Sitting of 8 June 1893

PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL (by Order.)—(No. 370.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. PAULTONin rising to move "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six mouths," said, his opposition was directed only against the first of the two Provisional Orders included in the Bill, for with the merits of the second Order he was not cognisant or concerned. He did not see why it was necessary that two Provisional Orders—the one distinct from the other—should be included in the same Bill. But it seemed it was the practice, and he regretted that in opposing the Coventry Sewage Provisional Order be endangered the Shevington Provisional Order. In venturing to oppose the Second Reading of the Provisional Order Bill he was not asking the House to decide between the rival merits of the different schemes. His contention was that the interests involved were such as should not be interfered with by Parliament unless it could be shown that a necessity existed, and that there was no alternative. That, he believed, was a reasonable and proper Second Reading objection. At present the sewage of Coventry, with a population of 50,000, was conveyed to tanks at Whitly, a mile from the city, chemically treated there, and the effluent discharged into the River Sherbourne. The Corporation of Coventry found a difficulty in disposing of the sewage by this method at present, and they proposed that the sewage should be carried for a distance of three or four miles to Ryton Bridge, and there discharged in a crude state on lands along the banks of
    494
    the river according to a system that was called "broad irrigation." He would remind the House that the system of broad irrigation had been found in many cases unsuccessful and objectionable, as in the case of Wolverhampton. The land in question consisted of long, narrow stretches running for three and a half miles on both banks of the River Avon. Confessedly, much of the land was unfit for the purpose for two reasons: first, because of its impervious nature, for it was composed of clay and hard marl; and, secondly, because it was subject to flooding. It must be apparent to the House that, as the land was subject to flooding in all seasons of the year, the sewage would be swept into the River Avon, polluting it to a great extent. He could quote from the evidence given before the Local Government Board inquiry to show that that would be the effect of the system. He assorted that it was contrary to public policy to divert the sewage of a great city like Coventry from its natural easement area or watershed to another distinct and even distant watershed; and he also asserted, on the authority of an eminent counsel, that to take compulsory powers for such a purpose was unprecedented, and could only be justified by a clear and absolute necessity or in the absence of an alternative, neither of which reasons existed in this case. He could quote from the evidence taken by the Local Government Board inquiry that there was no necessity for this particular scheme and that a suitable alternative did exist. But he had another strong reason to urge against the Provisional Order, on the ground of public interest. He did not stand there to defend the private interest of any individual, though Lord Leigh's name had been mentioned; but this he should say: that it would indeed be a very strange illustration of the irony of fate if, of all men in the world, Lord Leigh was subjected to injury at the hands of the followers of the present Prime Minister. The scheme would injure Stoneleigh Park, one of the most beautiful public parks in England. He said "public park," because it was at all times frequented by the public. It was the admired resort not only of the residents of the neighbourhood, but of English visitors and travellers from all parts of the world who come to visit the

    495
    birthplace of Shakespeare. The park was also used for many public purposes, such as a camping ground for the Volunteers and Militia during their annual training. It was used, too, for the more peaceful purposes of public oratory, as his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was aware; and it was also constantly and daily used for picnics and school treats. If anyone were inclined to smile at such purposes being described as of great importance, he asked them to remember that to the artisan population of the town and the hardworking schoolmasters such events were of real importance. He said emphatically that to run the risk of polluting the Avon, which flowed through the whole of this district, and to create a public nuisance by establishing a large sewage farm adjoining the park, was a thing he believed the House would not sanction if it could possibly avoid it. The scheme was opposed by the County Council of Warwickshire, and by the Avon riparian owners, and they had spent some thousands of pounds in their efforts to set aside the scheme. He would not go into the alternative scheme. It was, the enlargement of the present sewage premises and the filtering of the sewage through land suitable for the purpose; and the Corporation of Coventry had, on the advice of that eminent engineer, Sir Robert Rawlinson, purchased sufficient land for the purpose of carrying out the alternative scheme. It was not enough for the Corporation of Coventry to say that the present scheme was the cheaper scheme. Cheapness was not everything where the public interest was involved, and an absolute necessity for interfering with the public interest should be first shown. It was sufficient for his purpose to say that the engineer of the Corporation himself admitted that the alternative scheme was an efficient, a sound, and a feasible scheme. That fact had been practically admitted by the Local Government Board itself, for it was no secret that the Local Government Board, after the inquiry, asked or suggested to the Corporation of Coventry that it should give favourable re-consideration to the question of adopting the alternative scheme as opposed to the scheme now before the House. He would further say, as an indication of public feeling in Coventry—and he hoped he would not shock any
    496
    hon. Members by saying it—that amongst the betting fraternity the odds were 4 or 5 to I against this Provisional Order being confirmed. He had asked to see the Report of the Local Government Board Inspector who conducted the inquiry, and he was told it was a confidential document. He made no complaint of that, though he understood it was not the uniform practice to refuse to show the Inspector's Reports—
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): It is the uniform practice.
    MR. PAULTONsaid, he accepted the assurance of his right hon. Friend on the point. The reason he was anxious to see the Report was because he had been assured on very good authority that the Inspector had expressed himself as favourable to the alternative scheme in preference to the scheme contained in the Bill. Still, he was willing to assume—indeed he should assume—that in confirming this Provisional Order the Local Government Board were acting strictly in accordance with the Report of their Inspector. But he did not know that the Inspector reported specially in favour of the scheme contained in this Bill. He did not know that it was the duty of the Inspector to do so. So far as he was aware—and if he was wrong the President of the Local Government Board would correct him—it was no part of the duty of the Local Government Board, in considering or confirming a Provisional Order, to do more than to take care that the statutory conditions were complied with. The responsibility for the merits of the scheme and the successful carrying out of the scheme fell not on the Local Government Board, but on the Local Authority. The Local Government Board is not bound, and could not be held to be bound, to declare that any particular scheme was the best and only scheme. All that the Board had to do was to decide that the scheme submitted to them was a feasible and a fair scheme. It could not, therefore, be contended that it would be any reflection on the Department if, in the case of a Provisional Order involving serious questions of public importance, and affecting injuriously a beautiful and historic locality, the House of Commons refused to sanction it. There were absolutely no

    497
    Party or political considerations involved in this matter. If he had chosen to import Party arguments into the discussion in favour of the rejection of the Provisional Order, they would certainly not be adverse to the Government of which he was a follower. He sincerely hoped that the question would be left an open question by the Government, as all Private Business should be; and he appealed to hon. Members on both sides of the House, who were mindful of the preservation of a district of historic interest from pollution by a public nuisance, to support him in the Amendment which he now begged to move.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Paulton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDsaid, there was an injunction which was laid in equity upon every individual, and which he ventured to think applied equally to Public Corporations—"Sic utere tuo ut alienum non Iædas." Now, in this case the "tuum" was the sewage of the City of Coventry; the "alienum" was the River Avon, and one of the most beautiful districts in the County of Warwick. The injury which would thus be inflicted upon a whole neighbourhood would only be justifiable in a case of the direst necessity. No such necessity existed here. Mr. Mansergh, the eminent engineer employed by the Corporation of Coventry, admitted this in his evidence at the inquiry held by the Local Government Board. He only preferred the pollution scheme on account of its cheapness. Major Fosberry in his evidence went a step further. He condemned the proposed scheme, firstly, on the ground that a sewage farm should not have more than one, or at most two, outfalls, as it was the manager's imperative duty to see the state of the effluent every day—perhaps two or three times in a day. Secondly, on the ground that there was great temptation to turn the sewage into the river when the crops did not need it. He had known this happen frequently. He went on to say—
    498
    "Open ditches or watercourses, as well as outfall drains, are a source of danger that, in my opinion, condemn the scheme absolutely."
    MR. Baldwin Latham, another civil engineer, admitted that a Corporation should not take its sewage to another watershed where it could be avoided. Mr. Mansergh admitted that, as far as he knew, such a course was unprecedented. Mr. Purnell, the city surveyor, cross-examined on the plan recommended by Sir R. Rawlinson, condemned it, and then was compelled to admit that be had no experience of sewage schemes. What, in these circumstances, justified carrying this unpurified sewage by open channels and drains on to land liable to flooding, so that the filth must be distributed on land not proposed to be acquired by the Corporation? All Warwickshire was up in arms against the scheme. The riparian owners wore opposed to it on account of the injury which it would inflict upon their property. The County Council were opposed to it on purely public grounds. The proximity of this mass of sewage on land liable to floods would render the village of Bubbeshall practically uninhabitable, while the amenities of several public roads and paths would be destroyed. Stoneleigh Park, which bad never been used for the selfish purposes of its owner, but had been thrown open to the public in the most generous way, would be ruined. Lord Leigh had a private rifle range, which was used by the Volunteers and by the Militia,, who were encamped there often—indeed, he believed annually—and the very water which was now filtered by them for drinking purposes was the water which this scheme proposed to befoul. One word more as to the sentimental aspect of the question, and it was one which they could not disregard. In these days, when so much care was expended to protect our ancient buildings and monuments, surely some respect was due to those natural features—not less interesting in the matter of history and tradition—in which our country was so rich. He made so bold as to say that if the River Avon were to be treated in the way proposed by this scheme, there would be a cry of indignation from every English-speaking country. What would the Americans say if they were told that the best use to which we could put the River Avon was to turn it

    499
    into a common sewer? He thought that this question might safely be left to the justice and sense of the House of Commons, and he looked with confidence to the action of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, knowing well what a calm and judicial mind he brought to bear upon every subject that was committed to his care.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, he was thoroughly acquainted with the district, and while he would not go so far as to say that the carrying out of this scheme would be a national calamity, he held that it would certainly be a Warwickshire calamity. Knowing as he did almost every foot of the locality, he had no hesitation in saying that the establishment of the sewage farm would be the greatest possible mistake. The River Avon, as had been stated, was continually subject to floods, and he had often seen the water extending for half a mile over the area in the locality of the proposed sewage farm. How anyone could have suggested a sewage farm in such a district he was at a loss to understand. He could not help feeling strongly that all that was required to meet the requirements of the Corporation was the enlargement of the tanks and the development of the present, system. It had worked, he believed, satisfactorily for many years, and he failed to see why the necessary extension could not be carried out at a comparatively slight expenditure of money. With regard to Stoneleigh Park, he could not refrain from saying he endorsed every word that had been said. Lord Leigh had placed his park almost entirely at the disposal of the public, and it was one of the places most habitually resorted to by the inhabitants of Birmingham and the district. It would be a great hardship upon the inhabitants and upon Lord Leigh if this scheme, which to his mind was quite unnecessary, was carried into effect.
    MR. BALLANTINEsaid, he should like to state briefly the position of the Coventry Corporation. Coventry had of late years enormously increased, and the drainage system was absolutely inadequate to meet the wants of the population. The present system resulted in the pollution of a stream, called the Sherbourne and another
    500
    stream, both of which were tributaries of the Avon; and the position the Corporation took up was that the proposed scheme would entirely free the Avon from pollution, which was the necessary outcome of the present system. In August of last year an injunction was obtained against the Corporation prohibiting them from discharging the city sewage into the Sherbourne, but the injunction was suspended for 12 months in order to give them an opportunity of formulating some new scheme. The Corporation thereupon consulted with the best advisers procurable, and Mr. Mansergh laid before them a scheme of broad irrigation which would, in his opinion, entirely prevent the pollution of the river. A Provisional Order was next applied for, and, as the result of a Local Government Board inquiry lasting nine days, the Provisional Order was granted. He concurred in every word that had been said with reference to Lord Leigh, who was one of the principal opponents of the scheme, and he was sure the Corporation felt also that he had acted with great liberality in throwing open his park for the use of the inhabitants of the district. They would not have undertaken this scheme, had they not been satisfied that Lord Leigh would not be affected in the slightest degree, and in support of that opinion he would read an extract from a letter written by the Town Clerk of Coventry to Lord Leigh. The Town Clerk wrote—
    "I am desired to assure your Lordship that when the details of the scheme come to be considered, should it be found possible to remove your Lordship's objection by an alteration or modification, no effort will be spared consistently with the proper working of the scheme to meet your views."
    That extract sufficiently showed the attitude of the Corporation. In this matter the Corporation had the work forced upon them by a Court of Law, and in undertaking it they had had the best scientific advice with a view to protecting the rights and liberties of every inhabitant in the district.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I assure my hon. Friend (Mr. Paulton) that I shall not regard any decision of the House on this matter as a reflection upon the Department, or upon myself. This is a question in respect of which, as the House has already observed, there is a great deal of conflicting and contradictory

    501
    evidence. It would require many hours to read the evidence submitted to me by both sides. The plain facts are these: The City Corporation have, in consequence of the injunction which has been mentioned, selected, under the advice of an eminent engineer, a plan which they think feasible. This plan has been carefully investigated by the Local Government Board, and the Corporation now ask for an opportunity of proving to the House whether it is not such a scheme as should in the ordinary way go before the Committee upstairs. The House, I think, will see that it is not a fit tribunal to undertake a judicial inquiry, and I therefore advise that the Bill should be read a second time, and be sent to the Committee, who will determine upon it in the ordinary way. I cordially concur with everything that has been said as to Lord Leigh, who is one of the most patriotic and public-spirited noblemen not only in the County of Warwick, but in all England. I do not say that it would not be well for the House to pause before inflicting upon him the slightest unnecessary injury. I am informed, however, by the Corporation that the scheme they propose will in no way injure Lord Leigh or affect his property. It is said we shall commit a crime against the civilised world by permitting the sewage to run into the Avon. I5ut it is running into the Avon now.
    MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD: Yes, but it is purified now.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The difficulty of the case is that it is not regarded as sufficiently purified, and it is considered that the present scheme will remove a great deal of the existing nuisance. I am quite of opinion that the Bill should be sent upstairs to the Committee, which is one of the fairest tribunals in the country. Personally, I should be content if the Committee came to the conclusion that the scheme ought not to go forward. I granted the Provisional Order with very great reluctance and very great hesitation; but having come to that conclusion, I shall, if we go to a Division, vote against the Amendment, as I desire to give the Corporation the opportunity of defending their scheme before the Committee.
    MR. LONGsaid, that under ordinary circumstances he confessed that the arguments
    502
    of his right hon. Friend ought to carry weight with the House. The almost universal practice of the House in the case of a Private Bill was to pass it through the Second Reading and send it upstairs to the Committee, where evidence on both sides could be heard. This case, however, was different from ordinary cases. The Bill was one promoted by a great Corporation, who had the city rates to fall back upon, whilst the opponents of the measure were called upon to provide the sinews of war out of their own pockets. There was little doubt, from what they had heard, that there was a great conflict of evidence on the matter, and it followed that the inquiry upstairs would not only be a long and laborious one, but a very expensive one. The Provisional Order system was a very good one, but he fully believed that a bad impression would be created against it if full justice was not done to the opponents of the proposal before the Order reached the House. It should be remembered that even the purse of a nobleman was not inexhaustible. He thought in this instance a very strong case had been made out why the Bill should not go upstairs, and he should, therefore, record his vote for the rejection of the measure.
    MR. COBB (Rugby)said, that as representing the Division mainly interested in this subject, he wanted to know why the President of the Local Government Board had not given them any clue as to the effect of the Report of the Inspector before whom the inquiry had been held? What was the use of having Inspectors to make inquiries if they had not afterwards the benefit of their advice?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Reports are confidential documents, and I take upon myself the solo responsibility of the decision that has been arrived at on the matter.
    MR. COBBsaid, he did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to lay the Report of the Inspector upon the Table of the House, but it was well-known whether the Reports were confidential or not—the main effect of them leaked out in almost every case. He was told distinctly that the effect of the Report of the Inspector in this case was against the scheme comprised in this Provisional Order and in favour of the alternative scheme. He

    503
    was not there to look after the interests of Lord Leigh—Lords were generally well able to look after themselves—but he was there to look after the interests of his own constituency. He was confident, however, that if the Bill went upstairs it would most unjustly cost Lord Leigh hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds, in addition to his great cost of the preliminary inquiry. As a lawyer he knew something of the expense of these inquiries. He appealed to the House to reject the Bill, for he felt sure that if the alternative scheme was carried out it would, although costing a few hundreds more to the City of Coventry, be found to work satisfactorily, besides removing a great cause of dissatisfaction.
    MR. ARCHsaid, he hoped the Bill would be thrown out, because 25 or 30 years ago he had had painful experience in connection with the sewage of the town of Warwick, which was turned into the river and gave rise to great trouble. He did not see why some scheme could not be devised which would be of benefit to the public and remove from the neighbourhood any danger of pollution of the river or disease.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would make a suggestion which, he thought, would remove a difficulty. Another Provisional Order was involved in the Bill, and it was hardly fair that that important Order relating to a town in Lancashire should be postponed for another year in the event of the rejection of the Bill. He would suggest to his hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment that he take the sense of the House upon this question by moving the Adjournment of the Debate. He himself should vote against the Adjournment, because he was in favour of the Second Reading; but should the House, by agreeing to the Adjournment, express themselves unfavourable to the scheme, he would withdraw the Order from the Bill.
    MR. PAULTONsaid, that he would agree to that course on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he would consider the Motion for the Adjournment tantamount to a decision on the Main Question.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERconsented.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Paulton,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

QUESTIONS.

  RAILWAY WAGON REGULATIONS.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that whilst Railway Companies are insisting upon compliance, on the part of private owners of railway wagons, with certain costly regulations affecting the construction and repair of such wagons, they have themselves large numbers of wagons in regular use which do not conform to those regulations; and whether he will take steps, by remonstrance with the Railway Companies or otherwise, to put an end to such treatment of private owners in this respect for the future?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I am not aware that Railway Companies are taking the action suggested by the hon. Member, which would appear to be contrary to the terms of Section 118 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845. The Secretary of the Railway Companies Association writes that—
  "The Companies do not desire to put the private wagon owners to undue or unnecessary expense, but they are satisfied that when old wagons not up to the requirements of the specification are so far worn as to require substantial replacements, they should be abandoned, and wagons equal to modern requirements be provided. So far as the Companies' own stock is concerned, that practice is undoubtedly followed."
  The House will understand that in the interests of public safety all wagons used on railways should be of proper construction and equipment.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to ascertain whether or not the Railway Companies have issued a circular to the owners of private wagons calling on them to comply with conditions which they do not themselves fulfil?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I will inquire.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Is there any legal body entitled to say what

  505
  grounds justify the Company in disallowing the use of wagons?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I suppose Railway Companies themselves are the judges as to the proper repair and construction of the wagons.

  CHOLERA VIRUS.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether inoculation of soldiers and others with cholera virus is taking place under the sanction of the authorities representing the Government of Agra; is this an experiment; by whose advice was it adopted; was it first submitted for consideration to the Government medical advisers, and with what result; and by what authority, law, or function of Government, is the proceeding sanctioned?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State has no information as to the proceedings mentioned in the question of the hon. Member: but he will cause inquiry to be made. If such experiments have taken place, it has, no doubt, been by voluntary arrangement, and not by any authority, law, or function of Government. At the request of the Russian Ambassador, the Government of India was asked to give M. Haffkine facilities for visiting districts, towns and military stations where cholera may be prevalent, for seeing hospitals where cholera patients may be under treatment, and for inquiring into the causes and circumstances of cholera epidemics.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that inquiry will be made into the circumstances?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Certainly.

  FOOD PRICES AT HOME AND ABROAD.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can supplement the information contained in the recently issued Paper (Commercial, No. 6, 1893), showing the average retail price per pound avoirdupois of various articles of domestic consumption in some of the principal cities of Europe in 1892, by giving also the average prices of similar articles in some of the principal cities of the United Kingdom for the same year?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Board of Trade is not responsible for the Paper in question, and is not of opinion that any good purpose would be answered by a retrospective inquiry such as the hon. Member suggests. We are, however, at present engaged in an inquiry into the average prices of articles of food of workmen's consumption with a view to periodical publication.
  MR. TOMLINSON: If I move for a Return in that form, will the Government object to it?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is not necessary. The Government are, as I have stated, making inquiries with a view to the periodical publication of this information.

  DR. GREIG'S CLAIM AGAINST THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what position the claim of Dr. James A. Greig, one of the Missionaries of the Irish Presbyterian Church in China, against the Chinese Government, now stands; and whether the settlement, announced by the Foreign Office on 31st March as having been arrived at with the Chinese Government, has been carried out; and, if not, whether he can state the cause of the delay in doing so?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): According to the latest advices received from Mr. O'Conor on the subject of this claim, the Chinese Government were making some difficulties as to carrying out the settlement on which they had agreed in principle, urging, among other grounds, that the poverty of the district in which the attack on Dr. Greig occurred would make it very difficult to levy the full amount of compensation demanded. Mr. O'Conor had replied that these were considerations into which he could not enter, and has continued to urge a speedy settlement. There can be no doubt that he will continue his efforts, and that, if necessary, he will refer home for further instructions or support.

  HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the pressure on the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, he will take steps to ascertain if, and how far, these hospitals are being used by those who have the means of isolation at home, to the exclusion of cases urgently in need of hospital accommodation; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the effect of the isolation provided by these hospitals in preventing the occurrence of fresh cases in the houses whence patients are removed?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): From the inquiries which I have made of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District, I think there is no reason to suppose that any appreciable percentage of the patients in the hospitals of the managers are persons who could be properly isolated in their own homes. As a large proportion of the cases are admitted on the application of the Sanitary Authorities and of Medical Officers of Health, the managers have asked them to give a preference in their applications to the most necessitous cases. Such an inquiry as is suggested in the second paragraph would occupy a very considerable time, and it does not appear to me that the advantage which would be likely to be obtained is such as to render it necessary that such an inquiry should be undertaken.

  THE ANGONI RACE.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed the statement given in a letter from J. A. S. Grant (Bey), dated 19th March, 1893, to C. H. Allen, Esq., Secretary of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, that a handsome, intelligent, well-featured black race, called Augoni, under the direct protection of Great Britain, to the West and North-West of the Shire River, are kept in slavery; and that when one attempts to escape he is speared to death, and, if he escapes, all the relatives, friends, and companions have to submit
  508
  to the poison ordeal; and will the Government give Her Majesty's Commissioner instructions and power to stamp out or control this evil?
  SIR E. GREY: I had not seen the letter in question till my attention was called to it by the hon. Member. Mr. Johnston is making every effort for the suppression of evils connected with the Slave Trade in the Protectorate; and we have lately heard of at least one instance in which his exertions have been attended by marked success.

  WELSH TITHE COLLECTIONS.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now aware that a different system of protecting County Court Bailiffs engaged in the collection of tithe rent-charge prevails in Cardiganshire than that adopted in the neighbouring Counties of Pembroke and Carmarthen; whether be is aware that tithe has been collected without difficulty in the two latter counties since the passing of the Tithe Act, but that the collection has been attended with scenes of disorder and violence in Cardiganshire, in the course of which Robert Lewis, the County Court Bailiff, has been repeatedly assaulted, and the execution of the orders rendered impossible; and whether he will take steps to compel the Local Authorities of Cardiganshire to afford adequate police protection to public officials engaged in carrying out the law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): With regard to the first paragraph, I am not aware that a different system of protecting County Court Bailiffs engaged in the collection of tithe rent-charge prevails in Cardiganshire from that adopted in the neighbouring Counties of Pembroke and Carmarthen. With regard to the first part of paragraph 2, I have made inquiries rrom the Chief Constables of the two counties in question. The Chief Constable of Carmarthenshire informs me that at first the tithes were collected not without difficulty; but latterly they have had little or no trouble. The Chief Constable of Pembrokeshire informs me that the system he has adopted is one of moral suasion,

  509
  and, with two exceptions, no secrecy has been resorted to. The reduced number of police engaged at recent distraints and sales, the almost total absence of assaults on bailiffs, and none whatever on the police, show, in his opinion, that the scheme gives general satisfaction. With regard to the last part of paragraph 2 and to the third paragraph, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to this question on Thursday last.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I inquire whether since last July Lewis has been assaulted on three occasions when he has attempted to collect tithes; whether he was nearly murdered on the 5th May, and has been ill ever since; and whether, in the circumstances, the protection of four men is an adequate protection for the bailiff?
  MR. ASQUITH: My information does not in the least accord with the statements of the hon. Gentleman.

  THE UNITED SERVICE INSTITUTION.
  MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury on what terms and conditions the valuable site about to be occupied by the United Service Institution at Whitehall has been granted to that body?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The site upon which the United Service Institution is about to build is to be, on the completion of the new buildings, leased for 80 years from Michaelmas last at a rental of £350 for the first year and £580 a year thereafter.

  SCOTCH PRISON OFFICIALS.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has come to a decision upon the cases of certain Scotch prison officers, with regard to superannuation, recently submitted to him?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I find that the case of a Deputy Governor which has been submitted to me was fully considered a year ago, and that the Treasury, under the late Government, declined to admit any claim for pension. A Prison Chaplain was the other case; but I am informed that his claim is completely barred by the existing Rules of the Service relating
  510
  to superannuation. I have accordingly decided, upon full consideration, not to re-open a matter which has been so recently settled?
  MR. HUNTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the case of the Governor of Aberdeen Prison?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: No, Sir: the Deputy Governor of Perth Prison.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I shall ask leave to bring in a Bill dealing with these cases, and if that Bill is not supported by the Government, I shall not be able to allow the English Prisons Bill to be proceeded with.

  THE CASE OF JOHN JONES.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the prisoner John Jones, brought before the Bench of Magistrates at Llanrwst, Denbighshire, on the 16th ultimo; whether he is aware that the prisoner is an ordinary labouring man of limited means; whether it is a fact that the Bench, upon the charge of threatening a constable, ordered him (the prisoner) to find bail, himself for £25 and a surety for £25; whether bail for this amount was tendered on his behalf by a respectable tradesman, and a valuation of his effects, as proof of his sufficient means, produced to the Court; whether this bail was refused; and whether, in view of these facts and taking into consideration the helpless position of the prisoner, he will inquire into the case, with the view of granting a mitigation of the sentence?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes; and I have received a Report from the committing Magistrates. I understand that Jones is a man of bad character, with a record of many previous convictions for breach of the peace, drunkenness, riotous conduct, assault, and larceny extending over a period of 20 years. It is a fact that the Bench ordered him to find bail in himself for £25 and a surety for £25, as in the opinion of the Justices he was a dangerous character, and he had only recently been discharged from Carnarvon Prison and was under recognisances for his good behaviour when he committed the further offence with which he was charged. The person tendered as bail

  511
  for the prisoner admitted that there was an unsatisfied judgment against him for the sum of £2, which he applied should be paid by instalments; and the Magistrates, considering a substantial bail was necessary, did not think he answered this requirement, and refused him as bail. This is not a case in which my interference is called for.

  EGYPTIAN PRISONS.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Report of a Commission, under the presidency of Mr. Justice Scott, Judicial Adviser to the Khedive, appointed to inquire into the condition of prisons in Egypt, in which it is stated that prisoners, while in gaol, are fed by their relatives, and only those who are without relatives, or deserted by them, are given a daily ration of bread to keep them from starving; whether the Director of Egyptian Prisons is an Englishman, and the control of this administration is in British hands; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to bring the subject to the notice of Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General with a view to remedying this state of affairs, and assimilating the prison system of Egypt to that of civilised countries elsewhere?
  SIR E. GREY: A Commission appointed to consider the best means of relieving the overcrowded condition of the Provincial gaols reported to the Egyptian Government in March, 1892. In their Report exception was taken to the system by which the friends of prisoners are allowed to provide them with food, and it was recommended that prisoners who are poor should be fed by the State, and that the measure should be extended to all prisoners alike as soon as the work done in the prisons should produce sufficient funds to meet this expense. Lord Cromer reported at the time that the adoption of this suggestion had been adjourned by the Council of Ministers for future consideration; but Her Majesty's Government have received no further information on the subject beyond what is contained in Lord Cromer's Report published in Egypt No. 3, 1893, page 23. The Inspector General of Egyptian Prisons is Dr. Crookshank, who was a Member of the
  512
  Commission, and will, no doubt, carry out such reforms as the Egyptian Government may sanction.

  INDIAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table of the House some information, in the shape of a Return or otherwise, showing the composition of the recently-elected Legislative Assemblies throughout British India, and the methods pursued by the various Governors and Lieutenant Governors in carrying out the provisions of the Indian Councils Act?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State will lay on the Table, if my hon. Friend will move for them, the Papers relating to this subject including notifications issued in The Gazettes of the several Governments in India to carry out the provisions of the Indian Councils Act of 1892. The appointment of additional Members under the Act is not yet completed; and the Secretary of State cannot, therefore, at present give the information asked for.

  BRADFORD BARRACKS.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what arrangements have been made for the repairs of the Barracks at Bradford?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): Certain buildings which are dilapidated and insanitary will be removed; and accommodation will be provided for the men occupying them in the other portions of the barracks.

  CANADIAN CATTLE IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, in reference to the statement as to the lungs of the Canadian cattle sent to the Board of Agriculture for examination by the Inspectors at the ports, how many suspicions cases, apart from the case of the animal lauded from the Lake Winnipeg, have been sent up altogether by the Inspectors since the examination commenced; at what dates, from what cargoes, and by which of the Inspectors were they sent; and were the Veterinary Authorities of the Department unanimous in their opinion as to the character of the lungs?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): In addition to the case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the lungs of five animals have been sent up by the Veterinary Inspectors at the ports for examination since the special inspection of the lungs of Canadian cattle commenced. In the first case, the animal arrived at Liverpool by the Numidian, and the lungs were sent up on the 9th ultimo; in the second, the animal arrived at Deptford by the Brazilian, the lungs being sent up on the 29th ultimo; in the third, the animal was landed at Liverpool from the Lake Winnipeg, the lungs being sent up on the 29th ultimo; in the fourth, the animal arrived at Deptford by the Storm King, the lungs being forwarded on the 30th ultimo; and in the fifth case the animal arrived by the Lake Superior, the lungs being sent up on the 1st instant. With reference to the concluding inquiry made by the right hon. Gentleman, I would observe that in regard to all questions of diagnosis I necessarily act, as he is aware, upon the advice of the Chief Officer of the Veterinary Department; but I have no reason to suppose that the opinion of that officer, in any of the cases in question, is different from that of his professional assistants.
  MR. CHAPLIN: May I ask whether any of these cases of suspicious lungs were cases which, if they had been found to exist among English cattle, would have in the ordinary course led to the slaughter of the animals without hesitation?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I can only repeat the reply I gave the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, which was that the result of the special examination to which lungs were subjected has proved satisfactory, except in the case of the animal landed from the steamship Lake Winnipeg.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state from what Province of Canada the cattle came?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I have no information as to that at the present moment.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If there be any further suspicious cases sent up from the ports, will the right hon. Gentleman cause
  514
  the information to be made public at once?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I am not aware what the practice of the Department has been in the past as to that. I will inquire.

  INDIAN CURRENCY.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the recommendations of the Committee upon Indian Currency have been communicated to the Government of India; were they communicated by telegraph; and when does he propose to lay the Report of that Committee upon the Table?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The Report was signed on the 31st May, and transmitted to the Government of India on the 2nd June. The Government of India have been requested to communicate their opinions by telegraph as soon as possible after the receipt of the Report. The recommendations of the Committee have been telegraphed to the Indian Government; but we think it necessary that they should have the whole Report in their hands before they express their opinions. It is impossible to state, at present, when the Report can be laid before the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Then are we to wait until the Indian Government have considered the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is the duty of the Government to state what their view of the Report is, and they cannot do that until they know what is the opinion of the Indian Government?
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both in Calcutta and in the City of London there are enormous speculations dependent on the decision that may be come to?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am very sorry that the Government have no power to prevent speculations either in Calcutta or in London.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the light hon. Gentleman give a pledge that nothing will be done in India till this House has had an opportunity of considering the Report of the Committee and the opinions of the Indian Government thereupon?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid that I cannot give that pledge?

  HARROW ISOLATION HOSPITAL.
  MR. LITTLE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Harrow Local Board requested the Local Government Board to sanction a loan for the purpose of erecting an Isolation Hospital for Infectious Diseases on the 7th December last; whether an inquiry was held on the 5th of April in this year; whether any communication has yet been made to the Harrow Local Board as to the result of the said inquiry; and what is the cause of the delay; and are similar delays common when like applications are made?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Local Board have been informed of the suggestions which have been made with regard to the proposed hospital by the Inspectors by whom the inquiry was held, and that, subject to such suggestions being satisfactorily met, the loan applied for will be sanctioned by the Local Government Board. The facts as to the date of the application and of the inquiry are as stated. The inquiry was one which it was necessary should be held by two Inspectors of the Department, an Engineering and a Medical Inspector, and the arrangements with regard to the large number of Provisional Order inquiries, and the visitation of the ports by the Medical Inspectors in connection with precautions against cholera, occasioned in this case an exceptional delay which is regretted.

  THE MANCHESTER REGIMENT AND THE LIMERICK MAGISTRATES.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to a resolution passed on Friday last at Petty Sessions by the Magistrates of the City of Limerick, requesting the Commander of the Forces in Ireland to remove the Manchester Regiment from that city, and to send a better conducted corps to that garrison; and whether this request will be acceded to?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I understand that a resolution, which has not yet been received, to the effect stated in the question, was passed by three of the Limerick Magistrates, a fourth Magistrate who was
  516
  present on the Bench taking no part. Five men of this regiment have recently been convicted of larceny. But the police report that there has been no general misconduct on the part of the battalion, and that there is no bad feeling between the troops and the townspeople. The Commander of the Forces in Ireland sees no immediate reason for removing the 1st Manchester Regiment from Limerick.
  MR. THEOBALD: And how many of the three Magistrates wore appointed by the present Government?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As to that I know nothing.

  THE SUPERANNUATION OF TEACHERS
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements are being made to begin giving effect to the Resolution of the House respecting the Superannuation Scheme for Elementary Teachers?
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can inform the House what is the exact amount of the addition to the present provision of £6,500, promised by him on 24th February last, to meet the more pressing cases of pensions to elementary teachers; whether the acceptance by the Government of a Motion for a National State-aided system of superannuation for teachers in public elementary schools is to be followed by any action during the present Session; and whether any, and what, provision of public funds will be made in the current year in furtherance of the scheme?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The question of giving effect to the Resolution of the House respecting the superannuation scheme relating to elementary teachers must depend upon the resources the Government have at its disposal for the purpose.
  SIR R. PAGET: Are we to understand that during the present Session no provision is to be made for carrying out the Resolution passed unanimously by the House?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I said the amount of provision must depend upon the funds we have at our disposal.
  SIR R. PAGET: Is it the intention of the Government to give effect to the scheme so far as the funds available will allow?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government intend to proceed so far as the funds at their disposal will allow, but they do not intend to present a Supplementary Estimate.
  SIR R. PAGET: This is a very large question—
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; a very large question.
  SIR R. PAGET: A great deal of interest is taken in it throughout the country. Is it intended this year to prepare a scheme? Will one be laid before the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman take stops to introduce his scheme?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have said we are very anxious to do something. But it is a very large matter. I mentioned in the Debate on the Resolution that it was practically represented by £25,000,000. I have not at this moment £25,000,000 at my disposal.
  SIR R. PAGET: Perhaps the Vice President of the Council will answer that portion of my question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not replied to.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The £6,500 hitherto provided for pensions has been increased by the Government by £5,000. I am glad to say that this additional provision has enabled me for the present to meet nearly all the really necessitous cases, including many in which repeated applications had been already made, and had been refused from mere want of funds.

  COUNTY COUNCILS AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under the provisions of the Technical Instruction Act of 1889, it is within the power of County Councils to give any part of the money accruing to them under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, for the purpose of scholarships to be held at a school or college which is carried on for private profit?
  MR. ACLAND: It would appear that under Sub-section 1 (1) (f) of the Technical Instruction Act, the application of money accruing under the Local Taxation (Customs And Excise) Act to scholarships to be held at a school conducted for private profit, is inadmissible if any fees for the instruction of the scholar are received by that school.

  DOCKYARD CLASSIFICATION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the cause of the delay in announcing the decision of the Government on the subject of the system of classification in Her Majesty's Dockyards, which decision it was promised would be made before Whitsuntide; and whether he can state the time at which it will be made?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): I answered this question on Monday, and have nothing new to add to-day.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continued delay in coming to a decision on this question is leading to much irritation?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I have no doubt that the people concerned are anxiously awaiting the decision, but they are not more anxious than we are that the matter should be settled. It is hardly for the hon. Gentleman to blame us in reference to the administration of an Act adopted by the Government which he supported in the last Parliament.

  HORSEFLESH FOR THE CONTINENT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the statement that the steamship Sheffield, which collided on the 14th ultimo off Yarmouth with the Londoner, was carrying a cargo of old horses from Grimsby to Antwerp; if he can say if such shipments are frequent, and if it is a fact that they are consigned to Belgium in order to be made into food, and in such case what steps are taken to prevent such food coming into the English market in the shape of sausages and preserved or potted meat; And if the port officers of the Board of Trade will have especial instructions to see that

  519
  no cruelty is practised in placing the animals, worn out in English service, on board ship and conveying them to butchers abroad?
  MR. MUNDELLA: My attention has been called to the statement that the Sheffield was carrying old horses when she collided with the Londoner. I am informed that she had nine old horses on board consigned to Belgium to be made into food, but not for the English market. Horseflesh is a common article of diet on the Continent, and shipments from Grimsby to Antwerp are not infrequent. The Board of Agriculture have power to make regulations for the prevention of cruelty, and any complaints on this head should be brought to the notice of that Department.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Has no complaint been received?
  MR. MUNDELLA: None.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any ground for supposing any cruelty is practised on board these ships?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received no complaints whatever.

  INDIAN SHIPPING REGULATIONS.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been called to the recently promulgated Order of the Indian Government fixing the load draft of vessels leaving India, with regard to which the preliminary and final notices were only published in the Bombay Government Gazette, a paper having no mercantile circulation; (2) is he aware that the regulations differ from those issued by the English Board of Trade, which do not regard voyages between Gibraltar and Singapore as subject to the winter load-line, whilst the new Indian rules place the vessels on the same latitudes and seas under the loading limits for winter passages; (3) whether he is aware that the practical effect of the new regulations will be to restrict all vessels trading between Great Britain and India throughout the year to the winter load-line; (4) do the rules, which make a difference of one-twentieth in a vessel's carrying capacity, apply to foreign vessels trading with India; (5) does Section 43 of the Indian Load Line
  520
  Act of 1891, under which vessels arriving from England are exempted from its operation, apply to those vessels when departing from India; (6) and will he ask the Government of India to suspend the operation of the new Orders until the shipowners in England have had an opportunity of submittiug their objections?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: (1.) Yes, Sir; the Secretary of State has seen the regulations cited. Draft of the proposed regulations was made public at Bombay several months before they took effect. The regulations, as finally settled, were published in the usual way at that port. (2.) The Secretary of State is advised by the Board of Trade that the Indian regulations do not differ from the Home regulations, except so far as they declare what are in those waters "the recognized summer months" within the meaning of the regulations issued by the Board of Trade. (3.) The Secretary of State is advised by the Board of Trade that the practical effect of the Indian Regulations is not as suggested at Clause 3 of the hon. Member's question; though, from the nature of the case, the winter season at home and the foul season in India overlap one another. (4.) The regulations do not apply to foreign vessels. (5.) The Secretary of State is unable to state authoritatively what is the legal interpretation of the Act of the Indian Legislature. (6.) The Secretary of State does not propose to suspend the operation of the regulations; but any representation from British shipowners engaged in the Indian trade will receive careful consideration.

  PANJGUR.
  MR. CURZON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether the Indian Government has withdrawn the small detachment of Native troops recently stationed at Panjgur, in South Beluchistan; and, if so, for what reason; (2) and whether, considering the recent political disturbances in Beluchistan, the Government will consider the propriety of retaining this force in a district of so much political and strategical importance?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: (1.) Yes, Sir; the Government of India have withdrawn a small detachment, who

  521
  were left temporarily in Mekran as escort to the Political Agent with the object of securing execution of certain awards. The Government of India refused to retain troops when it was found that awards could not be executed in a definite period, and that their further employment involved direct assumption of administration. The Government of India were of opinion that (a) the assumption of jurisdiction over Kej and Panjgur would add materially to British responsibilities in Beluchistan, and the expenditure entailed would certainly increase considerably in the course of a few years. (b.) The employment of a British force at so great a distance from India is objectionable. (2.) The Government of India have in contemplation certain arrangements for the political control of the Mekran Coast, without assuming the administration of any part of it.

  DISTRESS IN THE GAYA DISTRICT.
  MR. CAINE: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has seen the work recently written by Mr. Grierson, of the Bengal Civil Service, entitled Notes on the District of Gaya, a district containing a population of 2,125,000, according to the Census of 1881, in which it is shown that cultivators of 12½ acres have an average income of only Rs.12.4 per head per annum for the members of their families, and that a labourer and his wife, though fully employed, can earn only Rs.41.12 per annum, which, for a family of four, is Rs.10.7 per head, or Rs.4.9 short of the Rs.15 which Mr. Grierson estimates is required for the bare necessaries of life, not counting expenditure on religious or social ceremonies which are compulsory; whether he is aware that in the district of Gaya all the persons of the labouring classes, and 10 per cent. of the cultivating and artisan classes, or 45 per cent. of the total population, are insufficiently clothed, or insufficiently fed, or both; and whether the Secretary of State will recommend the Government of India to appoint a small export Commission to inquire into, and report upon, the general condition of the small cultivators and labourers of the Gaya district, and will cause further inquiry to be made if similar distress
  522
  exists in other districts in the Lieutenant Governorship of Bengal?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has not yet seen the work referred to by my hon. Friend, but he attaches great importance to any information bearing on the condition of the people of India, and will forward a copy of the question to the Government of India for their observations.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION RULES.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the pamphlet containing the Intermediate Education Rules and Programme for next year was only issued on June 3; whether steps will be taken in future to secure that it be issued in April each year, according to the original practice of the Commissioners; whether the sub-division of school classes, under the regulations of the Intermediate Education Commissioners, has been the subject of frequent remonstrances from teachers; and why the Commissioners, who at first sought to avoid such sub-divisions, have, in spite of these repeated remonstrances, wholly abandoned this policy in their Programme for 1894?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education report that, as a matter of fact, the Rules of Examination and Programme for 1894 have been published this year nearly a fortnight earlier than last year. It is expected, however, that the pamphlet will be published in future at an earlier date. Remonstrances from some teachers have reached the Commissioners as to the sub-division of classes entailed by the introduction of the Preparatory grade. The Commissioners have not wholly abandoned the policy of making the Programme of the Preparatory grade consist of portions of the Programme of the Junior grade. They have adhered to it in cases where it was feasible and desirable.

  PROMOTION OF ENGINEERS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty the reason for the unusual delay in promotion from the rank of engineer to fill

  523
  existing vacancies in the rank of chief engineer, which is now seriously affecting the seniority of engineer officers in the Navy?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): In consequence of certain questions having been under consideration, there has been some delay in filling vacancies on the chief engineer's list, but the seniority of the officers concerned will not be affected.

  SIR HENRY LOCH'S MISSION.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Henry Loch is empowered to negotiate for, or agree to, the cession of Swaziland to the South African Republic; and whether Her Majesty's Government have decided that they possess the power to give up all British rights over Swaziland, with the consequent responsibility of the British, to the Swazi nation, without obtaining the previous consent of Parliament?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): It would be inexpedient at present to communicate to the House any part of the instructions which have been given to Sir Henry Loch in regard to Swaziland, and I cannot add anything in that respect to what I said in Committee of Supply on the 4th ultimo. In reply to the second part of the question, there is nothing in the present negotiations to take them out of the category of ordinary negotiations, or to require any other course of proceedings than that usually adopted.

  THE STATIONERY OFFICE AND ENGLISH INVENTIONS.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's Stationery Office has refused to supply to Government offices, when requisitioned for by them, the "Ceres Automatic" letter and card files, an English patented invention, and of English manufacture, for filing letters and papers, and for indexing, although the office supplies inferior systems of filing papers, of American invention And manufacture; and whether Her Majesty's
  524
  Stationery Office has a list of approved stationery articles; and, if so, how often such list is revised, and when it was last revised?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Such articles are not commonly supplied for the Public Service, nor could their supply be sanctioned except for very special cases. It appears that the "Ceres Automatic" letter and card file has been twice and a less expensive make once supplied, but I cannot say whether the latter article was of American manufacture. The Stationery Office keep a list of some of the ordinary articles of stationery kept in stock; but it does not include anything in the nature of letter and card files.

  ST. GILES'S, CAMBERWELL, CEMETERY.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his intention has been called to a statement by Dr. W. T. Greene, of Peckham Rye, at the Church House, in which he asserted that it was the custom to bury in St. Giles's, Camberwell, Cemetery, from 30 to 40 bodies of poor persons in one grave, which was sometimes kept open from 20 to 40 days after some bodies had been buried therein; And whether such a practice is lawful; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the statement in question; inquiry has been made, and it appears that, owing to a great pressure of interments in consequence of the severe epidemic of influenza at the beginning of the year, the facts are as alleged; but the Burial Board have stengthened their staff, and made fresh regulations greatly to reduce the number interred in one grave, And to close each common grave on the seventh day. I have also under consideration the question of still further amending the regulations in force in the cemetery.

  LUNACY ORDERS.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there are great complaints of the delay in obtaining lunacy orders; whether it is owing to the insufficient staff in the office; and

  525
  whether any steps will be taken to effect a remedy?
  MR. ASQUITH: This question should be addressed to one of the Law Offices of the Crown.

  THE PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF IRISH CRIME.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the same persons, who, during the period of Office of the late Government, wore under police surveillance as being persons likely to incite to or commit crime, are still watched, and their movements reported upon, by the police in the Counties of Clare, Kerry, Cork, and Limerick?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member in his speech in this House on the 1st inst., on the subject of crime in Ireland, admitted that the police were working as energetically and faithfully under the present as under the late Government, and I myself stated on the same occasion that all the authorities concerned were taking every step that experience and responsibility make it advisable to take. This is the best answer I can give to the question of the hon. Member, and in the public interests I am not able to give any further information.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the hon. Member for West Belfast supplied to the Government the names of the criminals of whose identity he claims to be aware?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If the right hon. Gentleman will do me the honour to ask me I shall be most happy to tell him.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will consider whether I shall regard the hon. Gentleman's information as better than that which I already possess.

  CHILDREN'S OPIUM PILLS IN BOMBAY.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has yet ascertained the correctness of the statements that an official notice has been posted at Bombay to the effect that the right of selling children's opium pills had been given to the Bombay opium contractors, and that such pills could be bought at all the Government opium shops in Bombay; whether he is aware that such pills are largely used by
  526
  native women employed in cotton factories for the purpose of quieting their children; whether he is aware that the sale for a similar purpose in this country of "soothing syrups," containing preparations of opium, is universally reprehended by the medical profession, and that, under the British Pharmacy Act, such sales can only be effected by registered druggists, and that such syrups must be labelled "poison;" and whether the Secretary of State will give instructions that similar restrictions should be applied to the sale of children's opium pills in India, so that buyers may be warned of the serious danger to the health and even to the life of young children incurred by such pills being administered to them?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The practice of selling opium pills for children attracted the attention of the Bombay Government in 1891, and it was found that these pills were sold in some 300 licensed and unlicensed shops. The sale has now been limited to 11 licensed shops, under conditions which give the licence holder no material interest in the sales. Further inquiry is now being made, and the Secretary of State will consider what action to take when the promised Reports are received.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the Reports be received before the last day of this month?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: That I cannot say. My hon. Friend shall see them as soon as they arrive.

  LABOURERS' WAGES IN GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what progress Her Majesty's Government have made in giving effect to the Resolution of the House relating to the conditions of employment of workmen in the Public Service?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, say whether the Government have yet come to any conclusion regarding the wages of labourers in Government establishments?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government have carefully inquired into the facts connected with this subject, and particularly into the rates and

  527
  conditions of labour under the various Public Departments. Having considered these facts, they find that in certain departments under the Admiralty and the War Office the minimum rates of wages of labourers are such as to bring them within the terms of the declaration I made on the part of the Government, and to justify an increase. This will be determined in each department by those responsible in it, who will secure the necessary elasticity, and will have regard to the peculiar circumstances of each case.
  SIR J. GORST: When will it be done?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It will be commenced at once.

  THE CASE OF JOSEPH WALKER.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case tried before the Magistrates in the Derby Police Court, on Saturday 3rd June, in which a man named Joseph Walker was sentenced to pay a fine of £5 and costs, or suffer one month's imprisonment, for an alleged act of intimidation in connection with a strike; whether the person alleged to have been assaulted exonerated Walker from all blame; whether four independent witnesses, throe of whom were non-unionists, swore that Walker had no connection with the alleged assault; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will order the sentence of the Magistrates to be quashed?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the case referred to by the hon. Member, and from the information I have received it does not appear that the complainant exonerated Walker from all blame; Walker took a prominent part in egging on the crowd, though he did not, it is true, actually put the complainant in the water. The defendant was represented by a solicitor; four witnesses gave evidence for the defence, three of whom stated they were nonunion men, but the Magistrates placed greater faith in the evidence given by the five witnesses called for the prosecution. They thought that unless the defendant with others had followed the complainant as he left work, and appealed to the crowd to call him blackleg, he would have reached home without being molested.
  528
  The Bench considered the case fully proved, And inflicted a penalty of £5 and costs, or one calendar month's imprisonment, which amount was paid, and no notice of appeal against the decision was given. Under these circumstances, I do not think it is a case in which I can interfere.

  THE SOMBRERO REVOLVING LIGHT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, since his attention has been called to the fact that the Admiralty List of Lights, Part VII., for 1893, states that the revolving light on Sombrero Island was reported irregular in 1892, And that the Inagua revolving light was reported irregular in 1890, he has, in view of the danger to shipping caused by irregularities in lights, taken any measures, and, if so, what measures, to remedy the irregularities in question, as well as any other irregularities or inadequacies in the lights under the control of his Department?
  MR. MUNDELLA: As soon as the Sombrero light was reported defective, the necessary fittings for the repair of the lighting apparatus were ordered. These left England last April, and the irregularity in the revolution of the light is being rectified. The defect in the Inagua light can only have been of a temporary nature, for on each inspection of the Station since the stated irregularity, the Report has been satisfactory. Information to this effect has now been given to the Admiralty, who will doubtless correct the notice in the next edition of the Light List. As to the general efficiency of the lights under the Board of Trade, the Reports received after each periodical inspection enable me to say that they are in a state of efficiency, and are adequate for the purposes for which they were established.

  THE UNION JACK.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take such steps as will permit anyone to hoist the National flag on any building or house in their occupation in the Dominions of Her Majesty, whether in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, And to prevent any such act being illegal?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of any legal impediment which would prevent any occupier of any building in England, Scotland, or Wales from hoisting thereon, whenever he feels so disposed, the National flag, or any other emblem of loyal and patriotic feeling. I am informed that in Ireland there is in force a statutory provision which prohibits the exibition upon any licensed house of any flag, symbol, or decoration except the accustomed sign of the house. Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take any action in the matter.
  MR. THEOBALD: As I am dissatisfied with the answer, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to ascertain whether it is legal or illegal to prevent a person hoisting the National flag on his own house.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Hon. Members have it in their power to get rid of the difficulty by supporting my Bill to legalise the use of the Union Jack in these eases in Ireland.

  BOYCOTTING IN SLIGO.
  Mr. SMITH-BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that James Davey and Patrick Dawson, shopkeepers, and Martin Davey, hotelkeeper, of Ballymote; Matthew Leonard, of Doocastle; and J. T. M'Douagh, of Sooey, in the County of Sligo, are rigorously boycotted; whether he is aware that at meetings of the National Federation held at Bunninadden, Keash, and Ballymote on 16th April, at Sooey on 4th May, and Doocastle on 21st May, resolutions were passed denouncing these men as land-grabbers; that at meetings of the National Federation hold at Sooey on 16th April, and at Ballymote on 23rd and 30th May, several persons who had been required to attend apologised, and were pardoned, for having had dealings with these men; whether his attention has been drawn to a Nationalist demonstration held at Doocastle on 27th May, at which the hon. Member for North Leitrim denounced those men as land-grabbers, and called upon the people not to deal with them; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to the system of persecution to which the two Daveys, Dawson,
  530
  Leonard, and M'Douagh are being subjected?
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that at the meeting at Doocastle on May 27 I advised the people to abstain from crime and intimidation, and whether it is not a fact that a resolution embodying that advice was adopted unanimously by the meeting?
  MR. J. MORLET: My attention has been drawn to the eases referred to and to attempts made to have these men boycotted; but it is not correct to say they are rigorously boycotted. [A laugh.] Hon. Members laugh, but there is a clear distinction drawn by the police in cases of rigorous boycotting. Resolutions have been passed at the meetings specified censuring the individuals named; but with respect to the closing part of paragraph 2, I have no information on the subject, inasmuch as the meetings were private and indoor, to which the police had no access. I have seen a report of the meeting hold at Doocastle on May 27, but no effect is believed to have followed. The police have been instructed carefully to watch the consequences of the meetings. In answer to the hon. Member below the Gangway opposite, I can only say that as far as I know the description given by the hon. Member of his speech is a correct description, and no evil effects so far have followed that meeting.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: As I have been personally referred to, may I be permitted to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has observed the answer to a question given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the 21st May to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cork, in which he stated that in his opinion the action of a Mr. Gray, in publicly threatening to boycott Messrs. Whitbread and Co., and inviting others to join him in doing so, did not constitute any broach of the law. Is an act considered lawful in England to be considered unlawful in Ireland?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to ask whether of late there has not been a considerable increase of intimidating proceedings like those referred to in the question on the Paper, and whether the Chief Secretary can devise means for the protection of the persons who are the objects of such proceedings?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The police have done, are doing, and will do all they can to prevent any evil consequences from following on proceedings of this kind. I cannot answer the first part of the question without notice as I must refer to the figures. In reply to the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I was not aware of the answer of my right hon. Friend to which he refers.
  MR. MACARTNEY: The right hon. Gentleman says that no evil effects have followed the Doocastle meeting. Have there been any good results?
  MR. SMITH-BARRY: I desire to ask whether, when the hon. Member for North Leitrim, at the meeting at Doocastle, appealed to certain men, whom he named, to re-consider their position and denounced landgrabbers, he was not indirectly, if not directly, inciting to attacks upon the men whom he named. I also wish to ask whether the resolutions passed by the branches of the National Federation, to which I have drawn attention, are not duly reported in different issues of The Sligo Champion, of which paper I believe the hon. Member for North Leitrim is proprietor, if not also editor?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the case that after a recent meeting in Belfast, which was attended by the Leader of the Opposition, 20 Catholic public-houses were looted, and 2,000 Catholics deprived of their employment. I also ask whether the attention of the Chief Secretary has been drawn to the speech of the Marquess of Salisbury, in which he advised the people to beat down the police; and whether there is to be one law for Tories and another for Nationalists?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As long as I am responsible for the government of Ireland the law for Tories and Nationalists will, I hope, be the same. In answer to the hon. Member opposite, I have to say that I have not got accurately in mind the exact words used by the hon. Member for North Leitrim, nor do I know whether the resolutions were printed in The Sligo Champion; but my close attention is being given to the whole subject of these meetings.
  MR. SEXTON: It is admitted by the Chief Secretary that the hon. Member for North Leitrim counselled the people
  532
  against violence and intimidation. Is it to be understood that an Irish Member is debarred by law from commenting on the action of individuals when he considers that their action is against the public interest?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My hon. Friend wishes me to give a legal opinion, and I am hardly competent to do so. Still, I do not think that the law is as he suggests.

  STAFF COLLEGE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the recent Staff College examination there was a striking change, of which no notice had been given, in the nature and scope of the mathematical examination; and whether steps will be taken to prevent any of the officers who were candidates at the examination being disqualified in consequence of this unusual procedure?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is a new examiner; but no change was intended in the nature and scope of the examination. Possibly the new examiner may have set some harder questions than his predecessor did; but they are within the same range of subject, and as the examination is competitive the difficulty of the questions is not a disadvantage.

  THE CONVICT, JAMES MILLS.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether James Mills, a convict, whose case he has recently had under consideration, will be released in the ordinary course of events, if his conduct remains good?
  MR. ASQUITH: The case of James Mills will, under the Home Office Rules, come under review when he has served 20 years, in 1898. All the circumstances of the case will then be carefully weighed.

  THE AMERICAN MAILS.
  Mr. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General at what hour on Saturday last the Paris and Campania left New York for Southampton and Queenstown respectively; and whether he has any information as to which vessel is carrying the mails for the United Kingdom?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL Mr. A. MORLEY,): The Paris and Campania, according to the telegrams in The Times, both left New York at 10 a.m. on the 3rd of June. In the Schedule issued by the United States Post Office, the Paris is advertised to carry the mails for this country, &c, and the Campania specially addressed correspondence.

  FREE SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT PIMLICO.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I bog to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether be has yet received from the London School Board a Report of the free school accommodation in Pimlico, which he asked for in March last on receiving a Memorial from 600 persons in Pimlico asking for free school places?
  MR. ACLAND: This Petition was transmitted to the School Board for London on the 11th of March. Notwithstanding pressing letters from the Department on the 18th of April and the 15th of May, the Board have hitherto failed to supply the information asked for with regard to it. I have therefore been obliged to recall the Petition from the Board's hands in order that Her Majesty's Inspector may make the necessary investigation himself; and the Board have been informed that this course will be adopted in future with regard to similar representations. I am bound to express my regret that the London School Board has treated the matter in this way.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AT HENDON.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give any further information relative to the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia at Hendon?
  MR. H. GARDNER: We thought it desirable to slaughter certain cattle belonging to the same owner, but stationed on other premises in his occupation, and amongst these another diseased animal has been found. Inquiries as to the history of the diseased animals are still proceeding, but no information has yet been obtained as to the original source of infection.

  DUTIES OF THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. MACARTNEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Londonderry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he willing to lay upon the Table of the House a Memorandum showing the duties gratuitously performed by the Royal Irish Constabulary in addition to their ordinary police work, and at what dates such duties were respectively imposed on the Force?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General reports that all the duties which the Royal Irish Constabulary perform are duties imposed upon them by Acts of Parliament, or especially by direction of Government. It is not clear to bin' therefore, what are the duties referred to as being performed gratuitously; but if the hon. and learned Member will specify the particular duties which he may have in his mind, inquiry will be made as to the authority for employing the Constabulary to perform them.
  MR. MACARTNEY: My hon. Friend's question, I think, refers to duties outside police work.
  MR. J. MORLEY: They are all imposed by Act of Parliament.

  HASHEESH.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that the Egyptian Government is preparing to legalise the sale of hasheesh; whether its sale is prohibited in Turkey and other Asiatic countries; and whether Her Majesty's Government will use its influence with the Egyptian Government to maintain its present policy of prohibition?
  SIR E. GREY: Its sale is prohibited in Turkey, but I cannot speak as to any other Asiatic country. We have no information to the effect that the Egyptian Government intends to change its present policy.

  MILLBANK PRISON SITE.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is the fact, as stated to a deputation by a member of the London County Council, and as reported in the newspapers, that

  535
  Her Majesty's Government have offered the surplus portion of the Millbank Prison site to the County Council, exclusively for the erection of working-class dwellings, or in any other manner intended to preclude the formation of a public recreation ground upon such surplus?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): It is quite true that the Government have offered the surplus land at Millbank to the London County Council for the erection of artisans' dwellings. They considered they were under a virtual obligation to do so by the 3rd clause of the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1885. I may add that the Government have received strong representations as to the necessity for increased accommodation for artisans in Westminster.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: Then am I to understand it is not competent for the London County Council to devote the site to a recreation ground if strong representations are made to them with that object?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The site is only offered on the condition I have named.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state what steps the Government intend to take to carry into effect the Resolution of the House as to the holding of simultaneous Civil Service Examinations in India and England?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the decision which the Government have arrived at on the question of the Resolution passed by the House of Commons on the 2nd June, in respect of the examination of Natives for the Civil Service of India?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): This question is a very important one, and has received the careful consideration of the Government. They have determined that the Resolution of the House should be referred to the Government of India without delay, and
  536
  that there should be a prompt and careful examination of the subject by that Government, who are instructed to say in what mode in their opinion, and under what conditions and limitations, the Resolution could be carried into effect.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With reference to the message to the Government of India which the right hon. Gentleman has just sketched, I wish to ask him whether the Government, in the course of this Despatch, mean to imply that, in some shape or other, the Government of India are obliged to carry out this Resolution? I rather hope that in sending the Resolution of the House the Government will not lay down any principle.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman must rely on the words which I have just read to him. As regards the interpretation of those words, certainly, in my opinion, there is nothing whatever to prevent the Government of India from making any observations of whatever kind they may think fit on the Resolution.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As my right hon. Friend has quoted the Despatch, will he have any objection to laying it on the Table?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have not quoted any Despatch, and no Despatch has yet been drawn. I have merely stated the terms in which the Government intend to draw the Despatch.

  THE HOME RULE BILL.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the time occupied in Debate on Clauses 1 And 2 of the Government of Ireland Bill, after the several Amendments thereon had been disposed of, he will consider the expediency of moving a Resolution that, in the case of the remaining clauses, after Amendments have been dealt with, the Question "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," shall be put without Debate?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have frequently been obliged to confess great sympathy with questions of this kind, which are put in the interests of expediting the Business of the House. But I have intimated on more than one occasion that the Government do not consider that the time has arrived when

  537
  it is an absolute necessity for us to adopt a positive Resolution on this subject. With regard to the particular proposal of my hon. Friend, what I would observe is this—that, whatever opinion we may entertain of the general course of proceedings in Committee, if a proposal of this kind were made it would have to be justified on the ground that the power of taking the opinion of the House on the clauses of the Bill, after they had been amended, has been abused. This is only the 3rd clause of the Bill. The 1st clause of the Bill, I am quite aware, justified the opponents of the Bill in taking a Division upon the Question whether it should stand part of the Bill, because, as a point of fact, it was a challenge to them on the entire Bill. The 2nd clause, perhaps, may be held, though not so clearly, to stand in the same category. With respect to the other clauses, which are of a different character, I hope that it will not be thought necessary as a mere matter of form to take the opinion of the House upon the clause as a whole, unless principles are involved in the clause which are deemed to be of great importance, or unless the question upon the clause raises fairly the issue which it professes to raise.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask whether a precedent was not sot on the 10th of June, 1887, when the late Mr. Smith moved a Resolution asking the House to come to a decision on all the Amendments to all the clauses of the Coercion Act on the 17th of that month, and whether the right hon. Gentleman recollects the words which Mr. Smith used on that occasion?
  "We have arrived at the fourth month of the Session, and we have practically done nothing except to consider the measure before the House. We have arrived now at the 35th day of the consideration of this measure. What is the alternative open to Her Majesty's Government? … That the majority of this House and, as we believe, the majority of the country, must yield their sense of obligation, their sense of responsibility, their sense of duty to the country, to the obstruction of the minority of this House."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am aware of that precedent, and it would be impossible for anyone who was in the House in 1887, or who took any interest in public proceedings, to ever forget an occasion so historic. It is of great importance, but there is one obvious
  538
  amendment which should be made in the language in applying it to the present case—namely, that we are in the fifth month instead of the fourth month of this Parliament. But the declaration I have made with reference to the existing state of Public Business at the present moment would prevent me from founding myself on that language in any reply I might make.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is it not the fact that, although the discussion on Clause 3 has been somewhat long, no less than nine Amendments have already been adopted by the Government on that very clause?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Does the Prime Minister see no difference between a Bill creating a new Constitution for a country and a Crimes Act?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not think the hon. Member ought to have addressed to me a challenging question of that kind. In my opinion there is no conceivable class of Bill that requires such strict, such jealous examination at every point of its proceedings as a Bill for diminishing the liberties of the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: Whatever may be the subject of the Bill, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the majority of the House have the right to take adequate measures to secure that the Bill should be passed in the course of an ordinary Session of Parliament?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is a most natural question to raise at the present moment. I can set no such limits upon the powers and rights of the majority of this House as would imply a negative answer. The majority must in all circumstances be guided and governed by the fulfilment of their pledges to their constituents.
  MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think this discussion should not proceed further. Arguments from analogy are quite out of place.
  MR. EVERETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take such steps for quickening the passage of the Government of Ireland Bill through the House as will enable the majority of the Members of the House to fulfil the wishes of their constituents by passing it

  539
  and other measures during the present year?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have practically answered this question; but I may venture to observe to my hon. Friend that we adhere entirely to the strong opinion we have expressed that the pressure of the Irish Question does not absolve us from our obligations to the country in respect of the other great measures in which the interests of Great Britain are concerned.

  THE ROYAL STANDARD.
  Mr. THEOBALD: I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it would not be expedient, considering that this House is desirous of maintaining the supremacy of the Crown in Ireland, to re-substitute the three Crowns on the Irish quarter of the Royal Standard in place of the harp, the harp having taken the place of the three Crowns in the reign of Henry VIII.?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have not fully informed myself as to the facts raised by this question, and I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will postpone it.

  THE WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL.
  MR. WRIGHTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Working Men's Dwellings Bill, which has passed the Second Reading, and is the first Order on Wednesday, 14th instant, whether, considering that the principle has been admitted on both sides of the House and that the working classes of England are deeply interested in getting the measure passed into law, he will allow the Bill to go into Committee on the Wednesday allotted to it or on some subsequent day at such an hour as will ensure proper discussion?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We made one single exception to the rule of a continuous prosecution of the Irish Government Bill before we entered upon the deliberation of it; and to the pledge we then gave we adhere. I am sorry to say that I cannot now make any addition to that pledge.

  THE WORKING OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, taking into consideration the importance of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough tomorrow, he will allow time for its adequate discussion?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that it is either necessary or desirable for me to make any proposals to the House on this subject. I have no doubt the question may be adequately discussed within the limits of the ordinary sitting.

  SIR H. VIVIAN AND THE PEERAGE.
  MR. THEOBALD: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in accordance with recognised Parliamentary usage that any Member of the House should continue to vote in the House after the authoritative announcement, made in the Press, that Her Majesty has conferred upon him the dignity of a Peerage?
  MR. SPEAKER: An answer to this question has already been given by the First Lord of the Treasury, and I can only add that the mere announcement in the Press, to which the hon. Member has referred, has nothing whatever to do with the qualification of an hon. Member to sit and vote in this House. I say nothing as to what is the custom or etiquette; but the law which governs the whole proceeding is this. At what time the letters-patent have passed the Great Seal, that is the final termination of a Member's existence as a Member of this House. On the day itself, or as soon after as it issues, The Gazette states the fact that the letters-patent have passed the Great Seal, and that is evidence of the fact that the hon. Member has ceased to be a Member of this House.

  THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a question as to the state of Public Business. Will the right hon. Gentleman, considering the backward state of Public Business, move to suspend the Twelve O'clock Rule? [Cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That question was put to me this morning, and I said that if we were to have a general suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule, considering the pressure that is now brought to bear on hon. Members, it might be a necessary portion of the measure to provide an additional supply of undertakers for hon. Members who might be expected to fall victims.

  NATIONAL FLAGS IN IRELAND.
  MR. THEOBALDasked Mr. Speaker if it would be in Order to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the question of national flags in Ireland?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have a Bill on the subject, Mr. Speaker.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think a Motion of that sort would be anticipating the Bill of the hon. and learned Member.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 7th June.]
    [sixteenth night.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature.)
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he wished to move, in line 7, to leave out all after "trade," in order to insert "bounties to promote Irish industries." The Prime Minister, he thought, would acknowledge that this was a question of very great importance in connection with the Bill. It was impossible to conceive that it could be ignored. They had cleared away the question of Protection, because, as the Bill stood, the Irish Legislature would not be allowed to interfere with trade with any place out of Ireland. He supposed they might take it for granted that it was the intention of the Government that all idea of Protection from an outside source was to be prohibited by the Bill. But the question of bounties would be, for all practical purposes, the same as Protection in its influence, especially on Great Britain. It was clear, from the peculiar wording
    542
    of the clause, that the question of bounties was not excluded. The question of bounties to promote Irish industries would not be one affecting trade outside Ireland; but it would be one affecting trade in Ireland, and, therefore, would not be excluded from the scope of the power of the Irish Legislature. He took it that the Bill contemplated giving the Irish Legislature power to grant Government bounties for the promotion of Irish industries if they thought fit to do so. They might go a step farther in this respect, and claim that, in suggesting the possibility of the Irish Parliament doing this, they were not imputing to that Body any sinister or wicked intention. One might fairly conclude that oven if the Irish Legislature did think proper to do this they would be acting on what they considered to be a high patriotic motive. Therefore, he thought he should not in this instance, as he had done in the past, come under the censure of the Prime Minister as imputing wrong motives to the Irish Legislature. They must, he thought, argue this matter strictly on the ground that he had sketched out—namely, that the Irish Parliament, under the framing of the Bill, was to have the power of granting bounties, and that they could adopt that policy with the fair and proper idea of fulfilling their duty to their country and their constituents. As a Free Trader, he believed that if an Irish Legislature did adopt a system of bounties it would be making a mistake. But they should recognise the fact that there was another side to the question, and that persons of bonâ fide opinions and intentions might pass a measure to create bounties, really thinking that they were doing what was good for their country. The Committee was not ignorant of the statements Irish Nationalists had made on the subject of bounties. It might be taken for granted that a great number of Irish Members, not only Parnellites and Anti-Parnellites, but many others, had very often expressed the opinion that it would be for the benefit of Ireland if bounties were adopted. Mr. Parnell, as they knew, held a strong opinion to that effect, and Mr. Parnell's opinions would continue for years to come to be an important factor in forming public opinion in Ireland. Mr.

    543
    Parnell had said that the only solution of the Irish Question which would be satisfactory to the Irish people would be to allow the Irish Legislature to protect its own industries, either by bounties or in some other way. It was suggested that Mr. Parnell subsequently withdrew that statement, though he (Mr. Bartley) doubted the fact. But, even if he did, the fact remained that a large section of the Irish people still held the opinion that bounties would be beneficial. Well, if bounties were granted in Ireland the effect would be not only to protect Irish industries, but to protect them against the interests of the United Kingdom. They who were English and Scotch and Welsh Members must emphatically protest in every way against bounties being introduced which would tend to injure the trade of Great Britain. He did not think any Irish Member below the Gangway would get up and candidly say that he did not conceive it possible, or even probable, that the Irish Legislature would adopt a system of bounties. What was being done in Ireland at the present moment? Why, the Dublin Corporation, in purchasing paving sets for Dublin, preferred to pay for Irish granite 24s. a ton, when they could have got as good—some people said better—granite from Wales—[Cries of "No!"]—for 19s. a ton.
    MR. HUNTERrose to Order. He wished to know whether contracts made by the Dublin Corporation were relevant to the Amendment on the Paper?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is going into detail he will be out of Order. I cannot say that he is out of Order in giving an illustration.
    MR. BARTLEYheld that his illustration was a particularly apt one. He was showing that, even under the existing law, the Dublin people preferred to pay a larger price for Irish goods than they would have had to pay for British goods. [Cries of "No!"] He was not blaming the Dublin Corporation, or suggesting that it showed a tendency to corruption. All over Ireland, on Boards of Guardians and elsewhere, it was sought to procure an advantage for Irish goods over the goods of Great Britain; and if that was the case now, surely it would be infinitely more so when Ireland had this Legislature, and when it would have been put into express words that Ireland
    544
    should have the power of altering her trade relations, and, by implication, that she should have the power of granting bounties as against English goods. To quote precedents, practically all the Colonies took the view that it was to their advantage to grant bounties, or to adopt other means of fostering and promoting and increasing their own manufactures. He thought the Colonies were mistaken in their policy. Still, the fact remained that they honestly believed they were doing good to themselves by adopting these measures, and when the Irish people had a Legislature they would hold the same belief. In America, again, the fiscal system was based on Protection. It was urged that in the past England had adopted a protective policy against Ireland, and that England had done all she could to destroy Irish industries. Well, no one could regret that more than the Unionist Members did at present. They wore all agreed that the policy of this country years ago was wrong in every sense, and most unjustifiable; but the fact that England had been wrong in the past in no way excused the Committee in passing a measure which would enable the Irish to do the same thing. Retaliation could not be justified. Many useful comparisons might be made between this Bill and the Bill of 1886, which would tend to show the recklessness and growing callousness of the Government concerning the welfare of the United Kingdom as opposed to Ireland. The Bill of 1886 met the difficulty to which he was now drawing attention. It proposed that the Irish Legislature should in no way interfere with trade in the broadest and widest sense. The laws concerning trade in Ireland were to be Imperial laws. Therefore, in 1886 the Irish Legislature was to be prohibited from making laws concerning bounties, whereas there was no such limitation in the present Bill, the Irish Legislature being entitled to grant bounties if it thought proper to do so. They might fairly ask why had this important and vital change been made—why had the Government changed front so completely since 1886 on this most important point? He could not for a moment think that it was accidental. It was clear that the change had been made as a sort of compromise, judging from the remarks made by the Prime Minister

    545
    yesterday. There had evidently been a sort of bargain entered into—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Will the hon. Member give the reference to the Bill of 1886?
    MR. BARTLEY: Yes; Clause 3, Sub-section 9. The word "trade" was used without qualification coming before "navigation;" but in the present Bill the words were "trade with any place out of Ireland". The word "trade," pure and simple, of course, included bounties; but the words "trade with any place out of Ireland" would not cover bounties. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that he meant those words to include bounties he would accept the Amendment, and there would be no occasion for him (Mr. Bartley) to make any further observations. But it was clear, from the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, that he considered the people of Ireland had, in accepting the present clause, given up a great deal. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Irish people, by accepting the conditions laid down in the Bill, had given up what they might fairly and legitimately have claimed—namely, the right to legislate on all subjects in connection with trade. The right hon. Gentleman, presumably, had inserted these words, "trade with any place out of Ireland," as a sort of compromise to satisfy the Irish people. The argument would probably be used by some that, however willing the Irish people might be to give bounties, they would have no funds for the purpose. It had, in fact, been said more than once that the amount of funds at their disposal would not enable them to do this. That was altogether a mistake. They would be able to impose taxes to any amount, except as regarded Customs, Excise, and Postage. They might have a graduated Income Tax, and 1d. under Schedule D on incomes exceeding £500 a year would bring in £11,000. One shilling put on incomes of £1,000 a year under that Schedule alone would realise nearly £ 100,000 a year, which would be a considerable sum to grant in the shape of bounties. In addition to this, the Irish Legislature would be at liberty to impose taxes on landlords, or in any other way they thought proper; therefore it could not be said that they had no means of paying these bounties. They could bleed
    546
    the richer parts of Ulster, and they could use the money they would so raise to encourage and promote the trades of other parts of Ireland. He would go further, and say that they might do this, in the bonâ fide opinion of many persons, with a fair and reasonable amount of equity and justice. Within certain moderate rules, no doubt, the richer parts of a country were bound to assist in developing and improving the richer part; but the danger was that it might be done to an excessive extent, and this Bill would be a great temptation to the Irish people, because it would enable them to raise taxes in the loyal parts of Ireland to encourage and assist people who they (the Unionists) believed to be the reverse of loyal. But that was not all. In addition to the power of taxation the Irish people would receive £500,000 a year from this country—a payment which, so far as they could see, was going to be made in perpetuity. The working classes of the United Kingdom were going to be taxed, therefore, for the benefit of Ireland, and the money when paid over would be granted in the form of bounties to Irish manufacturers to destroy the trades of the working people in Great Britain. [Laughter.] There was no doubt the money would be used in that way. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but he conceived the logic of his statement was absolute. If we were going to pay £500,000 a year to Ireland (as we were) and Ireland was going to grant bounties to promote their industries, Ireland was going to do it with British money. There was an old saying, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;" but here the Government were going to seethe a mother in her own milk. It seemed to him strange that at the end of the 19th century they should have come to this—that Conservative Members should have to be found pressing what was once called the Liberal Party to do nothing to injure Free Trade. In the old days the Liberal Party would have repudiated the idea of doing anything to encourage bounties; but here they were passing a Bill which would not only give Ireland power, but absolutely encourage her, to foster her industries by means of bounties. This was a matter which concerned Great Britain very keenly. He was not going to dwell on

    547
    the effect of these bounties in Ireland—Members from Ireland would be able to form a bettor idea of that matter than he possibly could. He believed, however, they would be used largely to interfere with the prosperity of Ulster. He could conceive them being used in such a way as to hamper and injure the prosperous parts of Ulster to the advantage of the other parts of Ireland. It might be urged on the other side that that might be a fair and legitimate work for the Irish Legislature; but the main point for them to consider was the effect of these bounties on British trade. Without doubt they would be used against us. There would be an effort made in every possible direction to foster the different industries of Ireland. In such English districts as that he represented—a district 1 1–3 miles square, with a population of 100,000—where work was scarce and competition was becoming keener and keener every year the effect of these bounties was certain to be felt. They were told that this Home Rule Bill merely meant that they were going to give Ireland the power to regulate its own affairs, but it now turned out that it would enable Ireland to foster industries against us, and to minimise still further the trade which our people now enjoyed. If hon. Members would read the recent speeches of the Lord Mayor of Dublin and others, they would see that the Irish people meant to foster all sorts of Irish industries. Agriculture in this country was bad enough at present; but if bounties were to be put on Irish butter, bacon, pork, horses, and so on, our condition would be infinitely worse, and, further, if we in England were to find the money to pay these bounties we should simply be paying for the rope that was to hang ourselves. In the United Kingdom it would not be tolerated for a moment that one part of the country should be able to grant bounties while the other should not. He could not do better, he thought, than read a few words the Prime Minister had made use of yesterday on this very subject. He said—
    "That main consideration was this: that the United Kingdom, from geographical circumstances as well as from circumstances which were social and moral, constituted one great and vast trade circle. If they departed from the principle of uniformity in trade matters, they might, perhaps, satisfy to a greater extent
    548
    the abstract idea of the right of local legislation; but by satisfying that abstract idea they might inflict an immense practical injury. It was necessary, in the interests of Ireland, herself, that this uniformity of Commercial Law should prevail throughout these Islands. His right hon. Friend had not noticed this all-important question—how the producers of this country, the men who regulated and carried on the distribution of the products of its enormous, its immeasurable industries, would be affected by the introduction of different Commercial Laws within the limits of the United Kingdom."
    That seemed to him (Mr. Bartley) as strong an argument as he could possibly use. The question he had ventured to raise was purely and simply whether the present Government really did or did not intend to allow Ireland to have bounties? If the Government did not intend Ireland to have the power of giving bounties to promote its industries against those of England let them say so distinctly, and let them adopt some such words as those he proposed. But if they did intend to give the power to Ireland let it be clearly stated, so that the public would know what was about to be done. He was sure no Irish Member would gainsay anything he had said as to the desire of Ireland for bounties. He did not hear any dissent. As an English Member he was bound to see that the industries of his own particular branch of the United Kingdom wore not interfered with by this system of bounties; and he thought they had a right to demand that the Government should put into the Bill such words as would make it absolutely certain that no bounties could be granted.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "with any place out of Ireland," in order to insert the words "bounties to promote Irish industries."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks for a distinct and explicit answer, in the shape of "yes" or "no," to his proposition. Well, I have been for some time panting for the opportunity to give the hon. Member a plain answer, but have not been able to do so owing to the length of the hon. Member's speech. There were some portions of the hon. Member's speech which I need not notice, the great case of the paving

    549
    stones in Dublin being one of them, because I am not aware that the Amendment can have the smallest effect upon paving stones; but I infer that the hon. Member has no sympathy with the movement constantly made, and sometimes decided in this House, to compel Public Departments always to accept English tenders against Irish or foreign tenders. The hon. Member can have no sympathy with that, and yet he attacks the Dublin Corporation for, as he says, doing that very thing.
    MR. BARTLEY: I did not attack the Dublin Corporation. I said there was a great deal to be said for the course they had taken.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member did not say a great deal for that course. He appeared to me to condemn the Dublin Corporation. ["No!"] However, as the point is not material I will not waste time on it. The question of external trade is absolutely excluded from the purview of the present Bill. I quite agree that the hon. Member did not impute anything strange or monstrous in supposing that Irish Members would possibly develop protective tendencies if the opening were afforded; but I cannot agree with him when he goes on and says the certain effect of the passing of this Bill, if bounties are allowed, will be that the system of bounties will be used, not merely to promote Irish industries, but to damage English industries. In that suggestion the hon. Gentleman imputes to the Irish Legislature something which is in its nature dishonest and immoral. If the Irish Parliament should contemplate a system of laws with the deliberate intention of putting down the trade and industry of a portion of the United Kingdom, I must, say it would go far to prove that they were unworthy of these powers. In the Bill of 1886 we had the intention of reserving trade, though I must admit that that intention was insufficiently expressed. But that Bill was prepared hurriedly—after the accession to Office of the now Government—more with a view of obtaining the judgment of Parliament on the principle of Local Government for Ireland than of securing approval of details. We have now had time to re-consider those matters, and we have dealt with greater accuracy with many points which were contained in the Bill of 1886. The Government
    550
    cannot adopt the Amendment, because we are satisfied that in this Bill we have excluded the possibility of allowing bounties, inasmuch as we have withdrawn from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament all laws affecting trade with any place out of Ireland. Bounties, as is well known, are grants made upon an exported commodity. Under this Bill Ireland will not have the power to legislate in regard to external trade; and, not having the power to legislate, she cannot, by any possibility, pay a bounty. Do the supporters of the Amendment wish to go further, and say that Ireland should not have the power to give pecuniary encouragement, direct or indirect, to this or that particular trade within the limits of Ireland? That is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman (Baron H. de Worms), who has had a good deal of experience in negotiations which are pretty fresh in our recollection with regard to International trade. What, thou, do they mean to do with the Land Act of 1891? Is the right hon. Gentleman cognisant of its provisions, because, under that Act, a Body was constituted which was invested by direct authority of Parliament with the power of aiding and developing agriculture, forestry, the breeding of live stock and poultry, weaving, spinning, fishing—and a number of details are appended to the word giving it the largest application; to make sure that it includes fishing gear and other necessary matters—and this by money provided from Irish funds. These are premiums in the largest sense of the word, and they were established by the authority of the Imperial Parliament, not under the mischievous and revolutionary legislation of the Liberal Party, but by the safe, prudent, wise, and firm Conservative Government under which Ireland had the happiness to live until the mouth of July last. I have no great fondness for such provisions; but if I were asked whether Ireland had to be entirely free to do for herself what the Imperial Parliament had thought proper to do for her, I do not hesitate for a moment to accept that proposition. I feel that, even upon general grounds, we could not withhold these powers from the Irish Legislature, when the Imperial Legislature has set the example in a clear, unequivocal, and undeniable manner. The allocation of

    551
    money under the Act to which I have referred is going on, and in deference to the spirit and intention of the law the Chief Secretary for Ireland has thought it his duty to concur in these operations, and is working as honestly and as well as he can this system of premiums. As regards the question of external trade, the Bill as it stands, beyond all doubt, prevents any tampering with the subject by the Irish Legislature. Consequently, while the Government believe that as to the one subject the Bill is absolutely effective in its prohibition, we are not aware, as to the other, that anyone is disposed to maintain that the conditions and circumstances of Irish industry ought to be managed from Westminster instead of from Dublin. I am inclined to hope, if that be so, that there is no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House, and that, therefore, the discussion may come, if not to an immediate, to an early close.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are some points in the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington to which I shall not refer. He has wisely called attention to the fact that whereas in 1886 the Prime Minister desired to exclude bounties, he has so altered the wording of the present Bill as not to carry out that object. The right hon. Gentleman who, is, after all, the greatest authority in this House upon the Bill of 1886, tells us that, however, the words might be interpreted, the intention of the Government was, as now, merely to deal with the external trade of Ireland. I will, therefore, not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of any change of front or inconsistency between the attitude he now adopts and the attitude he then adopted. What is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude now? He said he was determined to prevent bounties; but then it appears that by bounties he means simply a payment when goods are exported from Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between a bounty and a premium. He said we have at this moment a system of premiums upon home production given under the Act of 1891, through the operation of the Congested Districts Board, who have the right to spend certain Irish funds, for the promotion, among other things, of fishing. But the fishermen so assisted compete with the
    552
    English fishermen, and 99–100ths, at all events, of the mackerel and other fish caught by them are not for Irish but for English consumption. Therefore, by the right hon. Gentleman's own definition of the words, it would not be possible for Gentlemen below the Gangway sitting in an Irish Legislature to touch the provisions of the Act of 1891. We have gone further by that Act, and out of Imperial money have constructed light railways in the congested districts for the purpose of conveying Irish products to the English markets. I will ask this question. Under the Bill, without this Amendment, would not the Irish Legislature have the right, by means of a premium or of a bounty upon some product manufactured in Ireland, to increase the amount of that product, and thus indirectly to stimulate foreign trade and indirectly to compete with the British manufacturer, and yet in such a manner that no Court would say the act was illegal? The right hon. Gentleman thinks he retorts upon us by saying that we were the authors of a system of premiums and bounties in Ireland, and asking how can we pretend that the Irish Parliament should not be permitted to exercise that liberty of legislation which the Imperial Parliament has exercised on behalf of Ireland. He says you have given these premiums, and how can you prevent the Irish Legislature dealing with premiums? It is quite true we have given them premiums, and there is no Act of legislation with which I have ever been connected of which I hope more from, and am more proud of having dealt with, than that very portion of the Land Act of 1891. But there is the very widest possible distinction between the Imperial Parliament, out of public funds, at the will of the Representatives of the English working man and the English manufacturer, doing something to benefit the poorer districts of Ireland, and an Irish Parliament, not with the consent of the English working man and not in harmony with the English manufacturer, giving premiums or bounties for the protection of some trade in Ireland which competes in a neutral market with the English working man. I wish the Committee and the country to understand that if the right hon. Gentleman, under cover of the

    553
    fact that the Irish Legislature may not deal with matters of foreign trade, refuses to accept the Amendment, he gives the Irish Legislature power, by spending Irish money in this way, to compete in the English market with the English workman and the English farmer. No tu quoque about the Act of 1891 and no subtleties about the distinction between premiums and bounties on manufactures will blind the eyes of those whose interests are so nearly affected by the refusal of the Government, in terror of the action of their hon. Friends below the Gangway.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Permit me to say that it is not in terror of our hon. Friends below the Gangway, but it is in terror of public justice and public policy.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, Sir, the refusal of the Government, for whatever reasons, to accept words to carry out, and which are required to carry out, the intention which they themselves declare they accept.
    MR. WOLFFsaid, that, representing as he did one of the largest manufacturing constituencies in Ireland, he should like to express his full concurrence with the Amendment. He strongly objected to bounties or premiums being given for trade or manufactures. He objected to them in general, because he did not think they would do any good at nil in the way of permanently increasing the manufactures in Ireland; and he further objected to their introduction because he did not believe there was any money with which to pay for those bounties. He was of opinion that no bounties were required to encourage manufactures in Ireland, and he was induced to that belief more especially by the experience of Ulster. How was it that they in the North of Ireland had been able to foster a large trade? How was it they were the largest flax manufacturers in the world? How was it they had become a large shipbuilding centre there; and how was it that in almost every other manufacture they had advanced by leaps and bounds without any bounties or premiums to assist them? They had no advantage over the rest of Ireland in the way of natural conditions. There was no coal nor iron in Ulster, and the greater part of the flax they span and wove was exported from abroad. If
    554
    they had got on in this way under the existing laws, he saw no reason why the rest of Ireland should not get on in the same way, provided the inhabitants showed the same determination and application which had been shown by the people of Ulster. But there was one difference, and one great difference, between the rest of Ireland and Ulster, and that was in the nationalities which inhabited these two parts of Ireland. It was the custom in that House to speak of the whole of the inhabitants of Ireland as the people of Ireland. They were as separate and different in Ulster from the rest of Ireland as they were from almost any other part of the world. Whatever merits the Celtic nation might have—and whatever might be said its favour—he did not think that a talent for mechanics or industry or trade was amongst them; and he did not think they could foster the industries which were requisite in Ireland by these small bounties, and, as he had said before, they had no money for any large bounties. The Parliament the Government were about to create would have five-sixths of its Members chosen by agricultural constituencies. These constituencies would know nothing about trade, manufacture, or industries in general such they understood in Ulster. There was a belief among the more ignorant portions of the population of the South and West of Ireland that the only reason why manufactures did not flourish there was because of the jealousy of the English Government. He had heard it said that everything that was made in England could be made in Ireland if it were not for the English Government, and that there was an abundance of coal in the centre and West of Ireland, only the English Government would not allow them to dig for it. A Parliament composed in that way would think all they had to do would be to start a few small shops and factories, and they would be almost certain to grant bounties or premiums to anyone who started an industry in the South. He thought a great deal of money would be thus wasted, which, instead of leading to any good, would cause an immense deal of disappointment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that a great deal of money would be spent so as to raise industries with a view to hamper them

    555
    in Ulster. He was not in the least afraid of any such thing. The industries and manufactures of Ulster were established on so permanent a footing that it would take more than the small sum the Irish Parliament could give to injure them. In starting on their new career — though he was of opinion they would never start on that career—he should like to guard the Irish Parliament or the Irish nation from wasting their money in so futile an effort as to start industries in the South of Ireland. He did not believe there was any money to pay for them. At all events, as the Financial Clauses at present stood, they would probably be lauded in bankruptcy in two or three years. The Financial Clauses had been postponed, and possibly the Prime Minister had some surprise in store for them, and perhaps he was going to give £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to Ireland. If that was the case, and the Irish Legislature chose to waste money in an attempt to start industries, that was their own affair.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKobserved, that there was another aspect of the question which had not yet been dealt with, and to which he wished to call the attention of the Government. We were very careful in our financial system, when similar articles were produced at home and imported from abroad, that the duties in the two cases—the Excise Duties in the one and Customs in the other—should be kept as nearly even as possible. Let them take the case of spirits. If the Irish Government gave a bounty on the production of whisky they would greatly stimulate the consumption of whisky as against that of imported spirits. But the Excise Duty on whisky went into the Irish Exchequer, while the Customs Duties on other spirits belonged to the Imperial Exchequer. The effect, therefore, would be to diminish the Imperial and increase the Irish Revenue. He hoped some Member of the Government would explain to the Committee how they proposed to meet such a case, which would manifestly be very unjust to the British taxpayer.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast is courageous in his inconsistency. He said the Irish people would waste their money on bounties and premiums, and, at the same time, declare they had no money to waste.
    MR. WOLFF: I said they would waste the money if the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give them another £2,000,000 or £3,000,000.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman having first prophesied that they would waste their money, then said that not only would they have no money to waste, but that they would be bankrupt in two or three years. My view is that we shall have no money. The most favourable scheme that we have heard of the future finances of Ireland would be a surplus of £500,000. If Ireland has only a surplus of £500,000, and if she will have to pay her own new police, as she will have to do, and to apply money to remedial measures which press for settlement, it is extremely obvious that out of her Revenue, upon the existing basis, she will have no money to apply to either premiums or bounties; and I think it would be a courageous speculation to suppose that the Irish Government would impose a new tax for the purpose of providing the means. The hon. Member for East Belfast is extremely courageous in denouncing the idea of premiums or bounties, because he ought to remember that the staple trade of Ulster—the linen trade—which is an export trade, did not reach to vigour, and probably never would have reached to vigour, except by a liberal system of bounties long continued. For many years, and I think for more than one generation, the trade of which Ulster is most proud, which is the staple and the guarantee of her prosperity, was nourished and fed from a condition of helpless infancy to a condition of vigour and security by the very system which the hon. Gentleman has the courage to condemn. Under the present Bill it would not be possible to have any such system of bounties applied, because that system was applied to the trade for the purpose of export, and such a system, so directly applied, would not be possible under the Bill. I will only add that I heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with very great surprise. He spoke of the Imperial Parliament applying Irish money for the purpose of developing certain Irish industries, and he quoted the Land Purchase Act of 1891. The discussion upon that Act up to the present moment has been limited to the Congested Districts part of it.

    557
    What was the main function of the Land Purchase Act of 1891? Will the Committee consider it for a moment? The Tory policy embodied and placed upon the Statute Book by the Land Purchase Act of 1891 is to apply £30,000,000, not of Irish money, but of Imperial credit—for what purpose? To enable the farmers in Ireland to purchase their farms, and by the purchase of their farms to secure a material reduction of their rents; and thereby, in the most direct and substantial manner, you have applied the Imperial Revenue on a vast scale to the production of meat and butter in Ireland, not for any local purpose, but for the purpose of the export of these two staple productions in Ireland to the English markets, where they would compete with the productions of the British farmer. That precedent having been set by the Tory Party two years ago, I will await with interest to see what hon. Members of the Torty Party will support an Amendment by which the Irish Legislature would be debarred from devoting, not Imperial money, but their own money, for the purpose, not of export trade, which would be in competition with the British farmer, but for the purpose of developing those local industries into which competition with the British farmer does not enter.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It may be my fault, but I confess I fail to see the applicability of the Act of 1891 to the point we are discussing, because the Act of 1891 was an Imperial Act; and there is no doubt—it is even admitted by this Bill—that there; are many things which the Imperial Parliament might do with perfect propriety, but which we do right to exclude from the operations of an Irish Parliament. For instance, some years ago there was a protective tariff instituted in this country by the Imperial Parliament, and is it to be said that sis the Imperial Parliament in past times sanctioned a Protective tariff it would be wrong to prevent the Irish Parliament imposing a similar tariff? The Government, for reasons which they have given, have thought proper to prevent the Irish Parliament from imposing Protective Duties; but they have gone furtner than that, because, as I understand my right hon. Friend, he makes a distinction between bounties when they are given in the shape of grants in aid
    558
    of export goods and premiums which would in some way or other be designed purely for goods of internal trade, and says that the Government are not willing to allow the Irish Legislature to set up a Protective tariff in the shape of bounties on export goods. But let me point out that bounties in aid of internal trade may also affect external trade. For instance, a manufacturer may be able to reduce his profits or his external trade in consequence of the bounties given in aid of his internal trade. But I will come to the point which I wish to bring home to the Government. Let me, in the first place, point out that if the Bill passes, the majority of the Irish people will desire to protect and stimulate by some means their own industries. Nobody denies that. My right hon. Friend does not suggest that that will not probably be the case.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I passed that by.
    MR. J. CHAMBEKLAIN: But we must not pass it by.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As I am challenged, I will say that I do not believe in the universal participation of the Irish people in a crusade in favour of Protection.
    MR. J. CHAMBEKLAIN: Then my right hon. Friend stands alone in his opinion. He is in direct opposition to any of his Colleagues on the Front Bench. Here is what the Chief Secretary for Ireland wrote upon the subject in The Nineteenth Century:—
    "There can be little doubt that, Liven the chance, Ireland would imitate the example of the United States, Canada, Victoria, and most other countries in the world, by erecting a Protective tariff against woollen cloth, shoes, and other manufactured articles."
    He goes on—
    "Home Kale, therefore, in the shape that finds favour with the National Party means a Protective tariff and the introduction of bounties and other fiscal measures which to Englishmen, I say, are an abomination."
    I suppose that that was admitted on till sides. At all events, I need not press the question whether the Irish Legislature would or would not do these things, because my right hon. Friend has told us that, so far as the Government are concerned, they intend to prevent them. But I do not think he perceives that unless he carries the restrictions a little further, it will be possible for the Irish

    559
    Legislature to do those things. Take the articles referred to by the Chief Secretary—woollen cloths and shoes. I know that very large quantities of shoes and woollen cloths are sent from England to Ireland, but I do not know whether there are any considerable manufactures in Ireland itself. At all events, such as they are, they are insignificant compared with the manufactures in this country. Suppose the Irish Legislature desires—and it would be a very natural desire—to foster the woollen manufactures, for which the climate is suitable; or foster the manufacture of shoes and boots. Suppose the Irish Government say—"For every yard of woollen cloth made in Ireland, we will give so much, and for every pair of boots or shoes we will give so much." Well, though the Irish Government may say that they are not giving bounties to export manufacturers, the effect on the manufactures of this country would be precisely the same. The Irish industries would be fostered by these bounties and premiums, and the consequence would be that the boots and shoes and woollen goods sent from England to Ireland would be no longer sent, and we would be enabling the Irish Parliament to legislate to the detriment of our own people and our own trade. Undoubtedly, the practical effect of leaving it in the power of the Irish Legislature to grant premiums upon internal manufactures will be exactly the same as that of giving it the power of creating a Protective tariff. In either case it will be able to foster Irish trade to the detriment of English trade.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he found himself in the very unusual position, for him, of being compelled to support the Government in opposition to the views of his own political friends. He ventured to say that anyone who gave even the most cursory attention to Irish history should feel convinced, as he felt, that at the root of the Irish difficulty was the fact that by the action of England two centuries ago trade was practically stamped out in Ireland. That was not merely an historical Irish grievance, but it was a practical, pressing matter of the present time, which those who were responsible for the government of Ireland, whether it was an Irish Government or an English Government, would be compelled to face and deal with. The hon. Member for
    560
    North Islington and the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University, very naturally, being Free Traders, were opposed to bounties, or premiums, or Protective Duties for the encouragement of local trade. As a Protectionist he did not hesitate to pronounce in favour of these remedies, and he thought that, as the British Government of the past had stamped out the manufactures of Ireland, some assistance was due from the State in support of the existing manufactures of the country. Some hon. Gentlemen might think that Ireland ought to realise that she was a pastoral and agricultural country, and that she ought not to go further afield for the means of subsistence for her people. He challenged any Irish Member to rise in his place and say that the Irish Legislature would venture to adopt a policy of that kind. He believed that no Irish Government would stand a chance of obtaining a renewal of the confidence of the Irish electors that would boldly proclaim that no encouragement whatever ought to be given to Irish trade. If the House prevented the future Legislature of Ireland from taking steps to remedy the grave injustice inflicted on Ireland two centuries ago by the English Government, they would tie behind its back the hands of the Irish Legislature they were asked to create, and inflict on Ireland a great and irreparable wrong. The first act of the Irish Legislature should be to devote funds for the development of Irish manufactures, which everyone, with any pretensions to statesmanship, who had studied the Irish question considered was necessary for the restoration of Irish prosperity. He thought it was their duty to empower the Irish Legislature to impose bounties and premiums. He had no desire to assist in the creation of an Irish Legislature; but if they were to have such a Legislature, they should not debar it from discharging what should be its primary duty to the people of Ireland. On these grounds, if the Amendment were passed to a Division, he would feel bound with regret—a regret which he was sure the Prime Minister would feel was unfeigned —to vote against the Amendment.
    MR. HORACE PLUNKETTsaid, that as he had a very peculiar interest in the industrial and economic prosperity of Ireland, he desired to address the Committee briefly

    561
    on the subject of the Amendment. He was not in a position to absolutely and entirely condemn bounties, because he was a member of the Congested Districts Board, which had been partly instrumental in putting the system of premiums into operation, and he heartily approved of premiums with proper limits. But he believed that these bounties, which, so far as they were justifiable, could be allowed in Ireland through the medium of the Imperial Parliament, as at present, would, under the proposed Irish Constitution, and if left to the uncontrolled management of the Irish people, be disastrous measures. He came to that conclusion because of his very thorough knowledge of the feelings of the great majority of the people of Ireland. Take the case of the Irish woollen industry. Every Irishman's blood boiled—and even the blood of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet boiled—at the thought of the iniquitous destruction by England of the Irish woollen industry. The history of that industry was very peculiar. It arose chiefly from the fact that the English Parliament put restrictions on the importation into England of Irish cattle, and so drove the Irish people to take up the woollen industry. The industry was carried on with groat success until, at the request of the English Parliament, which had then come to be controlled by the middle classes, induced William III. to declare, in a Message from the Throne, that he would do anything he could do to discourage the woollen trade of Ireland and promote the trade of England. He, as a South of Ireland Member, therefore made some reduction in the glory, piety, and immortality of that otherwise great Sovereign on account of the injury he had thus done to Ireland. That industry was quite natural to Ireland, and ought to be its chief industry at the present time. When the restrictions on the trade were withdrawn, however, the trade did not restore itself. That was because it had been carried on in Ireland as a home industry; and the industrial revolution which took place about the time that the restrictions were withdrawn made it necessary to conduct the manufacture on a large scale in great centres. For this the temperament of the Irish people was unsuited. So long as an industry could be conducted in their own homes, the Irish could compete successfully in the
    562
    industrial race; but it was different when they were asked to submit themselves to the discipline and restrictions of the factory, which was altogether unsuitable to the temperament of the people. Besides, the Irish had acquired evil industrial habits, as was shown by the Preamble of an Act of Charles II. That Preamble ran—
    "Whereas there is a complaint in England, France, and other parts beyond the seas whither the woollen cloths and other commodities made of wool in this (His Majesty's) Kingdom of Ireland are transported, of the false, uneven, deceitful, and uncertain making thereof, which cometh to pass by reason that the clothiers and makers thereof do not observe any certain assize for length, breadth, and weight for making their clothes and other commodities aforesaid in this Kingdom as they do in the realm of England, and as they also ought to do here, by which means the merchants, buyers, and other users of the said cloth and other commodities are much abused and deceived; and the credit, esteem, and sale of the said cloth and other commodities is thereby much impaired and, undervalued to the great and general hurt and hindrance of the trade of clothing in this whole realm."
    One of the greatest dangers of fostering this illusion as to the powers of legislation with respect to industry was that those powers would be used instead of sound industrial methods. For that reason he should support the Amendment; and also because he believed that these bounties would be the constant source of friction between England and Ireland. Past bounties in Ireland had almost invariably given rise to fraud and dishonesty in trade.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no desire of prolonging this Debate, but I must point out to the Committee that we have respectfully urged upon the Prime Minister that by his own showing under the Bill there would be—under whatever name you please—subventions by the Irish Parliament which would undoubtedly have the effect of enabling Irish manufactures to compete injuriously with English manufactures in the English markets. To that contention of ours no reply of any sort, kind, or description has been made by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman uses as an illustration the Congested Districts Act of 1891, and asks us would we refuse the Irish Parliament power to deal with it? We have pointed out that if the right hon. Gentleman's construction of his Bill is correct, the Irish Parliament cannot deal with it, because the

    563
    bounties granted under that Act applies to articles for export purposes. There was a further point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and to that also the Government neither made nor attempted to make the slightest answer. If they believe it to be to their interest to leave these important arguments wholly undealt with, it is not for us to complain, and we are ready to go to a Division.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In my opinion the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman are totally unwarranted and unsustained by the facts. I am of opinion that the Irish Parliament will have the power of dealing with these premiums. If not, and if it can be proved that they are of the nature of bounties, there will be an opportunity for dealing with them on the ground that the Irish Parliament is precluded from touching what belongs to foreign trade. My conviction is, that they do not belong to foreign trade, and that they will be legitimately within the cognisance of the Irish Parliament, and, in my opinion, they ought to be within that cognisance.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLrose—
    MR. John Morley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 288; Noes 256.—(Division List, No. 126.)
    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 288; Noes 252.—(Division List, No. 127.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next three Amendments, as follows, are out of Order, the matters having already been decided by the Committee:—
    Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "Ireland," insert "or the imposing or levying of any duty whether in the nature of octroi or otherwise upon goods of any kind imported into Ireland or received at any harbour or port in Ireland."
    Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "Ireland," insert "or the giving of any preference or advantage directly or indirectly, and whether by bounties or differential duties to any goods produced or manufactured in Ireland over similar goods or manufactures produced or manufactured elsewhere."—(Mr, Tomlinson.)
    564
    Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "Ireland," insert "bounties in favour of Irish products."— (Sir Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett.)
    MR. BOUSFIELDmoved the following Amendment:—In Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "Ireland," insert "or merchant shipping." He said the object of the Amendment was to make it clear that matters regulating the navigation and control of merchant shipping and seamen were matters reserved exclusively for the Imperial Legislature. If one could rely implicitly on the expressions which had fallen from the supporters of the Government in making this Amendment he was only endeavouring to effect that which was already the intention of the Government. He ventured to think that what the Prime Minister said the previous day in reference to the great trade circle of which this United Kingdom was the centre, and other expressions which had fallen from him, tended to show it was the object of the promoters of the Bill to reserve this question of the control and regulation of merchant shipping as a matter exclusively within the cognisance of the Imperial Legislature. It would save the time of the House to a large extent, and would save him from saying a good deal if at that early stage one might know whether such was the intention of the Government, and also whether they contended that the clauses which were to be found in the Bill sufficiently dealt with this subject? Did they say that it was their intention and desire to exclude the question of the regulation of merchant shipping from the Irish Parliament, and reserve it exclusively for the Imperial Parliament; and did they contend that that intention was sufficiently carried out by the words of the Bill as they stood? One would have thought there would have been some response to an appeal of that kind, but the result showed that even in a matter of this importance the Government were playing a waiting game, and that according to the exigencies of the situation they would be prepared to contend or not, as suited them best, that certain vague and ambiguous words which were to be found in this Bill did sufficiently deal with the subject. It might be suggested, for instance, that "trade with any place out of Ireland" sufficiently covered the question of merchant shipping. If it was contended

    565
    that these words did sufficiently deal with this subject of merchant shipping, he had to say that unfortunately right hon. Gentlemen who were sitting on the Government Bench were not in the position of judges in this matter, but only in the part of those who expressed an opinion as to the meaning of the Bill, which not only would bind no Court, but could not even be brought before a Court in any mode or form. They had the words "trade…or navigation" in the Bill with the contention possibly that they dealt with the subject. Though a ship was an instrument of trade, the exclusion of "trade with any place out of Ireland" would not exclude ships, the registration of ships, tonnage, inspection and control of ships in harbour, and all other matters which were matters of internal government, although they related to ships used for the purposes of external trade. It was plain that the words "trade with any place out of Ireland," although they covered the use to which the ships might be put, could not cover the ships themselves, and the way they were to be dealt with in Ireland. The harm which these vague words would do was not at present sufficiently apprehended by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they had already had a remarkable interpretation put upon them by the Prime Minister, which, if valid, would prevent the Irish Legislature from touching those matters which were referred to in the Land Act of 1886. Surely, if this Bill was intended to be passed and practically worked, the right hon. Gentleman would give some plainer indication to the Judges of Ireland as to what his intentions were. They must be gathered from the words, and he ventured to think the Government ought not to object to the addition of some words to the Bill which would make it clear it was not intended that this matter of merchant shipping should be dealt with by the Irish Legislature. In the Index of Statutes under the head of the "Merchant Shipping," there was a list of 71 Acts. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 repealed and amended the Acts of previous legislation, and under that Act the Board of Trade were entrusted with very important powers with reference to merchant shipping. The Board of Trade were to have power in the United Kingdom to exercise a general superintendence over
    566
    all matters relating to merchant ships and seamen. Of course, as far as these matters wore included in the words "trade with any place out of Ireland," they were already excepted in the Bill. So far as they had to do with navigation, they also were already excepted; but, so far as these matters had to do simply with the regulations which the Irish Government might make with regard to ships in Irish harbours, and all the various matters appertaining thereto, they were not at present in any way provided for in the Bill. It was intended, he presumed, that the Board of Trade should still be the Central Authority for dealing with matters relating to merchant ships—such as Returns in relation to ships, the powers of Board of Trade and Customs officers to inspect ships, documents, logs, &c., for the United Kingdom. But he would point out that those were things to be dealt with on the shores of Ireland, and did not necessarily affect trade with any place out of Ireland, or navigation. It was a remarkable feature of this Bill that, while they did hear, some time ago, that it was the desire of the Government to give Ireland certain local powers in a distinctly subordinate Legislature, which should be under the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, yet, as a matter of fact, this Bill gave to them far wider powers than had been given to any self-governing Colony in relation to this matter. The second part of the Merchant Shipping Act was prefaced by this clause—
    "The second part of this Act shall apply to the whole of Her Majesty's dominions."
    There, therefore, was an illustration of the way in which Parliament still was supreme throughout the British dominions. There was a provision which applied to the whole of Her Majesty's dominions, which no single Colony had the power to touch, yet, under the Bill they were now discussing, the Irish Legislature would have a power which no Colonial Legislature would have—namely, the power of repealing certain provisions of that Act. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE dissented.] Ships were to be used, no doubt, in trading with places out of Ireland; but the building, the registration, and the putting a ship into water and preparing it for use abroad was not a matter of trade with any place out of Ireland, or a matter of navigation, but it was a matter relating so far exclusively to Ireland. Here were

    567
    provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act, applying to every part of Her Majesty's dominions, stating that British ships must belong to British subjects, who who must be British subjects by birth or naturalisation, the ships must be registered, and there were regulations as to tonnage, certificates of registration, transfer of mortgages, and constituting certain offences for breaches of the Act. None of these were within the purview of any Colonial Legislature, and what words were there in the Bill excluding them from the purview of the Irish Legislature? He contended that before they went any further they were entitled to know whether the matter was supposed to be dealt with, and if it was, he submitted it was imperfectly dealt with indeed; and if it was imperfectly dealt with, the Government could surely offer no objection whatever to the introduction of the words he proposed. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "or merchant shipping."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
    SIR J. RIGBY: The hon, and learned Member who proposed this Amendment says we have only vague words for dealing with this matter. Can it be doubted that under the word "navigation" is included legislation as regards ships?
    MR. BOUSFIELD: Perhaps the lion, and learned Gentleman will allow me to say what I meant to have said upon that point? If he will look in the Index relating to the Statutes dealing with Merchant Shipping, he will find one distinct set of Acts—74—under the head of "Merchant Shipping," and another relating to tidal waters, and so on, under the head of "Navigation."
    SIR J. RIGBY: The hon, and learned Gentleman, I think, might have spared me that interruption. It does not follow, because "navigation" would include ships, that therefore it would be a convenient way to classify all Shipping Acts under the word "navigation" But I venture to say that common sense is enough here. If you exclude from the powers of the Legislature the right to deal with navigation, it would be the idlest suggestion
    568
    really to say that they are not excluded from dealing with the ships which are the sole instruments of navigation. I do not know how navigation can be carried on without ships. At any rate, the ships are the main instruments of navigation. I should almost say they are the sole instruments. Now, what is the subject of merchant shipping? It is the subject of what shall be a British ship. Registration and all those matters which were spoken of by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and matters dealing with shipping in Ireland, are really the conditions that we have imposed upon a ship being entitled to carry the British flag over the world, the conditions which make it possible that the privileges given to British shipping shall be claimed by a British ship. You cannot omit any of them without endangering the position of a ship as a British ship. We think it so intimately connected with navigation, and it forms so important a part of navigation, that a general prohibition against, making laws in respect of navigation of necessity involves a prohibition against making laws as to shipping. It is again and again asked why not introduce words? Because where you have a general description and then you cut that and put in a particular one at once the argument arises the word "navigation" must be used in the narrower sense because, we are told, by your own confession, it did not include merchant shipping. For my part, I should not be able to say with the slightest degree of confidence what was included, or that any single matter was included, under what is called the "vague" term navigation, if we tried to cut that down by inserting definite matters such as is now proposed.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I always listen to the hon. and learned Solicitor General with the respect which is due to his legal reputation. But, he must be aware that on the matter on which he has just addressed us, as on a good many other previous matters, he is at variance with other legal luminaries; and accordingly we are left to the light of common sense in which I suppose a non-legal Member of the House may indulge as well as the most learned Member of the profession. The lion, and learned Gentleman says that navigation includes all merchant shipping legislation. I say that is absolutely opposed to common

    569
    sense, and I will say why. Does navigation include the registering of ships? Is a part of navigation ships? I say my common sense differs from the common sense of my hon. and learned Friend. Again, take the load line. A load line is fixed in the harbour. Is that connected with, or an essential part of, a navigation scheme? The fittings which it is necessary a ship should carry may be useful in navigation; but they are not covered by the word navigation. They are all matters, it seems to me, which are distinguished from that part of the life of a ship which is included in the term navigation. I can quite understand the action of a ship when it is navigating is one thing; the action of a ship before is quite different. I will say, in making these observations, that I have looked into the matter before, because this is a subject in which I take a special and particular interest. When I was at the Board of Trade I had to do with administering existing legislation, and I, therefore, made special inquiries on this point; and I find, at all events, there are legal gentlemen of authority who differ entirely from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and who say that if you want to exclude from the competence of the Irish Parliament all questions of marine shipping legislation you must specially exclude them. If you want to include merchant shipping in the term "navigation," do you intend to exclude the Irish Legislature from dealing with that portion of merchant shipping which requires greatcare—questions of food, sanitation, prevention of scurvy, and other such questions? Does the Solicitor General say those questions are included in the term?
    SIR J. RIGBY: No, no!
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: very well. I was going to say, when I was interrupted—and since then I have had the benefit of the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend behind me (Sir H. James)—that you cannot include such questions under the head of "navigation." I must protest against the way in which this Debate has been carried on by the Government. When the question was brought forward my hon. Friend opposite asked the Government whether they intended that these questions should be excluded from the oversight of the Irish Legislature? The Government absolutely refused to say.
    570
    I do not believe they knew. If they had said what their intention was, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman might have been spared. But the Government had not made up their minds. We saw the consultation that took place, and the result was that the Solicitor General was put up to tell us that "navigation" covers and includes ordinary questions in relation to shipping. Well, in my opinion, the Government would do well to accept the words of the Amendment, in order to make their meaning clear and beyond doubt. If they do not accept the Amendment they will have done a pretty night's work. By their conduct on the last Amendment they went far enough; but I think they ought, in a matter of this kind, to make it clear that this Parliament has reserved to itself the control of merchant shipping and seamen.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)said, both sides of the House were absolutely agreed in principle on this matter. He believed that the Government intended, as they on that (the Opposition) side desired, that the whole code of merchant shipping should remain, as now, in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. He would refer the Government to Stephen's Commentaries, chap, viii., in order to show that the classification adopted in that authority used the term "navigation" as meaning only one out of a variety of subjects, including under other headings matters relating to the mercantile marine, to merchant seamen, to pilotage, to lighthouses, and other questions. He was at a loss, therefore, to understand how the word "navigation" in the Bill could be made to cover all the branches given in this work. It was clear from the Schedule of the Bill that it was intended that these laws should be administered throughout the United Kingdom in the future, as they now, by officials of the Board of Trade, are responsible to the Imperial Parliament; but if they allowed the Irish Legislature to deal with any part of the code of legislation relating to these subjects, they would practically allow the control of those important questions to pass out of their hands. He hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If we were to agree to the insertion of the words it would not be in consequence of the classification under the head of

    571
    navigation which the right hon. Gentleman has read. When the Government resist the introduction of words which I have not the slightest doubt are proposed in good faith, I desire to tell hon. Gentlemen that they do so also in good faith and through fear of their limiting effects. There might be reasons, as hon. Gentlemen will see, why, by those effects, serious mischief might be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has threatened us with a night's discussion, or a penalty for not at once accepting this Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no!
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: He said it was in consequence—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no!
    SIR W. HART-DYKE: He did not say that.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Will you allow me liberty of speech?
    SIR W. HART-DYKE: What the right hon. Gentleman said was, that if you did not accept the Amendment you would have done a pretty night's work.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am sorry, then; I must have misunderstood him. Even had he threatened us, however, I should not have the least hesitation in accepting the doctrine of the Solicitor General. But the question is:—"Can we meet the hon. and learned Gentleman in doing anything to regulate the language of this clause?" I may say at once that if, without serious detriment to the Bill, the Government can meet the hon. and learned Gentleman they are anxious to do so. Though the Government do not like the form of the Amendment, they think it would be likely to avert danger and to remove doubts if they agree to the words "navigation, including merchant shipping."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to point out that the meaning of "navigation" was the art of conducting a ship from one part of the earth to another by nautical astronomy. Navigation could not include crimping, the measurement of tonnage, and a variety of other questions; and they would only make the Act ridiculous if they included the words suggested.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEremarked that if an Act of Parliament said that "merchant shipping" was included in the term "navigation" it would be impossible to carry the argument further.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, of course, he agreed with the Prime Minister. He was anxious to inform the hon. Member for King's Lynn that an Act of Parliament could do anything. On one occasion Lord Palmerston said that an Act of Parliament could do anything except change the sexes, and that was impossible.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: Does it include "merchant seamen?"
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, the words "merchant seamen" ought to be added.
    MR. FLYNN: Or canal boats.
    SIR R. TEMPLEmoved the addition of the words "merchant seamen."
    Question proposed, "That those words be added."
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, these words were necessary in accordance with the classification in existing Statutes.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, there was another Amendment on the Paper relating to the question of navigation.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,said, there could not be a shadow of a doubt that seamen were included in "merchant shipping."
    SIR R. TEMPLEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BOUSFIELDasked liberty to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR J. RIGBYmoved that the words "including merchant shipping" be inserted after the word "Ireland."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Whiteley) relating to factories, workshops, and regulation of hours of labour, is not in Order here. I will tell the hon. Member the place at which it would be proper to move it. The next Amendment in Order is in the name of Sir Thomas Lea.
    SIR T. LEAmoved, in page 2, line 8, after "navigation," to insert "or harbour regulations." He said his object was to put the Bill on this point in the same position as that of 1886. The present Bill exempted trade, navigation, and quarantine from the powers of the Irish Legislature, but did not, like the Bill of 1886, exempt har-

    573
    bour regulations. The Amendment closely interested such ports as Belfast, Londonderry, and Kingstown.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR T. LEAwent on to say that those who were interested in ports like Londonderry and Belfast were afraid that unless some such Amendment were inserted the Irish Legislature would be able to deal with Harbour Boards, to control harbour dues, and to interfere with mercantile business. Why should not the Board of Trade continue to exercise the same powers as at present with regard to harbour regulations? Shipping and navigation were very closely akin to harbour regulations. It was certainly impossible to draw a very distinct line showing where the difference between them began and where it ended. Unless the Amendment were adopted, the Board of Trade Regulations to which ships would be subject outside a harbour might clash with those which were made by the Irish Legislature for the inside of the harbour. The hon. Member for North Belfast (Sir E. Harland), who had undertaken to represent the case of the Belfast Harbour Board to the House, was, unfortunately, notable to be present; but he had told him that the Board had borrowed between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000. The rate of interest on that money controlled the dues which ships had to pay. If that rate were increased through the action of an Irish Parliament, undoubtedly the dues would have to be increased and the trade of the port would suffer. If through the establishment of an Irish Legislature the credit of Belfast and Deny were lessened people would not lend so readily to the Harbour Boards as if they remained under the Board of Trade. It might be asked what the Irish Legislature would do. That was one of the general questions often debated in the House. It would certainly be within the power of the Irish Legislature to tax harbour dues. If they did they would certainly damage the interests of Irish ports. In order to show what were the interests at stake he would quote the case of Belfast. Belfast imported all the iron and material for its great shipbuilding industry, all the coal for its manufacturing industries, and two-thirds
    574
    of the raw material for its spinning mills. It was necessary that all these things should be imported at the lowest possible rate, and that for this purpose the harbour dues should be kept low. Belfast alone had 55 per cent, of the total Irish registered shipping tonnage, which amounted in the aggregate to 256,439 tons. Surely, under these circumstances, Parliament ought to be very careful how it touched such a very important industry. What he desired was that the harbour regulations should remain under the Board of Trade, and should not be liable to be interfered with by the Irish Legislature. It might be said that the Irish Legislature would not interfere with them. Why not, then, state in the Bill that it should not interfere with them?
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after the word "navigation," to insert the words "or harbour regulations."—(Sir Thomas Lea.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. RENTOULsaid, that was a subject of far more importance than appeared at first sight, and it was very intimately connected with the whole question of shipping navigation, which had been taken out of the hands of the Irish Legislature. The Harbour Boards had the power of levying rates and harbour dues and of borrowing money to any extent, and they had to keep up tide and weather gauges as well as harbours. Bearing in mind the amount of public money spent upon some of the harbours in Ireland, especially the Kingstown Harbour, it would seem very strange if it were left in the power of the Irish Legislature to neglect such harbours. One of the duties of the Harbour Boards was to provide accommodation for Custom House officers. As the Customs pertained to Imperial legislation, it was very important that the Imperial Parliament should have power of dealing with the question of accommodation for these officers. Unless the Amendment were accepted, it was possible that laws might be made to the disadvantage of certain harbours and to the advantage of others. The Government professed its willingness to safeguard the interests of Ulster. Those interests were very largely centred in the City of Belfast, and the trade of

    575
    Belfast was largely dependent for its existence and prosperity on its shipping. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
    SIR J. RIGBY: The suggestion of the hon. Member is that, whilst Belfast and Londonderry are now very prosperous, opportunity will be given, if the Irish Legislature has anything to do with harbours, for crippling their prosperity. That is one of the arguments which we have always repudiated; and I venture to express an opinion that this section has been drawn on the right lines. Under the Merchant Shipping and other Acts in connection with general navigation, certain powers are given to the Commissioners of Irish Lights in regard to harbours, and the Board of Trade has a general supervision with regard to those powers. As we have excluded from the power of the Irish Parliament everything relating to navigation, including shipping, we do not consider that the Irish Legislature could in any way interfere with the authority of the Commissioners of Irish Lights or the Board of Trade. There are, of course, certain local Harbour Boards, and it may happen, as time goes on, that it will be desirable to have legislation in regard to those Boards. I put aside entirely the idea that legislation would be introduced for the purpose of crippling industry. The only legislation that would have a chance of passing the Irish Legislature would be directed to improving industry, and I think the Irish Legislature would have a better chance of knowing what would be proper regulations to apply to the Harbour Boards than anyone in England. If we are to pass an Act of this kind, surely it would be idle to make Harbour Boards come to England and say—"We want regulations respecting those portions of our harbours which are not under the control of the Commissioners of Lights or the Board of Trade." I say that with regard to these matters the Irish Legislature ought to be entitled to make such alterations in the law as may from time to time appear expedient.
    MR. H. PLUNKETTsaid, it was important to consider the position of those harbours which had an Imperial value and importance in connection with the Naval, Military, and Postal Services. The Harbour of Kingstown was one of these. Some weeks ago he was asked by his constituents to put a
    576
    question to the Chief Secretary as to whether Kingstown Harbour, in the event of the Bill becoming law, would be maintained and controlled by the Irish or the Imperial Government? The answer he received was that all the information he required would be found in Section 25 of the Bill. Well, Section 25 dealt with the use of Crown lands by the Irish Government, and merely provided that Crown lands in Ireland might be placed under the control of the Irish Government, subject to such restrictions as might seem expedient. This did not seem to deal with the question at all. It was quite certain that the Irish Government would refuse to be at the large annual expenditure which the Imperial Government at present incurred in respect of Kingstown Harbour, and he should like to ask the Government how the question was to be dealt with?
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the point raised by his hon. Friend was an important one. He (Mr. Macartney) had been glad to hear the general view expressed by the Solicitor General that the supreme control of the Commissioners of Irish Lights was not to be in the slightest degree interfered with. Those Commissioners, however, had nothing to do with the harbour lights in Dublin, Belfast, or other ports. He presumed that any legislation of the Irish Legislature on the subject would be in the direction of improving the regulations for the harbours. He presumed, also, that if the Harbour Lights Commissioners had reason to differ from any regulation that passed the Legislative Assembly they would have power, as now, to disapprove it. The Solicitor General, however, had not made any defininte statement on the point raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Plunkett). An enormous amount of Imperial money had been spent on Kingstown Harbour, which was almost exclusively used for Imperial purposes; and he wished to know where there were any words in the Bill which would safeguard Imperial interests in that harbour?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member seems to anticipate some remarkable change in the social and commercial relations between England and Ireland.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: So there will be.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Does the hon. Member think that all social relations will

    577
    cease after this Bill has been passed? The contents of the ledgers may differ, but the communications between people in England and their friends in Ireland will remain as now. Commercial correspondence also will go on just as it does now. It is not practical to talk of the cessation of those conditions which make it desirable that there should be a mail service between England and Kingstown. The harbour at Kingstown is, no doubt, not a commercial harbour, like Belfast or Cork or Waterford, but an Imperial harbour. It is under the control of the Board of Works, and so it will remain.
    MR. MACARTNEYpointed out that not long ago an effort was made in the House of Commons to transfer the Post Service from Kingstown to Dublin. Therefore, it was not altogether unpractical to suggest that the present mail service at Kingstown might at some time or other cease to exist. He wished to know what clause of the Bill provided that the harbour should remain under Imperial control?
    MR. J. MORLEY: We do not want any reservation in the Bill. Whatever the conditions subsisting now will continue to exist as far as they are not affected by the Bill.
    SIR J. GORST: I must really ask for a little further explanation. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, inasmuch as Kingstown Harbour is at present under the Board of Works of Ireland, it will remain under that Board. The Board of Works is a Department of the Irish Government which is specially under the Treasury; but will it remain under the Treasury? Will the Commissioners of the Board of Works and their secretaries and staff remain under the Imperial Government after the Bill is passed?
    MR. J. MORLEY: My answer is, yes. In Kingstown Harbour certain authority belongs to the Local Body. That, of course, will remain; but as long as the harbour remains a port for Imperial purposes, so long will the Board of Works have the same authority with regard to it as it has now.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Will the Board of Works be an Irish or an Imperial Authority, or will it be in the same position as the Lord Lieutenant—that is to say, for certain
    578
    purposes an Imperial Authority, and for other purposes an Irish Authority?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Board of Works is a Department of the Imperial Treasury. The Local Board of Kingstown will maintain its rights; and as far as Kingstown continues to be used for Imperial purposes, so far will the Board of Works, as representing the Treasury, retain its present functions.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Then do I understand that the Board of Works will continue to be an Imperial Authority? The Board is concerned with many Imperial interests. It collects for the Treasury. It is connected with drainage, and it governs the harbours. I am, therefore, glad to learn, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman rightly, that it will be an Imperial Authority to which we may look for the defence of Imperial interests.
    MR. SEXTONexpressed the opinion that the discussion about the position of the Board of Works and the Government had been sprung upon the Chief Secretary, not for the purpose of enlightening the minds of those who had raised the discussion, but to embarrass, mystify, and bewilder. They all knew what the present functions of the Board of Works were, and by the Bill those functions would pass to the Irish Legislature, except, possibly, such as related to certain limited Imperial matters. These latter would include the matters administered by the Board of Works in harbours like Kingstown and Howth in their Imperial aspect, In so far as Imperial interests required Imperial authority to be maintained in regard to Kingstown some Imperial Department would exercise that authority. There would be no practical difficulty whatever in regard to the protection of Imperial interests or the control of those interests by Imperial authority.
    MR. GOSCHENcould assure the hon. Member that he did not ask this question for the purpose of embarrassing the Irish Secretary—and it was very difficult to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman— but he asked in order to obtain information, and because he thought a misunderstanding might easily arise. They were told the Board of Works would be responsible for Kingstown Harbour as an Imperial harbour. The Board would be acting in a double capacity, and would be responsible to the Imperial Parliament for the Imperial

    579
    work, and to the Irish Authorities for its Irish works. He understood the same view was taken by the hon. Member for North Kerry, who thought that the Board of Works would be an Irish Authority, and have charge over most of the work.
    MR. SEXTON: If it continues to exist.
    MR. GOSCHEN: If it does not, then we have lost authority even over the Board of Works. ["No, no!"] The Chief Secretary had referred them to the Board of Works. The position of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Board of Works was to be responsible as regarded Kingstown Harbour. If so, would the Board of Works be responsible to that House? Would the officials of the Board of Works be in any way amenable to the Imperial Parliament, or under the Bill would it be practically amenable to the Irish Legislature? He simply wished to probe this matter to the bottom, and he thought the Chief Secretary would agree with him that the Committee were entitled to the information for which he now asked.
    MR. J. MORLEYperfectly assented to the view that this matter should be probed to the bottom. The bottom, however, was very near, and the matter was very simple. It was true that he mentioned the Board of Works. He did not mean the Board of Works as it now existed, but he meant a Department representing the Treasury. Kingstown Harbour would remain, as it was now, under the Local Authority in reference to such local regulations as that Local Authority thought fit to make. It would remain (as would the other harbours which were practically non-commercial) under some officer or some Department of the Treasury so far as it was used in respect of what might be called Imperial services. He thought that was a quite simple answer.
    SIR J. GORSTadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman had made a perfectly clear explanation. He wanted, however, to put this further question: Would all the harbours and public works in Ireland now under the jurisdiction of the Treasury remain, like Kingstown Harbour, under the jurisdiction of the Treasury, not through the intermediary of the existing Board of Works, but through the intermediary of any local Treasury officer whom the Imperial
    580
    Government might think proper to appoint.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the harbour regulations were enforced by harbour masters, and inquired whether these officers at Kingstown and the various other places would be under the control of the Imperial Authority or of the Irish Legislature?
    DR. KENNYobserved that one of the subjects of harbour regulations would be the subject of quarantine. He should like to hear from the Chief Secretary an interpretation of the saving words at the end of the clause with reference to this Amendment. Could the Irish Parliament deal with the subject of quarantine so far as it related to the public health? This was a most important matter, and it was no answer, to his mind, that the English people did not desire quarantine if they in Ireland desired to protect themselves from infectious disease. Cholera, for a long time, had been stoutly denied by scientists in the interests of trade to be an infectious disease—
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: Is the hon. Member in Order in discussing the question of quarantine?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understand he is referring to harbour regulations, which is pertinent to the clause.
    DR. KENNYsaid, he would simply ask how far the saving words at the end of the clause would affect the Irish Legislature in dealing with the subject of quarantine when it cropped up?
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman told them there was no necessity to introduce these words into the section, because they were reserved for some future Imperial Authority which was not affected by the Bill. If that were so, then the Government had not proceeded on the same lines in Sub-sections 7 and 8, because the Solicitor General had just told the Committee that the Commissioners of Irish Lights would be regarded as an Imperial Authority, and would not be interfered with by this Bill. If that were the case, why should they in Sub-section 8, immediately except from the authority of the Parliament in Ireland lighthouses or sea marks, because the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Irish Lights was entirely confined to lighthouses and sea marks? If their authority was untouched by the

    581
    Bill it was not necessary to mention them. It seemed to him from the line of argument adopted by the Chief Secretary with regard to the reservation of Imperial harbours to be unnecessary to put in lighthouses and sea marks.
    MR. Macfarlane rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked for a distinct statement as to who was to be the authority responsible in future with regard to harbour regulations in Ireland? Could the Local Authorities in Ireland under this Bill impose whatever harbour dues they thought fit? That was to say, could the authorities amenable to the Irish Legislature and Executive impose such dues as they thought fit in the various harbours of Ireland? He was not mentioning Kingstown, which stood in an exceptional position. Of course, the Chief Secretary would see that if the Local Authorities had power to settle dues as they thought fit, without reference to this somewhat nebulous authority which the right hon. Gentleman's own imagination had conjured up—namely, the Board of Works, which the hon. Member for North Kerry said was to be abolished.
    MR. J. MOBLEY: A Treasury officer.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member for North Kerry had told them that, for all practical purposes, the control of the Treasury officer was to cease. That was to say that hereafter authorities which were to be subject to the Irish Legislature and Executive were to supersede this Imperial Authority, and in regard to the future dues were to do as they pleased. That was the hon. Member for North Kerry's opinion, which, for the moment, he was bound to rely upon. —
    MR. SEXTON: I prefer to state my views myself, although I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for acting as my interpreter on this occasion.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman stated his opinion very clearly in a manner that was in direct conflict with the statement of the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary distinctly left upon the mind of the Committee the impression that in future there would be
    582
    an Imperial official who would be responsible to the Imperial Parliament for the purposes connected with harbour administration in Ireland—and who would not, of course, be responsible to the Irish Legislature—so far as these purposes were Imperial. What purposes were Imperial, and what were not? That was a question they were entitled to ask, and he put it in no controversial spirit. Was it the opinion of the Government that the Irish Legislature ought to have control over harbours so far as dues were concerned? If the levying of dues was to remain in the hands of the Irish Executive and Legislature it would reopen a good many questions which the Government thought were decided an hour or two ago. If dues could be settled by an Authority which was not subject to the Imperial Parliament, but subject only to the Irish Executive and Legislature, a good many of those somewhat delicate fiscal matters which had occupied the attention of the Committee that afternoon would have to be re-considered before long. Would it be in the power of the Irish Authority, independent of the Imperial Legislature, to settle the dues at the Irish ports in the future, and, if not, who would be the Authority?
    MR. J. MOBLEYquite accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, that he did not make these remarks in any controversial spirit. In reply to the light hon. Gentleman, he had to say that if the Harbour Authority imposed dues for the purpose of interfering with the access of British ships or making the access of these ships a matter of heavier charge—if, in short, they imposed dues, in the slightest degree with a Protective object, then, of course, these regulations would be contravening the exceptions of this clause they were now discussing, which took trade and navigation out of their power. If, on the other hand, the Harbour Authority increased its dues to meet expenses in connection with harbour administration, it would, of course, have full power to regulate the whole of the dues for this purpose.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that provided the dues were not differential, the Local Authority had complete power. But take this case. Suppose the Irish Legislature and Executive desired to prevent any commodity which they produced

    583
    themselves from coming in. He understood the Chief Secretary to say they could not place English goods at a disadvantage, but what about goods coming from coastwise or any other country?
    MR. J. MORLEY: They can impose no dues with a fiscal object.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked who was to be the judge of whether the dues were framed with a Protective object? He took it it would be in the competence of the Irish Habour Authorities to impose dues all round upon all ships that entered the port, and if they wanted to keep out foreign produce they would have the power to do so.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had already explained that the Harbour Authorities could not impose any dues for fiscal purposes.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: For Protective purposes?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Of course they may not. I have said that several times. They may impose dues for harbour administration, but they may not for any purpose which would bring them within the prohibition affecting trade and navigation.
    Mr. Sexton rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 232; Noes 187.—(Division List, No. 128.)
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 2.59.—(Division List, No. 129.)
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking the Solicitor General what the expression "inland waters" meant. Did the words only include waters entirely surrounded by land, or did they include territorial waters, whether tidal or non-tidal? If the words had the larger meaning he would move their omission from the clause.
    SIR J. RIGBY: By "inland waters" I understand waters that are outside the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. Tidal waters below bridge over which ships come and go are not inland waters as I understand them. Inland waters are waters above bridge, though they may be tidal.
    MR. MACARTNEYthen moved to leave out the words "inland waters." He took it that the words applied to waters to which there was access from the sea, and, therefore, having regard to the position they occupied in the section, they became of great importance. This very question had been raised in the United States. One of the State Legislatures attempted to give the exclusive rights of navigation of waters to which the words would apply to certain persons, and he wished to ask the Solicitor General whether it would be competent for the Irish Legislature to give to certain persons the exclusive right of navigation in inland waters, and whether it would also have the power to give exclusive rights to persons whose vessels or boats were registered in connection with these waters? Having regard to what had taken place in America, it was desirable to have this question distinctly cleared up. So far as he understood the Solicitor General, the definition was extremely vague as to whether it included bays, estuaries, and every type of river. The Committee would see this would affect very seriously the commercial navigation rights in connection with many inland waters in Ireland. He had no objection to the words standing as they were if limited to waters surrounded by land in Ireland; but if it was not to be admitted in this specially direct manner, he thought the Committee could not rest satisfied with leaving the very large powers that must be handed over under this exception to the Irish Legislature, when those powers might be administered and directed towards large stretches of water as to which they had no kind of idea.
    Amendment proposed, in line 9, after the last Amendment, to leave out the words "inland waters."—(Mr. Macartney.)
    Question proposed, "That those words stand part of the Clause."
    SIR J. RIGBY: I am sorry I did not make my meaning clear, because there should be no vagueness at all. All bays, creeks, and navigable rivers are included. Everything above bridges, though the river be connected with the sea, is inland water. If great ships, by reason of the shallowness of the water or any other reason, or because there is a bridge, cannot get up the river, then the Admiralty

    585
    jurisdiction stops, and where that stops inland waters begin. With respect to the cases that have taken place in America, they have been with regard to great rivers, immense creeks, or inland seas, and I am not aware there is anything of the kind in Ireland.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, which he thought satisfactory. He apologised for having troubled him again, but he had not understood that his definition went so far. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments on the Paper are out of Order. That of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) and that of the hon. Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Powell) ought to be brought on upon Clause 20.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not in the view of disputing your ruling, but for the satisfaction of the Committee, may I ask the grounds on which you have ruled out of Order these Amendments?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The grounds are that they are not relevant to the clause under discussion.
    MR. SEXTON: As a question of Order, Sir, I wish to ask you whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House, or whether it is usual for the Chair to be called on to give reasons?
    THE CHAIRMAN: To that extent I believe it is. For a similar reason the two next Amendments are out of Order; they come properly under Clause 35. The first Amendment in Order is in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division of York (Commander Bethell).
    MR. AMBROSE: On a point of Order, may I venture to say that I consulted von when my Amendment stood in another place, and that you yourself, with the assistance of Mr. Milman, the Clerk—
    THE CHAIRMAN THE CHAIRMAN rose to reply, when—
    MR. AMBROSEsaid: Sir, I cannot hear you for these men talking—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The time for the Chair to rule whether Amendments are in Order or not is when the Amendment comes on, and, having considered a somewhat difficult matter, I have come to the
    586
    conclusion that the Amendment standing upon the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member is out of Order. The next Amendment in Order is that standing in the name of Commander Bethell.
    MR. AMBROSE: Mr. Mellor—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I call upon Commander Bethel—
    MR. AMBROSE: Mr. Mellor—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order. I hold that when you have distinctly called upon a particular hon. Member to move an Amendment and another hon. Member persistently interrupts and presents himself to the Committee after he has been ruled out of Order, if he persists in that line of conduct I think you should be called upon to name that Member.
    MR. AMBROSE: Mr. Mellor—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I can only say I think the conduct of the hon. and learned Member is most disorderly.
    MR. AMBROSE: Sir, I claim the right to be heard upon a question of Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If the hon. and learned Member persists in his conduct I shall have to exercise the powers provided by the Standing Order.
    MR. AMBROSE: You may, Mr. Mellor.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is greatly to be regretted, I am sure, that this heat should take place. The hon. and learned Member, I am sure, intended no disrespect to the Chair. I understood him to say that he rose to a point of Order, which I suppose is not an improper position to take up.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman rose to a point of Order. If he did so that is different.
    MR. AMBROSE: That is exactly what I did, Mr. Mellor.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to explain. I think that the hon. and learned Member does not understand what the position is. He rose to a point of Order, and I gave my answer to it, and I explained to him the grounds upon which I gave it, and he now persists in rising because, I think, he cannot have understood the position in which he is. Let me say this: that the persisting in rising to Order in these circumstances is dis-

    587
    tinctly disorderly, and if he persists in doing so I shall be obliged to exercise the powers given me by the Standing Orders and to name him.
    MR. AMBROSE,again rising, was received with cries of "Name, name!"
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think it possible the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to apologise to the Committee.
    MR. AMBROSE: I desire to explain that I rose to Order, and I had not the opportunity of putting what my point of Order was.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Commander Bethell.
    MR. AMBROSE: I ask this question: —[Interruption.]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I trust hon. Members of the Committee will listen to the hon. Member for a moment.
    MR. AMBROSE: I desire to say that I have only claimed, and am only claiming, the right to put my point on the question of Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of Order. Commander Bethell.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he imagined the Government would hardly reject his Amendment, as it had found a place in the Bill of 1886. The Amendment, he owned, was of a very complex character, and one more fit to be argued by learned Gentlemen than by himself; but he had placed it before the Committee in order that he might get an explanation from the Government in regard to it. The matter, as he understood it, tended in this way: The question of "prize or booty of war" was under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, and he wished the Solicitor General and the Chief Secretary to understand that his Amendment did not propose to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, but to interfere with the power of the Irish Legislature to vary the law under which the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court was exercised. He might, perhaps, be exposed to the criticism that the present Bill did not contemplate giving the Irish Legislature power to vary the laws under which that jurisdiction was exercised; and it might be said, as it had been before, that this was exclusively an Irish matter. He did not know whether that would be the line taken by the Government; but if it was, he thought the learned Solicitor General would be prepated to agree with him that after sitting
    588
    for 14 days listening to hon. and legal Gentlemen disputing whether a subject was or was not exclusively an Irish affair, that a layman might be excused for asking that any doubt as to the exercise of that jurisdiction might be made quite clear. Moreover, it seemed to him a difficulty arose from the fact that an Amendment on this particular subject had already been rejected. He would invite the Solicitor General in his reply to state as clearly as might be whether he relied on the words in the Bill, which declared that the Bill was only intended to apply exclusively to Irish affairs. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 9, after the word "or," to insert the words "prize or booty of war, or offences committed on the high seas; or."—(Commander Bethell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask you, Sir, a question with regard to the second paragraph of this Amendment. As to the first part, "prize or booty of war," I ask whether that is not already covered by the words "the making of peace or war, or matters arising from a state of war." That is one point; but there is another point with regard to the words "offences committed on the high seas."
    COMMANDER BETHELL: I do not propose to move that.
    THE CHAIRMAN: So much of the Amendment as is comprised in the words "prize or booty of war" is in Order.
    SIR J. RIGBY: The Court of Admiralty discharge double functions; in time of peace they administer our Municipal Law, and in time of war they sit to administer the Law of Nations. It is only in time of war questions can arise as to prizes, and that is a matter that does not depend on Irish or English law, except in the sense that we have adopted the rule of law amongst nations as that which ought to govern our course. There cannot be a case in which a question of "prize or booty of war," would be interfered with by any Irish law, or, speaking properly, by any British law; we leave that to the accepted Code amongst nations. If one thing is clearer than another it is that this is a matter that does not exclusively relate to Irish affairs.

    589
    This is an Amendment that would positively exclude the subsequent clause. As to "prize or booty of war," that is altogether excluded from the Municipal Law, and the words would be misleading.
    COMMANDER BETHELLasked if the Irish Legislature would have power to vary the procedure of the Court or had we the power to vary the procedure of our law in the matter?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if it was not the fact that prizes of war came to the Sovereign, who was in possession of the prize when brought into port, and that it was by virtue of some Act of Parliament that the distribution of the proceeds of the prize was made? He would further ask how the matter would be affected by leaving the matter open to be dealt with by the Irish Legislature?
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: Are we not going to hear from the Solicitor General?
    SIR J. BIGBY: I thought I had shown that, whatever else it was, it was not exclusively Irish, and that "prize and booty of war" could not be. I do not believe there are any such Acts of Parliament as those to which the hon. Member refers. The Crown is entitled to the prize and booty of war; and as regards the distribution, I do not know there are any Acts, but, if so, we could not make this a matter appertaining exclusively to Ireland.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment in Order is that in the name of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley).
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he would not say much about the Amendment he now moved. He agreed that beacons and lighthouses, which were a very great advantage, should remain under the Imperial control as at present intended; but the next portion, "sea marks (except so far as they can consistently with any general Act of Parliament be constructed or maintained by a local Harbour Authority)," it appeared to him would lead to an immense amount of litigation and friction between the Irish Legislature and the Imperial Parliament; therefore it was hardly desirable to leave it in its present form.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out sub-section "(8)".—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the I Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think the object I of the sub-section is one with which the hon. Member will have no cause to quarrel when I tell him what it is. I must admit there is a verbal Amendment to make, which I shall move at the proper time, in order to bring this subsection into conformity with the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. The state of things in respect of lights in Ireland is this. The authority in Ireland is the Commissioner of Lights; that is the general Irish authority, but the general supervision of the work of those Commissioners of Lights is in the Board of Trade. The Local Authorities have their own local lights; they have the arrangement of business and so forth, and in that part of their work they are under the supervision of the general Irish Authority under the Commissioner of Lights, who, again, is under the Board of Trade. Undoubtedly, so far as the lights affect the general navigation, they will remain, as they are now, under the Board of Trade. The object of this subsection is to leave power to the Irish Legislature to entrust local harbour authorities with the power of putting lighthouses subject to the supervision and sanction of the principal authority. I think, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The matter now under the discussion of the House deals with a subject of some importance to us—namely, the composition of the Irish Lights Board. Under the Bill of 1886, we had control over the Irish Lights Board; and, in my judgment, the proper course to pursue would be to extinguish the Irish Lights Board, and to put the matter over which they have charge under a body constituted in a different manner. At present the Irish Lights Board spend thousands of pounds every year upon a series of yachting expeditions, in the course of which an enormous amount of whisky and champagne is consumed, and by which the public money is simply thrown away. Originally, this Irish Lights Board was under some sort of popular control; but in the early fifties this House proposed—and this is an instance of the way these things have been done—about 4 o'clock

    591
    in the morning, this House passed an Act capturing about £50,000 that belonged to us, and handed it over to the Trinity Board, for which we have never got a single penny in the way of a return since there has been constituted a body of local gentlemen, some of them generally connected with the illuminating interest with whom the right hon. Member for West Birmingham at one time had considerable friction, but of whom he now takes a more friendly view, as they are of the Unionist persuasion. These gentlemen co-opt one another, and a more corrupt body—[Cries of "Question!"]—I use the word in the useless sense—a more corrupt body than the Irish Lights Board it would be impossible to conceive. And my suggestion to the Government is this: that the entire of the Irish Lights Board should be disbanded and got rid of, and that the Board should then be put under the control of the Board of Trade Department, and that we should have a proper and Imperial Department to look to in regard to those lights. The present constitution of the Irish Lights Board in Dublin is one of the subjects upon which the people are extremely bitter; and although, of course, they are Orangemen to a man, the hon. Member for Belfast has had to complain of the manner in which they performed their functions in regard to the lighthouses and the providing for the persons in those lighthouses of the means of getting education, the consolations of religion, and other matters of that kind. Their contracts are given and jobbed away in a most unsatisfactory manner. ["Question!"] I am arguing in favour of the extinction of the Irish Lights Board, and the putting of it under a proper Imperial Authority, which I say it will be impossible to do under this present section as it is drawn. As to the latest performance of these gentlemen, it was admitted by the President of the Board of Trade that the contracts they have recently made, so far from being an improvement upon previous contracts in the matter of expense, have led enormously to the expense of lighthouses, because the contracts have been jobbed and given away among their cronies and friends. The control of these lights is, in my opinion, one rather for Imperial supervision; and I must say that if a reform of that Board is to be allowed to
    592
    wait until it can be dealt with by this House, I am afraid that, unless some Government is stimulated more than at present, this scandal—and it is a scandal in every sense of the word to have this waste of money—is likely to continue.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: We have, indeed, Mr. Mellor, listened to a characteristic speech made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. I think the Committee will bear me out in saying that no hon. Member has taken so much part in interrupting and calling them to Order as the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, and no Member has been stronger in his denunciation of what he has been pleased to call the obstruction of the Opposition. I will, however, submit that the speech of the hon. and learned Member has been the most obstructive and disorderly that we have yet listened to. We are considering in the Irish Home Rule Bill whether the Irish Lights Board should not be entrusted to the control of the Irish Legislature, and the hon. and learned Gentleman thought he saw an opportunity of lugging into that discussion, withot rhyme or reason, an attack upon the Irish Lights Board, which has absolutely nothing to do with the present Debate, and he accompanied that attack with a statement about me which was unjustifiable. When I was President of the Board of Trade I had no contact of any kind with the Irish Board of Lights. I had only to review their financial proposals, and I did not interfere at all with the details of their work. There was a certain difference of opinion between the Board of Trade and an Irish inventor as to the best form of light. I do not say whether I was right or wrong; but, so far from this being a political matter, to this day I have no idea of the political opinions of the inventor. But as there has been a reference to champagne and whisky, I feel bound to say, having had control over the Irish, Scotch, and English Boards of Lights, that I have come to the conclusion that the Irish Board and the other Boards discharge an extremely useful and valuable work, and that they could not be absorbed by any Public Department without great disadvantage to the Public Service. I feel compelled to take notice of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which appear to me to be absolutely irrelevant to our discussion, and intro-

    593
    duced simply to serve the personal feelings of the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. SEXTON: I do not think that, in the opinion of anyone whose opinion is a matter of concern to my hon. and learned Friend, he will suffer in consequence of the attack made upon him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Sir, notwithstanding the deservedly high position which is held by the right hon. Gentleman, especially as a censor on the question of taste, I cannot admit that the speech of my hon. and learned Friend was either disorderly or obstructive. My respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman does not lead me so far as to admit that, at any rate upon questions of Order, he is as good a judge as the Chairman of Committees. If the speech of my hon. and learned Friend had been disorderly he need not have waited to be informed of it by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Neither was the speech of my hon. Friend obstructive, but it was perfectly relevant to the case. What is the case before us? The proposition that beacons, lighthouses, and sea marks should continue to be matters of Imperial jurisdiction, and should be excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament. My hon. Friend assents to that; but he thinks that this is the time for raising the question as to whether eventually these matters should be left to be administered under the direct authority of the Imperial Parliament, or whether this secondary jurisdiction of the Irish Lights Board should continue. I have had the honour to be a member of the Irish Lights Board for two years, so that I have some experience of its constitution. I may say I was there against the will of the Board, and ex officio as the Lord Mayor of Dublin. The constitution of the Board is anomalous, it is discreditable, and it ought to be discontinued. Although this Board levies and administers a large amount of public money, and discharges functions of great public importance, its constitution is in this wise: it is partly elected upon an extremely narrow franchise which is absolutely prohibitive; it allows no public opinion to penetrate it; it is partly nominated by the Lord Lieutenant and partly co-opted; and out of its 25 members only four are appointed by any elective influence. The proceedings of the Board are conducted in
    594
    private; they allow no representatives of the Press to attend; they publish no satisfactory statement of their affairs, so that the public have no means whatever of judging how their functions are discharged. That is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs, and when questions are put in this House we are told that the Board of Trade are not responsible. If I remember aright, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir M. H. Beach), in reply to a question put by myself, declared that the Board of Trade had no power; that the discretion rested in the Commissioners of Irish Lights; and that, however much he regretted the exercise of that discretion, he had no power to interfere. I say that in a case of this kind of a Board discharging public functions, it is not desirable—it is extremely undesirable—with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain), that such a Board should be allowed to continue, and we do say that while assenting to the reservation of this matter as an Imperial question, we do not think it satisfactory that such functions should be discharged by a Body which would not be responsible either to the Irish Legislature or the Imperial Parliament. We say it should be responsible either to one Body or the other; and whilst we do not claim it for the Irish Legislature, we say that the functions should be discharged by some authority responsible to the Imperial Parliament.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By some strange lapse of memory, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway appear to think they are still in Opposition. Let me remind them that they are supporters of the Government; let me remind the Government that we look with some astonishment and surprise, not only at the scene which is going on, so far as Members below the Gangway are concerned, but at the action or inaction which the Government have maintained. The hon. and learned Member for Louth and the hon. Member for Kerry claim the right upon this sub-section, each of which said that certain matters should be reserved to the Imperial Parliament, to discuss the machinery by which the Imperial Parliament carries out its will. On that broad and general principle, it would have been in Order for us, on Subsection 3, to discuss the constitution of the

    595
    Admiralty, on Sub-section 4 the constitution of the Foreign Office, on Sub-section 6 the constitution of the Courts of Appeal, on Sub-section 7 the constitution of the Board of Trade, and on Subsection 9 the constitution of the Mint. The hon. Members have not only dragged in a wholly irrelevant discussion, but the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the discussion has made offensive attacks upon individuals who are not here to answer for themselves. The Government, who would not allow the House to discuss for an hour the question of intimidation yesterday, and who would not permit us to discuss for an hour and a quarter the question of bounties to-day, without on both occasions moving the Closure, have sat silent and patient under the obstruction of their Irish friends. I hope the Government will in future deal fairly between the different sections of the House; and if they allow half-an-hour for a discussion utterly irregular and wholly trivial and useless, they will, at least, give the Opposition a reasonable time to discuss the great questions to which we desire to call the attention of the country.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I confess that I have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with surprise. I think this topic, which was started by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, has occupied something like 20 minutes. I wonder how much of that time has been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If the hon. and learned Member introduced an irrelevant topic, why was it continued?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Because the hon. and learned Member made an attack upon people who are not in this House—an offensive and an inaccurate attack which it was necessary to answer.
    MR. J. MORLEY: In any case, it was not the fault of the Government that the hon. and learned Member was not interrupted if he introduced an irrelevant topic. I am not, however, going to prolong this part of the discussion. It is certainly clear that the constitution of the Irish Board of Lights is not a topic which can be dealt with in this Bill.
    MR. BARTLEYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment after the explanation which had been given.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to say that every word I used was perfectly in
    596
    Order, and I am absolutely indifferent to the sneers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I hoped when the hon. and learned Member for North Louth rose again that he was about to qualify in some measure what I must characterise as the hon. and learned Member's vulgar and inaccurate denunciation of a body of gentlemen in Ireland of whose work I know a great deal more than the hon. and learned Member. I paid great attention to the subject during the four years I presided at the Board of Trade, and I know that these gentlemen did their work admirably, and they did it without payment or reward. I have risen, not with the hope of extracting anything that was fair to these gentlemen from the hon. and learned Member, but to express my regret that we have not had from Members of the Government, who ought to defend absent persons from such an attack, a statement of their opinion as to the services of these gentlemen, and a reply to the attacks of the hon. and learned Member.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKdesired to say that while he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee the question of the expenditure of the officials alluded to came before that Committee, and they came to the same conclusion as that expressed by the right hon. Baronet. He thought it only fair to bear testimony to the fact that he did not think them in any way open to the charges brought against them.
    MR. T. M. HEALYdesired to repeat that he adhered to every word he had said with regard to this body—[Cries of "Order!" in which the remainder of the sentence was lost.]
    MR. MUNDELLA: There was no occasion for the right hon. Baronet opposite to impart any heat into the matter. The incident has arisen within the last half-hour, and it was impossible for me to interpose before, nor do I think it was necessary for me to do so. But I am bound to say that, so far as I have come in contact with the Irish Lights Commissioners and examined their work, I believe them to be a body of gentlemen who discharge honourably and conscientiously the work they have to do, and that there can be no such corruption as that to which the hon. and learned Member has alluded.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. MORLEYmoved to leave out the words "beacons, lighthouses, or sea marks," for the purpose of inserting "lighthouses, buoys, or beacons within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to bring the matter into agreement with the difinition in the Merchant Shipping Act.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words "beacons, lighthouses, or sea marks." in order to insert the words "lighthouses, buoys, or beacons within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether "lighthouses" covered "lightships," or were they to understand that a distinction was to be drawn?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid "lighthouses" would cover "lightships."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the House must be very much disappointed that the Solicitor General had not explained how the words were to be interpreted. He could not conceive any construction of an Act of Parliament by which a "lighthouse" could be made a "lightship," or a "lightship" a "lighthouse." Acts of Parliament, no doubt, could be construed in many ways; but he did not think they should pass this clause without specifically including "lightships" within its ambit. He hoped the Government would consult to the inclusion of the provision in the words.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, "lighthouse" was defined so as, in addition to the ordinary meaning of the word, to include all other lights for the guidance of ships, and "buoys and beacons" to include all other signs and marks tit sea for the same purpose.
    ADMIRAL FIELDmoved, after "harbour authority," to insert "Commissioners of Irish Lights." He said he moved this Amendment on the ground that those who controlled the authority would control the lights. He would press the Amendment unless it could be shown that provision had been made in the matter in some other way.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, after the words "harbour authority," to insert the words "or Commissioners of Irish Lights."—(Admiral Field.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he would just point out that the effect of the hon. and gallant Admiral's Amendment would be the very opposite to that which he intended, for it would place the Commissioners of Irish Lights under the Irish Legislature. [Laughter.]
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Just see my innocence! [Laughter.]
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he understood from the observations of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) a short time ago that this Amendment was perfectly disorderly, for, as the right hon. Gentleman had told them, the Irish Lights Board had nothing to do with the section, and he hoped he would ask his hon. Friends not to expend their energy in obstruction. [Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHITELEYsaid, he rose to propose the Amendment standing in his name—
    In page 2, line 12, after the word "or," to insert as a new sub-section the words:—" Factories, workshops, and mines, or the regulation of the hours of labour of men, women, and children in factories, workshops, and mines."
    The object of the Amendment was to prohibit the Irish Legislature from abrogating a law for the protection of men, women, and children working in factories, workshops, and mines. His desire was to extend and maintain as a whole, and to apply to Ireland, all that factory legislation which was at present in force in the United Kingdom. He was of opinion that there should be uniformity of legislation throughout the United Kingdom on factory and workshop matters. The Amendment was not inferior in importance to any that had preceded it, for it concerned the health and welfare of every man, woman, and child engaged in the factories and workshops of Ireland. It was impossible to regard this matter as of a purely Irish character. They might be told that the

    599
    matter was covered by that Will-o'-the-Wisp provision in the Bill as to peace, order, and good government; but that could not be maintained at the present time, for trade and factory legislation was a subject of importance to the whole United Kingdom. He believed that the time was coming when this class of legislation would become of International importance, and when the working day would be fixed internationally between all the manufacturing nations of the world. He appealed, first of all, to hon. Members from Lancashire, and then to the Party which was known in that House as the Labour Party, to support the Amendment. His first object in moving it was to insure to the Irish people the great advantages which this country had derived from factory and trade legislation, so that the British and Irish workpeople might in the future compete with one another on fair and equal terms. The Government seemed to whittle down English interests wherever they came into antagonism with Irish interests. At the present time there were five Inspectors, with assistants—two in Belfast, one in Dublin, one in Cork, and one in Limerick—carrying out the provisions of the Factory Acts in Ireland. There were 263 textile factories in Ireland, employing 71,700 workpeople; there were 1,500 people employed in the mines; and there were a number of other industries which came within the scope of the Factory Acts. His contention was, that these people should be safeguarded in the enjoyment of the benefits of existing legislation, and in the continued enjoyment of the benefits that they enjoyed at the present time. Much had been done towards the diminution of the hours of labour of women and young persons, and he was glad that a Conservative Home Secretary was associated with reforms of that character. The House should bear in mind that the Irish Members had frankly declared their intention of fostering as much as possible industrial life in Ireland; but that object, laudable in itself, ought not to be attained at the expense of the workers in factories. There was no law in the Statute Book more valuable and necessary than that which limited the labour in factories. He thought the House would see that there were very valuable provisions in the law as it stood, and that there was
    600
    ample ground for asking the House, as he ventured to ask it, to adopt this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 12, after the word "or," to insert as a new sub-section the words:—"Factories, workshops, and mines, or the regulation of the hours of labour of men, women, and children in factories, workshops, and mines."—(Mr. Whiteley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. FIELDsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken upon himself to interpret the action the Irish Members would take in the Irish Legislature on these questions of factory employment. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be unaware that the Irish Members had in the past supported all useful measures affecting labour. What the Irish people wanted was to be treated in labour matters on equal terms with the people of England. He might tell the Committee that the Fair Wages Resolution which had been passed by that Assembly was ignored by the Irish Board of Works. If they proceeded with legislation on the lines now suggested the Home Rule Bill would be restrictive, and the Irish Parliament would be unable to help Irish labour. He did not know what the Bill would be like, and whether it would be worth accepting it, if the Government yielded on these questions to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches. Those hon. Gentlemen, who were so anxious in regard to the proceedings of the Irish Parliament, should remember what had been the action of English legislation, as entrusted to Bodies like the Irish Board of Works, in the past. He could inform the Committee that, at the present time, he was in communication with the Secretary to the Treasury—["Order!"] He thought he ought to be allowed to proceed. He understood that hon. Members usually extended a little indulgence to a Member addressing them for the first time. He always understood that there was a spirit of fair play in that House; at any rate, he could tell the House that he had something to say that would be worth listening to, and that he would not sit down under clamour. He did not want to obstruct the Business of the House. The House would, he thought, admit that, as one of the few Labour

    601
    Members from Ireland, he bad a right to be heard. He saw, however, that it was 12 o'clock, and be did not desire to detain the House further than was absolutely necessary. He would reserve what he had to say further upon the subject until to-morrow.
    It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 383.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I would ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. Its object is to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to issue £1,500,000 for the purpose of local loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and £800,000 for the purpose of local loans by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. The money they have at their disposal for this purpose has run out. This Bill will supply them with funds, and unless it is passed great inconvenience to Local Authorities will result.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he did not want the Local Authorities of the country to suffer inconvenience; but they had to remember that the desire of the Government could be fulfilled by putting the Bill down as the first Order. The House had now a new set of circumstances to deal with. The Government had taken the whole of the time of the House; and when they said that they had Bills to pass which were urgently needed, the way to pass them would be to devote to them some of the time of the House which they had at their disposal.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Bill raised the large question of loans for public works, which was a subject upon which many hon. Members held strong opinions. They considered that the subject should be carefully gone into, with a view of checking this large increase in the local debt for expenditure on public works all over the Kingdom.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL. (No. 91.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. LEES-KNOWLESasked the House to agree to the Order for going into Committee being discharged, so that the measure might be sent to the Grand Committee on Trade.
    MR. S. EVANSobjected.
    MR. LEES-KNOWLESsaid, he thought the Bill could be more fairly and fully discussed before the Grand Committee. It was a Bill of considerable importance, which was referred last year to a Select Committee, the Blue Book of Evidence having since been published. The measure had on the back of it the names of as many Members on the hon. Gentleman's side of the House as on the Opposition side. Its object was to legalise a system which already existed. A large amount of money, time, and trouble bad been spent by the Plumbers' Company of the City in dividing the whole of the Kingdom into districts for the purpose of examining and educating plumbers. The plumbers were educated and then examined from headquarters, and when they had passed examinations they received certificates. Only those men who were properly qualified received certificates; and it was essential that the public should know what persons were so qualified, having regard to the fact that plumbing was intimately connected with sanitation. The health of almost everybody depended upon the care with which plumbing work was carried out. The health of every Member of the House of Commons largely depended on it, and many of them, he was sure, had suffered from defective plumbing.
    MR. S. EVANSsaid, he had not yet heard any argument to show why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Under the circumstances, he thought it would be better that the Bill should be dealt with in a way which would bring its provisions more directly under the notice of Members of the House generally. Hon. Members opposite expected consideration for their Bills, but they took care to block the measures of their political opponents. He referred in particular to Bill No. 20 on the Paper (Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill).
    MR. LEES-KNOWLESsaid, he was sorry if the hon. Member's Bill was blocked; but he (Mr. Kuowles) had nothing to do with the matter.
    SIR E. HARLAND: I object.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  STATUTORY RULES PROCEDURE BILL. (No. 162.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he hoped hon. Members would allow this Bill to pass through Committee. Its object was to take care that there should be a publication of notice of those rules which were prepared by Public Departments in accordance with statutory powers, so that the House and the public would know beforehand what was proposed.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order. There is no Question before the House.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: I should like to ask if Clause 2 has been examined and considered by the Government? It seems to me to require looking into. Has it the sanction of the Government?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,)replied in the affirmative.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: Every Department of the Government has given its assent to it, even the Local Government Board.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,): So far as the Treasury is concerned, it assents to the Bill as it stands. The Bill has received the assent of all the Departments.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: There is no Minister present to give assent to the Bill.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: I have letters from all the Departments approving of it.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 340.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 300.)
  Read the third time, and passed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill without Amendment; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill with an Amendment.
  That they have appointed a Committee, consisting of Five Lords, to join with the Committee of the Commons (pursuant to Message of this House) for the consideration of the following Bills, namely:—
  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (Leeds and Liverpool Canal Bill,
  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (Navigation of the Rivers Aire and Calder) Bill,
  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Birmingham Canal Navigations) Bill,
  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Grand Junction Canal) Bill,
  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Warwick and Birmingham Canal) Bill,
  And they propose that the said Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room A, on Monday next, at Two of the clock.

  DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL.—(No. 312.)
  Considered in Committee and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY [PAYMENTS].
  Committee to consider the advisibility of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of compensation for injuries to workmen in the employment of the Crown which may become payable under the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to the Liability of Employers for injuries to their workmen (Queen's Recommendation signified) Tomorrow at Two of the clock.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
  House adjourned at Twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No. 112.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Loud MACNAGHTEN,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, there were some boroughs in which the ratepayers had to contribute twice over to the expense of carrying out the existing Acts of 1878 to 1892, first in the borough rate and then in the county rate. The object of this Bill was to redress that injustice, and to enable the borough to be paid in each year the proportionate amount contributed towards the expenses incurred by the County Council of the county within which the borough was situate from the county funds.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Macnaghten.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL. (No. 110.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD PLAYFAIR,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, that this Bill, as his noble Friend the Duke of Argyll had expressed the other day in referring to it by anticipation upon the Bishop of Chester's Liquor Bill, was undoubtedly a strong measure; but it needed to be passed in strong circumstances. A diplomatic correspondence had been going on since 1880; but no sufficient Act had been passed to regulate the North Sea Fisheries. It was the importance of those fisheries which rendered such a Bill as the present necessary. There were, in the United Kingdom, 21,752 first and second class
  466
  fishing vessels going by sail and not by oars, with a total capacity of 333,000 tons, and three-fourths of them belonged to the North Sea, which was defined for the purposes of the Bill as beginning at 60 degrees North latitude, and extending to the Straits of Dover. The product of those fisheries was enormous. In England alone, from the Scotch Border to the North Foreland, it amounted to 76 per cent, of all the fish landed in the Kingdom, its value being £3,770,000. All the ports on our East Coast, from London to Sunderland, and from Berwick to the Orkneys, were interested in the welfare of the North Sea Fisheries. Since 1880 attempts had been made to regulate these fisheries, and with considerable success; but there was one gigantic evil which past efforts bad wholly failed to cope with. A certain number of vessels known as "copers" went to the North Sea Fisheries, not for the purpose of fishing, but in order to serve as public-houses to the fleets of all nations engaged in the fisheries. They were nothing less than floating grog-shops. They infested the fleets, and the amount of demoralisation they caused was very great. A Report presented to the French Chamber of Deputies on June 21, 1889, said that the presence of these "copers" constituted a source of permanent disorder among the fishermen, and pointed out that the most detestable evils ran riot, confidence was abused, threats were used and violence employed, while obscenity and drunkenness largely prevailed among the crews, who spent not only the money required for the maintenance of themselves and families, but bartered away for bad liquor their own and their masters' fishing gear. Violent deaths also had resulted from the scenes which took place on these "copers." In 1884 International communications took place, and a Convention was called together in order to devise a remedy. The Convention was begun in 1886, and the Report was signed in 1887. The Rowers represented at the Convention were Great Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The object of that Convention was to place a barrier between the devil and the deep sea as regarded the fishermen. The evil was undoubtedly very great, and this Bill was for the purpose of raising that

  467
  barrier. To make a short abstract of what the Convention had agreed to: The sale of spirits from any vessel to a fleet of fishermen was rendered illegal outside the territorial limits; the exchange of fish or gear for beer or spirits was made illegal, because the fishermen took the fish and implements of their masters, and the consequence was that when the poor fishermen went back to their homes they were charged with being thieves, and were tried for doing away with the property of their masters. Each State agreed to pass an Act rendering it illegal for the vessels of that State to engage in the traffic, by sale or exchange, and imposing penalties. An Act was passed in 1888, but it proved to be a dead letter, and the reason why it had done so was that France declined to ratify the Convention. France had always shown a great objection to the right of search on the high seas, and probably their refusal was connected with that objection; but the French people, by whom it was entertained rather than by the French Government, were under a mistake in this respect, because the Convention gave no right of search. Cruisers were to be sent out by the several nations concerned to stop and take back to their nearest port vessels not really engaged in fishing or supplying pro visions to the fleets, but merely selling grog as "copers." France had no other motive than he had mentioned in refusing to ratify the Convention, for she was the only nation which had never sent out any of these floating grog-shops. Of course, it would be useless to leave the copers to escape by flying the French flag. But the evil became so great that the other nations determined to go on without France, and in February, 1893, a Protocol was agreed to between them, leaving it open to France to join if she chose, and it was hoped that as she had recently shown a more benevolent spirit in the matter she would rejoin the Convention. The Protocol required to be embodied in another Act in order to make the legislation effective. This Bill, to which the House was now asked to give a Second Reading, was practically the same as the Act of 1888, which it repealed, and re-enacted with almost verbal alterations, embodying the Convention of i887 and the Protocol of 1893, so as to make it an effective Act, to stop an evil which was
  468
  incessantly going on. A telegram had just been received by the hon. Member for Grimsby, a port which naturally took great interest in this matter, stating—
  "Two copers with our fleet causing wholesale demoralisation; can you do anything?"
  It was desirable, therefore, that the Bill should pass as soon as possible, and, with their Lordships' permission, he should put the Committee stage down for next Monday.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Play fair.)
  The Makquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish only to make one remark, not in answer to the speech of the noble Lord opposite, but in reference to what was said by my noble Friend the Duke of Argyll, who somewhat irregularly discussed the principle of this Bill a few days ago. I did not venture to follow him at the time, for I had not his courage in disregarding the Rules of this House; but I wish to make the remarks now. He seemed to think there was something very irrational and inconsistent in supporting a drastic measure like this for the North Sea, and declining to support equally drastic measures for towns and counties of this country. My noble Friend might have referred not only to the North Sea Convention, but to the Brussels Convention, by which we have absolutely agreed to proscribe the sale of liquor over vast tracts of Africa. Of course the evil here is great, and in no other way could it be met; but I am not prepared to admit that, because we are to prohibit the sale of liquor over vast districts in Africa, we are bound to do the same in the United Kingdom. It is a question of civilisation. No doubt the sailors in the North Sea Fisheries, coming as they do from various coasts and ports, and being composed of a population not all in the highest state of civilisation, must in this matter, to a certain extent, be treated more as children than we should venture to treat other people. It is not that we think these measures in themselves desirable; but this particular population is, by the way it is collected and from the position which many of these men still occupy in the scale of civilisation, particularly liable to this form of temptation. And the temptation is not an evil to themselves alone, because if drunkenness

  469
  takes place in the middle of the sea, and the result is that the proper duties of a sailor are not performed efficiently, the drunken man is not the only man who suffers, but all the others go to the bottom as well. Therefore, I think there is a special ground for dealing in this matter with these sailors of the North Sea; but I demur to the doctrine that the people of this country are to be treated as children in this matter. It appears to me they have reached a stage of civilisation and education in which they may be left to take care of themselves; and there is no doubt that if they remain temperate by taking care of themselves that will be a much more valuable result, both in a moral and political sense, than if they attain that condition by measures passed through Parliament. I have no desire to refer to other measures of a similar character dealing with Ireland; but I have no doubt that the same principles ought to be applied to that country. In what stage of civilisation this House will judge Ireland to be in so applying them it will, of course, decide.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I only desire to say that the noble Marquess has somewhat misapprehended my allusion the other night to the principle of this Bill. I had no intention of arguing that, because the House assented to this prohibition of the sale of liquor to the sailors in the North Sea, therefore the principle should be applied generally to the people of the United Kingdom. That would be a most absurd conclusion. All I meant to indicate was that, in discussing any measure whatever in regard to the liquor trade, none of us can fairly or consistently take the ground that there ought to be absolute free trade and perfect individual liberty. That is all I said, and that is all I meant. There can be no doubt this is a most drastic measure, and a complete violation of the principles held by both Parties in this House and in the country. It is, of course, a gross violation of individual liberty. That there is no doubt about whatever. It is the most stringent measure that ever was passed in this House, because it absolutely prohibits the liquor traffic in what is practically a floating city—for the North Sea fishing fleet is very large, including thousands of men. It is, in fact, a floating city, and in that city we have agreed with
  470
  other Powers in Europe that free liquor traffic is such an intolerable evil that we must put it down together. That is a very strong measure. My noble Friend says you must treat the seamen as children. Now, I demur to that statement. I believe there is no more intelligent class than the seamen among working classes of the country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say so. I especially drew attention to the fact that these seamen are drawn from the least civilised populations on the shores of the North Sea.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: But this Bill is to apply to our seamen. No doubt the noble Marquess is quite right in saying that there are special temptatious to seamen. The truth is that we must acknowledge as a fact in the history of men that the temptation to liquor drinking is far greater and constitutes a far more serious danger to the people tempted and to the public welfare in this case. That is the fact with which we have to deal. With regard to my noble Friends on the opposite side of the House, this Bill affects their principles much more. I do not know what my noble Friends think here of the application of their principle of popular option and popular control. The consistent proposal on the part of the Government would be, it seems to me, that there should be a Commodore of the Fleet appointed, that all the vessels should be summoned by gun, and a vote of all the sailors taken, and that the liquor traffic should not be prohibited unless two-thirds of the whole fleet agreed to do it. The truth is that the liquor trade is a wholly exceptional ease, and that we must deal with it according to the circumstances. There are special temptations which attach to seamen. I suppose there is no harder life in the world than that led by these particular seamen, especially during winter in the North Sea. They are exposed to the most tempestuous weather, and have to undergo the hardest labour, and I cannot concede that it should always be illegitimate in them, under all circumstances, to take a glass of brandy. But this Bill does not, as I understand, prevent them taking a glass of brandy on board their own vessels. It merely prevents the unlicensed sale of liquors by these floating grog-shops, and I have no objection to that. I suppose the House,

  471
  under any circumstances, would hardly refuse to the Government a power needed to carry into effect an International engagement.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I be allowed to correct one error of my noble Friend? I do not think this Bill forbids the sale of anything but distilled liquors, and therefore the seamen will still have their beer.
  LORD PLAYFAIRexplained that the Bill did not prevent vessels taking any amount of liquor necessary for their own consumption. It only dealt with sale and exchange.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD BALFOURmoved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that consent may be withheld from the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland relating to secondary education, dated 1st May 1893."
  He would not occupy more time than he could possibly help; but their Lordships would see that respect to the House and to the Government required a statement in some detail of the reasons which had led to this Motion. In making it he would take care to avoid the introduction of anything like Party feeling or Party controversy into a matter which ought to be, and certainly in the past had been, as far as the people of Scotland were concerned, kept almost free from that element. At the same time, he was bound to say he thought that whoever was responsible for the Minute on the Table of the House had made a very serious mistake. He did not know whether he was to lay the blame at the door of the President of the Council or of the Secretary for Scotland. There had been two policies put before Parliament. There was a policy which had been elaborated with great care—the policy which, in its main features, had been embodied in the August and January Minute, and had been accepted by those best qualified to judge the merits of the case. Although the Minute provided amply for secondary schools, it pressed hardly upon some of the unendowed schools; still, it met with general acceptance in most parts of Scot-
  472
  land; and there was absolutely no reason given for the change the present Government had made. The first Minute of August last, laid on the Table by the late Government after full inquiry, was adopted in general terms and almost in identical words, and put before Parliament by the present Government. In February there was a discussion upon it in that House, and in the other House there was a discussion not quite of so one-sided a character; but no serious reason was urged against the Minute, and everybody was astonished when the Secretary for Scotland got up and practically withdrew his Minute. The original Minute really embodied the views of those who had given most care and attention, during the last 10 or 20 years, to a subject surrounded with great difficulties. The Act of 1872, establishing School Boards all over Scotland, did good for the elementary education of the majority of children; but it did harm to the children of parents not rich enough to send them to higher schools, but yet of ability and capacity to take advantage of higher education. There had been no efficient scheme of secondary schools in Scotland; but the elementary schools stretched their arms upwards, so as to reach the down-stretched hands of the Universities. This feature of the Scotch system received a rude shock in 1872. Attention was then turned to the reform of endowments available for higher education; and the Endowed Schools and Hospitals Commission, after an inquiry of four years, presented a valuable and exhaustive Report on the subject. Then an Executive Commission was appointed to carry out some of the recommendations that had been made in cases in which the Bodies concerned desired to reform themselves; but that Commission was not able to do much, because it had no power to take the initiative. Another Executive Commission, appointed under the Act of 1882, with himself as Chairman and Lord Elgin and Lord Shand associated with him, had seven or eight years of hard work, and was enabled to do great good in modernising educational endowments, which, however, could be made available only in the districts for which they had been left; and large tracts of country, therefore, derived no benefit from that Commission. It came to be admitted

  473
  that no comprehensive system could be established without special grants of money in some form or other, and these were furnished by the grant to Scotland, which was duo to it as its equivalent for the money given for the purpose of freeing elementary education in England. That grant amounted to £57,000, and was the subject of the Minute now before the House. A Bill proposed by the Government last year providing for its distribution was objected to, mainly on the ground that it left too much power in the hands of the Central Authority, and it was withdrawn in order that the matter might be referred to a Departmental Committee, which met last year and made a valuable Report. The result was the first Minute laid before Parliament last year, which enabled the Central Authority to make grants of from £ 120 to £200 in order to give efficient higher education. That provision was important as offering a premium to effort in poor and sparsely-populated districts. Although that Minute did not obtain Parliamentary sanction owing to the Prorogation, the present Secretary for Scotland advised Local Bodies to appoint their committees, and they did appoint them for the purposes of inquiry only. He was utterly at a loss to conceive what were the considerations which had induced the Government to depart from the valuable proposals made in that first Minute. In the new Minute there was a schedule of the amounts to be distributed, framed very nearly on the basis of population. This rule would give the lion's share of the money to places where it was least needed; and to poor and sparsely-populated districts, without endowments, it would give so little that they might as well throw the money into the sea for any good it would do. This was well-known to the Secretary for Scotland, who had stated in public that Glasgow had sufficient endowments to give secondary education to the entire city; and yet he proposed to give Glasgow £8,000, in addition to over £2,000 which would be received direct from the Government, making a total of £10,240. Glasgow, though entitled to take something, was not entitled to take so much out of this money which might be so valuable in other parts of Scotland. Glasgow, Govan, and Edinburgh together
  474
  would receive £13,740, while there were 20 representative counties which would receive among them only £13,216. It did not stop there, because Lanark and Renfrew, which were closely adjacent to Glasgow, got upwards of £10,000 more. It was absurd to make a distribution of this money without taking into consideration the needs of the rural districts and the great difficulty of getting higher class education there. He could not recollect any Minute of the Education Department which had been so unanimously, speedily, and generally objected to as this one. It was only in the first week of May that this Minute was made public, and on May 16 that House adjourned, so that up to that time there was no opportunity for concerted action. But since then there had been meetings and conferences on the matter at which general objection was taken. There was one more point to which he would refer. A grave question arose whether the Secretary for Scotland was justified in doing what he proposed to do. The committees to which he had referred were appointed without Parliamentary sanction on the faith that the Minute of January would be carried into effect. They were appointed purely for inquiry, but the Secretary for Scotland by a stroke of the pen proposed to make them permanent Administrative Bodies, and in some cases actually to give them tolerably effective control over School Boards representing large populations, because they would have a good deal to say as to what sums should be given to the schools within the districts. It was absolutely necessary that the Minute of August and of January should be reverted to in the main feature, that there should be power in the Central Authority to give grants of considerable lump sums to those districts which needed them for secondary education in higher class schools which were doing efficient work, or would undertake to do it. If that was sufficiently provided for; and if after that was done it was desired to distribute the balance more or less according to population, he would not have very much to say about it; but unless that cardinal feature was adverted to, he could see nothing but harm from the giving of these sums of money to Local Bodies to administer within their districts, many of them being miserably inadequate for

  475
  the purpose, and which would set up a system that never could be national or comprehensive, and would only stand in the way of the needful reforms. He begged to move the Resolution.
  Moved—
  "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty praying that consent may be withheld from the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland relating to secondary education, dated 1st May 1893."—(The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF ELGINdesired to add his testimony as to the great difficulty existing in Scotland as to the matter of secondary education. It was necessary to enter into the reasons which had caused dissatisfaction with the Minute now on the Table, but this new policy had been adopted in face of the opposition of a largo majority of the Bodies created by the Minute itself. Twenty-four against 15 of the county committees had pronounced in favour of the Minute of January; and although the Secretary for Scotland stated elsewhere that that was counterbalanced by the fact that the population represented by the 15 were equal to the population represented by the 24, the force of that argument was diminished by the fact that since then Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee had pronounced against the policy of the last Minute. It was said that this was ratepayers' money. He did not know in what sense money raised by taxation was ratepayer's money. In the Act of 1889–90 there was a provision that the educational surplus should go in aid of the abolition of fees, and the grant was not distributed in accordance with the population or valuation, but in accordance with the returns of the attendances at the schools—that was to say, in accordance with the necessities of the case. In the same way the grant of £30,000 for University purposes was put into the hands of the University Commissioners to distribute according to the needs of the localities. There was considerable feeling in Scotland that even the £57,000 was by no means sufficient to meet all the requirements of secondary and intermediate education. When the matter was before the House in the early part of the year he stated that the committees were purely temporary, and created for a specific and definite purpose. It was a great satisfaction to him personally that
  476
  no objection was taken by any of the Bodies appointed in Scotland to nominate their representatives on those committees, because, if they had done so, the Education Department had no power to enforce nomination, and even now, in the altered form of the committee, if any Bodies chose to withdraw their representatives and refused to appoint others, the whole scheme of the Department would be in danger of being wrecked. It was said that these committees were to have no administrative functions; but it was very difficult to draw the line between administrative and non-administrative functions. At any rate, if the committees were not to have such functions, what became of the argument of those who wished to have local control? They had now a more centralised administration than ever, and the committees which, if properly organised, might become Local Administrative Bodies, were at present merely honorary purse-bearers. He was not speaking in any sense hostile to local administration, for he had long been one of those who advocated a reformation of the system existing in Scotland, with a view to introducing some proper form of local administration. The fact of the matter was that at present they had too many forms of local administration. What was wanted was something effective in the nature of reorganisation, and he had never been able to perceive why a national system of secondary and intermediate education in Scotland should be more inconsistent, with proper local administration and control, than any other branch of educational work. The result of these many forms of administration was a waste of energy and money. The great objection that he took to the Minute on the Table was that it not only did nothing in the direction of reorganisation, but created a new and separate fund in separate hands, and only added to the difficulty of the existing machinery. This was so prejudicial to the interests of Scotch education that he felt bound to support the Motion of the noble Lord. At the same time, he confessed that he thought the Government would have some difficulty in again altering their Minute, especially after what had taken place in the other House. It was generally admitted that the condition of things under either of the

  477
  Minutes would not he satisfactory, and the Government would act wisely if they held over some of those grants for another year for further consideration. If, in addition to this, they would give an assurance that they would not regard the committees as permanent, some of the objections which he held with regard to the Minute would be met. If the committees were instructed to hold their funds for the present year under the Minute now on the Table, and they were instructed to prepare in the meantime a more extended Report than was contemplated under the Minute of January, he thought there would be some hope that a scheme of reorganisation might be brought forward in the future—a scheme dealing with the whole subject, and involving the question of administration, as well as that of the allocation of the grants. He did not blame the Government exclusively for the difficulties that had arisen. The money became suddenly available, and they had to bring in a scheme, and perhaps they had not the opportunity to give the matter the full consideration that was desirable. The question of reorganisation, however, was of such supreme importance that he earnestly hoped the Government would take it into consideration.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the Minute of January last followed as nearly as possible on the lines of the recommendations of the Committee over which his noble Friend (THE EARL OF Elgin) presided, and which was appointed by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lothian) to consider the whole question. The supervision of education by that Minute was very largely entrusted to the Education Department, and its provisions met his own personal approval more than the present Minute. In the discussion that took place on this Minute in the House of Commons only one Member spoke in its favour, and the opinion was expressed that it was drawn up by someone at Whitehall who had no knowledge of Scotland. The noble Earl had spoken of Dundee; but Dundee, which at that time was one of the strongest opponents of the Minute of the 31st January, had since altered its opinion. The Government were obliged, in consequence of the hostile feeling in Parliament against that Minute, to alter it, and they did so in the hope that they might effect
  478
  a compromise in the matter, which might suit both parties. They made the grant available for distribution in proportion to the population, and they made the committees permanent which were formerly temporary. The duties of those committees were not administrative, but consultative and advisory. Through those committees the Government money was given to the schools after the Education Department had approved of a scheme for a county or a district. There was nothing in the Minute of the 1st May to prevent those committees from carrying out the educational provisions in the Minute of the 31st January. He admitted that the objection that the money was to be distributed according to population was a serious one, for the sparsely-populated districts, especially in the Highlands, where endowments were few, would receive a sum inadequate for the purposes of secondary education. But the Goschen Grant, as it was called, which was originally for the purpose of relieving local rates, was applied by the people of Scotland to the freeing of education, and this equivalent grant supplied the place of the money so intended to be distributed, and therefore the money now in question belonged to the various localities. He was authorised by the Secretary for Scotland to state that if this Minute should pass, he would next year, under Section 8 of the Minute of January 31, apply lump sums varying from £120 to £200 to all the counties before the distribution of the grant, so that much of the evil complained of would be prevented.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYasked whether that would be out of the £57,000, or was it a new Vote?
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, it was out of the £57,000. Then as to the objection to the Minute on the ground that there was not a sufficient representation of the School Boards upon the committees, he thought everyone would agree that with regard to secondary education those committees should be composite, and that Town and County Councils and Educational Endowment Bodies ought to be represented upon them as well as School Boards; but he could not now give any pledge in respect to the composition of those committees, because the different Bodies would have to be consulted. He admitted that the Minute of May I

  479
  was not, in his opinion, thoroughly satisfactory, but what might be the consequence of rejecting it? An impasse would be produced, and for another year Scotland might be deprived of the money that was now available for the purpose of promoting secondary education. The House of Commons had already approved of this Minute by a large majority, and, therefore, if their Lordships were to disapprove of it, they would be putting a difficulty in the way of the Scotch Education Department, for they might not obtain the £57,000. For this year the localities would have £114,000, which was double what they would receive under ordinary conditions, and, therefore, if this Minute was allowed to go on, there would be a fund available even for the sparsely-populated districts. It would be the object of the Department to gratify the wishes of the county deputations by giving them lump sums in aid before the distribution of the grant. Under these circumstances, he hoped the noble Lord would fool that he had done a good work in drawing attention to the difficulties involved in the present Minute, and that he would not consider it necessary to take a hostile vote on his Motion, but would allow the Minute to proceed, always remembering that there would be a double amount this year, and that the people of Scotland would have the benefit of the grant for the promotion immediately upon its coming into force.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYalso hoped the noble Lord would not press his Motion to a Division, for he thought that the speech of the noble Lord who had just spoken had gone a long way to meet any tangible objections to the Minute. He thought his noble Friend was wrong in attributing more authority and power to the county committees than they possessed. The county committees under the Minute of January 31 were temporary bodies. Under that of the 1st May they were made permanent, but they were not administrative bodies; they were merely appointed to recommend to the Education Department schemes for dealing with secondary education in their respective localities. The only difference between the two Minutes was that the later Minute gave more scope to those committees in framing schemes for the consideration of
  480
  the Department. That was the whole difference between them, except the distribution of the money. The noble Lord who moved the Address said there was a unanimous feeling in Scotland against this later Minute.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, not unanimous, but a very general feeling.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYcould assure the noble Lord there was as strong a feeling in favour of the later as there had been in favour of the first Minute. At the Conference of Representatives held on 26th May 12 counties appeared, representing grants equal to £9,494; but, on the other hand, the rest of the counties and burghs of Scotland which were not represented at that Conference represented total grants of £47,546. So that, practically, four-fifths of Scotland were not represented at that Conference. A strong opinion had been expressed in several quarters in Scotland that the Government could do nothing else to meet the difficulties which had arisen. As regarded the population question, one of the main objections to the first Minute was the hard-and-fast line of £120 to £200 for the existing secondary schools. In some of the outlying districts of Scotland there were no such schools; and, therefore, they could not avail themselves of Section 8 of the first Minute, but could only have got a grant up-on the capitation principle. Under the first Minute Aberdeenshire would have been far worse off, for instance, than the County of Clackmannan, which was already well supplied with secondary schools, and could at once claim the grant under Section 8. That was really whore the shoe pinched. He hoped the proposal of the Government would be accepted by the noble Lord upon the understanding that if in future it was found that grants could be given under Section 8 that would be done.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that, as Secretary for Scotland last year, he was very largely responsible not only for the scheme of division of the equivalent grants, but also for the Minute which accompanied the Bill for that purpose, and consequently for the Minute based upon the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the matter. He thought the Government were bound to stand up for the unanimous Report which was signed by one of their

  481
  own Body. Silence on his part might be misunderstood, and he acquiesced in everything that had been said by his noble Friend. He entirely appreciated the conciliatory spirit in which the noble Lord opposite had met the views stated from that side of the House; but the statement he had made hardly went far enough to induce him to withdraw any opposition he might have to the scheme. Without wearying their Lordships by going again over the details, be understood the proposal of the noble Lord opposite was to increase the grants of £120 to £200 to a larger amount.
  LORD PLAYFAIRhad not said the amount would be larger than £200, but that the lump sum granted would probably be £200.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANhad not understood whether the noble Lord was prepared to extend the grant of lump sums to schools already existing or not. If the larger amount was to be given to those schools, of course the sum then available would be loss than before. The Secretary for Scotland had stated quite accurately that the committees were appointed for the express purpose of making recommendations to the Central Authority. Of course, if they were not, the whole thing would be simply ridiculous. If such large sums were to be given to Glasgow, Edinburgh, and the Counties of Lanark, Aberdeen, and so on, it would be simply impossible for the poorer districts to carry out the scheme at all. They would not have money enough, and therefore it was simply throwing ridicule upon them to say they were at liberty to carry out the scheme. Most of the counties in Scot-laud were in favour of the Minute of the 31st January, and the reason at bottom why the large burghs and centres of population were in favour of this proposal was that they would get the larger share. The policy of the late Government was that the poorer districts in Scotland should not on account of their poverty be deprived of their fair proportion of the grant. Not wishing to deprive the burghs of theirs, it was made one of the conditions of the grants that the foe should be limited to £3, and that any school charging above that average should not got the Government grant. They would, under the new Minute, be paying the richer districts and
  482
  depriving the poorer districts of education. If the noble Lord would give way upon the point of distribution on the basis of population, he would be satisfied; but so long as the grant was to be distributed on that basis, he could not vote for the proposal. The Secretary for Scotland must, according to the Circular which had been issued, himself have foreseen that the Minute would not be acceptable to the country. By the previous Minutes the country districts wore led to believe they were going to get certain sums on certain conditions. All that policy was now reversed, and vet they were asked to be exceedingly zealous in the cause of secondary education. He did not think that was the way to encourage zeal. He quite saw the difficulty the Government would be placed in, and that it was quite true the grant would not be available this year if the Minute was not accepted by the House. Still, the policy which the Government had followed for six months was being reversed after a few weeks' consideration, and be did not see why that should not be done again, and another Circular put forward on the lines of that of the 31st January, which had met with the approval of most of those interested in education in Scotland.
  LORD SANDFOKDasked whether any precedent could be given for the creation of permanent committees by a Departmental Minute? He believed that this Minute bad boon passed ultra circs. It was doubtful whether the Education Department could by Minute set up oven committees of advice, and it was surely much more questionable whether they could appoint permanent committees, more especially as those committees would certainly supersede the School Boards in some of their statutory functions. School Boards which existed in every parish and burgh in Scotland were, by the Act of 1872, entrusted with the management of education in every sphere outside of the Universities—the burgh schools, the night, and the county were handed over to them; and so much were they regarded as the authorities for secondary education that the Commission on Endowed Schools, presided over by the noble Lord who moved to set aside the Minute, had placed representatives of the School Boards on those committees of all these secondary schools.

  483
  Their Lordships had been told that the committees were in no sense administrative; but supposing any dispute arose between a permanent burgh committee and the School Board, would not the Scotch Education Department be likely to decide in favour of what might be called its own illegitimate offspring—the burgh committee? The Circular issued on the 1st May recognised the local committees as having power over the burgh schools. The argument that the Minute was supported by one-half of the population was not much to the point. Such populous cities as Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen were saturated with endowments; they had more endowments for secondary education than they knew how to dispose of. Yet they naturally voted for a distribution of the grant on the basis of population; and overruled the votes of many rural counties; while such counties as Linlithgow, Haddington, Midlothian were so near Edinburgh that their population largely availed themselves of the endowments there, and they wished in addition under this Minute to get the share which would fall to them according to population. Sins of omission, as well as of commission, might be charged against the Minute. The power of combination between county and burgh committees previously given was now left out. Dundee and Forfar, for instance, could not now combine, and by combination settle their differences between the urban and rural populations. The sums allotted to Ross and Nairn were £90 and £121 respectively. What could those counties do with sums so small? If they had the power of combination with neighbouring counties they might turn that money to some account. Another omission applied to Free Church and other voluntary schools of the parochial type throughout the Highland districts. The former Minute proposed to allow them to receive grants for the children who could attend the advanced classes in these schools, but could not possibly go to the county towns, while this Minute cut their schools out. Probably, if this Minute was rejected, either as being ultra vires or for any other reason, that of the 31st January would ipso facto revive.
  THE EARL OF CALLOWAYsaid, he had received communications from the
  484
  South-West and other parts of Scotland against the Minute, and certainly their Lordships would be fortified in rejecting it by the opinion which the noble Lord opposite had himself given of it. It would be of no use in small counties, the money set apart for them in the division being too limited. No argument had been shown in favour of it, and he hoped his noble Friend would go to a Division.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF Kimberley): My Lords, I will not detain the House more than a few minutes. My noble Friend (Lord Play-fair) has really stated the whole case most completely. With regard to what has been said by Lord Sandford about the legality of the Minute creating these committees, my answer is that the Government have taken proper legal advice upon the subject and have been assured that it is within their powers to do so. As to the remark that having set aside one Minute the Government might produce another one, it is not very encouraging to us to produce another. I certainly thought it a very excellent Minute, and supported it in this House; but when it came to be considered in the other House, it was not supported.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, it was never condemned on its merits.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I know that is the view of my noble Friend, but our view is that it was condemned. Nobody spoke in favour of it.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, it was brought on quite unexpectedly after midnight.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend, who was most anxious that this Minute should be accepted, thought it his duty to re-consider it, and what was the result? When this Minute of the 1st May was challenged, it was found there was no such opposition to it as was represented. The numbers in the other House for and against were 133 and 36. That is, I think, a very complete justification of the course taken by the Government. The Minute was changed with the view of meeting objections that had been taken to it, and we are now told that we ought to take back the Minute of the 1st May and bring in another. It seems to me much better that we

  485
  should now adhere to the Minute. I do not think it is well to be continually changing. A bonâ fide attempt has been made to meet objections, but, like other well-meant attempts, it has not pleased everybody. It appears to be thought that the Government has been guilty of some inconsistency in not following the advice of the committees they have consulted. It is true that the committees were 24 to 15 against the Minute of May 1 and in favour of the former Minute; but they represented nearly equal populations. The population argument appears to meet with less consideration than it deserves. The equivalent grant really represents certain money which would have gone to the ratepayers, and therefore it seemed reasonable to say that it ought to be divided amongst them in proportion to their numbers. The general question is one on which experts may differ. Some are in favour of one method of allocation and some of another, and this Minute is an attempt at a compromise between them. As has been already stated, the Government will be glad to meet the objections that have been urged now when the time comes round to re-consider the matter next year. It would be, on the whole, very unfortunate if, on account of differences which, after all, are of a very slight character, it should be necessary through an adverse vote to deprive Scotland of this assistance to secondary education for another year.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, we are in a very peculiar position in this matter because the Minute has not been defended by its authors. On the contrary, it has been entirely surrendered: for Lord Playfair has practically given up every point—that is, contested ones—and admitted that the Minute is, at all events, so open to controversy that we cannot agree to consider the question settled by it. It constitutes permanent committees, and was, therefore, meant to be of a permanent character. Those permanent committees would assume the control of education. No answer has been made to the objection that, in consequence of the form of the present Minute, the money granted will, under it, in all probability go largely to people who are able to pay for the education of their children instead of to poor people who are not able to pay. The noble Earl the Leader of the House expressed his approval
  486
  of the first Minute in February, and there has been no change whatever since that Minute was issued in the equitable rights of the ratepayers, although he sets up something of that kind now as countervailing that which he thought absolutely just in February. Noble Lords on this side feel that the population basis would lead to great injustice in Scotland, and we feel strongly the injustice of giving the money to those who do not require it to the detriment of those who do require it. There is no necessity to deprive Scotland of the grant for a year, and there is abundance of time to make temporary provision for the present year, because there is no probability that Parliament will rise very early. When it is found that practically those who give the Minute Parliamentary support do not support it morally, and when it is admitted that the Minute requires to be remodelled, why should Parliament express an opinion different from that which the Government itself has expressed—that this is not a Minute which will settle the question?
  On Question put?
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 84; Not-Contents 25; Majority 59.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.

DOCK AT GIBEALTAB.

  RESOLUTION.
  Viscount SIDMOUTHmoved for any correspondence which might have passed between the Admiralty and any other Government officials in reference to the contemplated dock at Gibraltar. He said that the accidents which had happened within the last few years to some of our valuable vessels showed how necessary it was that places in which they could be repaired should be provided within easy reach. H.M.S. Howe would have been lost where she grounded near Ferrol but for the proximity of dockyards of a friendly Power. In two other cases—H.M.S. Victoria and H.M.S. Saltan—happened, fortunately, to be within easy reach of Malta. Other Naval Powers had improved their docks in the Mediterranean and increased their number. If the disaster which had befallen the Howe had happened in time of war, it would have been impossible to save that vessel. We had a great commerce to protect, which was equal to that

  487
  of all other nations taken together. Regarded, therefore, as a question of insurance for our vessels, he asked whether it was safe to have only one dock in the whole Mediterranean in which our ships could be repaired? France had nine docks at Toulon; at Marseilles she had six or seven at Algier she had two, and at Tunis she had now a considerable naval station within 250 miles of Malta. The Italian and Spanish Governments had been increasing their harbour accommodation. The former was spending vast sums on harbour aud naval works, and at Genoa and Spezzia Italy had some of the finest docks in the world. At Malta we had four docks, the fourth just completed and large enough for any vessel. When the Victoria was taken to Malta there was the greatest difficulty in getting her in. We had no means of repairing a large vessel at Gibraltar, and if she met with a misfortune she would have to go to Malta or to come home to Plymouth or Portsmouth. He had been told by Lord Elphinstone, about four years ago, that plans had been received at the Admiralty, and that sites had been named at which docks should be constructed; but nothing had been done. The docks would, it was estimated, take five years in construction, and it was said that the cost would be about £250,000—a mere trifle to this country. If they were to adopt the system of paying Members of Parliament, an annual sum would be required which would very nearly cover the cost of that dock. He trusted that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer), who had recently visited Gibraltar, would give some assurance that the plans which had been for so many years before the Admiralty, and had been approved by them, and by distinguished naval officers, would be carried out, or other plans substituted for them. The late Lord Carnarvon had stated in this House that Gibraltar was such a bad harbour that it would be inadvisable to spend money upon it. But since then works had been constructed there, and ships of large size could get in. It would, therefore, be worth while to make that station a place fit for repairing men of war. All our Naval Advisors had for years past been in favour of the immediate execution of this work.
  488
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House any correspondence which may have passed between the Admiralty and any other Government officials in reference to the contemplated dock at Gibraltar."—(The Viscount Sidmouth.)
  LORD HOOD OF AVALONconcurred in all the noble Viscount had said in reference to the importance of constructing a dock at Gibraltar. When he held the position of Senior Naval Lord of the Admiralty the matter came up for consideration. The questions involved were—Was such a dock necessary and advisable; what was the most suitable site for the dock, and what would be the probable cost? On the first point the decision was unanimous in the affirmative, but it was deemed advisable not to press the execution of the work at that time. As to site, many proposals were made by different officials. Subsequently, the Director of Works went to Gibraltar, and after careful observation and inquiry came to the conclusion and reported that not one of the sites proposed was suitable for the construction of a dock. He added, however, that there was a suitable position on the rock—the New Mole Parade—and that the construction of a dock on that site would cost much less than on either of the other sites suggested, and, moreover, that a dock on this spot would be protected from the fire of an enemy's ships. The War Department was made acquainted with this Report of the Director of Works, and he believed it had been practically agreed to by the Department.
  EARL SPENCER: I question very much whether the noble and gallant Lord is justified in referring specifically to a confidential Paper which came under his notice officially, and which has not been presented to Parliament.
  LORD HOOD OF AVALONsaid, he had intended to road his own official Minute on the Report of the Director of Works, but would not do so after what the noble Earl had said. He would merely add that he regarded the question of the construction of a dock at Gibraltar capable of receiving our largest ironclads as of the greatest importance to the nation and the Navy. The estimated cost of the work was £366,000, a sum not to be considered for a moment in comparison with the value such a dock would be to the country in case of war.
  LORD SUDELEYreminded their Lordships that the matter had been before the House a great many times, and he hoped the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty would be able to state that the work of building the dock would shortly be commenced. No doubt the principal cause of delay had been the question of money. He hoped the noble Earl would be able to overcome that difficulty, and would find a means of obtaining the money otherwise than by including the necessary sum in the annual Estimates. This work, however, was only one of several that were required for further strengthening the Navy; and if we were to maintain our supremacy at sea, those works must be carried out. The other great European naval Powers were spending largely on Naval construction: the expenditure of France was £4,000,000 a year and of Russia £2,500,000, together £6,500,000 as against our own £4,500,000, and it was of importance, therefore, that this should not cut into the annual Estimates.
  LORD BRASSEYrecognised the importance of constructing a dork at Gibraltar, and regretted that it was necessary to suspend the work when he was at the Admiralty in deference to considerations of finance connected with the shipbuilding programme of the Navy. The Admiralty were now in a much better position in regard to public support as to the necessary expenditure for the Navy, and he hoped the Motion of the noble Viscount would be accepted.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL SPENCER): My Lords, I have not much difficulty in meeting the question which has been brought forward by the noble Viscount, for in the main I certainly agree with the noble Viscount and with the other noble Lords who have addressed the House. The question of constructing a dock at Gibraltar is, no doubt, an exceedingly important one. The noble Viscount has referred to my recent visit to Gibraltar. That visit has confirmed the opinion which I previously held, that the establishment of a dock at Gibraltar is a matter of the greatest possible importance to the Navy and to the country. In case of war a dock there would be essential, for no doubt Gibraltar would be one of the most important bases for our Navy. I therefore agree that it would be of enormous importance to have
  490
  a dock at that place where oven our great battleships could be repaired if necessary. This question, however, has been mixed up with two others—the question of lengthening the Mole and that of further protection from torpedo attacks. These matters have to be considered together. The late Board decided that the works for the improvement of Gibraltar should be commenced by lengthening the Mole, and they took money for it last year.
  VISCOUNT SLDMOUTHsaid, that what had been stated was that the lengthening of the Mole would be in connection with the now dock.
  EARL SPENCER: I do not see why the noble Viscount finds fault with what I have said. I have stated that these various matters are all mixed up together that the late Board of Admiralty decided that the work should be commenced by lengthening the Mole, and they took money for it last year, but it was found inexpedient and impossible to begin the work. The present Board of Admiralty, adopting the same view, that it is of the greatest possible importance that the work should not be delayed a moment longer than is necessary, have taken a similar estimate this year. The Admiralty, therefore, intend immediately to begin the work necessary for the improvement of Gibraltar, and they have adopted the view taken by the late Board—that the lengthening of the Mole should be first proceeded with. As to the question why the dock cannot at once be begun, I would remind your Lordships that the Naval Votes cannot be increased beyond a certain point, and the late Board, as well as the present Board, had to consider which of the great works that are no doubt necessary to meet the requirements of modern ships should have precedence. There are very important works connected with docks to be carried out at Devonport and works at Chatham, with regard to the housing of seamen on shore, and all those questions have been considered as to which is the most important for immediate action. The Government have decided, as the late Board did last year, that the great works at home should have precedence, and, therefore, the new dock at Gibraltar cannot be immediately carried out. With regard to the actual plans as to the dock at Gibraltar, though I cannot go so far as to say that the plans have been actually

  491
  decided upon, I have no doubt that we shall be at once able to come to a decision as to which plan is best. As to the coaling question as regards merchant vessels, it is one of very great importance, and will, no doubt, have to be considered at some future time. I only refer to it as one of the questions which have been raised in connection with the whole position of Gibraltar. There is also the question of sanitation. Both those questions are matters almost entirely for the consideration of the Colonial Department, but I have every reason to believe that the question of the sanitary condition of the harbour will be settled satisfactorily. With regard to the actual Motion, I am not able to accede to it. I know of no Papers that can with safety to the interest of the Public Service be presented, and therefore on public grounds I must decline to accede to the noble and gallant Lord's request.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked whether he had rightly understood the noble Earl that the site had been actually applied for?
  EARL SPENCER: I cannot say that the site of the dock has been decided on, but the Board will have no difficulty in coining to an immediate decision when we think it desirable to act.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only wish to make one suggestion, and that is, that whenever the noble Earl has a plan which he approves—no doubt it will be a good one—he should put it into an Act of Parliament instead of trusting to the yearly Votes. Let him remember the fate of Alderney and of Dover—that experts change their opinions almost every three years, and that if he begins the Mole this year, it will be converted into a dock three years hence, and into something else three years later. The only chance of a steady policy and of confining the money to an object which will produce some fruits is that when the scheme has been made it should be placed beyond the reach of alteration.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 89.)
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 90.)
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NEWENT' &c.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 81.)
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMYARD, &c.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 85.)
Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 133.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 134.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 135.)
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 136.)
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 117.)
Road 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 112.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 86.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.