by the Post Office in respect of the Aden and Zanzibar stamp service subsidy I want to know how so large a payment is made quarterly?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): The matter is very simple; the payment was made on the 31st March instead of 1st April.
  MR. MORTON: Are these payments ever made in advance?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No. On the last day of the quarter instead of the first day of the next quarter.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: The matter referred to illustrates the inconvenience necessarily attending that system by which one Department acts as agent for another. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether
  902
  he could not make an arrangement to get rid of this system of agency altogether by making it unnecessary?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN GORST,): This matter was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee. They made a recommendation which was very carefully considered by the Treasury with a view of conforming to it. No doubt it is for the general convenience that one Department should transact its business directly, but it would be a mistake if I were to say that the Treasury would put an end to the system of agency, which has its conveniences. The matter will be further considered by the Public Accounts Committee.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: The matter was considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and they could not get any definite information from the Treasury. We know the agency business has proved extremely unsatisfactory, as, for example, in the case of the relations between the War Office and the Admiralty, the Irish Board of Works as representing the Treasury in Ireland, and now in the case which has been brought under our notice. I should like to know how far this system prevails throughout the Public Service, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to put a stop to it?
  SIR J. GORST: I cannot tell at a moment's notice how far this system does prevail. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for information I will get it after adequate notice.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Information on this subject was asked for, but full information was not obtained by the Public Accounts Committee. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be well to thrash out this matter upstairs. I likewise agree with my hon. Friend behind me the Member for Edinburgh that the information given in the statement on excesses seems to be becoming more and more meagre. There is a theory that something is gained by printing the smallest possible amount of information, and in other cases giving information in a form which I will not say is untrue, but

  903
  which certainly does not disclose the whole truth. After what has occurred this afternoon, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will arrange that for the future fuller and more accurate information is given about these excesses. But for an accident which placed me in possession of a proof copy of the Appropriation Accounts, I should myself have been completely misled by the statement now complained of.
  Vote agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

    CLASS V.
    2. £717, Treasury Chest.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to call attention to a matter reported last year, when I called attention to a balance on 31st March, 1890, at Hong Kong, which has been further increased on the 31st March, 1891.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into a general examination of the Treasury Chest on this Supplementary Estimate; he must confine himself to the purpose of the Supplementary Vote.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to ask for information with regard to this extraordinary balance at Hong Kong.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. MORTON: I suppose I must not allude to this Report, sent down to us by the Auditor General in this matter.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Surely in Committee on the Supplementary Estimates the hon. Member may allude to the balance at Hong Kong.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is aware this is a different subject; this loss arises from the issue of Treasury bills at Hong Kong.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I understand the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) is simply asking the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for some explanation of what is stated here.
    MR. MORTON: May I point out that the first paragraph of this Report, which distinctly alludes to the Vote you have now submitted, says "the transact-
    904
    tions of the Treasury Chest for the year 1890–1 have resulted in a loss of £716 6s. 1d." I respectfully ask whether we cannot get some particulars of this loss?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to ask an explanation in these circumstances, but that is a totally different matter from reading the Report.
    MR. MORTON: I would respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give some explanation in regard to this particular Vote?
    SIR J. GORST: The Treasury Chest has always been subject to the fluctuations in the rate at which bills can be bought and sold at such remote places as Hong Kong. On this particular occasion the result of the operations of the Treasury Chest has been a small loss of £717. In a place like Hong Kong you cannot always sell your bills at the same rate as you buy them, or buy them at the same rate as you sell them, therefore there are sometimes small losses or gains each way. The small depreciation in the value of silver has rendered those having transactions in the East liable to considerable gains and losses.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VI.
    3. £100, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VII.
    4. £2,000, Temporary Commissions.
    MR. FLYNN: There is some doubt in the public mind as to the remuneration given to these Commissioners. I would be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury would give some information as to what the Government intend to pay these Labour Commissioners, who may come from remote parts of England, Ireland, or Scotland, and say whether these expenses are included in this Vote.
    SIR J. GORST: No member of the Labour Commission receives any salary for his services as a Commissioner; all the members give their services gratuitously to the Commission. But all members of the Commission are entitled to be remunerated by the Government for

    905
    their expenses in coming from their homes to London and returning to their homes again. They are also entitled to receive the cost of their subsistence in London when they apply for it. No member of the Commission need be put to any expense or loss under those heads; on the other hand, no salaries are paid.
    MR. FLYNN: The right hon. Gentleman tells us those Commissioners are entitled to their travelling expenses and the cost of their subsistence while in London. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware whether any of the Commissioners have suffered loss on these accounts?
    SIR J. GORST: No such communication has reached me either officially or publicly.
    MR. PICTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to what he says about the gratuitous services of the Commissioners, does that apply also to the Sub-Commissioners?
    SIR J. GORST: No.
    MR. PICTON: The Sub-Commissioners are paid?
    SIR J. GORST: The Sub-Commissioners are paid. At present there are only three lady Sub-Commissioners, and these three ladies receive remuneration for their services; and it is in contemplation to appoint other Sub-Commissioners, but none have yet been appointed.
    MR. MORTON: I would ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if this Commission on Labour is likely to report during the present year?
    SIR J. GORST: I am afraid that question ought rather to be addressed to the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Commission, because I am not at all able to answer it. I am informed that a prelimininary Report will be immediately issued containing the evidence given up to the end of last year, but whether the Commissioners have it in contemplation to make a final Report I do not think anybody can tell.
    MR. MORTON: I hope the Royal Commissioners on Labour, as well as the Government, will endeavour to give us this Report before the General Election takes place.
    Vote agreed to.
    5. £30,486, Relief of Distress, Ireland.
    MR. MACNEILL: After the lapse of 15 days we have this Vote before us in Committee. Every consideration of honour should have induced the First Lord of the Treasury to have brought forward this Vote at an early stage, or even to have put in first on the Paper. The Vote for Irish Distress is the Vote which, above all others, should be furthest removed from Party feeling and acrimony. But the First Lord of the Treasury made a personal attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in connection with this matter. No opportunity has been given to reply to that attack, and the newspapers have been extolling the ex-Chief Secretary (Mr. Balfour) for over-riding the Irish Members. But the tide is ebbing, and it is our turn now. The First Lord of the Treasury did me the honour to make a very gross personal attack on myself. I did not resent it, because I wanted it to appear in print next day. If any other hon. Gentleman, except the First Lord of the Treasury, had dared to say what he said to me, I would have put myself at once under the protection of the Chairman, and would have claimed your ruling on the matter. The First Lord of the Treasury had the bad taste to say to me across the floor of the House that my memory was enfeebled. In the Standard and Morning Post that personal observation was inserted; but from the genteel columns of the Times it was excerpted entirely from what appeared to be a verbatim report of the speech. Now, I am justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman who corrected the Times' proof of that speech? Does the right hon. Gentleman subedit the Times, or does the Times subedit the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of an observation such as he made. I go to his attack on the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury poses as a benevolent gentleman, but his benevolence is undoubtedly mingled with a great deal of exasperation. I would like to know how, in a Debate concerning the relief of thousands of starving people, he found it necessary to introduce

    907
    such matter of exasperation? The Leader of the House ought not to be a Party fighting man, and, above all persons in the world, the hon. Member for East Mayo is the last man who should have been attacked by the right hon. Gentleman. On no occasion has the right hon. Gentleman spared the hon. Member for East Mayo; he has made that hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. O'Brien) targets for his attacks. I am not going to oppose this Vote, but I shall have some words to say in reference to the way in which this relief is administered. This I can say; that, in the year 1892, it is a scandal and disgrace to any Administration that we should have to come to this House and implore a Vote from the public funds for the benefit of our people. As regards anything like charity for the Irish people, I repudiate the suggestion. We are not receiving charity; this money is our own. Eight millions of taxation are contributed from Ireland, and it has been found that of that £8,000,000 only £4,000,000 go back, even indirectly, to the Irish people. So, therefore, it is an insolent pretence to say that charity or benevolence is extended to us. If we were only allowed to have this back there would not be a hungry person in Ireland. There has been a great deal of talk about congested districts. Our meaning of congested districts is districts where the population is too large for the soil to support them. A congested district in Ireland is a barren district where the population is overcrowded. And we find larger populations in districts which are barren and poor than in districts which are fertile and rich. And that is because the landlords have driven the people from their fertile plains into districts which are sometimes uninhabitable. But, the worse the locality, the more barren and hungry the soil is, the greater population you have. The ex-Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) posed on what he has done to alleviate the distress, and I am glad to admit that he has done much. But why should this miserable theatrical exhibition be made day after day? It only shows the want of sympathy of the Irish Administration; it shows the perverse spirit of that Administration. If they were a sym-
    908
    pathetic Administration the first thing to be done would be to go at once and do everything possible for the poor people, to forget all miserable, mean, and petty personal ambitions in endeavouring to bring relief to a starving people. He went down to Donegal to relieve the starving people, but surely that is only the feeling that would actuate any humane person. Surely the ex-Chief Secretary deserves no laudation because, for £5,000 a year of salary, he once did go down to see the poor persons whose lives were committed into his hands. It only shows that kindness and sympathy seem to be inverted when a Castle official returns to Ireland, that such a thing should be the subject of any laudation whatever. I was amazed at the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman regarding the hon. Member for East Mayo, a gentleman who has gone into all hemispheres looking for relief for a starving people. Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that he imprisoned Mr. Dillon and prevented his going to America in order to get relief for the distress? Beyond all doubt the imprisonment of the hon. Members for East Mayo and North-East Cork (Messrs. Dillon and William O'Brien) put a strong obstacle in the way of their going to obtain relief for the distress, and to do that out of sympathy with the people and not for the purpose of making political capital. From the time the ex-Chief Secretary went down to Donegal in 1889 up till the Rossendale election every gentleman who has spoken about the right horn Gentleman on his Irish tour has endeavoured to make political capital out of it. It appears as if Piggott's letter has been blotted out and Balfour's tour in Donegal substituted for it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) said the ex-Chief Secretary went on a pilgrimage, and that a gentle lady was by his side; that there had been beneficent measures of legislation; and that, if not intimidated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the people of Ireland would accept the beneficial results which Mr. Balfour, during his reign as Chief Secretary, had secured for the Sister Isle. Well, the answer to all that is the Rossendale election. I say nothing

    909
    about the taste which dictated the speech of the hon. Member for Bury. The lady no doubt went for a good and benevolent purpose, but her presence was made a pretext for catching votes for Liberal Unionist purposes. Lord Salisbury also made political capital out of this Donegal tour. During the elections in May and June Lord Salisbury made speeches to influence the elections, and in every one referred to this tour as one for which votes ought to be given to the Unionist Party. He referred, in addition, to the fund for Irish distress started by Lady-Zetland, to which a subscription was sent by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, and which resulted in the raising of £1,200 from a meeting held in Liverpool, and by other means. This is how political capital is made out of benevolence. And yet the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) taunted the Irish Party with having done nothing for the relief of that distress. That is the third time he has made that accusation against the Irish Party. The next day the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) replied showing how many and what measures they had endeavoured to pass for the relief of Irish distress. And this is the third time. But the right hon. Gentleman simply repeats the statement that the Irish Members have done nothing. Every Act that has been passed by the English Parliament dealing with the question has simply been copied from some Irish measure. In 1880 a Bill for the relief of the congested districts was brought in from these Benches and actually adopted by Mr. Forster, but it was thrown out in the other House. It was introduced a second time, and again thrown out in the House of Lords. In 1881 the question of arrears of rent came up, and we brought in a Bill, which passed this House, but was thrown out in the Lords. Subsequently the Government introduced the Arrears Act, which was the first gleam of hope for the people. How can the right hon. Gentleman say that we have done nothing for the relief of distress, when we have expended health, strength, energy, and time to endeavour to relieve it? In the Tramways Act of 1883 Mr. Parnell inserted
    910
    clauses providing for the removal of the people from the congested districts to more fertile spots, but they were rendered inoperative by the opposition of the landlords. The very clauses dealing with the question in the great Land Purchase Act are taken from plans suggested by Mr. O'Connor Power in 1883 or 1884. Of course, we have not brought in any Bill, for a Bill dealing with money cannot be brought in by a private Member, but we have done all we could in the way of calling attention to the facts and making suggestions for their remedy. I have again and again put myself in a humiliating position towards the right hon. Gentleman, reading letters from the priests, and other notices, and beseeching him to look to the position of Donegal, and we have done that for four long years. To show that we are guiltless in this matter, I would point out that I and my hon. Friends moved the Adjournment of the House in 1889 to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the people were starving. In reply he said he would do nothing, but would critically watch their exertions. On the 12th April, when the matter was brought before the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. V. Harcourt) made a speech in reference to the right hon. Gentleman's doings in Donegal. He said—
    "Listening to the speech, and looking at it from end to end, I ask, what is the policy of the Government in reference to this population of Donegal? What are they going to do for it? What assistance are they going to render to the population, which all admit is a most miserable and most wretched reproach to the Government? What is the policy of the Government? It is, in one word, extermination."
    The elections were not then being won so rapidly as they are now.
    "The Irish Secretary is going to destroy their hovels. He has invented a new machine—a machine which he says is to be the instrument of the law. It is not the instrument of the law, but of the police. The police have this defensive battering-ram, and the police are the servants of the Government. He says it makes no difference, and he objected when I said that it made a difference, that the people are in a state of misery and wretchedness. I am speaking in the presence of English Gentlemen opposite, many of whom are landlords. I ask them if they agree with the Irish Secretary on that point? Suppose there were an English village with a few wretched cottages where the people could hardly tolerate existence,

    911
    would it make no difference to them if the persons to be evicted were wretched cottiers or well-to-do farmers? In the one case I can imagine them saying: 'Here is a farmer who can pay his rent if he chooses, and against him I will invoke all the processes of the law.' But I know no English Gentleman who would say to the wretched cottiers, It makes no difference to these poor creatures who are just on the point of starvation. It makes no difference to them, and, therefore, I will have my battering-ram, and level their houses over their heads.'"
    Now we see how he described the Leader of the House—
    "The right hon. Gentleman, in almost passionate terms, sneered at the notion that a plea of poverty should be a plea for mercy. The right hon. Gentleman says, 'These men do not pay their rents; I will level their houses.' That is his first moderate repartee. There has been harsh treatment enough of the people of Ireland for generations before. But it was left to the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman to invent a new machine for getting rid of the population of the congested districts. That is the first policy of the Government—to level the houses of the people. We have not yet had the full development of the battering-ram."
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is wandering too far away from the Vote.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I beg your pardon, Sir, for being led away by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I will only quote one other sentence—
    "Eviction, then, is the first remedy the Government mean to apply, and the right hon. Gentleman stood up last night as the supporter of the evictions which are now going on in Donegal."
    That shows what the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was in reference to Donegal till 1890. And he reproaches us with doing nothing. What was his policy from October, 1890? At that time the right hon. Gentleman visited Ireland, and I went to him and asked whether he had come to protect the people. If he were going to do that I promised my help, but I pointed out that it was no good giving relief on one side and then evicting on the other. I found out that there was an eviction crusade preparing on the Olphert Estate, but a telegram was sent stopping it until the right hon. Gentleman had left. I asked what he was going to do, but he left the next day, and 350 families were evicted in circumstances of great poverty. From that day to this, Mr. Courtney, nothing has
    912
    been done for that district of West Donegal. A few months ago engineers were sent into the district with a view to making roads, but nothing further has been done. Referring to the parish of Gweedore, the right hon. Gentleman said that relief works were to be started immediately; but they have not been stated, and there is an estimate of £1,500 for salaries of surveyors and inspectors on these roads. In January, 1890, Father MacFadden, who is a good engineer, said if he could only get help from the Government he would make 20 miles of road and keep well employed and paid 300 families for six months. That district a generation ago was 14,000 acres, and the fathers and mothers of the present generation had it all to themselves at a rent of £600 a year. Now, they have only 24,000 acres, for which they pay £1,600 a year rent. The valuation is 7d. per acre, and it has been computed that of that 7d. the holders had contributed to raise the valuation by 5d. The valuation per head of the population is 3s. 6d., and the total valuation of the whole county is only £1,283. I have a letter in my pocket which says that there are only four holdings which have a value of above £4 per annum, and the right hon. Gentleman accuses the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) of telling the people not to pay their rent. They ought not to pay rent; the Times says so, and, of course the right hon. Gentleman will go by the Times. Sir James Caird, speaking of these people, said—
    "Land in Ireland is held by two distinct classes of tenants: the small farmers who pay rent from £1 up to £20, and the comparatively large farmers who pay from £20 upwards."
    And he goes on to say that five-sixths of the Irish tenants pay one-third of the rent and the other sixth pay two-thirds of it. Everybody who has been into these districts knows the deplorable and hopeless poverty and misery of these people. I have seen their misery in all its forms, and I have also seen the houses of the lepers at Cape Colony; and I was not exaggerating when I wrote to the English papers and said that those lepers were better housed and looked after than these poor people in West Donegal, to whom the right hon. Gentleman re-

    913
    fuses any help at all. The right hon. Gentleman visited my constituency and promised many things, but nothing came of it; and early in January there was a meeting of all sections of the community—Protestants and Catholics alike—at which resolutions were passed imploring the right hon. Gentleman to do something. I forwarded the resolutions to the right hon. Gentleman and got a courteous reply from one of the secretaries, but beyond that nothing. On the 6th of last month large crowds of hungry men visited the police barracks and then the priest's house, begging for bread for their wives and children. I do not wish to talk any more about the congested districts, but I would call the attention of the Committee to this point. We have here a total sum of £20,000, which is to be expended, independently of surveying and road works, in Ireland, and out of that no less than £1,500 is to go in salaries. That sum ought not to be paid, and most of the men who get it are in the Police Force. It is about 6½ per cent. on the total sum. We have an interesting key to this in a Parliamentary Return, by which I find that in one case, where there is only £1,002 spent on relief works, £260 is spent on Inspectors of Police for surveying. That is a bribe to the police; it is not charity; and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to get this money from the taxpayers under pretence of relief and give it for bribes to the police. In another case, where £13,000 is to be spent, no less than £8,588 is expended on surveyors, clerks, and distributors of money; that is 70 per cent. of the whole sum. Though I should be the last man not to give credit to one who is honestly and conscientiously working for the relief of distress, I must say that a mere work of humanity ought not to be lauded for political purposes. When such benevolence is promised to the congested districts, and is trotted out at every Tory election to obtain votes to deprive people of their liberties, I can only say the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the funds has been inactive, and that many of his friends would have acted with greater propriety if they had not lauded him unduly simply for doing his duty in the
    914
    matter of Irish distress. I have done my best to alleviate the distress of these people by bringing their case again and again before the House, and I only ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson), who has visited Donegal, for a distinct promise that something shall be done for the Western Coast of Donegal. I have stated the case as well as I can, and I trust the English people may understand the ins and outs of the question, and that the Government will carry out its first and primary duty in relieving the distress.
    MR. GILHOOLY: The First Lord of the Treasury made a very interesting speech. But I should like to refer to the point as to these funds being placed in the hands of the landlords for doing the work promoted by the Government. In the constituency I represent there is a road being made, and the bailiff of the landlord, Mr. Bourke, is employed as ganger. Amongst those at work on the road was one Sullivan, who had a large family to support, and who had to pay £4 or £5 a year rent. This man was dismissed, and he walked 20 miles to Bantry to the relieving officer to state his case. The officer went to the landlord, and pointed out that it was too bad to discharge the man, who was in very poor circumstances. Subsequently the landlord promised if the man would pay one year's rent on the 18th of May he would get him re-instated, and on that promise being given the landlord gave the man a note to the corporal in charge of the relief works, and that note said, "Eugene Sullivan may be employed." Why, I ask, was Mr. Bourke placed in a position to act in such a cruel manner to this poor man, and to deprive his starving family of the means of subsistence during the very trying period when these works were started? I think the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was most mean and contemptible in connection with these works. He should never have made it possible for landlords to make rent-making machines of these relief works, and I should like some explanation on that point. I should like also to refer to the manner in which these relief works have been conducted, and

    915
    it would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman could have heard the opinion of the people in the South of Ireland on the subject. I see that large sums have been spent on supervision, and I assert as a positive fact that while the poor men, in whose interest the Committee voted this money last year, were only paid 7s. and 8s. per week, the sergeants and corporals of the Irish Constabulary who did the supervision were paid as much as 7s. and 8s. per day above their ordinary pay. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, received with the respect that is due to a stranger in that part of the country, but had it been known how the relief works were to be administered he would have had no chance of the ovations which he pretends that he received in the West of Ireland. Many of the roads which were made were not of the slightest utility; they led to nowhere, but some of them would be a convenience to the district, and I appeal to the First Lord or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or whoever has the matter in hand, to push them on as far as possible. It might be said that they could make that appeal to the Grand Jury, but every Irish Member knew that they could expect no sympathy from the Grand Jury for the tenant farmers, or, indeed, for anyone who was not prepared to wink at and assist in their jobbery.
    COLONEL NOLAN: These periods of distress in Ireland, unfortunately, recur, and if we do not accept these contributions a future House of Commons may not be so anxious to vote money for the relief of distress. I think we should view Votes of this kind by any Government dispassionately, criticise them very gently, and give credit where credit is due. I do not speak for any other Irish Member, but I know I express the opinions of hundreds and thousands of people in the West of Ireland when I say that the only fault I find with the policy pursued by the late Chief Secretary is that he concentrated his efforts too much on the mountainous parts of the country, and that he hardly did enough for what I may call the medium class land. Some of this land is worse
    916
    than the average of the higher districts, but with that exception I have no fault to find. I cannot speak of the whole of the West of Ireland, but of Connemara I can speak, both from observation and report, and I say that there the policy of the late Chief Seeretary in the matter of the relief of distress has been eminently successful and eminently useful. I look upon it that if you spend public money on relief works, you run a great risk of demoralising the people. If the people see that the money is being spent for doing nothing, they inevitably become demoralised. If the works are of a useless character, and still the people are made to work for the money they receive, it does not have a good effect; but if the money is spent to good purpose, and the people are paid for the work they do, and they see that the resources of the country are being developed in such a manner as to lessen the chances of a recurrence of the distress, I think, instead of the morale being injured, it is improved, and I think that is the way in which the public money has been spent in Connemara. No doubt, if you have any large system of relief works, abuses will crop up and all the administration can do is to keep them down. I do not think there were many abuses in Connemara. Perhaps some part of the money did go to the police, but the people for whom it was intended have had a very large portion of it. But at the same time I may say that we Irishmen do not consider the money spent on these relief works as charity. Ireland contributes £8,000,000 a year to the National Exchequer, and we do not get that sum back. And we consider that when any money is spent in Ireland in this way it is our own money. I thought it was well that one Irish Member should speak on this point without regard to Party feeling, and I should like to suggest before I sit down that the Government should consider the question of the acquisition of land for the purpose of forestry as another means of relieving distress. I see that the Chief Secretary has secured a large piece of ground at a very low price, and I would suggest, where land can be obtained on such very advantageous terms, that this system should be ex-

    917
    tended with a view of developing the resources of the country, and as a means of preventing these Votes for the relief of distress, which, however, are extremely useful as they do more to conciliate the people of Ireland than anything I know.
    MR. BLANE: The Vote for these surveys opens up a very important question, and I maintain that nearly the whole of this expenditure might be saved. We have in Ireland a large number of Royal Engineers and the corporals and sergeants of these regiments are well qualified to do the work. No man in Ireland is better qualified than they are, and I maintain that we might save this £2,000, and if we gave, say £500 to the Royal Engineers, they would be very well satisfied, and the work would be well done. They are well trained in work of this kind, but while they have been idle the Government have been employing policemen and other men who have had no training. In all these relief works we find a large sum for salaries, and the money which has been voted by this House for the relief of distress in Ireland has been used for the relief of the local supporters of the Government. I consider it is the duty of Members of this House to call the attention of the Government to the fact that this work can be done much more efficiently and cheaper, and I say that if we are to keep these Royal Engineers in Ireland, it does not matter in what part of the country they are employed, and I say it is a waste of money to pay bailiffs and rent collectors to assist in making roads—a subject on which they have no knowledge—when we have well qualified men who could do the work much better and cheaper on the spot. Under the present regime we do not get value for our money, and every year proposals of this kind will have to be submitted. One reason why these proposals will have to be brought forward is that the people are being constantly swept off their land, and turned into these congested districts, and the pressure of poverty therefore becomes greater. I see from a Return that in one year 163 square miles of country have been cleared of people. Is it, therefore, any wonder that the Government are compelled to bring forward proposals for
    918
    the relief of distress? Next year it will be the same story. The people are being driven into the congested districts, and they cannot be allowed to starve. Most of these people are able and willing to work, and I maintain that it is the duty of the Government to see that every penny that is voted by this House is devoted, as far as possible, strictly to the purposes for which it was intended.
    MR. FLYNN: I do not wish to criticise too sharply a Vote of this kind, but there has been a great amount of extravagance in its administration. I also desire to join my hon. Friend (Mr. MacNeill) in protesting that we are in any way opposed to the grants to relieve this distress, or that we were not anxious by every means in our power the mitigate the evils which the people suffered. As my hon. Friend pointed out, whatever suggestions we made we could not come down to this House and ask for money. That is the provence of the Government of the day, and all we could do was to bring the facts before the Government, and that I contend we did. We maintain that after the warnings which we gave to the Government—after the experience of former years, and after the Report of the Commissioners, it was the bounden duty of the Treasury to see that every £1 that was voted for the relief of distress, should be devoted strictly to that purpose, and should not be wasted in paying extravagant sums for clerical work. We find from this Return and from what the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. MacNeill) has stated that the amount spent on clerical work and work of that kind reached an alarming proportion of the entire sum. In Cork county the entire amount spent in relief, making roads, &c, was £28,000, including materials; and that no less than £3,012, or about 11 per cent. was spent in supervision and administration. In the County of Galway—and I am sorry that the hon. Member for that county, who has spoken (Colonel Nolan), is not in his place to hear the figures—the sum spent on relief works was £35,737, and £6,445 was expended in supervision, or 11 per cent.; exactly the same as in the case of County Cork. That is a state of things that the

    919
    Government should not have permitted, and the first consideration of the Government should be to see that the money is spent amongst the people who so sadly need it. The Committee will not be surprised that these expenses are so large when they know that when these works were first started the men who were first appointed as gangers were bailiffs' agents. Subsequently these men were replaced by sergeants of police and police constables, and we find that even in some very poor districts of the county, the sergeants of police were paid 8s. a day in addition to their ordinary pay; of this, 4s. was actually extra pay, and 4s. was what was called subsistence money; but even that was excessive. I contend that under the circumstances of terrible suffering which prevailed, the Government might have made a demand upon the Constabulary to do the work at the smallest possible cost and with a smaller amount for subsistence. The Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly) mentioned a case that came under his own experience; and I say that proves that the landowners and their understrappers had a finger in the pie, and had a large share in the management and control of these works. The Committee, therefore, could not be disappointed, and the Government could not be surprised, that so much of this money has been spent in the way we describe. A question that I asked to-day will bring the question of the relief of distress and its connection with landlordism very prominently before the Committee. I must say it is a very curious commentary on the history of the country that, after 90 years of union, it should be necessary for the Government of the day to come year after year and ask for these relief grants. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway is, undoubtedly, worth the serious consideration of the Government. I think it would be a very useful idea to suggest to the Congested Districts Boards that they should direct a portion of their work with a view to re-afforesting large portions of the West of Ireland. The congested districts have the first claim for relief on the Government of the day, and I trust the suggestion will receive
    920
    all the consideration it deserves. I will only say, in conclusion, that it is disappointing to find that in the voting of these large sums from year to year the lessons of the past have been utterly thrown away upon the Government, and that so high amounts as 10, 11, and 12 per cent. have been incurred in the expenses of administration.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: I think the course of this discussion ought to satisfy the First Lord of the Treasury that it is necessary for him to see that the giving out of this money is properly done. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have had before him the examples of the failures of 1846 and 1847. On these occasions the Representatives of Ireland in this House constantly warned the Government that the relief they were supposed to be giving to the people was going into the pockets of those who did not want relief. An unfair proportion of the money went into the pockets of the officials. The First Lord of the Treasury ought not to spoil the effect of his Act. He intended to prevent distress by giving employment and relief without the degradation of charity, and if he does not wish to spoil the effect of his measure he should see that the money does not go into the pockets of officials. I wish to bring under notice a certain point. A dispute arose in the County of Cork between the contractor who was engaged in carrying out one of these railways and the employés. The employés complained that they were not getting a fair wage. I think there is no reason why the men who are employed should not receive fair wages. In the dispute to which I refer the contractor dismissed the engineer, who was popular with the men, and put in another man who was willing to reduce the men's wages. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that men who are employed by the Government in this way will get a fair wage. Sir, my attention was called the other day to an appeal in the public Press in London, made by a reverend gentleman well-known and well-beloved in the district where he lives—whose name has been associated for a great number of years with the district of Gweedore. It occurs to me that the Government might direct their atten-

    921
    tion to this particular locality. When this measure was introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury I was not here. I was sharing residence in one of those castellated mansions in Ireland, and, therefore, I am not able to say whether Gweedore was included in the measure. But if Gweedore is not included I hope the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to apply some of this money in some way for the benefit of this district, either in the way of building a pier, to give facilities for the landing and catching of fish, or in some other way, whereby the people will not have to appeal for relief through the parish priest. This is degrading to the people themselves. I know that these people are anxious to live by their own industry. They travel from year to year to Scotland and other places to try to get work. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to give employment to these people.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not propose on the present occasion to repeat the observations which I have often had occasion to make upon the general principles which have directed, and which ought to direct, the Government in dealing with the question of exceptional distress in Ireland. Nor shall I again travel over the controversial ground which we touched upon the first night on which this Vote was before us. I then said in answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo all that I meant to say, and I see no object in repeating what I then said, or in again dragging into our discussions subjects rather heated. It is, perhaps, only necessary for me, in appealing to the House to bring this discussion to a close, to answer one or two of the questions which have been put by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. He called attention to the experiment that we made last year in the purchase of some land for the purpose of afforesting. That purchase, he rightly said, was made at a cheap rate, but it is by no means an easy matter to obtain land in the West of Ireland at a cheap rate, from the rights of way, the rights of pasturage, and other
    922
    rights, not usually known to the landlord, but which will seriously embarrass and, perhaps, entirely destroy any efforts that might be made to carry out afforesting on a large scale. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down called attention to a controversy that has apparently occurred between one of the contractors of a new railway line and his workmen. The Vote we are now discussing has nothing to do with railways, nor have the Government any control over the rates of wages to be paid by the contractors of these lines to the workmen whom they employ. This Vote simply refers to works we started ourselves, and in which we employed no contractor as an intermediary. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork called attention to the high percentage of the amount paid for superintendence in the total amount expended. Well, of course, it is very desirable to keep the percentage as low as possible. Supervision, however, and very careful supervision, is the great requisite of administration when you are dealing with funds of this kind. The taxpayers' money is an exhaustible resource, and unless you watch every item of expenditure with the most rigid scrutiny, and lay down the most careful rules for that expenditure, you will be furnished with the most extravagant outlay. What is far worse, you will demoralise the people whom you desire to benefit. It is only the very careful system of supervision which we have adopted which has enabled us, on the whole, successfully to cope with the enormous difficulties that necessarily attend relief works. One other gentleman complained of our not using the Royal Engineers. He said if we had used them we should have done engineering work much more cheaply. I can only say, so far as I know, we are the first Government who have ever used the Royal Engineers on a very large scale. The gentleman principally responsible for the engineering work connected with these relief operations was a Royal Engineer. His two immediate subordinates were both Royal Engineers. A large number of the superintendents whom we employed upon the works were drawn from that

    923
    distinguished corps. So that I thin we, of all previous Administrations, the least deserve the reproach which the hon. Gentleman has hurled at us. He refers also to the future. I will only say that no relief works are in contemplation in any part of Ireland in the future. If he refers to the past, the whole question of the North and North-West part of Donegal was very carefully gone into in this House on more than one occasion—once I recollect in consequence of an Adjournment of the Debate moved by the hon. Gentleman himself. We have seen no reason to regret the course we then took. The hon. Gentleman himself appears to be under the impression that nothing has been done for Donegal. I would remind him that two railways have been made in Donegal; that a great many roads have been started in that part of the country; and that everything has been done, as we believe, which was necessary to be done, in order to enable the people to get over the crisis caused by the potato failure. I am fortified in this conviction by the knowledge that the distress in the North: West of Donegal never reached the acute stage that some people were afraid of. Not only so, no deaths from starvation occurred there; nothing was threatened like deaths from starvation. As I say, this Vote applies to the past, not to the future. Doubtless any Government which has to deal with such a crisis as we have passed through—may it be many years before that occurs—will attempt to deal with a large part of the country as we attempted, after a real examination of the distress which they have to heal.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to one of the contractors. I wish to know how it came about that the contractor was in a position to give starvation wages?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has given me no notice of this subject. If he puts a question on the Paper I will answer it.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I shall put a question to the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. WEBB: I have no intention to make any remarks with regard to the ques-
    924
    tion of the administration of this relief, because I have no special knowledge respecting it. I am not going to oppose the Vote either. I believe the distribution of relief has been managed with the best of intentions. But I must entirely object to the term "exceptional distress." There has been one distress after another. The famine of 1845, 1846, and 1847, is in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen. Ever since that time collections have had to be made at recurring intervals for Ireland in some of the most distant parts of the earth. We know there must be some reason for this constant and ever recurring distress. The cause of it does not lie in the nature, of the people; the unfortunate inhabitants of these Western districts were driven there against their will, and then when they got there they became subject to a system of land tenure that ground them down to the earth. My belief is, there will be no complete relief until land legislation brought about by the Irish Members themselves is applied. Apart from the distress the demoralisation arising from this system of relief is a bad feature of the Government policy. The present system of governing our country must fail, and then the responsibility will be thrown upon those who have always given warning of the difficulties that would arise.
    MR. MACNEILL: In my short career as a Member of Parliament I have had to testify several times to the starving condition of the people in the district of Donegal. At the present moment there are no fewer than 558 families who are in a miserable condition—who cannot get work. They are being exterminated because they will not submit to a villainous landlord. Will the right hon. Gentleman go against what I say? I think I must really ask the Chief Secretary to reply. He has seen the condition of matters. He knows that this is not a matter of politics. I must ask that something should be done for the poor people. Their misery is intolerable. I appeal to the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He has been in the district, and knows the wretched condition of these people. He says something must be done. He says, likewise, there are no potatoes. It is a mistake to talk about tubers,

    925
    because tubers do not exist. Even Mr. Olphert, their exterminator, said that some relief ought to be given. I do implore, in the House of Commons, that something should be done for these people. No one who has seen the depth of poverty of these people can ever forget it. The impressions of the scenes remain on my mind—the appearance of the starving children, the appearance of the men, with want stamped on their faces—their miserable, helpless look. It is really a sacred mission to do something. We have had political capital made out of these situations. I myself was accused of trying to obstruct the Government, because I went down and asked them whether for God's sake they were not going to do something. The right hon. Gentleman does not attempt to deny that these people are on the verge of want. In the interests of humanity I appeal, I make a last request, to the Chief Secretary to do something. Two years ago I brought the condition of these people before the House. A gentleman on the other side, a Tory, voted against the Adjournment of the House. He met me a minute afterwards, and he said, "Here, MacNeill, have you overstated your case?" I said, "No, my dear fellow, I understated it;" and he gave me a cheque for £100 for the poor starving people.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Might I respectfully point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Vote we are discussing is for money which has been expended? If the hon. Gentleman desires to have new relief works, then I will respectfully say this is not the time to bring forward his proposals.
    MR. MACNEILL: That is quite true. I accept that, but he has told me that no relief will be given to these people. I am horrified at the observation. It is an observation that will do little good to him and to his Government.
    MR. P. O'BRIEN: I regret that the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury is not at all satisfactory. Without taking shelter behind the Vote, I hope he will give some assurance that he will take steps to see that the condition of the people is relieved. The Rev. Father McFadden would be the last to make an appeal of this kind
    926
    without cause. He says the wolf is at the door. What is the position today? We have to appeal again, as we have often had to do before, to the charity of the British people. I think the British taxpayer has a right to complain that while he is giving money out of the Exchequer to relieve these people their Representatives are compelled to ask in the public Press for charity for these very same people. I notice that some money is being raised by the Government to supply high-class horses to certain districts in Ireland. We have had many a time in Ireland the cry of "Cattle before men." Here we have money being applied to improve the breed of horses, while the people are allowed to starve. I think we ought to get some assurance from the Government that they will not delay until the condition of these unfortunate people becomes worse. Relief should be given to them before they reach starvation. I think the Government ought to give some assurance that they will cause inquiry to be made into the condition of these people, and that if they find they are in danger of famine, as stated in the public Press, they will not wait until they are dying, but that they will apply some money to their aid, and give them relief in the way of employment without their having to suffer the degradation of charity.
    MR. FLYNN: I do not desire to detain the Committee much longer, but I wish to express the deep dissatisfaction I feel at the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury in connection with the distress in Donegal. I hope, at any rate in connection with this Vote, the attention of the Chief Secretary will be called to that portion of Donegal. It is true that a railway is being constructed in Donegal, but this railway does not run through the distressed district which my hon. Friend refers to.
    MR. JACKSON: It does.
    MR. FLYNN: With regard to the percentage paid out of this Vote for administration and supervision, constables and sergeants of constabulary are paid from 4s. to 8s. extra for this work—men who are in receipt of very good pay. You give 8s. a week to a sergeant for supervising a certain portion of road, and you only give 7s. a week to a man for

    927
    working the entire week on the road. This being so, the Committee must not be surprised if a large amount of this money has followed the fate of other money in connection with the relief of distress in Ireland, and has been squandered and misapplied.
    Vote agreed to.
    6. £15,000, Foot and Mouth Disease.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: It is now some days since the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture announced in this House that some new outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease had occurred in parts of England and Scotland. I desire that he should now have an opportunity of giving the House any further information on the subject in his possession. Within the last few days, judging from what has appeared in the newspapers, I fear that fresh outbreaks have occurred both in Scotland and in certain parts of England. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also inform the House what further measures the Board of Agriculture are taking to cope with the spread of this disease. I observe the Vote in this case is for £15,000, and is for compensation and expenses. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House whether, as, no doubt, this Estimate was framed in February, he has any reason to suppose that this money will be sufficient to meet all the expenses that have been incurred, foot-and-mouth disease having very largely spread since then. No doubt the slaughter has not been carried out in all cases by his Department, but at the expense of the ratepayers; but I am afraid there has been a good deal more slaughtering since some time in the month of February, and further expenses may have been incurred.
    MR. HOZIER: What regulations have been framed for markets and fairs?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The right hon. Gentleman commenced by putting a question to me as to what has occurred in connection with this unfortunate outbreak since the last occasion on which I have
    928
    spoken on the subject. And I regret to say it is true that in spite of every exertion that has been made by the Board of Agriculture and the officers who serve it, and whose efforts and whose work are deserving of the highest praise, there has been to some extent a spread of this disease, as the House will remember. It was discovered on the 4th February, at the Metropolitan Cattle Market at Islington. From that time, including the present outbreak, there has been 43 different outbreaks of the disease, and of these the greater number have occurred in the Metropolitan Police Districts, and in the Counties of Kent and Sussex. There has been 16 in the Metropolitan Police Districts, nine in Kent, and four in the County of Sussex, making 29 in all in that particular district of the country. But in addition to this I am sorry to say there has been one case in Surrey, and one in the County of Essex. But it is satisfactory to remember that in none of these districts has there been any case whatever since the 29th February, with two exceptions to which I will further call the attention of the House. One is a case that occurred in the Isle of Sheppey two or three days ago, but which is really merely an extension of an outbreak there, and upon a farm which was already affected. Another outbreak has occurred close to Brighton, of which I only heard at a very late hour last night. These exceptions certainly have been a source of great disappointment to me, but in other respects, so far as the other parts of the country are concerned, I do not think the report, generally speaking, can be considered as discouraging; because the House will remember that the period of incubation of this particular disease generally takes from five to six or seven days, and a period had elapsed up to last night of more than 14 days since the last outbreak in this part of England occurred. I am bound to add that unfortunately on the 27th of last month the disease appeared at Edinburgh. How it got there is one of those mysteries in the character of this disease which no human being has ever been able to solve. So far as I can gather, no animals from London or the South of

    929
    England were sent to Edinburgh since the first outbreak of the disease in the Metropolitan Cattle Market. It is supposed to have been conveyed by human agency, by some drover, or butcher, or dealer, or dairyman from one of the dairies here in England—in London—several of which are affected, and conveyed to the market in Edinburgh. Be that as it may, there have been two cases in Edinburgh; and from Edinburgh the disease spread very quickly to Midlothian and Glasgow, with the result that there are six cases in Midlothian and one in Glasgow. But this, I am sorry to say, is not all, because from Glasgow it appears that one cow found its way into Yorkshire, and into the Leeds market, and it was in that market nearly the whole of the day; and on its being taken to its destination, at Settle, in the Craven district, in the County of Yorkshire, the disease appeared in that animal; and either on that day or the day after it appeared on the premises of a Mr. Dugdale, a man very well known in that part of the country, and who has given every assistance in his power to prevent the disease from spreading. I have some hopes in the case of Yorkshire, at all events, that it may be possible that the disease may be checked. It is too early to speak with confidence; but it was on the 3rd March that the disease was discovered in Yorkshire, and, so far, it has not spread at all, excepting in one instance which has been reported, and which I have some reason to believe was not altogether well-founded. That was a case which was supposed to have occurred at Kirkby Lonsdale, in Westmoreland; and there is some reason to hope that that was a false alarm. And I am not altogether without hopes, so far as Yorkshire and that part of England is concerned, that the outbreaks there may possibly be checked. I cannot help thinking that the two cases to which I have last referred are instances which illustrate the fact that the spread of the disease might have been prevented if earlier action had been taken by the Local Authorities. I am not saying this for a single moment for the purpose of imputing any blame to the Local Authorities, from nearly all of
    930
    whom I have received the most loyal co-operation and support; but I took it upon myself, very shortly after the disease first appeared in the country, to communicate on three different occasions with all the Local Authorities of the country, reminding them of the powers they possess of closing their counties and preventing animals being brought into them, and warning them of the great danger which they would incur if steps in that direction were not taken. Undoubtedly, if that course had been adopted in this particular case in Yorkshire at an earlier period probably the outbreak which I speak of would have been spared. Many of the Local Authorities are now closing their counties. You may ask, very likely, why was it that the Board of Agriculture did not take this action of their own accord. My answer would be this: that it would be impossible for the Central Authority in London to be cognisant of all the circumstances of the different Local Authorities throughout the country, and it would be impossible for me to pass an Order closing every single district in the country without possessing that information which necessarily can only be possessed by those who are conversant on the spot with all the different circumstances and requirements of the different localities. I wish I could speak more hopefully than I can of the cases in Scotland at the present time. It appeared in Edinburgh, then spread to Glasgow and Midlothian, and now, I am sorry to say, the day before yesterday, or yesterday I think it was, I received the intelligence that a case had occurred in Perthshire. It is an unfortunate circumstance that it should have appeared in Glasgow as well as in Perth, and for this reason, that both Glasgow and Perth are two of the most considerable markets in the country; and it is through Glasgow, I wish to remind the House, that a very large number of animals come almost every week from Ireland for the purpose of being sent to the northern counties of Scotland as store stock, and have in their natural course to pass through the City of Glasgow. I am, therefore, obliged to take measures, for

    931
    the present, to put an end to this state of things, because, unless I did so, the disease would at once spread through the whole of the North of Scotland; and for the time being, at all events, I am compelled to impose very stringent restrictions upon cattle passing through Glasgow, and to prevent them from going to the North. I have now stated to the House pretty nearly all the information I have to put before them in my possession at the present time; and I can only express my great regret at the re-appearance of this disease after the measures we had taken for the purpose of stamping it out; and, secondly, that we have not been more successful in bringing it to a conclusion. But I may remind the House of this: that really it was almost a forlorn hope from the very commencement, from the first day that the disease appeared in the London market, and for this reason—as the House will clearly understand. So far as I have been able to estimate, on the morning when it was discovered, on Thursday, 4th February, at the market, and on the Monday previous—there had been 1,500 beasts, 2,000 sheep, and several hundreds of drovers, dealers, butchers, and others, and the majority of them all had dispersed before we became aware of the existence of the disease. Owing to the peculiar character of this disease, and the facility with which it can be transmitted, every one of these men and these animals was capable of transmitting it to the respective districts to which they went. The House will, therefore, see the enormous difficulty which we had before us, and with which we had to contend, and, consequently, it is not surprising that the disease has spread as it has done. I have referred to some of the figures recorded after the spread of the disease in 1880, and, so far, it is satisfactory to know that the number of cases up to the present date actually brought to my notice is considerably less than at the same date of that year. Still, the position now is far from being satisfactory, and, although we shall continue to make every effort to confine this attack and restrict it within the smallest possible limits, I should be deceiving the House if I
    932
    attempted to conceal the fact that we have not been successful up to the present in effectually coping with the disease. Wherever outbreaks have occurred we have taken immediate measures—firstly, by scheduling the infected districts; and, secondly, by scheduling the county or the districts around, to prevent the disease from spreading. As regards the amount of the estimate upon which my right hon. Friend opposite put some questions, I have no doubt the estimate will be amply sufficient, and for this reason: It is quite true that when the disease first appeared in London the Board of Agriculture, in order to stamp it out before it had further spread, did resort to the expedient of immediately slaughtering the animals. But that is an expedient that cannot be adopted for more than a few days, and only in the early days of the attack. In the case of foot-and-mouth disease the animals afflicted recover from it very rapidly, getting back not only their health, but their value, and it would cost the country an enormous amount of money and would be entirely out of the question to resor to slaughter in every case. The number of animals slaughtered by order of the Board of Agriculture is 295, and their cost £2,101. In addition, we have considerable expenses to meet, these having been incurred in respect of veterinary surgeons, the expenses of Travelling Inspectors, the burial of animals, the disinfection of the places where they were killed, and the payment of compensation for the destruction of fodder, &c, all of which amounted in round figures a few days ago to £1,000 or £1,100. Then, again, we have employed veterinary surgeons to inspect the dairies in London. It is within the metropolitan district that the disease is still lurking in a few isolated instances. There are in the metropolitan area something like 2,000 dairies, and it is in these that the danger lurks. I am sorry to say that there is an unfortunate disposition to conceal cases of disease as they arise. They are not always reported to us, although it is most important that at the very earliest possible moment we should receive information

    933
    of any and of every outbreak. For that reason I have employed as large a body of Inspectors as I could obtain of competent persons to inspect the London dairies, and to do nothing else. This will entail a further cost of from £1,400 to £1,500. Now, Sir, I am asked what we are doing in Scotland. Sir, with regard to Scotland, the first thing we did was to pass an Order which was automatic in its application, and which involved the closing of markets and of fairs in districts which had been declared to be infected with foot-and-mouth disease. I am painfully aware of the inconvenience of the losses caused to owners and to breeders of stock, to farmers, to dealers, and to butchers; but I wish to point out this, in the hope that it may convey some re-assurance to those whose interests are chiefly concerned. I imposed the most rigid restrictions in the first instance, in order, if possible, to prevent the disease from spreading, to any great extent, into the country. But I was also aware that restrictions were capable of being made so rigid that eventually the remedy might become worse than the disease. That, Sir, I have carefully borne in mind in the course that I have been adopting, and I have in preparation already a Code of Regulations which will very shortly take the place of those in existence, and which will I hope, without producing more than the minimum of inconvenience, will still be instrumental in checking the disease.
    MR. BARCLAY: I think that the House and the country have great reason to be satisfied with the determined manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has battled with this insidious disease. The success which has so far attended the efforts of the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman so ably presides is greater far than he has himself indicated. Some little time must of necessity have arisen before the new centres of disease were discovered, but I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the cordial and energetic co-operation of all Local Authorities. This disease is so infectious and so difficult to deal with that it requires not only the action of the Central
    934
    Authorities, but the co-operation of the Local Authorities; and if there is such co-operation, I believe that within a comparatively few weeks the disease will be again exterminated from the country. In this hope, and with this view, I trust the Local Authorities will take drastic measures as regards the movement of cattle, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not relax any measures of precaution at least for the next few weeks. The right hon. Gentleman need not make the infected areas any larger than is absolutely necessary, but, at the same time, he ought to take the most effective means to prevent the infection being conveyed by cattle or drovers of cattle, dealers or others who come into contact with diseased cattle. I believe the present outbreak has been extended more by human agency than by the animals themselves.
    SIR RICHARD PAGET: I am sure, Sir, that the whole of the agricultural community will view with the greatest satisfaction the energetic action taken by the Board of Agriculture in this matter. We have a very vivid recollection of a period, not many years ago, when this disease was a plague in the country, and it is impossible to over-estimate the injury which it caused. The country has been free from this scourge for many years, and but for the importation of live animals from abroad we should be free from it now. The amount of food provided by imported live stock is now so small that it may be well to consider, in view of the return of this disease, whether the importation of live animals should not be altogether prohibited. At the outbreak of this disease, the right hon. Gentleman resorted to many measures, including that of slaughter. When you get to the end of an outbreak, having reduced it to a few spots, the remedy of slaughter can be employed with great effect. I think the right hon. Gentleman has a right to expect, and I think he will receive the support not only of the Local Authorities, but of the farmers, in enforcing any regulations he may make, however stringent those regulations may be. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us

    935
    he has appointed skilled Inspectors to watch every one of those places where there is reason to suspect that the disease may be lurking, with the view of preventing any outbreak. If the right hon. Gentleman would circulate a Memorandum on the subject of isolation, it might be of great assistance in checking the spread of the disease. I venture to urge strongly the enormous advantage that would accrue if isolation were universally adopted, so that animals, whether believed to be safe and sound or coming from a market even beyond suspicion—if such animals were carefully isolated, in every case, on the farm into which they were introduced, this disease might be very materially reduced, or, at least, its spread prevented.
    COLONEL WARING: It is important that for the next two months certain measures should be taken at the Port of Glasgow. Up till the month of May the whole stock of Irish cattle begins to come over from the North of Ireland to Scotland; and serious consequences might result, as well as serious difficulties arise, in a large part of Ireland, especially in the North, if proper precautions are not taken at Glasgow. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep up the necessary regulations in that part of Scotland, and, if possible, stamp out the disease before the importation of Irish cattle sets in.
    MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of those I represent for all he has done, and I hope he will continue to do in the future as he has done in the past. I can only assure him that the farmers in my part of the world are most willing to assent to any regulations he may put upon them in the hope that he may succeed in stamping out the disease. But I wish to point out to him, and I am glad that he has acknowledged it in his speech, that it may be the case that the remedy may prove worse than the disease. I am convinced that when this thing is stamped out here, that the only way to prevent its return will be to put some check on the importation of live stock from abroad.
    SIR WALTER BARTTELOT: I thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture for what he has done in endeavouring to prevent the importation of disease from, abroad, as well as for the regulations he has made to prevent the spread of the foot-and-mouth disease at home. I thank him, however, especially for so-far relaxing his rules as to allow lambs to be sent to London for immediate slaughter, and also in permitting Kent sheep to be moved out of Sussex to enable them to go to Romney Marsh. I would also impress upon him that he might now allow bullocks marked for slaughter to be sent to the London Market. This would be very much appreciated by farmers in all parts of the country. As to isolation, I should like all Local Authorities to endeavour to press most strongly upon those under their influence and control the necessity for isolation, and the good which is likely to result from it. Farmers are particularly negligent in regard to isolation. I have always made it a practice to isolate any fresh stock I have bought, and if my right hon. Friend would give a caution of that kind it would be of immense advantage to the country.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I think it is only fair that a word should be said from this side of the House in support of the policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman. As the Representative of a constituency which is largely agricultural, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my constituents regard with approval the course he has pursued. This is sometimes represented as a producer's question. That is a very narrow point of view in which to regard it, for no one is more interested in the stamping out of foot-and-mouth disease than the consumer. I only hope, from whatever quarter pressure comes upon the right, hon. Gentleman to relax the precautions and restrictions, he will, at all events for a time, in order to insure the stamping out of the disease, stand firm.
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: Coining, as I do, from an agricultural community where the farmers accept with loyalty all necessary restrictions, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would kindly give his careful consideration to the removal of manure from London to various parts of the country? Restrictions on this movement should be as far as possible removed, as at the present time of the year it is necessary that these farmers who make use of that manure from London should be able to cart it to the land, and so be able to prepare against the exigencies of the coming season. The farmers in my district would be ready to accept any necessary restriction, and so support the right hon. Gentleman in every possible way.
    MR. FLYNN: I can bear testimony to the patient interest with which all of us on this side of the House have listened to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. There is one point in which this question affects Ireland and the Port of Glasgow. Unquestionably there is a large cattle trade between the North of Ireland and Glasgow, and I am sure the parties engaged in it would submit with a bad grace to the closing of that port even for such a time as is required for necessitous cases. Taking into account the large trade that passes through Glasgow, I trust the restriction will not be continued any longer than is necessary. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture if he has any idea how long it will be necessary to continue a restriction of that kind?
    MR. DARLING: Whilst I admit that the measures taken to stamp out the import and sale of diseased animals in this country have been beneficial, yet the Minister of Agriculture will understand me when I say that the constituency I represent has for a long time suffered extremely from the measures which he has thought it necessary to impose for safeguarding the flocks. Those measures, no doubt, have had the support of those who have cattle to rear and sell in this country. It may be a consumer's
    938
    question, or it may be a producer's question, but it is something more. Under authority of the Legislature a certain policy was entered upon many years ago, and large cattle markets as well as houses for the slaughter of cattle were started in London and elsewhere. And I would press on the attention of the Minister for Agriculture that the policy he has pursued has occasioned great hardship to those connected with the great markets, such as at Deptford. Cattle and sheep are forbidden to come from the whole of Germany simply because foot-and-mouth disease has broken out in one of the Duchies. That course of action interferes with all persons who get their living by slaughtering cattle—it also interferes with the livelihood of those who earn their living about these markets. It is, however, a mere matter of imagination that disease can come from districts which are not known to be affected, and the requirements of the case would be met by ordering the slaughter of these animals on their arrival from these districts. There should be a more liberal use of the power of slaughtering, and a less liberal use of the power of prohibiting importation altogether, at the port of debarkation in those establishments which have been erected at such great public expense. I do not desire to delay the Vote or to hamper the Minister of Agriculture, who has very difficult duties to discharge; but I trust that he will take into consideration these remarks on behalf of what is really a great industry in this country.
    MR. MORTON: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and am sure he is doing the best he can under the circumstances. I do not begrudge this or any money to stamp out disease, but I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the consumer is the most important personage to be considered. While it is necessary to carry out these Orders, I hope he will bear in mind the needs and wants of the consumers, and make it as easy for them as he can.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I have every reason to be satisfied with—indeed, to be grateful for—the references which have been made to the administration

    939
    of the Board of Agriculture in this unfortunate outbreak. I may say at once, in reply to my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that the steps I have taken and am now taking are those which I am convinced are in the very best interests of the consumer. The great interest of the consumer of meat in this country lies in home produce. Since this Act was put in force, and since measures for the prevention or mitigation of foot-and-mouth disease were first carried out, the increase in the number of cattle in this country has been something like one million, as shown by the Annual Returns, and the number of sheep has increased by something like three millions. That is one side of the question, and of the policy which I have endeavoured to pursue. What is the other side? What is the interest of the consumer in the meat which still comes from the Continent of Europe? I pointed out, in answer to a question the other day, that if I were to stop the remaining imports from the Continent of Europe, which it may become necessary for me to do, all I should interfere with would be one quarter of 1 per cent. of the whole annual food supply. Is that worth considering in comparison with the risk we run of a re-introduction of this disease, which might ultimately diminish our home supplies by a million cattle and two or three million sheep? I hope I have been able to convince the hon. Gentleman that I am not oblivious to and do not disregard the interest of the consumer. I wish to say one word in reply to my hon. Friend behind me. With respect to the injury done to the markets, I sympathise with the unfortunate people who, to some extent, have been thrown out of work by the action which I have thought it necessary to take from time to time; but I think the hon. Gentleman somewhat exaggerated the case. The great bulk of the animals that come alive to this country come from America, where foot-and-mouth disease is unknown, at any rate for a great number of years. Nothing whatever is done to interfere with them, except to order their slaughter at the port of debarkation; and it is from that order, which is in force under the
    940
    powers of the Board of Agriculture, these people receive all their work and employment. The number of animals which has been prevented from coming from the Continent of Europe which would be slaughtered at the port of debarkation is so trifling that it is hardly worth consideration. I hope, on reconsideration of the matter, the hon. Gentleman will exonerate me from having inflicted injury on the people to whom he referred to the extent he supposes.
    MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the effect on prices?
    MR. CHAPLIN: Absolutely none, I believe; but if anything, they have rather dimin i shed.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me how long the restrictions on the trade between Glasgow and Ireland are likely to be continued?
    MR. CHAPLIN: That must depend on the success of the efforts of the Board of Agriculture to suppress the disease in Glasgow and the neighbourhood. It is now some eight or nine days since the disease first broke out there, and it has not extended in Glasgow, though it has reached Perth. If the efforts which are being made to stamp out the disease are successful, I hope the existing restrictions at Glasgow may not continue in force for any lengthened period of time.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.

  THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,000, 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 Expenses of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition at Chicago, 1893."
  MR. FLYNN: Several questions have been placed on the Paper in regard to the representation of Ireland on the Royal Commission taking charge of British interests at this Exhibition. It was stated some time ago that the Duke of Abercorn had been appointed, nobody knew by whom, to represent Ireland in this matter. I do not wish to say anything

  941
  personal about the Duke of Abercorn, but at meetings which have been held in Cork, Dublin, and Belfast a request was made that an Irish gentleman connected with Irish trade and commerce should be appointed to represent the Irish section. No attention has been paid to these requests. I am particularly interested in this question, because there is a large and growing trade between the United States and Ireland in woollens and linens, and though the McKinley Tariff Bill may have interfered with the expansion of that trade, we believe it to be only temporary; we believe that tariff will not be long in existence. It is perfectly idle to say that the Duke of Abercorn is fitted to look after these interests. For such a post you want a man of business capacity, thoroughly well acquainted with the details of the trade between America and Ireland, and with the Irish linen and woollen trade generally. Another point is that this Vote is for the expenses of the organisation of the British section. Are we to understand that Ireland is to be altogether excluded from the Exhibition? We do not allow for a moment that the word "British" includes of necessity the word "Irish." Irish individuality will be entirely lost if the word "British" is maintained and no attention paid to Ireland in the matter. I have followed the papers, and I find that English manufacturers have held meetings and shown a great interest in the matter, but it is different in Ireland. We have no guarantee that the Irish linen and woollen trade will be thoroughly represented. We ask that the Treasury should put themselves into communication with the committees which have been formed in Dublin, so that they may meet the wishes of the Irish traders who are deeply interested in the Exhibition. I am much disappointed about the charge of five shillings a foot for space; we say that charge is entirely too high. No charge should be made. It would be far better to increase this Vote to £30,000 or £40,000 than to charge the exhibitors five shillings a foot for space. The committee at Chicago are giving the space free, the only restriction as to space being that it shall be reasonable, and all they
  942
  ask is that exhibitors from all parts of the world shall come and exhibit. My contention is that as the exhibitor will be put to very considerable cost in the matter of transit before he can get his goods to Chicago, the fact of this further sum of 5s. per square foot will deter many exhibitors who might be prepared to incur the other expenditure. A feeling of distrust has been caused in many minds whether it is worth while to go to Chicago at all, and I hope the Treasury will give attention to the three questions I have suggested: whether it is advisable to retain the charge of 5s. a foot for space, the non-appointment of any Irishman who in any way represents trade or commerce, and the exclusion of Ireland from any mention in the grant of this large sum of money?
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: We believe that the neglect with which this Commission has treated Irish exhibitors constitutes a very serious grievance. You will remember that when the proposal was first made by the United States that this country should participate in the Chicago Exhibition it was taken up very warmly, and a Royal Commission was appointed to see that the various parts of England and Ireland were properly represented. The Commission appointed eleven Committees, numbering something like 387 members, to carry out its recommendations; but amongst all these gentlemen there was not a single representative of Ireland, and the only gentleman who has been appointed by this Commission to represent Ireland is the Duke of Abercorn. I doubt very much whether he will be accepted as a representative by any large section of the Irish community. This Commission appointed Committees to deal with all the Irish industries, and it will scarcely be believed that the most important industry in Ireland—the agricultural industry—is not represented on any of these Committees. We hold that the Commission has displayed a gross neglect of its duties in regard to Ireland. The only body with which they communicated was the Royal Dublin Society, which, although it may do a good deal of useful work for Ireland,

  943
  is scarcely the proper channel of approach when the interests of the Irish industrial community are concerned in a matter of this kind. The Commission may take shelter behind the Royal Dublin Society, but that explanation cannot be accepted in Ireland as an explanation of the gross neglect with which they have treated the Irish industrial community. A sum of £25,000 was granted for the expenses of this Commission, and now there is a further sum of £10,000, and of that £35,000 I venture to say that £50 would cover the sum that has been spent on behalf of Ireland. We think this is a very great grievance, as it places the Irish industries at a very great disadvantage. Then we have had no information of the workings of this Commission; and, so far as I can ascertain, no Irishman has been able to secure space in the Chicago Exhibition. The charge for space, too, we hold to be exorbitant, and I believe that for the smallest space which will be allotted in the Exhibition a sum of no less than £5 will be charged. We are informed that the Commissioners have advertised in various Irish newspapers! So well did they draw the attention of the Irish people to the matter that no meetings on the subject were held in Ireland until after the date on which the last application for space in the Exhibition could have been made. We consider that Ireland has had no recognition at the hands of this Commission, and that this money, which was voted by Parliament for Ireland as well as England, has been expended in such a manner that Ireland has been altogether left out. We are told that a large amount of this sum is required for the expenses of the English Art Section. We have no objection to the proper representation of English art at the Chicago Exhibition, but it should not be done solely at the expense of Ireland. We consider that these Commissioners have practically put Ireland on the shelf, and we submit that the time for sending in applications by intending exhibitors should be extended so that Irish exhibitors may have a chance of being represented, and we desire that some fair proportion of this money should be
  944
  spent in giving Irish industry a chance of being represented at the Exhibition. It is our opinion that the Committee has no desire to encourage the exhibition of Irish industry at Chicago. The Irish people are sufficiently alive to the importance of being represented, and I see that meetings have been held in different parts of the country urging upon this House and upon the public the desirability of taking steps to secure the proper representation of Ireland at the Exhibition. A thoroughly representative meeting was held in the City of Dublin, at which a resolution was passed urging the necessity for the allocation of a sum of money to assist in the proper representation of Irish industry at that Exhibition. It will be interesting to see what steps will be taken with respect to that resolution; but we very much fear that whatever professions may be made by the Commission, they will not be sincere, and that Ireland has very little to hope for in the way of assistance from this Commission. We have been looking at the amounts expended by other countries in the matter of this Exhibition, and we find that France has voted £80,000; Germany, £52,000; the Republic of Mexico, £150,000; Japan, £126,000; the Dominion of Canada, £30,000; Austria, £29,000; New South Wales, £30,000; Ecuador, £25,000; Peru, £25,000; and Guatemala, £24,000. This great and rich country contributes £35,000, but not a penny of it is for Ireland. This House is asked to vote £1,400,000 for the cost of police for Ireland; but the idea of asking for money to promote Irish industries, even a small proportion of this £35,000, does not seem to occur to the Government. One of the main arguments of the Unionist Administration is that their aim is the material well-being of the Irish people, and here is an opportunity for Her Majesty's Government to show that they really desire to benefit the material interests of the Irish people. Let them take up the matter of the Chicago Exhibition, and grant the request we make that a certain amount of money may be set apart for Ireland's exhibitors; let them extend the time for exhibitors to send in applications, and then something may be

  945
  done. We fear that nothing will be done; we are afraid that the Royal Commissioners do not care for Irish interests; but we desire that the Irish people should have an opportunity at the Chicago Exhibition of showing their industrial capacity. And I consider that our purpose is most surely to be attained by Ireland's securing a separate and distinct recognition and representation of her own at the World's Fair.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I am extremely anxious to make a statement on this subject in reply to what has been said by hon. Members opposite, and I think I shall be enabled to satisfy them on every point. But it is important, as the hon. Baronet has said, that the Vote should be taken, and time does not allow me to make a statement now. If hon. Gentlemen will allow the Vote to be taken now, on the Report stage I will take the opportunity of tendering to the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Esmonde) information which it is quite evident from his speech he has not received.
  MR. WEBB: I really think this is a matter of so much importance that we should take the opportunity to insist upon something being done. Time is running on, and it is essential that the Government should do something for the material development of Irish industries. Already we have a market for Irish manufactures in the United States, and this is an opportunity not to be neglected for encouraging the trade. I speak more particularly in the interest of the industries of the South of Ireland, but in no way wishing to detract from the importance of Northern industries. We feel it is a great mistake not to have on the management of these business matters Irishmen with whom we could feel sure Irish interests would be taken care of. With every respect for the noblemen and gentlemen on the Commission, we do not recognise their connection with and interest in Irish commercial and manufacturing
  946
  interests. We do not understand why such a heavy charge as five shillings per square foot should be imposed for exhibition space, seeing that the Chicago Committee make no such charge, and in addition exhibitors will have the cost of carriage and of caretakers. We desire that prominence should be given to an Irish section as distinguished from England and Scotland, and that we should not simply be contented with a British section.
  It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.
  Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Report [29th February] deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY.
  Resolutions [14th March] reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1892–3.
  1. "That 74,100 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coastguard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, including 14,505 Royal Marines."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,520,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c, to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Resolution which, upon the 14th instant, was reported from the Committee of Supply, and which was then agreed to by the House, be now read, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 154,073, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding Her Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893."
  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Stanhope, Lord George Hamilton, the Judge Advocate General, and Mr. Brodrick do prepare and bring it in.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 223.]

  HARES BILL.—(No. 111).
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE DISTRICT (OPEN AIR MEETINGS).
  Address for—
  "Return showing names of (1) places in the Metropolitan Police District where Open Air Meetings may lawfully be held, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works, the London County Council, or other authority; and (2) places in the Metropolitan Police District where Open Air Meetings have, since the 1st day of March, 1891, been held, and have not been interfered with by the Police, because no breach of the peace or obstruction to traffic occurred, and no complaint was made."—(Mr. Secretary Matthews.)

MOTION.

  INCIDENCE OF TAXATION (IMPERIAL AND LOCAL).
  RESOLUTION.
  MR. PROVAND, &c.): I rise for the purpose of moving the Motion which stands in my name. Any person who for the first time approaches this subject will probably think there ought to be no difficulty whatever in ascertaining the incidence of any given tax, but no sooner does he address himself to the task of finding this out, than he finds great difficulties standing in the way of acquiring accurate information. He must not merely find out the amount of each tax, which is the simplest part of the matter; he has to ascertain, if he can, how much of the tax is paid by each different class, and on what kind of property it falls, and here he finds his difficulties arise. Further, in an examination of this kind, he must include local and Imperial taxation; and in this there
  948
  are still more difficulties. I should not care about troubling the House with my opinion on the point, but I may mention that a very well-known critic of our Parliamentary accounts stated in the Economist, some 18 months ago, that not even by careful analysis was it possible to ascertain from Parliamentary accounts what portion of the total receipts constitutes Imperial Revenue, and how much belongs to the Local Authorities. The same critic, a little further on in his article, goes on to say that not one in a hundred Members of the House of Commons could give any clear statement of our National finances. We have the same thing confirmed from the Front Benches on both sides. Some two years ago, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) said he defied any Member of the House to ascertain from the accounts furnished with the Budget how much the revenue was, or, for the matter of that, how much our expenditure was. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown his opinion by refusing to make a Return of land taxation, because he said many of the sums would have to be more or less conjectural. Therefore, it will be admitted that such comments as these are not re-assuring to any man who attempts to ascertain how much of the total taxation falls on different classes of the community. Nevertheless, we must use as best we can the materials at our disposal, and these very difficulties afford evidence of the necessity for adopting a more simplified and more complete method of accounts, so that it may not be said that not one man out of a hundred in the House can explain them, but that also every intelligent man outside the House can understand them. Another and a sub-variety in the incidence of taxation is when one part of the country is taxed more than some other parts of the country, or that one portion of the country is taxed for the benefit of other portions of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us a very good example

  949
  of that a year ago in the surtax of 3d. a barrel on beer and 6d. a gallon on spirits, imposed for local purposes. The result was most unfavourable to Scotland, and we were taxed in that part of the Kingdom for the benefit of other parts of the Kingdom. Now, this is more or less inevitable with some of our taxation, but it is absolutely indefensible when a tax of that kind is created, which is, I might say, inequitable in its very inception. But this sub-variety of the incidence of taxation is not one, upon which I intend to say anything more. My Resolution speaks of taxation which falls on different classes, and that is the point at which I desire to arrive. Now, this question has been very much disputed at different times, and some few years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) made some interesting calculations on the subject, which I must candidly say were not generally accepted at that time, and others also have done so. But the calculations have nearly always been made with reference to taxation upon some small area or small portion of the population, and have not, I think, furnished any correct estimate of the incidence of taxation by the method adopted. We must start by assuming equality of sacrifice, and that everybody pays in proportion to what he receives and can afford. That would be a fair basis for taxation, and, assuming this to be the case, I have put a few figures together, which, I think, will present a very fair estimate of what amount of taxation is paid by the wage-earning class, and how much by the class above them. For this purpose I shall first deal with the £82,000,000 of Imperial taxation raised by taxes, omitting the sums raised in other ways. Now, in the Budget statement for the year you will not find a sum of £82,000,000 raised by taxation, but only £75,000,000, the other £7,000,000 being collected by the Imperial Government, and handed over to Local Authorities. In 1885, Mr. Giffen made an estimate of the total amount of the earnings of the wage-earning classes, and he then placed it at
  950
  about £550,000,000 per annum. Since then there has been an increase of 5 per cent. in the population, and we may take it there has been 5 per cent. increase in wages, bringing the total up to about £600,000,000. I am taking what I think is a very full estimate. I know that others have made lower estimates, but Mr. Giffen's figures are larger than others, and so I take them. Now, it is also estimated that the total earnings and profits of the United Kingdom are every year about £1,200,000,000 or £1,300,000,000 sterling, so, I take it, the wage-earners receive during the year a sum very nearly half the total earnings of the nation. In dealing with Imperial taxes, I shall assume that the wage-earning classes pay only on Customs and Excise, and I take Customs at the amount collected last year, say £20,000,000—I assume that the wage-earning classes pay half the duty on coffee, cocoa, and chocolate. I only take half, because, for some reason, the upper classes consume a much larger proportionate share of these three articles than do the working classes; but the latter I do not calculate pay any of the duty on brandy, Geneva, and similar liquors or that they ever smoke a cigar or drink a glass of wine. I know they do all these things, but to such a small extent that I leave them out. On the other hand, I shall assume that they pay the whole of the duty on rum, on dried fruits, on tea, and on tobacco, because the amount of these duties paid by the upper classes is comparatively trifling, as compared with that paid by the wage-earners. This estimate shows that £15,500,000 out of the £20,000,000 are paid by the working classes. Then I turn to Excise and the duties levied by that Department on beer, British spirits, and licences—£27,000,000 sterling, of which sum the workers pay five-sixths, or £22,500,000, and this amount added to the Customs amount gives a total of £38,000,000 provided by the working classes out of £82,000,000 of Imperial taxes collected. The proportion is very nearly the same in figures as the proportion to the entire income of the country—nearly one-half. Therefore, I think it is perfectly

  951
  clear that the working classes contribute at least their full share to the Imperial taxation of the country. Now, in taking these figures, I have avoided all details; I have not included any of those taxes of which they pay a small amount, and, on the other hand, I have not deducted anything from those of which the richer classes pay very little. Besides this, I do not take any credit for what the working classes pay on stamps, although they contribute by receipt stamps, and in a large degree to the stamps for patent medicines. That item comes to about £225,000, and I must think that nearly all is contributed by the workers, as I never heard of the upper classes patronising "Beecham" or "Holloway." Nor have I taken any credit for their contributions to the Post Office revenue, although penny stamps give the Post Office a profit of £3,500,000 every year. Of course, other figures might be extracted from the accounts in various ways; but I care very little how they are stated by anyone—they must be more or less conjectural, and, instead of trying to establish the precise share each class pays of each tax, it is better to take the figures en bloc. Whichever method is adopted, I do not think my statement can be seriously assailed—that the working classes contribute at least their full share to Imperial taxation. And now let us consider how the working classes stand in reference to local taxation, and this is a much simpler question; and, as I have shown that they pay their share of Imperial taxation, I can show that there is no doubt that they contribute far more than their share of local taxation, because the working classes pay about 20 per cent. of their wages in rent, and as 20 per cent. of that goes in rates, these rates take 4 or 5 per cent. from the workman's income, which is a far larger percentage than is paid by any other class. Shopkeepers pay more in rates, but that is for trade and not for residential purposes. Considered in the capacity of resident occupiers, the rates paid by the working classes are higher than those paid by any other class. This is proved by the Return of the rates charged in different parts of
  952
  London. For example, in the Division represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, St. George's, Hanover Square, the rates are 4s. in the £1, whereas in St. Luke's the rates are 60 per cent. higher, and in all the East End and other working-class Divisions the rates are much higher than in the highly-rented residential parts of the Metropolis. Now, I think I have established that the working classes pay too large a share of the total taxation, and that they are entitled to some relief; and, of course, that relief may come in two or three ways. Taxes may be repealed or they may be re-adjusted. One of these methods must be adopted, and probably both, until the working classes are put upon a taxpaying level with the richer members of society. Here I must admit at once that what the working classes contribute to Imperial taxation is, to a large extent, voluntary. If they did not drink and were non-smokers, they would contribute very little to Imperial taxation. On the other hand, the rich man's contributions are largely compulsory. But, nevertheless, this is no defence against an unfair state of things; we must look at facts as we find them, and consider the question on this basis. Now, I come to look at the several ways in which poorer citizens might obtain some relief from the inequitable position which they occupy in respect to taxation. On this point I am not going to say anything new. The facts I shall mention have been before the House and the country for many years, and have been considered. The first relief to which I think the working classes are entitled is the repeal of the taxes upon food. These duties return about £3,700,000, of which about £3,400,000 is on account of tea. I do not intend to say anything upon that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) may possibly have something to say, but I do desire to draw attention to the inequitable character of the duties on dried fruits. We allow all green fruit to come in free, and then we tax raisins, currants, figs, and plums, dried apricots if in bags or barrels, but we charge nothing on almonds, dates, dried apples or dried

  953
  nectarines, and if dried apricots are mixed with sugar they come in free. It is idle to suppose there is any possible defence for these taxes. They were put on at a time when those who had to pay them had no voice in the taxation of the country. All they could do was to pay and complain. It was impossible for them to do more. But hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite must admit that that time has passed for ever, and the voices of those who are to be taxed must be heard in reference to the imposition of taxation. But the staring folly of these duties is still more indefensible when we look at them more closely. Valencia raisins used by the lower classes are taxed to the extent of 50 per cent. of their value. Every workman's wife who buys raisins pays more by half than she would pay but for these duties. On the other hand the raisins used by the wealthier classes pay on an average 10 per cent. in duty. Of course differences of this kind are inevitable unless differential duties were put on, and in the case of raisins no doubt differential duties would be very difficult to impose even if they were desirable. But does not this inequality furnish a strong reason why there should be no duty at all? I have not mentioned a worse case. There are quantities of figs, plums, and prunes taxed to the extent of 80 per cent. of their purchase price—that is to say the purchaser would pay little more than half of the price he now pays in the shop but for these duties. Of course very small quantities of these fruits come to this country; the tax is prohibitive; they are not worth the price this enormous tax imposes. Abolish the duty, and no doubt these fruits would be imported, and our citizens would have the advantage of the use of these fruits, and our commerce would benefit in freights and in other ways. On account of these duties these fruits cannot be discharged over the ship's side, and the expenses of landing and of transshipment are such that our ports do not become depots for the trade. The whole duties raised on dried fruits amount to little more than £300,000, and a large portion of this must be ex-
  954
  pended in the cost of collection, and for this comparatively petty sum, we keep up these duties to the damage of trade and to the hindrance of our commerce, while we are depriving our people of the enjoyment of some of the best descriptions of food at a price such as the poorest could afford to pay. America has been importing large quantities of raisins from Europe, but the California raisin crop is now becoming so large that it is thought America will shortly cease the importation from Europe, and that we shall have an increased supply from Spain of about 18,000 tons a year, all of which can be consumed in this country if the duty were repealed. We have an illustration of the effect the abolition of duty would have on the consumption. Two years ago the duty on currants was reduced from 7s. to 2s. per cwt., and what has been the result? For many years there had been no increase in the consumption of currants, but immediately the duty was reduced the consumption of currants increased by 23 per cent. over any year for a series of years. Transhipments of currants also increased to the extent of 35 per cent., showing how our ports may become depots for the supply of foreign fruits. I have no doubt that if the duty were taken off raisins a similar result would follow. Canned fruits from California and Australia compete with these dried fruits, they are admitted free, and the trade has largely and rapidly developed. There are many reasons why these duties should be abolished, but I think I have amply demonstrated that there is no possible reason for maintaining them, or possible defence for them. But although the repeal of the dried fruit duties would be a great benefit to the working classes of this country, they are entitled to much more relief than this £300,000. It is but a small sum, and there are two other sources of relief which naturally suggest themselves as suitable for alteration and the re-adjustment of the incidence of taxation, and one of these sources is the Death Duties. Of course I know the stereotyped reply to this demand is that the land is at present assessed for Income Tax at a much higher rate

  955
  than other kinds of property. The obvious reply is, let us have the land fairly assessed, and do notlet us continue with one system for England, another for Scotland, and another for Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should re-adjust the incidence of the assessment of land to the Income Tax on a fair and intelligible basis, making it in principle the same in all three countries. The unfairness of the Death Duties is so notorious as to have become common knowledge. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, about three years ago, introduced the Estate Duty Bill he said it was to meet the constitutional requirements of the National Exchequer, and that it would be free from the inequalities of the existing Death Duties. In the last, Report of the Commissioners of Income Tax I find that in the first completed year the tax has been imposed £1,125,619 has been derived from personalty, and £69,000 derived from realty; that is to say, personalty has contributed 15–16ths of the tax and land only 1–16th; and yet we were told that that was to be a tax which was to meet the constitutional requirements of the National Exchequer, and to be free from all the inequalities of the existing Death Duties. Besides the re-adjustment of the Death Duties there is no doubt that the larger incomes should be assessed to Income Tax at a higher rate than the smaller. When an income passes a certain amount, when it becomes enormous—when, in fact, it is ascertained to be beyond what I may call the power of personal effort of any man to obtain by any labour of his own, incomes of that kind—I am not going to define what sum it should commence at—should pay a higher rate of Income Tax than the smaller incomes. I will mention another source from which taxation ought to be derived, and that is the mining royalties. Although royalties are rated, they should likewise form the subject of special taxation. Then I come to the last point that I am going to mention, and that is the relief of the ratepayer. Now, there are two ratepayers—the urban ratepayer and the rural ratepayer; and, with respect to the
  956
  rural ratepayer, his case is not anything like as hard as that of the urban ratepayer. And no one has stated the case of the urban ratepayer better than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who more than once in this House, and several times in other places, pointed out how necessary it was that the urban ratepayer should be relieved from the pressure of the excessive rates which he has to pay in our cities at the present time. Another reason why I shall not say anything about the rural ratepayer is that because it raises the question of the taxation of agricultural land, and any person who considers this will find it far and away the most intricate and difficult taxation question to deal with. Some other method of rating must be adopted from that which we employ at the present time, because, while some agricultural land is rated too high, there is a great deal rated too low. The present system is inequitable, and must be altered. But to return to the urban ratepayer. I think the source to which he must look for relief is the taxation of the land under our cities; and while the agricultural question is full of difficulties, the town question, I may say, is simplicity itself. The land is set apart for a particular purpose—for the benefit of all, not for the benefit of him who owns it, and cannot be made more or less valuable by the person who receives the rent. The only way in which it can become valuable is by the aggregation of inhabitants in its neighbourhood, and it can only become less valuable by the inhabitants going away. I wish to call the attention of the House to what the result of the last County Council of London election pointed, and to the question on which it was fought. No doubt there were the questions of the monopoly of gas, and tramways, and water, and other matters of that kind; but the real question which settled the election was the taxation of land values in order to relieve the occupying ratepayer. That is the reason why the Moderates were so badly beaten, and why the Progressives succeeded in being returned by such a large majority. It may be that this question is too large for Parliament to deal with in

  957
  the last year of its existence; but there is nothing whatever to hinder or interfere with the Chancellor of the Exchequer rectifying the Death Duties, or putting a special tax on mining royalties, or repealing the duties on dried fruits. I therefore hope he will take an early opportunity of remedying the condition in which the poorer taxpayers of this country stand at present, because there can be no doubt that the incidence of taxation falls heavier on the working than on the richer classes. I beg to move the Resolution that stands in my name:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the incidence of Taxation in the United Kingdom for both Imperial and Local purposes is inequitable, and ought to be readjusted as to fall with greater fairness on all classes."
  MR. CHANNING: In rising to second this Motion I must say that I do not agree with one remark made by my hon. Friend when he said that the last Session of Parliament must necessarily be a barren Session with regard to some of the most important questions any Parliament ought to deal with. On the contrary, we see evident proof, day after day, that no Session can be so open to conviction and so open to the pricks of conscience and a sense of coming revolution as a dying Session of Parliament. I think with regard to one of the questions on which this great Metropolis has expressed its opinion so decidedly in the last few weeks, and on which a Committee of this House—whose Report I do not wish to anticipate in any way except to venture to think that it will strengthen the position of this question—is sitting, Parliament in this Session might proceed very well to action in this the most important of all these questions. I think we have a right to ask at such a moment as this, when the sands are running out, what has been the record of this Parliament and what has been the record of the Government in dealing with this question? We have granted on all
  958
  sides these two facts—that with regard to Imperial taxation there have been enormous increases made by Her Majesty's Government, and prospectively in the future ready to come upon the shoulders of the taxpayer. With regard to local taxation, there is also room for the consideration of the ever-increasing burden. The rates levied by Local Authorities during the last 15 years have increased from 20 to 30 millions, and the indebtedness of the Local Authorities has increased from £92,000,000 to £200,000,000. The question may be illustrated by the policy of the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the County Councils, I suppose the intention of the enormous subventions which were given to the County Councils was to relieve and lessen rates; but according to the latest Taxation Returns I see that the County Council rates were only lowered as compared with the preceding year by the sum of £76,000; so that the whole of these millions has not substantially reduced the incidence of the rates. Take again the great reform carried out by Her Majesty's Government with regard to free education. At that time 2,000,000 of money—probably 3,000,000 will soon be nearer the amount—had been assessed as the burden upon the taxpayers of this country. Where was that to come from? It was to come from the industry and from the enterprise of the country; from those who do the work of the country. To add that to the outgoings of the country and yet not to readjust the incidence of Imperial taxation is unjust. My hon. Friend has touched upon the change made with regard to the Succession Duty and Estate Duty, and has shown how light a touch has been given to the great problem on these questions. This Estate Duty was devised after the slight changes made in 1888. But it is obvious that its incidence is almost wholly upon personalty; and, even if these reforms were more thoroughgoing than they were at the time when this flick

  959
  of a feather upon the landowning interest of the country took place, this slight addition to the Succession Duty and Estate Duty, half the whole Probate Duty of the country was being handed over for the relief of the rates. The whole of that vast sum having been handed over to the landowning interest, at any rate as regards agricultural land to a large extent at the time these alterations were made, it seems to me that this is a grotesque perversion of justice. Another point upon which I cannot agree with my hon. Friend is with regard to the rural ratepayers. I do not think there is any difficulty as to the value of agricultural land. The fact that the values are in some cases very high and in others very low has nothing to do with the question before us, which is whether the rates burdened upon agricultural land are to be paid by the owner or by the occupier, or whether either is to pay his fair share or more than his fail-share? I think even with regard to rural land we have a duty which the electors in rural districts will call upon us to perform—namely, of seeing that the promise often given them of dividing the rates between the owner and the occupier is carried out in the country as well as in the town. When we come to the Municipality of London we see that the farce that the Government asked the ratepayers of London to go through is monstrous. As they are very largely paying the whole burden of the rates and bearing the whole burden of improvements, the action of Her Majesty's Government in handing these subventions over to the London County Council and other Urban Councils is only very generously asking them to relieve themselves out of their own pockets. I think I am entitled to draw attention to the announcement made by Her Majesty's Ministry in those Debates. Last year we had the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming forward in a new aspect. I believe in the autumn he went down to Cambridge and spoke of himself as the only man who was in earnest in the whole country in this matter of the division of the rates between the owner and the occupier, and he described himself as the pioneer of the
  960
  movement. Last year, when the hon. Member for Shoreditch put his Motion before the House, he practically came forward as the defender of the landowner in the Metropolis, and threw every obstacle in the way of carrying out the policy which would impose a taxation upon the land values of the Metropolis in aid of the improvements necessary in London. I would also draw attention to another point, which is even more important. In the discussion on the Local Government Bill in 1888, I had the honour of moving the insertion of a clause which was identical with the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself made some 17 years before; and I would draw attention to this as going to prove whether Her Majesty's Government are in earnest in dealing with this question. Both the President of the Local Government Board and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it would be impossible to touch this question of the division of the rates without interfering with the question of the direct representation of the landowning interest on the Local Boards, who would raise the rates. I would put this question to the President of the Local Government Board. Do Her Majesty's Government really intend to carry out any policy with regard to the division of the rates or not? Are they going to use this last Session of Parliament—if it is to be the last—or any portion of that time to carry out this policy? And, if so, I challenge them to say whether they are going to propose to introduce on the London County Council and other County Councils the principle of property representation? I challenge any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House to say that it is not a policy which is urgently demanded both by the rural and urban ratepayers.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock.

POOR LAW (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 46.)
CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 47.)
GAMING ACT, 1845, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee with an Amendment: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next.
COLONIAL PROBATES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee with an Amendment: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 48.)

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered—
That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 21st day of June next:
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order in pursuance of a report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Thursday the 12th day of May next:
866
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a first time after Thursday the 12th day of May next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order in pursuance of a report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next:
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any provisional order or provisional certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 28th day of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with amendments these orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended:
That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Tuesday the 3rd day of May next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Tuesday the 10th day of May next:
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Tuesday the 10th day of May next:
Ordered, That the said orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 49.)

HORSE BREEDING—IRELAND.
QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I rise to ask a question of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, of which I have already given him private notice. I desire to ask him whether his attention has been drawn to several paragraphs in the newspapers during the last two or three days telling us about a tour which Mr. Burdett-Coutts, M.P., is at present making in the West of Ireland, I believe at the request of the Congested Districts Board, and accompanied by Mr. Wrench, a member of that Board and also one of the Land Commissioners. The object of this tour, according to the newspapers, is with a view to seeing what steps can best be taken for improving the breed of horses in these congested districts in the possession of small landowners, and

867
perhaps, as the most important paragraph is a very short one, your Lordships will allow me to read it. This paragraph appeared on the 10th of March in the Daily News:—
"An attempt is about to be made by the Government to improve the breeds of horses in the possession of the small farmers in the congested districts of Ireland. At the request of the Congested Districts Board, Mr. Burdett-Coutts, M.P., in company with one of the Irish Land Commissioners, will this week start on a tour through the poorest parts of Galway, Mayo, and Connemara, and arrangements have been made for farmers to bring their stock to different points on the route in order that Mr. Burdett-Coutts may be enabled to form a practical opinion upon the present condition of the native breeds, and advise as to the best means of improving them."
My Lords, there is such a strong official colour about that paragraph, and it so completely identifies Mr. Burdett-Coutts with Her Majesty's Government that, without going at all into the question of horse breeding in Ireland, beyond congratulating the Government on the action they took three or four years ago when they voted a large sum of money towards subsidising stallions, and saying how glad I was to see them do that, and how well aware I am that their minds are quite open to the importance of horse breeding in Ireland, I should like to ask my noble Friend whether, as it appears in these newspapers, Mr. Burdett-Coutts's visit to these congested districts in Ireland is undertaken on behalf of Her Majesty's Government or not? Perhaps my noble Friend will be able to give me an answer.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl CADOGAN): My Lords, I have received very short notice of my noble Friend's question, and I am not able to give him so many particulars as I should wish to do with reference to this matter to which he alludes: but my attention has been called to the paragraphs in the newspapers, and I can answer the question which my noble Friend has asked to this extent: that Mr. Burdett-Coutts is, I believe, at present visiting the Western districts in company with Mr. Wrench, who is one of the Land Commissioners, and who is investigating the subject of horse breeding in those districts; but Mr. Burdett-Coutts is, I believe, doing so entirely on his own account; and he has not
868
been commissioned or sent there by the Government, and he in no way represents the Government. So far as the action of Mr. Wrench is concerned, my noble Friend is aware that the Congested Districts Board is an independent body; it is perfectly within their powers to investigate either the subject of horse breeding or any other subject which in their opinion it may be desirable to examine in those districts; and the Government are not directly responsible for their action. My Lords, I understand that the subject which is specially under their consideration is the desirability, if possible, of improving the breed of draft horses—cart horses in that district; and I need hardly say that, if at any future time it is in the power of the Government in any way to second their efforts in that direction, they will be very happy to do so; but at present I am not able to give any further pledge in the matter. I think I have fully answered my noble Friend by saying that the circumstance to which he alludes is one entirely under the control and direction of the Congested Districts Board in Ireland.

MILLBANK PRISON BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think it is only necessary for me to say a very few words in explanation. The object of the Bill is to place the site of Millbank Prison under the Commissioners of Works instead of directly under the Crown as it is now. The site of Millbank Prison was originally bought under an Act of 34 George III., and in a subsequent Act, 52 George III., the site and buildings were vested in His Majesty, his heirs and successors for the use of the public and for the purposes of this Act. Another Act of 6 and 7 Victoria again provided that the lands and tenements purchased for the Penitentiary, or thereto in any wise belonging, should be vested absolutely in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. After this the Commissioners of Woods leased certain lands that were not found necessary for the purposes of the prison, upon which

869
some doubts arose as to the legality of these leases, and an Act was passed providing that such parts of the Millbank estate as had not been required for the prison should be handed over to the Commissioners of Woods and let on building leases, or otherwise advantageously disposed of, as part of the land revenues of the Grown. That Act further confirmed all the leases that had been already granted by the Commissioners of Woods. Thus it came about that although surplus lands, not used for the prison, were under the management of the Commissioners of Woods, the site of the prison itself was still vested in Her Majesty, and the Commissioners of Woods had no control over it. In the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885, it was provided that, in the event of the removal from the present site of Millbank Penitentiary, it should be lawful for Her Majesty, on the recommendation of the Treasury, and subject to such conditions as they may think reasonable, to sell and convey those respective sites, or any part or parts thereof, to the Metropolitan Board of Works at the fair market price. The London County Council resolved during last year to offer £3,000 an acre for a certain number of acres of the site, although their own valuer had stated that it was worth £5,000 an acre; and, besides, the War Office required four acres of the site. It therefore became necessary to discover what were the powers of dealing with this site, and reference was made to the Law Officers of the Crown. The Law Officers advise, first of all, that Her Majesty has power to sell the whole or part of the land to the London County Council irrespective of the purposes for which it should be used; secondly, that it is not clear that the whole, or any substantial portion, of the site could be transferred to another Department of the Government for other than prison purposes without legislation; and, thirdly, that the Crown has no power to sell the whole, or any portion, of the site to private persons or Corporations. After this opinion was given it became clear that legislation was necessary, and the Bill proposes to place this site under the management of the Commissioners of Works so as to enable them to deal
870
with it, dispose of it, or sell it in whatever way they think fit under the powers conferred on them by the 15 and 16 Victoria, Cap. 28, Section 2. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Windsor.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

BURNING OF S.S. "ABYSSINIA."
QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government, according to notice, whether there would be any objection to laying upon the Table of the House a copy of the judgment of the Court of Inquiry relative to the burning of the steamship Abyssinia? I do not propose on this occasion to enter into the whole question involved in this notice. I will only ask permission of the noble Lord to enlarge a little upon the question I have put. I have only asked for the judgment; but I should be obliged to the noble Lord if he will allow me to extend that a little. May I ask him for all particulars attending this vessel, as well as the judgment which has been pronounced in consequence of the burning of the vessel? I will defer any further remarks until the Report is laid on the Table of your Lordships' House.
LORD BALFOUR: My Lords, the Report of this inquiry is in the printer's hands—not the judgment only, but the report of the inquiry, and it will be made public in the usual way. It is not customary to lay these documents upon the Table of either House of Parliament unless they are specially moved for; but we know of no reason why this Report should not be laid upon the Table of Parliament if the noble Earl will move for it; and, if he will make a Motion in the terms of his question for the report of the inquiry, I am authorised to assent to it.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CASUALTIES).
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I move for a copy of the Report of the inquiry into the causes which led to the fire on board the British steamship Abyssinia and her subsequent abandonment.
Moved for—
"Report of the inquiry into the causes which led to the fire on board the British steamship Abyssinia and her subsequent abandonment."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
Ordered to be laid before the House.

METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c.
Moved—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the evidence taken during the Sessions of 1890 and 1891 with regard to all hospitals and provident and other public dispensaries and charitable institutions within the metropolitan area, &c.; and to report thereon to the House."—(The Lord Sandhurst.)
Motion agreed to.
Then the Lords following were named of the Committee:

L. Archbp, of Canterbury

L. Saye and Sele.

L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

E. Cadogan. (L. Privy Seal.)

L. Sandhurst.

E. Winchilsea and Nottingham.

L. Fermanagh. (E. Erne.)

E. Lauderdale.

L. Lamington.

E. Spencer.

L. Sudley. (E. Arran.)

E. Cathcart.

L. Monkswell.

E. Kimberley.

L. Thring.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

The Committee to appoint their own chairman.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CASUALTIES.)
Report respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 50.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.