Sitting of 19 June 1893

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.—(No. 256.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. J. STUARTsaid, before the Bill left the House he wished to make one or two remarks. It dealt with the matter of the rectification of the boundaries of the present municipal area of London; and whilst it dealt with that there were a number of other matters which, no doubt, the Local Government Board had taken into consideration, such as the adjustment of debt and others which were consequent upon that arrangement, which they trusted would be attended to. Whilst the principle of rectification was one they could not oppose there were other and more important rectifications they felt ought to be undertaken in conjunction with the present.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PRICE OF BREAD IN PARIS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, in the Return [C. 6967] just presented showing the price per pound avoirdupois of articles of domestic consumption in the principal cities of Europe, no statement appears as to London, and the price of only the best quality of white household bread in Paris is quoted, while the price of second and third quality is left blank; if he is aware that the official price of the best bread in Paris was 6·8d. for 4 lbs. 6 oz. in the latter half of August, 1892, and 6·5d. in March, 1893, whereas second
  1312
  quality was 6·3d. for the two kilos, and 4·8d. for third quality instead of 2d. to 2¼d. x 4 3/7d. for a quartern loaf, as quoted the Return; and to what cause this discrepancy is due?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Return was intended to deal with white household bread of medium quality in some foreign cities; but the Return sent from Florence gave three qualities, and, in order to allow room for inserting the three figures from Florence, blank spaces had to be left in the Returns from other places. A reference to the Parliamentary Paper Commercial No. 1, 1888, shows that the price of bread varies widely from one quarter of Paris to another, and that the official price is not binding on the bakers and is often lower than the price at which the bakers sell; this may account for the discrepancy.

  COLCHESTER CAMP.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the amount of the extra pay being now given to the soldiers who are employed in pulling down the huts in the camp at Colchester; is he aware that at the present moment there is a great scarceness of work in that town; and will he state the difference in cost in this instance between civilian and soldier labour?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The extra pay given to soldiers employed in pulling down the huts in Colchester is at the rate of 1d. to 1½d. per hour. It is work well adapted to military labour, and the additional cost of effecting it by civilian labour would be from £3 to £3 10s. per but demolished. I have no information as to the scarcity of work in the town.

  OUTRAGES AT CACHAR.
  MR. SPICER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will take the necessary steps to insure better police supervision in the Cachar District of Assam, where, since our interference in the affairs of Manipur, a number of dacoits having left Manipur have settled down in Cachar, some of whom, on 16th

  1313
  April, murdered the European manager of the Baladhun Tea Garden, and, since 16th April, have robbed an escort taking remittances from the neighbouring town of Silchar to the Kalinecherra Tea Garden, and whose presence in the district, coupled with the inactivity of the present District Superintendent of Police, has created a great want of confidence, which is likely to have disastrous results?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State has no official information as to the matter to which my hon. Friend refers; but he has learned from the newspapers that there have been outrages in Cachar; that arrests have been made in connection with the murder mentioned in my hon. Friend's question; and that the party who are supposed to have committed the outrage are being tracked by the authorities. As at present advised, the Secretary of State has no information before him which leads him to think that the police force in Cachar is inadequate, or that there has been any neglect of duty on the part of its officers.

  THE THAMES CONSERVANCY BOARD.
  MR, H. L. W.LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the clauses in the Loudon County Council, (General Powers) Bill, giving to that body a certain number of representatives on the Thames Conservancy Board, have been struck out by the Select Committee of the House of Lords; and whether he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House at an early date to inquire into the constitution, powers, and composition of the Board of Conservators, as promised during the last Parliament?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (M. MUNDELLA,): Yes, Sir; I think there ought to be an inquiry by a Select Committee; but it is a matter for consideration whether, at this period of the Session, a Committee could be invited to enter upon such an inquiry. I will confer with confer with my hon. Friend in the matter.

  SAMOA
  SIR T. SMONDE: I beg to ask Under Secretary of State
  1314
  for the Colonies whether affairs at Samoa have again reached a crisis; and, if so, what is the nature of the crisis; whether American and German war ships have been ordered to proceed to Apia; and if he will state how many American, German, and British war vessels are there at present?
  SIR E. GREY: The latest telegraphic Reports from Her Majesty's Consul at Apia do not indicate the existence of a crisis. We hear that there is one German war ship at Apia; but there are not, so far as we are aware, any other foreign men-of-war in Samoau waters.

  EXPRESS LETTER DELIVERIES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether express letters, both those of inland origin and those coming from England (and posted on Saturday night here) are delivered on Sunday in Paris, and over a great part of France; whether telegrams are delivered on Sunday by the British Post Office; and whether, as telegraphic transmission is unsuited to certain classes of urgent communications, such as prescriptions, and to parcels, he will take measures for instituting an express service for all postal packets on Sunday in this country, or at least for those letters arriving from abroad?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): As I informed the hon. Member by letter (5th ultimo), express letters are understood to be delivered in Paris and in France generally on Sunday up to 6 p.m. In this country express letters are delivered in the Provinces on Sunday only during the hours in which post offices are open for telegraph business, and in London there is no express delivery at all. It is not proposed to make any extension of the service in this respect, there being no evidence of any desire on the part of public for such an addition to the Sunday work of the Post Office. The delivery of telegrams during certain hours is believed to be sufficient to meet the present requirements of the public.

  WORKMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
  MR. BAIRD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a com-

  1315
  plaint of the publication in The Labour Gazette of the prices charged and dividends paid by certain workmen's Co-operative Societies from private traders who, as taxpayers, consider themselves aggrieved by the action of the Government in fostering a particular system of trading; and whether, inasmuch as all reference is omitted to the quality of articles sold in comparison to those sold by private traders at the same places, the free and alleged misleading advertisement, in The Labour Gazette, of Co-operative Societies will be continued?
  MR. MUNDELLA: A complaint has just been received to the effect stated from the Traders' Defence Association of Scotland, who also complain of The Labour Gazette dealing with the subject of co-operation at all. No other complaints have been received. The object of the information given as to the prices which working people actually pay on the average for certain articles of consumption is of a purely statistical character, on the principle of The Gazette average prices of British corn, which include every variety of quality. The method has been fully explained in The Labour Gazette itself, to which the hon. Member may be referred. It is necessary for statistical purposes to obtain the actual quantities sold, and those have as yet only been obtained through the Co-operative Societies. The omission of all reference to quality prevents the statistics having the effect of an advertisement.

  REGISTRATION OF COLONIAL NEWS-PAPERS.
  MR. HOGAN; I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that newspaper printed in the British Colonies, but sold and published in Great Britain are at present placed in the same category as foreign newspapers by the Imperial Postal Authorities; And whether, having regard to the inconsiderable loss of revenue that the reform would entail, he is prepared to act on the suggestion that Colonial newspapers having London publishing offices should be registered for circulation within the United Kingdom?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Post Office Act of 1870 provides that only newspapers which are both printed and published in the United Kingdom can claim
  1316
  the advantage of the halfpenny rate of postage. It is not in my power, therefore, to accept for registration newspapers printed in the British Colonies, even although they may have a publishing office in this country.

  PRESS TELEGRAMS.
  SIR E. REED: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the pressure upon Post Office Funds, alluded to in the Budget Speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he can state the annual cost to the country of Press telegrams in excess of the receipts for the same; and as a particular case, if he can state the total expenditure incurred, and the receipts obtained, on the occasion of Lord Salisbury's recent visit to Ulster?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The number of Press telegrams in the year ended the 31st of March last was 5,590,160, and the receipts from them amounted to £120,299; but, as they were dealt with in the same offices, under the same supervision, and to a large extent on the same wires as ordinary telegrams, I regret that it is impossible to state their cost separately, although I am convinced that it resulted in a very large net loss. The telegrams having been destroyed, I cannot even state what would have been received for them if they had been paid for at the same rate as ordinary messages; but I am considering whether, in regard to the future, it would be possible to obtain this information without undue expense. Meanwhile, I may point out that, whilst the average receipt for an ordinary inland telegram is about 7¾d., that for a Press telegram is only a little more than 5d., although the latter is may times as long as the former, and, therefore, more expensive to deal with. The receipts for Press telegrams sent in connection with Lord Salisbury's recent visit to Ulster were £243, and the special expense incurred at Belfast and Londonderrry was £126; but, for the reasons I have given, it is impossible to state what was the cost of dealing with the telegrams at the various towns throughout the Kingdom therefore, say what was the loss sustained by the Department.
  SIR E. REED: Will the Postmaster General be kind enough to state if the figures just given include the cost of

  1317
  the special officers on the occasion of Lord Salisbury's visit to Ulster, and the extra cost incurred in the London Department?
  Mr. A. MORLEY: The sum I have named includes all the extra cost incurred.
  SIR J. LENG: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the charges made to the Press were not very carefully considered before the arrangement was made transferring the telegraph system to the Post Office; and was not the tariff thus agreed upon, practically, a contract between the Government and the newspaper Press as a condition precedent to the arrangement for the transfer?
  MR. PICTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in regard to the second paragraph of the question on the Paper, what would have been the absolute receipts for these telegrams if the charges had been on the ordinary scale?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have answered that the telegrams have been destroyed, and it is, therefore, impossible to say what the receipts would have been. I am, however, going to take steps to see if in the future some such information may be obtained. As to the question of the hon. Member for Dundee, I do not know that there was any such contract between the Post Office and the Press; I can only say I am quite certain that the Postal Authorities had no idea that the result of the arrangement would have been so heavy a loss.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Is it not the case that since the telegraphs were taken over the number of Press messages has enormously increased, so that the small loss at that time incurred has been many times multiplied?
  MR. A. MORLEY: That is so.
  MR. W. SAUNDERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Switzerland, whore the charge is ¼d. per word, a profit is made, whereas with a charge of ½d. a word in this country there is a loss?
  Mr. A. MORLEY: That is so, but ten the charges in this country for Press Messages are much less than ¼d. per word.

  CUSTOM HOUSE EMPLOYÉS.
  MR. S. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the case of the outdoor extra men employed at the Custom House; and whether he can give a reply to the Memorial sent to him in February last?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The Memorial has been very carefully considered, and a decision arrived at. A letter, sanctioning certain improvements in the position of these extra men, is about to be sent to the Commissioners of Customs.

  THE WATCH TRADE AND THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the opinion expressed by him before a deputation he was so good as to receive on the 6th ultimo from the workers in most of the productive trades of the country, that to mark foreign watch works faintly as foreign, in letters illegible to ordinary-eyesight, and surrounded by a bold English warranty, is a fraudulent evasion of the spirit of "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," and equally so the marking of foreign printed books and drawings as foreign in fugitive inks, or subsequently hiding such mark, he will cause the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown to be taken on the case recently submitted with evidence to the Board of Trade on behalf of the Coventry Watch Trade Association; and should the present law not be strong enough to protect the public desirous of encouraging home labour from such fraud, will he at once introduce and press forward a short auxiliary measure, with a view to the more effectual prevention of false marking, and the safeguarding of British industrial interests in a time of such depression among the masses of the people?
  Mr. NEWDIGATE: I beg at the same time to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, having regard to the opinion expressed by him before a deputation he was so good as to receive on the 6th May, that to mark foreign watch works as foreign in nearly illegible letters, and surrounded by a bold English warranty, is an evasion of

  1319
  "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," he will cause the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown to be taken on the case recently submitted with evidence to the Board of Trade on behalf of the Coventry Watch Trade Association; and should the law on this subject not prove strong enough to protect the public desirous of encouraging home labour, whether he will at once introduce and press forward a measure to amend "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887"?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am advised that there is no point in the case recently submitted by the Coventry Watch Trade Association upon which the opinion of the Law Officers could usefully be taken, inasmuch as the watch does bear a description of the country where it was made in words which cannot be said to be illegible. In administering the powers of a penal Statute cases must always arise which may be evasions of the Act, but are not susceptible of successful prosecution. The Merchandise Marks Act is strong enough to insure the successful prosecution of those who break the letter of the law; but no amendment which could be devised would, with certainty, lead to the conviction of persons who are guilty of what the hon. Gentleman describes as a "fraudulent evasion of its spirit."
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Is not the object of the law to have foreign goods plainly marked, so that the ordinary purchaser may be able to see they are of foreign origin? I have one of the watches here, and my hon. Friends around me agree in thinking that it is English made.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have told the hon. and gallant Member that my Legal Advisers say that the watch is not fraudulently marked, and that the words are legible. The hon. Gentleman knows they could not be stamped on the case, seeing that the case is English made.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I will hand the watch to the right hon. Gentleman.

  VISITORS TO KENSINGTON INFIRMARY.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will explain why it is that the chief medical officer at Kensington Infirmary has not the same power vested in
  1320
  him as the master of the workhouse of granting occasional special visits to patients at other than visiting times;, whether he is aware that unless (or until) they are placed on the danger list inmates can be visited (as alleged by the doctor) only on Sundays from 2 till 4; and whether, if such rules are general, he will consider the desirability of altering them?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I have been in communication with the Guardians of the Parish of Kensington, and I infer from their reply that the question has been suggested in connection with the circumstances of a particular case. The Guardians state that, in the case referred to, special permission had been given for visits to an inmate, but for reasons which the Guardians considered sufficient this privilege was withdrawn, and it was intimated that the Guardians saw no reason for departing in that case from the rules which they found it necessary to lay down for the maintenance of discipline and the proper administration of the Institution under their control. With regard to the ordinary rules as to visiting, I am informed that the inmates of the Infirmary may be visited every Sunday between 2 and 4 p.m., that the Medical Officer of the Infirmary has full discretion in any case in which he deems it expedient to allow visits to inmates, and that a patient who is dangerously ill may practically be visited at any time.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a letter came from the authorities at the workhouse infirmary, saying it was an absolute rule that no visitors should be allowed, except in cases of great danger, on other than the days usually set apart?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am not aware what letter the hon. Member received. I can only tell him what the rules are, and point out that the medical officer has ample powers when patients are dangerously ill.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter; I will send him the letter I received.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Certainly.

  BALLACHULISH PIER.
  MR. MACFARLANE: beg to ask the President of the Board of

  1321
  Trade if he is aware that a fence has been erected at Ballachulish Pier for the purposes of excluding the coaches of all but one coach owner; whether the terms upon which the erection of the pier upon the foreshore was granted justifies a proceeding which reduces the general accommodation of the public; if he will order the removal of the fence in question; and whether a charge of 3d. upon every passenger landing on the Ballachulish Pier is legal?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am in communication with the parties who erected the pier; but my present information does not enable me to answer the question further than to state that no statutory authority has been granted.

  MAN-TRAPS ON GROWN LANDS.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury by what authority, if any, the following notice is affixed to a tree upon Crown lands adjoining the railway station at Oxshott: "Beware! Man-traps and spikes set in those grounds. Stray dogs shot"; whether, in fact, man-traps or other dangerous engines have been set in this wood, contrary to the provisions of 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100; whether the Department of Woods and Forests is aware that, if so, it would be a serious offence; and whether persons in occupation of Crown lands will be prohibited from exhibiting like notices in future?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The notice board referred to appears to have been affixed to a tree some years ago by a then lessee of the shooting over the woods without any consent from the Woods and Forests. The Commissioners of Woods have had the board removed, though I need hardly say that, in fact, there were no man-traps or dangerous engines set in the woods. The notice was, no doubt, only sot up with a view of preventing trespass, to which the woods are much subject.

  THE CYPRUS TRIBUTE.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House of the text of the arrangement made with France in 1882 for the payment, out of the so-called Cyprus Tribute, of the interest on the Turkish
  1322
  Loan (1855) guaranteed by England and France?
  THE UNDER OF SECRETARY FOR THE STATE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): No formal arrangement in the nature of an agreement has been made with France; but an intimation was given to the French Government in 1882 that the surplus revenue of Cyprus would be applied for the present to meet the interest of the Turkish Loan.

  THE ANGORA TRIALS.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate any information with regard to the progress and result of the Angora trials? At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is able to confirm the statement that 17 of the prisoners have been sentenced to death? Will the Foreign Office use every effort to obtain from the Sultan a remission of the sentences?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government think it is their business to intervene between foreign Governments and their subjects?
  SIR E. GREY: There is a well-established practice in these matters depending upon an International Treaty. Telegraphic information has been received that the Court at Angora has condemned Thoumaïan, Kayagan, and 13 others to death, has acquitted 11, and sentenced the remainder to terms of imprisonment of from two to 15 years. These sentences are, we understand, subject to review by the Court of Cassation. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires will use every effort to secure that these sentences shall not be carried out pending a full consideration of all the circumstances. Her Majesty's Government must await a Report from the Vice Consul as to the conduct of the trial and the evidence produced before determining what further representations should be made to the Porte.
  An hon. MEMBER: What is the interval of time allowed to elapse between condemnation and execution in cases of this kind? Can we have an assurance that these sentences will not be carried out until Her Majesty's Government have had an opportunity of considering the facts?
  SIR E. GREY: I believe that there is usually a considerable interval of time. The sentences are subject to review by the Court of Appeal. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires will use every effort to see that they are not carried out until an opportunity has been afforded of considering the facts.

  SCHOOL CENSUSES.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, under Article 85 of the Code, the Department have the right to call upon Managers of schools to furnish a census at their own cost; and, if so, what powers the Managers have of obtaining such census?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): Under Article 87 of the Code Managers are bound to supply all Returns called for by the Department. Grants under Articles 104 and 105 can only be made where the population is below a certain number; it is, therefore, the duty of the Department not to pay these grants without sufficient evidence that this is the case, especially since the Public Accounts Committee has called their attention to cases whore grants had been paid on figures which had been incorrectly given, and had not been sufficiently verified. Managers have no statutory powers in this matter. But the word "census" only means an enumeration of the people living within a certain very thinly-populated area; no difficulty has, so far as I am aware, ever been found by Managers in complying with the demand for a census of this kind; and if they know their district well, there cannot be any expenses involved.

  FREE EDUCATION.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will make it clear, in the Circulars issued by the Department, that parents have not a right of demanding free education for their children at every school, but only at some school within convenient distance of their homes?
  MR. ACLAND: There is nothing in the Memorandum issued by the Department which implies that parents have a right to free education at every school. On the contrary, the following words are used:—
  1324
  "In districts where there is no School Board, if the free places required are not provided by voluntary schools, a School Board is formed and directed to provide them."
  The following words are also used:—
  "The free education to which parents have a right … must be at a school within a reasonable distance of the child's home,"
  thus clearly showing that there are schools which need not provide free places unless they choose.
  MR. SNAPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that parents who demand free education for their children shall have the same right of choice of schools as that now enjoyed by parents of fee-paying children?
  MR. ACLAND: The Department is anxious that they shall have the same right, and will do its best to secure that in all cases brought before it.

  ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND CYPRUS.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, after the failure of Turkey to pay the interest on the loan guaranteed in 1855 by England and France, the obligation to provide the interest fell equally upon the two guaranteeing Powers; whether, since 1882, a sum raised by taxation in Cyprus, under the designation of "the Turkish Tribute" (supplemented occasionally by a grant in aid from the British Treasury) has been used to meet the joint obligations of England and France, and to create a Sinking Fund; what is the sum total of the payments since 1882 to the present time which, but for such application of the tribute, would have been paid by France; what is the total amount of the "grants in aid" which have been paid out of the British Exchequer to Cyprus; and what is the present amount of the Sinking Fund?
  MR. PIERPOINT: At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the French Government has been negotiated with as to its consent that the Cyprus Tribute should be commuted; and, if so, whether the French Government has refused to consent; what is the cost of Cyprus to England, taking into account the fact that a largo part of the guarantee of England as to the Turkish Loan of 1855 is paid to the bondholders out of taxes imposed on the people of Cyprus; whether the Customs Duties of Smyrna

  1325
  and Syria are paid in part satisfaction of the said loan; and whether the Council of Cyprus has on several occasions protested against their taxes being used to pay obligations incurred by England and France in 1855?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The answer to the first and second questions of the hon. and gallant Member is, Yes. As regards the third, of course the sum total is the total of the moneys due upon the loan of 1855, to be equally divided between England and France. The total amount of the grants in aid is £465,000, and the present amount of the Sinking Fund is £88,000. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for Warrington, the answer to the first and third inquiries is, No. The answer to the second cannot be stated except at great length, but the hon. Member will find the information in successive Financial Statements with reference to Cyprus which are before the House. With regard to the last question, it is a matter of indifference to the people of Cyprus, so long as the tribute has to be paid, whether it is paid to the original claimant or whether it is stopped on its way by the creditors of Turkey—England and France.
  COLONEL BRIDGEMAN: May I ask whether there is any prospect of the Turkish Tribute being capitalised?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is a very large question. I am not prepared to answer it. Who is going to find the capital?
  MR. PIERPOINT: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer's affirmative answer extend to my question whether France has refused to consent to commutation?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, I am not aware that there have been any negotiations as to the commutation of the tribute. If there have been I will inform the hon. Member of them.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Is not England, and not Cyprus, liable for the duo payment of the Turkish Tribute?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: England undertook, as the price of getting Cyprus, to pay this sum from the income of Cyprus to Turkey. Turkey made default in a loan for which England and France guaranteed; and, therefore, instead of paying the amount direct to Turkey, it has been stopped in transitu, and is devoted to paying the debt which Turkey
  1326
  owes. It is a matter of indifference to the people of Cyprus whether the money goes to Turkey or to Turkey's creditors.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: My question is whether the people of Cyprus ever agreed to pay?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not believe the people of Cyprus had anything to say to the matter.

  EVENING CODE SCHOOLS IN SCOTLAND.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, pending the consideration, by the Scotch Education Department, of an Evening School Code for Scotland, he will take steps to secure for evening schools in Scotland, during next winter, the benefit of the change referred to in Section II. (a) of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Minute of the 18th May, 1893, which establishes a Code of Regulations for evening schools in England and Wales?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I have taken steps to secure for evening schools in Scotland, during next winter, the benefit of the change referred to in the section of the English Evening School Code which the hon. Member cites.

  THE IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Belfast Harbour Board, the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce are all opposed to the present constitution of the Irish Lights Board, and claim that it should be in some form representative; whether he is aware that the Associated Chambers of Commerce, at their annual meeting held in England this year, passed a resolution unanimously calling for reform in the constitution of the Irish Lights Board; can he state what are the qualifications of the latest co-opted members of the Board, and how many meetings have they each attended; whether the weekly luncheon, which is served on meeting day to the Commissioners, is charged against the Mercantile Marine Account; whether the members of the Dublin Corporation Commissioners are excluded from the Inspection Committee; and does this Committee take an annual trip around the coast in

  1327
  the summer time, and receive each £2 2s. a day subsistence allowance, in addition to all travelling expenses at the expense of the public?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have not been made aware of the views of the Belfast Harbour Board, but I have received from the Associated Chambers of Commerce (which includes the Belfast and Dublin Chambers of Commerce) a Memorial asking that mercantile men selected by the Chambers of Commerce and Harbour Commissioners of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and Londonderry should be added to the Board of Irish Lights. The constitution of the Board is fixed by Statute and can only be altered by Parliament. The Commissioners of Irish Lights report to me that the last four gentlemen who have been elected members of their Board are—

  Name.

  Qualification.

  Date of Election.

  No. of Attendances.

  Mr. Michael Murphy

  Shipowner, Bank and Railway Director; President of the Chamber of Commerce, Dub.

  Nov. 20, 1891.

  10

  His Grace the Duke of Abercorn, K.G.

  —

  Feb. 12, 1892.

  2

  The Lord Ardilaun, P.C.

  —

  April 1, 1892.

  0

  Sir Howard Grubb, F.R.S.

  —

  Jan. 29, 1893.

  8

  Lord Ardilaun's absence has been occasioned by illness. The Commissioners elect their own Committees; and the ex officio members of the Dublin Corporation are not excluded from the Inspecting Committee; the High Sheriff was nominated on that Committee in January last. This Committee make an annual inspection of all lights, buoys, and beacons under their charge round the coast of Ireland, the expenses of
  1328
  which, as well as of the weekly luncheon served on Board days, are charged against the annual sum allowed by the Board of Trade to meet the housekeeping expenses of the Commissioners, which is limited to £400. The members of the Committee receive no personal allowance.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it customary in England to allow weekly luncheons at the expense of the public?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not see how gentlemen who attend the Board meetings that give their services gratuitously can be expected to go without food. The accounts are strictly audited.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any chance of Members of this House, who give their services gratuitously, getting a daily luncheon?
  MR. W. KENNY: Has any complaint ever been made to the Board of Trade as to the way in which these gentlemen perform their duties, and is there any foundation for the charge brought against them by the hon. and learned Member for Louth some days ago, that they are a corrupt Body?
  MR. MUNDELLA: As I have said, a Memorial has been received from the Associated Chambers of Commerce, including the Dublin and Belfast Chambers, but there certainly is no ground for the charge that they are a corrupt Body.
  MR. W. KENNY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my first question. Has any complaint been made of the way in which they perform their duties?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir.

  THE SHIPPING FEDERATION.
  MR. LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of the action of the Shipping Federation referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Perhaps the House will allow me to answer this question at some length, as it is desirable that the facts of the case, and the position of the Board of Trade in the matter, should be fully before the House. Sections 146 and 147 of the Act of 1854 are the re-enactment, with certain modifications, of sections contained in the Act of 1845, which, as the preamble of those sections shows, were intended to

  1329
  prevent crimping. In 1889, shortly after the formation of the National Amalgamated Sailors' and Firemen's Union, the Board of Trade were informed that a local Secretary of that Union, although he had no licence from the Board of Trade to supply seamen under Section 146, did supply seamen (being members of the Union) to serve on board British ships. Upon this fact Mr. Wright (now Mr. Justice Wright) advised that the local Secretary was liable to conviction under Sub-section l of Section 147. The Board of Trade, although they had no reason to differ from the opinion that a technical offence had been committed, considered that it was contrary to the intention and spirit of the Act to extend provisions intended to prevent crimping to the action of the officials of the Seamen's Union arising out of a trade dispute. About 1890 the Shipping Federation was formed. They established Registry Offices at all the principal ports of the Kingdom where qualified seamen could enter their names for employment. They thus practically undertook to supply crews to shipowners who were members of the Federation. Application was made to the Board of Trade to licence the Federation officials. The Board of Trade, having determined to grant no licence to the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, adhered to that position when applied to by the Shipping Federation, and further withdrew all existing licences with the exception of those granted to training ships. The Sailors' Union, whom, in pursuance of the policy I have previously explained, the Board of Trade declined to prosecute for offences under Section 147, in their turn pressed the Board of Trade to prosecute the officials of the Federation; but the Board adhered to the policy which they deliberately adopted when urged by shipowners to prosecute seamen—namely, of not extending the provisions to prevent crimping to actions which were not in the nature of crimping, but which arose out of a trade dispute. My predecessor, on the 11th November, 1891, stated publicly to a deputation that—
  "The provisions of the Act were intended to deal with and to put down crimping; they were not intended to be used on either side by the Board of Trade in favour of employers or against employers—in favour of seamen or against seamen."
  1330
  In consequence of a Debate which recently took place in this House I consulted the Law Officers as to whether the action taken by the Shipping Federation comes within the provisions of Section 147 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and whether, if in strictness such action amounts to a technical breach of the section, the offence thereby committed is of such a criminal or quasi-criminal nature that the Board of Trade, as Public Prosecutor, is bound to prosecute the officials of the Federation. I am advised that the first question is of some nicety, but that upon a strict construction of the section the procedure of the Shipping Federation involves an infringement of the provisions of the Act. I am further advised that the Board is not bound to prosecute the officials of the Federation unless satisfied that the public interests require the interference of the Department, and it must be remembered that—(1) It is open to any parties interested to prosecute. (2) The Preamble of the Act of 1845 clearly shows that the object of the Legislature was to put a stop to the system by which persons having no interest in ships supplied seamen under well-known demoralising circumstances, and was not to prevent bona fide associations of shipowners, seamen, or others having an interest in the ships, from taking steps by which the services of seamen seeking employment should be made available. I am further advised that the Board, in determining their duty under the later Act, are justified in taking into consideration the origin of the legislation, and need not interfere in cases not thought by the Board to be within the substantial mischief aimed at. The action of the Board of Trade which has corresponded practically with the above opinion is, therefore, perfectly impartial. They do not strain the provisions of the Act against seamen when pressed to do so by shipowners, nor do they strain the provisions of the Act against shipowners when pressed to do so by seamen. It is open to either party to prosecute if they consider the Act to be infringed. The Board of Trade decline to make themselves, in any way, partisans in a trade dispute. At the same time, the Board will continue to act upon the practice which has hitherto prevailed, and in any case brought under their notice in which the spirit and intention as well as the letter of the Act of 1854 are infringed,

  1331
  they will cause investigation to be made with a view to a prosecution.
  MR. BUCKNILL: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has not within the last few days received from the Shipping Federation a statement the effect of which might alter the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which, I understand, amounts to this—that in the case stated by the right hon. Gentleman they are of opinion that there has been only a technical infringement of the law?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not know that anything I have received would alter the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. iEverything has been carefully put to the Law Officers, including the Rules of the Shipping Federation and their own statement as to the way in which they work those Rules. It is quite true they came to the conclusion that what was done amounted only to a technical infringement of the Act; but there is great danger that they may go beyond mere technical infringements, and in that case it would be my duty, whichever side committed the offence, to prosecute.

  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER AND THE MIDDLESEX MAGISTRACY.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Lord Chancellor is prepared to appoint in the County of London fit persons as Magistrates with, or without, the consent of the Lord Lieutenant of the County of London? I am also authorised by the hon. Member for the St. George's Division of Tower Hamlets to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether all the Magistrates (unpaid) for the County of London (outside the City) have since the appointment of the Duke of Westminster as Lord Lieutenant been his nominees or nominated by him; if not, if he can state what Magistrates (other than the City Magistrates) have been otherwise appointed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Lord Chancellor is prepared to appoint fit persons as Magistrates for the County of London; but I understand that he has not experienced any difficulty in making these appointments in concert with the Lord
  1332
  Lieutenant. Under these circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to contemplate a difficulty which, in all probability, will not arise. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for the St. George's Division, I have to say the Magistrates have all been appointed upon the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant. The Duke of Westminster has acted cordially with the Lord Chancellor in making, in consultation with him, suitable additions to the Loudon Bench.

  FISHING IN THE THAMES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, during the period of Office of the late Government, disposed of a certain right of fishing in the River Thames and part of the river, or an island in the river, belonging to the Crown or public; and whether the Commissioners will undertake not to sell or let into private hands any part of the Thames or rights of fishing therein, or any rent-charges in London belonging to the Crown which have been reserved on Crown grants of land?
  SIR. T. HIBBERT: An osier bed on, and a right of fishing in, the river belonging to the Crown were sold in 1888, as mentioned in Appendix 3 (b) to 67th Report to Parliament of the Commissioners of Woods. The Crown is believed to own only one other fishery right in the Thames, which is adjacent to the Home Bark, Windsor. It would not be consistent with the duties of the Commissioners of Woods, under the Land Revenue Acts, to give the undertaking asked for.

  INSANITARY AREAS IN LAMBETH.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is true that an insanitary area in Lambeth belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall; and on what grounds the Duchy officials, who have been asked by the London County Council to improve it, have refused to do so?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: There is no insanitary area in Lambeth belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall. Some houses in the parish of Lambeth, known as the Salutation Place area, are erected on land belonging to the Duchy; but the Duchy has at present no power to interfere with

  1333
  the property, as, in accordance with special Acts of Parliament, it will not come into the Duchy's possession until 1909. The Duchy have offered to cooperate with the London County Council so far as the Duchy Acts allow.

  MILK RATES ON THE MIDLAND.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, on 7th April last, the Secretary of the East and West Junction and Stratford-on-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railways Company wrote to the Board of Trade that arrangements had been made to adopt a reduced rate for the conveyance of milk, and that this would apply to all traffic forwarded since 31st December, 1892; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding this promise, Messrs. J. G. Parker and John Fearn and others connected with the milk trade have been, and are still being, charged the increased rate from Kineton to Euston, and that the Company have refused, and still refuse, to carry their milk unless the increased rate is actually paid; whether he is aware that in similar cases in dealing with large firms and companies the Railway Companies have been carrying goods and produce without exacting the payment of the increased rates, leaving a final settlement of account in the future; and whether he will make representations to the Railway Company in question, with a view of putting an end to the inconvenience and loss now being suffered by farmers and others in the Kineton district?
  MR. MUNDELLA: On the 7th April the Railway Company informed the Board of Trade that they proposed to adopt a reduced rate, and that it would (where necessary) apply to all traffic forwarded since December 31st. I have now received a letter from the Company, in which they state that the rate of 1d. per gallon in operation prior to January 1st was charged in error by their station agent, the proper rate being l¼d. The Company add that Messrs. Parker and Fearn are the only senders of milk from Kineton Station. In answer to the third and fourth paragraphs of the hon. Member's question, I believe that there are cases where such an arrangement has been made, and I will communicate further with the Railway Company with reference to the complaint.
  MR. COBB: But is it not a fact that previous to the 31st December last the
  1334
  rate was 1d., and it has since been increased to 1¼d.?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes; but the Company explain that this was a mistake of the station-master's, and the excess charge will be refunded.

  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION AT EASTBOURNE.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that, in considering the accommodation provided in the elementary schools at Eastbourne, Mr. Lindsell, the Inspector appointed to conduct a public inquiry on 20th April, refused to recognise 202 school places which, as lately as 14th January, 1893, had been recognised by the Department as "available" for being counted in estimating an alleged deficiency; and whether he has considered the difficulty caused to the school managers by such a decision?
  MR. ACLAND: The notices published by the Department on 14th January last estimated the existing accommodation available for the district at 3,791 school places. A public inquiry was afterwards claimed and held. The Inspector appointed to conduct it has reported that 152 of these places must be deducted on account of defective premises in several schools, and that 50 other places at present unoccupied at an outlying school are not, in fact, available for any other children than those who are now attending it. The schools which have had their accommodation somewhat reduced will be recognised for the current school year for the old numbers, so that no difficulty will be caused to the managers.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: If the school managers are willing to make good the defects, will the Department withdraw its arbitrary edict?
  MR. ACLAND: I believe the demand is to supply 1,300 places. Of course, that may be done in various ways, and any proposal the managers may make will be fully considered by the Department.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Report of the Intermediate Education

  1335
  Commissioners for 1892 has not yet been published; and if the Commissioners can expedite its publication?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Report referred to was laid on the Table of this House on the 30th May, and will, I understand, be circulated amongst Members on Thursday or Friday next.

  THE HAZARA EXPEDITION.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, now that the frontier medal has been granted to the troops engaged in the Hazara Expeditious of 1882 and 1891, the India Office will re-consider the question whether the frontier medal should not also be granted to the troops that took part in the Zhob Valley Expedition of 1884?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: In 1885 the then Under Secretary of State explained in the House that the circumstances of the Zhob Valley Expedition were not held to warrant the grant of the medal; and a similar answer has since then been given to the questions which have from time to time been asked on the subject. The Secretary of State sees no reason for re-considering the decision in the fact that a medal was given for the Hazara Expedition.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES IN THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether representations have reached him from various parts of the Metropolis to the effect that poor persons are now kept in their crowded homos, suffering from infectious diseases, because there is no room for them in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board; and whether he hopes within a few days to give such decisions as will enable that Board to provide temporary accommodation in this great emergency?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have not received representations from different parts of the Metropolis that poor persons are now kept in their crowded homes suffering from infectious disease in consequence of there being no room in the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. But I am well aware that the managers are in great difficulty in consequence of the large number of cases of
  1336
  fever in the Metropolis at the present time. The only question as regards additional accommodation which is now undecided by the Local Government Board relates to the purchase of land at Lewisham for an asylum, and the Board are in communication with the Managers on the subject. I will give prompt attention to any proposals which I may receive from the Managers with regard to the provision of temporary accommodation.
  MR. TALBOT: Has the right hon. Gentleman no information of a case at Westminster, which it has been found impossible to remove, although there are children living in the same building?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have no information of that, but I must say that it is a lamentable state of things if that be so. I will cause inquiry to be made.

  THE GERMAN ELECTIONS.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Secretary of State will ask Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin to report fully upon the operation of the second ballot in the elections now taking place throughout the German Empire?
  SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has already been instructed to report upon the operation of the second ballot during the present elections in the German Empire.

  THE IRISH REGISTRATION ACT.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the precept under the Irish Registration Act is not made the same as the English precept?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am of opinion that it would be well the Irish precept should follow as far as practicable the precept used in England. I have already directed a comparison of the two which is now being carried out.

  TRAINING SHIPS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are at present eight training ships and four training brigs stationed in English ports, and not one of either class in an Irish port; and whether, under these circumstances, he will take into consideration the Resolutions lately adopted by the Cork Corporation, the Cork Chamber of

  1337
  Commerce, and the Queenstown Town Commissioners, urging upon the Admiralty the claim of Queenstown as a suitable station for a training ship, being the headquarters of the Royal Navy in Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): There are five training ships in England and one in Scotland. Two of these have another ship attached to them to afford additional room; but in each case the two ships form one establishment. There are six sailing tenders in England and one in Scotland. The lion, and gallant Member has already been informed, in answer to a question on the 1st of June, that there is no present intention of increasing the numbers of boys' training ships, and that, should any need for increase arise, the relative advantages of Cork and other places in the United Kingdom would be considered.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the present distribution of training ships fair to Ireland?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The question is scarcely one of fairness to Ireland. A great many other questions have to be considered. Foremost among these are the interests of the Navy and the interests of the training of the boys.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of boys from Ireland have to travel to English ports in order to get the training?
  [The question was not answered.]

  THE HELSTON OUTRAGE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, as has been stated in this daily papers, a double-barrelled gun was discharged through the windows of the house of Mr. Henry Rogers, of Helston, Registrar of the County Court, at about 11 o'clock on Monday night, shattering the glass and frightening Mr. Rogers considerably, and that a second volley was fired through Miss Rogers' bedroom window, fortunately without doing any personal injury to the lady; and whether any arrests have yet been made?
  MR. THEOBALD: May I ask whether Captain Moonlight or any of his lieutenants have lately been in the neighbourhood of Helston; whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department now fully recognises the enormity of the offence, seeing that it was attempted against a person whose political opinions were in accord with those of Her Majesty's present Government, instead of having been attempted by the Land League, of which several of the present Government's supporters and allies in this House are Members?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think that the supplementary question of the hon. Member requires serious notice. I understand from a Report which I have received from the Chief Constable of Cornwall that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. With regard to the second paragraph, I understand that the police are satisfied that the object of the outrage was to frighten and not to injure Mr. Rogers. At present no arrests have been made, but the matter is being carefully investigated.
  MR. SMITH-BARRY: May I ask whether the outrage was of an agrarian nature?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the gravity of a diabolical outrage like that to which I have drawn attention depends on the question whether it is agrarian or not?
  [No answer was given.]

  LABOUR CONTRACTS IN ESSEX.
  MR. SAUNDERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a Memorandum of Agreement, published in The Weekly Times and Echo of 4th June last, between a farmer and a labourer in East Wilts, binding the servant to be always at his work at all hours and times required in his capacity of cowman and to milk 10 cows or more at each milking for 7s. per week, subject to fines of 2d. per quarter of an hour for being late in the morning or otherwise absent, and 2s. 6d. for any cow found to be only partially milked; and will he state whether such fines are a violation of the Truck Act or otherwise illegal; and, if so, will he ascertain if such agreements are general in East Wilts, and adopt measures to stop the practice?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the Memorandum of Agreement referred to. The effect of a recent decision ("Hewlett v. Allen") is, I am advised, not that fines are illegal, but that deductions from wages on account of fines are not authorised, and, therefore, are prohibited by the Truck Act. I do not think there is any occasion for me to make any further inquiry into the matter.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' RETURNS.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government have taken into consideration the statement contained in Table 8 of the last Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies (1891), with reference to the state of the funds of those Societies; and whether, in view of the Chief Registrar's admission that he is unable to adequately enforce the law against those Societies which do not comply with the requirements of the Acts in respect of Annual Returns and Valuations, the Government will endeavour to give him additional and sufficient powers for that purpose, in order to safeguard, as far as possible, the savings of the working classes?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Avoids used by the Chief Registrar were not "an adequate enforcement of the law," but an "exhaustive enforcement" of it. In the years 1891–2 the Law Clerk of the Friendly Societies Registry conducted 110 prosecutions, and the Chief Registrar is not of opinion that a larger number of prosecutions is necessary for the adequate enforcement of the law. This view appears to me to be confirmed by the large increase in the number of Annual Returns and Valuations received between the years 1882 and 1892.

  PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the important Returns connected with the Government of Ireland Bill are not circulated to Members, but are not delivered to Members unless specially asked for, thus causing delay and trouble; and what is the estimated saving to the Treasury obtained by withholding short Returns of this importance from general circulation?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Rules regulating the distribution of Parliamentary Papers are those of 1889 recommended by the Select Committee on the subject. Paragraphs 1 and 6 of those Rules provided that general delivery of all Papers to Members, as a matter of course, was to cease with the exception of Votes and Proceedings, Estimates and Reports of Royal Commissions and Select Committees; but in the case of Papers of special interest, a full delivery was to be made on instructions being given to that effect, if a Command Paper, by a Cabinet Minister or by the Select Committee; if printed by Order of the House of Commons, by the Speaker. I shall be careful to have such Papers as are referred to by the right hon. Gentleman distributed in future.

  MEMBERS AND THEIR CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any exemption in the Statute 4 & 5 Vict., c. 56, in favour of the Official Correspondence of Ministers or of Public Departments, or any distinction taken between them and Members of the House of Commons; whether he will consult the Law Officers if it would be legal, without further legislation, to extend the same privileges which attaches to such Correspondence to the letters of Members of Parliament posted within the precincts of the House, the expense of such an arrangement being defrayed out of a Vote for the purpose; and whether he will favourably consider the advisability of such an arrangement if it is found to be legal, and will give an approximate estimate of the cost of same?
  MR. A. MORLEY: My answer to the first question is, No. The Act 3 & 4 Vict., c. 96 expressly abolished existing privileges of free postage, the chief of which was that enjoyed by Members of Parliament. I see no necessity for consulting the Law Officers, because, as I informed the hon. Member on Friday, the change he desires would require a fresh Act of Parliament.
  DR. MACGREGOR: May I ask the Postmaster General if he will state why paid officials of the Crown are allowed free

  1341
  postage for letters they send to Members of this House, while unpaid Members of the House have to stamp letters sent in reply to Ministers of the Crown?
  MR. A. MORLEY: There is not a system of free postage in regard to Public Departments. No money actually passes, but all the transactions are shown on the Votes. Members of the House and the public generally are allowed to write to Ministers without stamping the letters.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I have never been aware of that.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman charge double postage on all letters sent to Members of this House?
  MR. HOGAN: In connection with this subject, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Members of several of our Colonial Parliaments have not only their letters franked through the post, but are also presented with free first-class passes over all the railways, and have a prescriptive right to the box-seat on all coaches carrying Her Majesty's mails; and whether he can give any satisfactory reasons why Members of the Imperial Parliament should not enjoy similar facilities for the performance of their public duties?
  [The question was not answered.]

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS.
  MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received from the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin a document entitled, Evidence respecting the Electric Eight as a Lighthouse Illuminant, referring to a trial between the electric light and Mr. Wigham's new gas light, proposed to be made by that gentleman at his own expense; whether he will inform the House how the matter stands as to the application of the electric light as a "fixed" light at the Old Head of Kinsale; whether the Board of Trade and Trinity House have given sanction to that application; and whether, considering the important evidence in the paper above referred to, including reference to the loss of the Eider at St. Catherine's Point, and the opinions expressed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 92, 27th February last, he will give instruc-
  1342
  tions that nothing further be done until the trial proposed by Mr. Wigham shall have been completed?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received the document referred to, which I presume has also been sent to the Commissioners of Irish Lights, with whom will rest the decision whether in this instance experiments which do not involve the expenditure of public money should be carried out. In March, 1891, the Commissioners applied to the Trinity House for the requisite sanction to the establishment of a fixed electric light at the Old Head of Kinsale, and the Trinity House declined to give their statutory approval, a course which was concurred in by the Board of Trade.
  MR. W. KENNY: Have not the Board of Trade the power to make experiments themselves?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir.

  THE EMPLOYMENT OF DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the case that non-commissioned officers and soldiers in the Reserve or discharged are ineligible for appointments in Government Departments after 32 years of ago; whether, seeing that in Austro-Huugary non-commissioned officers after 12 years' service in the active Army have a claim to situations under the State, and are eligible up to 45 years of age, that in France they are eligible up to 47 years, while in Germany and Italy they become eligible after 12 years' service, and that superior situations are preferentially given to them, he will consider the advisability of rendering such approved persons eligible in this country; and whether, in the interest alike of the Army and of the Civil Service, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether non-commissioned officers should be induced to prolong their service with the colours by having their future guaranteed, and their habits of discipline and method utilised in other branches of the Public Service?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Rule for messengers in Government Departments is usually admission up to the age of 35 years, with a general exception in favour of men with Army or Navy service, who may deduct from their actual age any time which they have served to-

  1343
  wards pension. I doubt whether, on the whole, the Rules are any less liberal than those prevailing in other countries. The last paragraph raises a large question, which is, I think, rather for the consideration of the Secretary of State for War and the Board of Admiralty than for me.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the prospect of employment for discharged soldiers by the State has not had a very beneficial effect in improving the quality and conduct of recruits?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot undertake to attribute to any particular cause the increasing improvement in the quality of recruits, but I have no doubt that the employment of men after discharge by the State must have a salutary effect.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government have passed any Order in Councilor self-denying Ordinance providing for the employment of old soldiers in the public offices instead of domestic servants?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The subject has been under the consideration of the Treasury during the last few days, and a communication with reference to the course to be taken will be made in a short time.

  RE-DIRECTION OF POSTAL MATTER.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General will he explain on what grounds, until the issue of the existing Regulation on the subject of the re-direction of letters, all postal packets, including letters, book-post matter, and newspapers, were redirected and delivered free within the same district, provided that notice of removal were given at the district post office; whether on granting, under certain conditions, the privilege of free re-direction of letters to the same or another district, the former privilege of free redirection of other postal packets within the same district was suppressed; and whether he will restore the privilege thus suppressed as regards removal, of which due notice is given, to another address within the same district?
  MR. A. MORLEY: In answer to the first paragraph, I can only say that under the old system of re-direction a practice had grown up of re-directing any kind of
  1344
  correspondence without charge within the limits of the same postal delivery. This exemption was, however, anomalous; and when the Government granted in June of last year the important concession of free re-direction for letters to any part of the United Kingdom, it was thought right, while retaining the charge for re-direction on other postal packets, to make the charge on such packets uniform in its operations, and to abolish the local exemption which had previously existed. I am not prepared to recommend a departure from the decision of the late Government in this matter.

  THE VENTILATION OF THE DIVISION LOBBIES.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the extreme discomfort which Members have to endure in the Division Lobbies owing to the inadequate supply of fresh air; and whether he will endeavour to remedy this by removing the glass from the doors of the Lobbies, or in some other way?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I have given orders for the windows to be kept open as much as possible. But I may point out that the discomfort of Members is often unnecessarily prolonged by the delay of hon. Members in clearing in the House.

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the unanimity of opinion among those who are interested in the Constabulary Force Fund, he will direct that the fund be immediately wound up and distributed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already replied very fully to several questions addressed to me on the subject of the winding up of the benefit branch of this Fund, and to these replies I am afraid I have nothing to add.

  SWINE FEVER.
  MR. FELLOWES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has communicated with the Treasury on the question of swine fever, as promised to the depu-

  1345
  tation on Tuesday last; and whether he is now prepared to state the intentions of the Government as to taking immediate action in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I am still in communication with my Colleagues with regard to the subject of swine fever, and it is not as yet possible for me to add anything to what I have recently stated in this House and in reply to the deputation which waited upon me a few days ago. As to the necessity of the immediate action which the hon. Member suggests, I would refer him to what I said in reply to the question he put to me; on the 5th instant.
  MR. FELLOWES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when these communications will be completed?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I can assure the hon. Member there will be no unnecessary delay.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I should like to ask if it is not a fact that even supposing a Bill is proposed and passed it will not require a considerable time to organise the staff in order to give effect to it? Do the Government intend to deal with the question during the present Session?
  MR. H. GARDNER: The evidence given before the Committee has not been circulated a fortnight. There has been no unnecessary delay.
  MR. FELLOWES: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of calling attention to the subject.

  DEER FORESTS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings before the Deer Forest Commission on the 14th instant, when a factor on an estate in Inverness-shire stated that a large farm with good arable laud, carrying 8,500 sheep, was to be turned into another doer forest, because as he said there was some difficulty in letting it, yet confessed that it had not been advertised to let; whether, under these circumstances, the Government will take such steps as will put a stop to the increase of deer forests until the Royal Commission has
  1346
  reported to this House; and whether the Government will support a Bill now before the House having this for its object?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have read in the newspapers the report of the proceedings before the Deer Forest Commission. It bears out the statement of my hon. Friend. It is certainly the case that sheep farms are in course, and for ever since the Report of the Highland Commission have been in course, of conversion into deer forests without any regard being paid to the limit of 1,000 feet above the sea recommended by that Commission. The knowledge of this state of things was one main reason for the appointment of the Deer Forests Commission, and the action of the Government will be determined after receiving their Report.
  DR. MACGREGOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Inverness-shire is the largest county in Scotland, that it has an area equal to about one-seventh of the whole of Scotland, that more than one-third of it is under deer forests, that one-tenth of it is locked up, that 400 square miles of land between that county and Ross-shire has been locked up without oven any shooting over it, and are the Government to sit down quietly and allow this state of affairs to go on?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I was brought up at an English public school, and my geographical knowledge has been picked up by rule of tongue. I am aware that there is one county in Scotland bordering on Inverness-shire, in which out of 2,200,000 acres 1,200,000 acres are already under deer forest, and I think that is a very serious state of affairs. I can add nothing to the answer I have already given.
  DR. MACGREGOR: The question is, what is the remedy?

  GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state definitely whether the Government intend, this Session, to introduce the Bill necessary to give effect to that part of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Greenwich Age Pensions (1892), which involves a charge on the Consolidated Fund?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It is intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on this matter, and I am considering how it can best be done. If it is necessary for the purpose to introduce a Bill this Session that course will be adopted.

  THE TREATMENT OF INEBRIATES.
  MR. KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government intend to take any, and if so, what, action with the intention of carrying out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Inebriates?
  MR. ASQUITH: I hope to be able to give effect to the recommendations of the Department on the treatment of inebriates, but I can hold out no prospect of dealing with the subject during the present Session.

  THE EDUCATION OF SOLDIERS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the highest grades of the noncommissioned ranks are now restricted to men holding first-class certificates of education; and whether this restriction is found to limit too much the area of choice for promotion to those grades, or to act unfairly towards non-commissioned officers of practical experience who from the important nature of their duties cannot find the time for attendance at school?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Appointment to the rank of warrant officer and to a small number of select posts held by non-commissioned officers can only be obtained by men with first-class certificates of education. This Rule was introduced in 1888, but a relaxation was granted as regards all candidates who were then non-commissioned officers. I am informed that the Rule has worked well. It has not unduly limited the area of choice, nor can it be said to have acted unfairly towards non-commissioned officers of practical experience, though it may have prevented some such men from obtaining posts for which they were not educationally qualified. It would be undesirable to hold out any hope of the relaxation of the Rule.

  THE CASE OF THOMAS BUTLER.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Butler, police pensioner, who was so severely injured by a gunshot wound accidentally inflicted by a comrade while on duty, at a police station in County Cork, that his forearm had to be amputated, and who was thereupon discharged on a pension of £10 16s. 8d. per annum; whether he is aware that Butler is now residing, in absolute penury, precariously supported by his friends, near Strokestown, in the County of Roscommon; and whether he will take steps to ameliorate as far as possible his position?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the question. Butler's service in the Force was only two years and one month. Inquiry is being made into his present circumstances, and, if necessary, a further communication will be addressed to the Treasury on the matter.

  THE SUEZ CANAL SHARES.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total present estimated value of the Suez Canal shares, purchased by Lord Beaconsfield in 1875 for £4,000,000; what amount of the £4,000,000 has been paid off by the Sinking Fund; when the shares thus purchased will be entitled to share the annual dividend; what the amount of the dividends paid by the Suez Canal Company has been for the past three years; and what proportion the British tonnage of ships passing through the Canal bears to the total tonnage?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The answer to the first question is £17,750,000; to the second question, £3,805,000; to the third question, the 1st of July, 1894; to the fourth question, for 1890, 17 per cent,; 1891, 21 per cent.; 1892, 18 per cent.; and the answer to the fifth question is 75 per cent.

  IRISH POST OFFICE EXPENDITURE.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will lay upon the Table a statement showing how the division of expenditure

  1349
  between the Post Office in Ireland and the Post Office in Great Britain has been arrived at; and if he will state if the Estimate already presented to the House has been approved or confirmed by the permanent officials of the Post Office?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I am not quite sure that I understand the exact nature of my right hon. Friend's question. Is it that he wishes to know in each case the grounds upon which the particular division of charge is made? If so, I will endeavour to obtain that information. With regard to the latter part of the question, my right hon. Friend is well aware that the Government cannot know anything except through the Heads of Departments. If they are to substitute the responsibility of the permanent officials for that of the Heads of Departments, in regard to the accuracy of statements, the House of Commons would entirely lose its supervising power over the Public Offices. Heads of Departments must judge of the information they receive from the permanent officials.

  SUPPLY.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of giving one day in each week to Supply, so that the ordinary business of the country may make some progress?
  DR. MACGREGOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not more effectively apply the weapons forged by his adversaries to push on Home Rule?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I would be very thankful to anyone who would put a weapon in my hands—provided it is one that could be becomingly used—which would have the effect of pushing on the Government of Ireland Bill. In answer to the question of my hon. Friend below the Gangway, I do not think I could make a periodical application of that kind with advantage to the House. The state of our arrangements must be governed mainly by the exigencies of the Public Service, and it will be necessary shortly to have a brief suspension of the proceedings on the Irish Bill in order to obtain money for the Public Service. We propose, therefore, to take the Navy
  1350
  Estimates on Monday next and the Army Estimates on Tuesday. Those two days will necessarily be taken out of the scope of the proceedings of the Irish Bill. Due notice will be given of the particular Votes which are to be taken.
  MR. MACFARLANE: With a view to prolong the time at the disposal of the Government for Public Business, will the right hon. Gentleman move to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE FRENCH IN SIAM.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury (1) whether his attention has been called to a letter written by Mr. Holt S. Hallett to The Times of 16th. June, regarding Siam; (2) whether the French claim the whole of the Siamese territory east of the Mekong, amounting to one-third of the Kingdom of Siam; (3) whether French troops have invaded Siam, and occupied Stingtreng, Khong, and Camnon; (4) whether it is proposed to patrol the Mekong with French gunboats, and to run French steamers on the river; (5) whether the frontier of British Burmah touches the Mekong; (6) and what stops Her Majesty's Government are taking to preserve these important territories of Siam and the contiguous regions of Southern China for British trade?
  SIR E. GREY: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer those questions. (1.); Attention has been called to Mr. Hallett's letter. (2.) As was stated on the 1st instant, in reply to an inquiry made by the hon. Member for the South-port Division, and by the Secretary of State in the House of Lords on the 15th, neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Siamese Government, so far as is known, have any distinct knowledge of what territory on the east of the Mekong is claimed by the French. (3.) It is understood that the places indicated, but somewhat incorrectly spelt, in the third clause of the question have been occupied by the French. (4.) Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to state what are the intentions of the French Government as to their future action on the Mekong River or whether, indeed, such action as that described be practicable. (5.) The State of Kyaington, which is in feudatory

  1351
  relations to the Indian Government, does touch the Mekong in a portion of its eastern frontier, and the State of Kyaing Chaing, over which Great Britain has feudal rights, but which has been ceded by us to Siam, lies astride of the river. This portion of the river is, however, at least 400 miles distant from the nearest point of the present French operations. (6.) The question, as far as we are aware, is one of disputed frontier between France and Siam, and no steps have been required to preserve trade relations with Siam or Southern China. I am enabled to add that the report of the despatch of a French fleet to Bangkok is not correct.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it not the fact that the French are occupying the whole of Eastern Siam up to the Mekong. Has any protest or communication of any kind been made by Her Majesty's Government in regard to such occupation?
  SIR E. GREY: Our information is that the French have occupied the places named in the question.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The whole of Siam up the Mekong?
  SIR E. GREY: The Siamese Government have not yet been able to obtain from the French Government the exact extent of their claims. But at present the French have not got within 400 miles of territory over which we claim rights.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: And no representations have been made to the French Government?
  SIR E. GREY: None by us.

  THE ROYAL WEDDING.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to make any arrangements for the representation of this House at the Royal Wedding; and whether Mr. Speaker is to be requested to attend officially on behalf of the House?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, what I find has taken place is this: A communication has been made to the Speaker of the House of Commons including him among the distinguished personages receiving invitations to Royal marriages. I think that has been the case on almost every occasion that has occurred. But I do not find that he
  1352
  has ever been invited, in a strict sense, in his capacity as the Representative of this House. I think the evidence is rather to a contrary effect, because while several of these marriages have been strictly State ceremonials, others of them being not State ceremonials, though they were Court festivities, I find that on the occasion of the State ceremonials, as when the Queen was married, Speaker Lefevre was invited with Mrs. Shaw-Lefevre. A similar course was taken on the marriage of the Princess Royal, and that of the Prince of Wales as to Speaker Denison and Mrs. Denison, so that it could not be considered that Mr. Speaker attended in his strictly official capacity as representing the House of Commons.

  THE FINANCIAL CLAUSES OF THE HOME RULE BILL.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to circulate the new Financial Clauses of the Home Rule Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have already stated, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, that they will be laid upon the Table, as I hope, before the end of the week.

  THE TITLE OF "HONOURABLE."
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve of the use and recognition throughout Her Majesty's dominions of the title of "honourable" at present appertaining only locally to Members of the Executive or Legislative Councils in Colonies possessing responsible Government for so long as they remain entitled thereto, whether for life or during tenure of the qualifying office, is it the intention of the Government, should the Home Rule Bill become law, to advise Her Majesty to graciously approve of the similar use and recognition of the title of "honourable" in the case of Members of the Irish Executive or Legislative Council, or of both of them, should there appertain to them in Ireland that honourable distinction?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This question is one which seems to anticipate the speedy passing of the Home Rule

  1353
  Bill. I hope it may be so. But the question as to the titles of those who may be Members of the new Legislature is one which will very well bear a little postponement.

  DEPRECIATION OF THE RUPEE.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to give notice that on the introduction of the Indian Budget I will move that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that there shall be an equalisation of military and other charges between this country and India, and that a Committee shall he appointed to report on the subject.
  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Thomas Hope, esquire, for the county of Linlithgow.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill, Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
  NEW WRIT.
  For Pontefract, v. Harold J. Reckitt esquire, Void Election.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 16th June.]
    [TWENTY-THIRD NIGHT.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 4 (Restrictions on Powers of Irish Legislature.)
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that Sub-section 5, which the Committee was then discussing, provided that the powers of the Irish Legislature should not extend to the making of any law whereby private property might be taken without just compensation. The Committee would notice that the sub-section, as it stood, provided -compensation only for private property taken. He ventured to propose an
    1354
    Amendment which would secure that compensation should be given, not only for private property taken, but for private property "injuriously affected." He did not apprehend that the Government would find any great difficulty in assenting to this Amendment, because it came well within the scope of the subsection, and dealt with a point which the draftsman might possibly have overlooked. It might be suggested that the words "property taken" had a wide and general operation, and that it was difficult specifically to provide for all matters which ought to come within the sub-section. But the words "property taken" would not cover a large number of interests which would be especially subject to legislation by such a Body as the proposed Irish Legislature. For private property actually taken it would be hard to suppose that compensation would not he given by any persons actuated by common honesty. Some recognised compensation would no doubt be paid. But there were very many interests of great importance which might be injuriously affected, and for which no compensation whatever would be given if they restricted the provision to the taking of property only. He would call the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown to the fact that in the Lands Clauses Act there was a distinct section which provided for the giving of compensation for property injuriously affected, and a distinction was drawn between property taken and property "injuriously affected." If such a provision were necessary in the Lands Clauses Act it would be equally necessary in this measure. He might be asked what were the interests injuriously affected which would not be compensated under the section as framed. His reply was that there were easements and privileges of great value, for which no compensation would be obtained under the provision giving compensation for property taken. Lauds might be flooded, streams might be diverted, and a diminution in the flow of water might be brought about, property might be deprived of river frontage, houses of lateral, support buildings might be affected by tunnelling and vibration, and in many other ways lands might be injured, &c, and unless some provision for compensation was made valuable rights and interests might thus

    1355
    be taken away from the owner without his obtaining any redress. The narrowing of a road might injure a man's trade, ancient lights might be interfered with, injury to property might be caused by the vibration of machinery. These were cases in which no compensation was provided for under the section. He was sure there was no wish on the part of the Government to deprive owners of property of the right to compensation for such injuries, and he could hardly suppose that any fair-minded man sitting on the Irish Benches would wish to injure property without giving fair compensation for the injury. It was, perhaps, even more important to provide in the Bill for this class of cases than for those which the sub-section, as drafted, provided for. It was well within the bounds of supposition that Acts of the Irish Legislature might be passed affecting property in the way he had referred to without compensation. If it was right to have a sub-section providing compensation for property taken, it was also right to provide compensation for property injuriously affected, and this would only be a reasonable and practical addition to the sub-section.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 33, after the word "taken," to insert the words "or injuriously affected."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): I cannot, on behalf of the Government, agree to this Amendment. I think that a misconception underlies the whole argument of the hon. Gentleman. The clauses in the Lands Clauses Acts show that the words "injuriously affected" possess a very special meaning. That Act deals with lands which may be "taken" and with lands that may be "injuriously affected." It is not the law now that persons whose lands are injuriously affected are necessarily entitled to compensation in all cases. It has been clearly decided that the clause about lands "injuriously affected" applies in many cases only when some land of the person claiming has been taken. Other persons, doubtless, may have their lands injuriously affected in a similar manner; but it has been laid down that such claims as these persons
    1356
    may have are so vague and uncertain that it would not be proper, under any system of legislation, to provide for them. Accordingly, they are not provided for. The words employed in the present case will certainly include the taking of easements—such, for instance, as light, right of road, and so on. The section is, in fact, wide enough to cover the cases mentioned, and to allow compensation in all cases in which, in the opinion of the Government, compensation ought to be allowed. It would be distinctly against the existing law of the United Kingdom to provide, in terms, compensation for all the claims which might come under claims for lauds injuriously affected; and we should only be introducing uncertainty in place of certainty if we were to sanction the insertion of the words proposed. For these reasons the Government think that the Amendment ought to be rejected.
    SIR H. JAMES: The Solicitor General has presented one view, but there is another which I would like to put before the Committee. It is true that the words "injuriously affected" have become words of art, and possess a particular moaning, but by the construction put upon them by the hon. and learned Gentleman great injustice might be done. Under the view of the Solicitor General, a man's property might be cut in two, and a small piece—say, one acre—taken out of the middle; but the owner could obtain no compensation save in respect of the one acre which was taken, although the injury done to his property might be far greater than the value of the acre which was actually taken. It would in the same way be possible to take the garden ground in front of a house and pay only for the land so taken without compensating the owner for the injury done to the dwelling. To allay any possible fears, I will suggest that the Government should allow the insertion of the words "injuriously affected," and that they should define their meaning. [A laugh.] That laugh seems to indicate that the Irish Home Rule Members wish to have the power of injuriously affecting property without having to pay compensation, and I will, therefore, press my suggestion upon the Government. I am, after all, only asking you to secure that compensation shall be paid in Ireland as is done in

    1357
    this country for property injuriously affected. Millions of money have been paid to persons in this country in respect of property injuriously affected. I will suggest that such claims should be limited in the Bill to occasions when property is absolutely injured. A man's house may, for instance, be undermined, but not taken. Ought the owner to receive no compensation? I am not asking for compensation for fancy rights; but when property is substantially injured it is right that the owner should be compensated. I trust, therefore, that the Government will re-consider their decision and accept this Amendment.
    MR. W. KENNYsaid, the Solicitor General seemed to take the view that the words "property taken" would be sufficient to cover compensation for severance or other consequential injuries to property. But had the hon. Gentleman considered Section 49 of the Lands Clauses Act, by which the jury were to assess separately the sum to be paid by reason of the severance or other consequential injury to the land? The 49th section was very distinct on that point. Not only were the jury to assess the value of the land purchased and to fix the compensation for injury done, but they were to assess the amount of compensation for damage, if any, sustained by the owner of the land by reason of the severance of his land. As he understood the Amendment, its object was to make plain what otherwise was vague and obscure. He could not understand any Member of the Government objecting to the addition of the words proposed, which were taken from an English Act of Parliament, unless, indeed, he were so infatuated with the American Constitution that he was unable to see any good in an English Statute. The English Act was distinct on this subject; this Bill ought to be equally clear, and surely no Member of the Committee could object to an Amendment which would have that effect.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I hope the Government will reconsider the decision that they have announced through the Solicitor General. They seem to think that fanciful claims might be made, but that objection is purely visionary. The words are in the
    1358
    Lands Clauses Act, and have received, during some 50 years, judicial interpretation; and it is quite clear that no compensation will be given unless there is an actionable injury.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: No.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The Attorney General denies the proposition; but I am sure that no lawyer in the House will support him in denying that, unless the injury were actionable if it had not been under the protection of an Act of Parliament, no compensation would be paid in respect of it. That is perfectly certain. The hon. Member for St. Pancras has instanced cases in which, under the section as it stands, owners of property will not be entitled to compensation for "injury." A road might be raised, and the access to his premises made more difficult, yet there would be no compensation for injurious effects in such a ease. These instances might be multiplied. I think it will be a matter for great regret if the Government persevere in rejecting an Amendment which can do no harm.
    MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) had suggested possible injury to property by the flooding of land through public works. Would the Solicitor General inform them how the words "property taken" could be taken to cover the flooding of land?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he would take the case of public drainage works in Ireland. Nothing was more likely than that such works should give rise to the flooding of land, and he would like to know if the tenants of land so flooded were to have no compensation, because the land did not, happen to be scheduled in the Drainage Act.
    An hon. MEMBER asked whether, supposing it was desired to create an easement over laud, there would be any right to compensation under the sub-section?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I can suggest a case still more likely to occur, and one that, has occurred in this city. Take the case of the Metropolitan District Railway. That, of course, goes under a great many houses in London, as the owners and occupants well know, by reason of the

    1359
    consequent depreciation in value. The company have had to pay for compensation for disturbance for going under the houses, although they did not purchase those houses. Surely that is an example of the manner in which property may be injured without being taken. In Staffordshire cases continually arise in which claims are made against mine-owners for damage to houses caused through the subsidence of land under which the mines run. How would such cases in Ireland be governed by the words "property taken"?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): This is one of the many cases with which we have had to deal in the course of the Committee on this Bill, in which Amendments have been put down in vague and general terms, which cannot be defended, and, when this is pointed out, then it is urged that some cases of hardship may arise which are not provided for, and to meet which the Government are invited to supply words. The section does not profess to exhaust every possible case that may occur, but it deals with the great majority of cases by seeking to prevent anything like injustice. It seems to be suggested that the Irish Legislature is sure to inflict grievous wrong on some class or classes of persons, but the very object of this sub-section is to prevent that being done. This is not a proposal to confer a power on the Irish Legislature; it is, on the contrary, one to restrict its powers. Now I come to the arguments that have been advanced. I confess I was a little startled by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham, especially when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury seemed to give his assent to the proposition. I understood the late Home Secretary to say that there could be no claim for "injurious effect" under the Lands Clauses Act which would not give a right of action outside the Act. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury endorse that statement? Is there anybody in the House who will endorse it? I do not think there is. My right hon. Friend cannot have considered the matter; for under the Lauds Clauses Act it is clear that where other portions of an estate dealt with are "injuriously affected"—which per se would
    1360
    not give a cause of action—damages may be awarded. With regard to injury caused by the flooding of land, the answer is that the right of action would rest with the man whose land is flooded; and in the case of interference with easement rights, which are property rights, compensation would have to be given. My right hon. Friend cited the case of the raising of a road which prevented convenient access to a dwelling. Does he say in such a case damage may be given for injurious effect where no part of the property is taken? If he does, then I say he is entirely wrong. I will take a commonly familiar case, that of a public-house at a corner of a street: A railway comes which does not interfere with any property belonging to the owner of the house, but it diverts the course of traffic and interferes with the access to, and the custom of, the house. There is no cause of action in such a case, because no part of the property is taken; but under the Lands Clauses Act, if part of the property were taken, it would properly be alleged that the property was injuriously affected, and there would be a right to compensation. Undoubtedly it is the case, in the matter of railways which cause injurious effects on houses by vibration, thereby rendering them less likely to let, although there is no cause of action, yet there is a palpable injury, and yet the company does not become liable unless other part of the property is taken. I venture to suggest that all the cases which have been cited are covered by the sub-section and by the ordinary law, and that there is no need for the Amendment.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, that he was afraid these legal arguments weighed heavily upon the Committee, and he was very unwilling to continue expressing an opinion in opposition to those of his learned Friend. But he could not agree with any of the views the Attorney General had expressed. He thought that the contention of the right hon. Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Matthews) was correct. He also thought it clear that if injury wag done to a man's land under statutory authority, no compensation could be obtained unless there was negligence in carrying out the powers given by Statute.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: But the Statute would give compensation.
    SIR H. JAMES: Then that view is conclusive in favour of the Amendment, for all it asks is that such compensation shall be secured to the person whose property is injuriously affected. If the Attorney General says that such compensation would always be given by the Irish Parliament, why should not we say that it must be so given.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Government should consent to accept Amendments which they thought were desirable and which only put in precise language that of which they bad merely a popular description in the clause as drafted. They had a clause before them which was but a popular description of that which was intended, and they had been left under this impression down to this 19th of June. Now the whole thing was changed; the Attorney General refused to accept an Amendment with which he agreed. They were not concerned with these popular descriptions. They were concerned with making the clause intelligible, and the Attorney General should tell them whether he was willing, or whether he was not, to insert words which would have that effect. He did not wish to prolong the discussion, nor did he wish to pronounce where lawyers disagreed. The words might, however, be accepted in order to making the meaning perfectly clear, and by yielding in this spirit to Amendments with which they agreed the Government would save a considerable amount of time.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, such an extraordinary extension as this Amendment would effect would destroy the power given to the Irish Legislature. In the first place, they would not impose upon the Irish Legislature a principle which they would never dream of imposing on themselves. That was the conclusion he had arrived at from the discussion. In the second place, if they meant to give the Irish Legislature power over order in Ireland they would be doing an injustice by dealing with a matter of this kind in advance. Such proceedings would be interpreted as against the principle of the Bill and as withdrawing confidence in the Irish people. If that spirit prevailed amongst them they should never have set about Home Rule.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,)said, the words would
    1362
    mean a very much different thing from that understood by the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir H. James), and would apply to things to which these did not apply.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 284.—(Division List, No. 151.)
    MR. H. HOBHOUSErose to move—
    In page 2, line 33, leave out "just compensation," and insert "such compensation as he is at present by law entitled to."
    He said his Amendment was intended to give a little more precision to one of the many indefinite expressions in the clause. The more they saw of the clause the more they felt that, if passed, it would have but one certain result—in a crop of litigation. He supposed they would be told that the phrase "just compensation;" was taken from the American Constitution; but he asked, had it any definite meaning? He did not mean to ask the Committee to deal with the question for any length of time; but he must say a few words in order to show that the meaning even in the American law was not very precise, and that it would be totally inapplicable in the case of Ireland. He had first to notice the omission of the words "for the public use." The United States Constitution did not contemplate the meaning which the omission of these words would convey. In relation to "just compensation" in the United States Constitution, they knew that the State could only take property "for public use." Kent stated—
    "If they (the Legislature) should take it for purposes not of a public nature, as if the Legislature should take the property of A and give it to B, under pretext of some public use or service, such case would be a gross abuse of their discretion and a fraudulent attack on public right, and the law would be clearly un-constitutional and void."
    That was sufficient to show the application in the American law. Therefore, it was clear that the Government were giving an extension to the principle of just compensation which it would be found extremely difficult to carry out. Then, as to the principles of the American law, there were provisions with regard to time and tribunal. With regard to time, the provision for compensation must precede, or be concurrent with, seizure; but in some cases it is sufficient that the owner can

    1363
    coerce payment through the judicial tribunals, or otherwise, without any unreasonable or unnecessary delay. As to tribunals, he found that the party was entitled to an impartial tribunal, but he was not entitled to a jury for assessing the value of the property unless the Constitution had provided such a tribunal for that purpose. There was also a rule to the effect that it was not competent for a State itself to fix the compensation through the Legislature for the reason given immediately after, that this would make the State the judge of its own cause. But in many of the cases they would have to deal with under the Amendment the State would not be the judge in its own cause, but judge in the case of a class of persons different to the class from which the property would be transferred; therefore, this principle of the American Constitution would not apply, and it would be competent, under the principle of the American law, for the State itself to fix the actual compensation to be paid in an Act of Parliament authorising the taking away of the property. The difficulty of applying those principles in a country like Ireland was best seen by taking a concrete case. There was no doubt one of the first acts of the Irish Legislature might very reasonably be expected to be the passing of an Act making it compulsory on owners to sell their fee-simple to their tenants. Supposing that the majority of the Irish Parliament assented to the passing of an Act saying that the owner of land might be bought out by his tenants at a certain number of years' purchase of his judicial rent, would that Act be void or not? To what extent would it be void, and what tribunal was to say it was within the competence of an Irish Parliament to decide how many years' purchase was a just compensation for the owner of the land? Would it be the Exchequer Judges, or would an owner actually have to go to the Privy Council in order to say how many years' purchase should be given him in each case, so that the requirements of this vague section might be complied with? He thought they ought to have some light thrown on the way it was to be worked in practice. Take another case—that of fishery rights, which in some parts of Ireland had produced large sums to the persons owning them. No
    1364
    doubt there were large numbers of persons who would like to enjoy these fishery rights as public rights, and who would not be willing to pay a large number of years' purchase for them. Would an Act appointing as arbitrator—to decide at his own discretion what the compensation should be—a person in sympathy with those who wanted to buy up the rights be void or not? Again, suppose an Act was only void in so far as the amount of compensation was concerned, would the property be allowed to be taken and the owner left to his remedy at law to have the amount of compensation fixed? If the Act worked in that way they would have no proper protection for property under this clause, but only unlimited uncertainty and confusion. The Amendment was a suggestion for a definition directly founded on an explanation given by the only Member of the Government who had hitherto explained what just compensation meant. On the Second Reading Debate the Solicitor General said—
    "If compensation meant simply what compensation the Irish Legislative Body chose to provide, I could understand that a safeguard would be absolutely illusory. But just compensation must be measured by what the Irish and English laws at the present time think to be just; and it would be within the competence, and would be the duty, of every tribunal, from the highest to the lowest, to give such effect to the clause as to render absolutely illegal and void any provision in an Act of the Irish Legislature infringing the fundamental laws of justice."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman was asked who was to decide what the law of justice was in a particular case, and he replied that the Courts of Justice would decide as they decided upon the construction of every Act of Parliament, and he went on to say-—
    "Justice would be determined by the principles of English law. However august or humble a tribunal might be, the standard it would have to take would not be any theory derived from its own conscience, but the standard set by the existing law, and it would be its duty not to depart from it by one jot or tittle."
    That explanation at the time was accepted as a fairly satisfactory explanation, because it gave them to understand that the standard of justice would be that set by the existing law. But doubts had since arisen as to whether the existing law, which was well settled both in

    1365
    Ireland and in this country with regard to the principle of compensation, might not be altered at any time by an Act of the Irish Legislature. What were to be the fundamental principles of justice? Were they to be laid down by this Imperial Parliament, in which they had reason to believe Ireland would be fully represented in future, or were they to be settled by the leaders of the majority in the future Irish Parliament—gentlemen who had taken an extreme view on the Land Question; and, after all, the real significance and importance of this clause was connected with the Land Question. Were they to leave the determination of this question to those who supported the "No Rent" Manifesto not many years ago, or were those who had expressed strong views as to landlords being entitled to the prairie value of the land to fix the amount of just compensation? He ventured to think it would be preferable to the Committee to accept his Amendment rather than leave the subject in the vague way in which it now stood in the Bill. It was quite true his Amendment to some extent stereotyped the principles of compensation so far as the Irish Parliament was concerned; but these principles had been pretty well settled during the last 50 years in this country and Ireland by decisions of the tribunals, and had been nearly uniformly adopted in the Acts that had since been passed. If they were going to depart from those well-settled principles of justice, let it be by the act of this Imperial Parliament, and let those principles of justice in the strong case of taking away a man's property against his will be rather settled by the one legislative tribunal, in which all parts of the United Kingdom were to be represented than by the tribunal given by the new Irish Legislature. Under Clause 9 as it stood, it would be perfectly easy and proper for the 80 Irish Members to move that, in case any amendment of those principles of compensation were carried in the Imperial Parliament, such amendments should also apply to Ireland, and it would be very difficult for anyone to object to that extension; because if they altered those fundamental principles of justice in one part of the Kingdom, they could hardly contend that these alterations ought not to be made in all parts. He considered,
    1366
    whether the Government accepted his Amendment or not, they must do something further to define these words. They should not be satisfied with being told they could not and ought not to be defined. He hoped, therefore, the Government would without delay do what they did with some delay the other day in a similar case when they defined "due process of law," and consent to insert some words defining exactly what was meant by "just compensation."
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 33, to leave out the words "just compensation," in order to insert the words "such compensation as he is at present by law entitled to."—(Mr. Henry Hothouse.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'just compensation' stand part of the Clause."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): The hon. Member has with his accustomed clearness conveyed to the Committee in a way that will not be mistaken the object of his Amendment and the grounds upon which he advocates it. But upon the part of the Government I have to say, in the first place, that we conceive the clause to be adequate for the purpose intended, and, in the next place, that the substitution proposed by my hon. Friend would, as he admitted, stereotype the rule upon the matter of compensation, which, in our judgement, it would be I undesirable to do. Again, I must bog to recall the Committee to the position in which this Amendment stands in relation to the clause. The clause with which we are dealing is one which imposes restrictions upon the power of the Legislative Body to make laws, and we, in the sub-clause in question, provide that the powers of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to the making of a law which does not provide that where property is taken there shall be just compensation. Now, surely that is an enunciation of principle—clear, distinct, and unambiguous. My hon. Friend asks who is to define what is just compensation? The answer is, that as in every other written Constitution the construction must be for the decision of the judicial tribunals of the country. This is, in effect, a written Constitution, and I have to answer my hon. Friend's question in this way: He

    1367
    put the case of the Irish Legislative Body passing an Act for the taking of private property without just compensation to the owner of the property so taken, and he asked the question whether that Act would or would not be null and void; and who wore to determine the question. My answer to the first question is, that if it were determined that the compensation provided was not just, the Act would be null and void.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSE: The whole of the Act?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: The provision dealing with the matter of compensation, and those other provisions which depended upon and were connected with it. There might be other provisions which might have an independent existence apart from that question.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSE: The land would not be taken?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: If the Act is declared to be null and void the land cannot be taken. Then my hon. Friend asks who shall determine that question in the first instance. The question might arise in any ordinary private litigation in the ordinary Courts of Justice. But Clause 19, Sub-clause 4, has a special provision in which any person affected has the right to bring the matter before the Exchequer Judges, and there is an ultimate appeal to the Privy Council in this country. So much as regards the two questions of my hon. Friend. Now, as to the stereotyping, which is the second objection to this proposal. There are few persons who know the history of the Lands Clauses Act who are not aware of the enormous change that has taken place in the scale of compensation paid to owners of land taken for public purposes between 1845–46 and the present time. A Committee of the House of Lords which considered this matter and reported upon it wont the length of recommending that in cases where land was compulsorily taken there should be a provision in the Lands Clauses Act by which, in addition to the value of the land, there should be a compulsory allowance of, I think, 100 percent., because of the owner being compelled to sell the land. Those who have had much to do with this question of compensation will recollect there has been a gradual descent from those figures. I have known 20 per cent, given by way of a
    1368
    compulsory allowance; but at the present day there is an almost uniform allowance—against the justice of which many people are found to protest—of 10 per cent. Again, there is another question looming in the not very remote distance. Take the question of betterment, a principle which has received the sanction of a Parliamentary Committee of the House of Commons. That may be the law of the Imperial Parliament, or it may not be the law of the Imperial Parliament. It may be the law of the Irish Parliament, and may be considered to be perfectly consistent with just principles that if a man, part of whose land is taken, receives indirectly a benefit from an undertaking in respect to other land which goes a long way to meet, if not wholly to meet, the injury he receives in respect of the portion of the land taken away, such case shall be met by the future state of the law, and it would be a perfectly just consideration to take into account when fixing that compensation. I pronounce no opinion upon that point—it is not necessary to do so—but I submit I have said enough to justify the objection that the effect of this Amendment would be to stereotype the law. For the reasons I have given we cannot accept this Amendment.
    SIR E. CLARKE: The answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General may be a sufficient one; but it is, I think, somewhat technical. I do not propose to examine the objection that the effect of accepting these words would be the stereotyping of the present system of compensation and the preventing of any amendment or improvement of that system. There may be something in that; but my hon. and learned Friend has, I think, missed the gravity of the case. The point made against the proposal before the House—and I do not think the section and sub-section to which the Attorney General referred in a later part of the Bill will help the Committee over the difficulty—appears to me to be a serious one. It is said that in this Subsection 5 there is a limitation of the legislative powers of the new Irish Parliament, that they shall not pass any Act by which private property may be taken without just compensation. The question at once arises who is to be the judge of the justice of the compen-

    1369
    sation; and I cannot find in my hon. and learned Friend's speech, or in any clause of the Bill, any answer to that at all. It might, of course, be the Legislature that passed the Bill. Suppose a Bill were to be passed through the Irish Parliament dealing with the expropriation at once of certain persons, whether holding agricultural land or not, and providing a particular standard by which compensation was to be given. Suppose, for instance, they said that no allowance whatever was to be made for compulsory purchase, or for the compulsion that was being exorcised. Who would decide whether that was just or not? This House has never yet decided against an allowance for compulsory purchase—[Sir C. RUSSELL: Nor in favour of it]—nor do I think it is likely to do so. It has accepted a plan which has been in operation for some years, the history of which is slightly different to that given by my hon. and learned Friend. The fact is that the allowance of 10 per cent, was first arrived at by two distinguished counsel who used to appear against one another in appeals under the Compensation Act, and that compensation of 10 per cent, was agreed upon to avoid the discussion which would necessarily have taken place in every case as to the injury a man would sustain by being disturbed in his occupation and compelled to find a fresh investment for his money; and although 20 per cent, was agreed upon in the case of agricultural land, I have never known more than 10 per cent, given in other cases. It has been a rule which has been accepted, and having now, no doubt, the authority of the law. But suppose the Irish Legislature was to say no allowance should be paid for compulsory purchase at all, who is to decide whether that is a just law or not? My hon. and learned Friend says we find in Section 19, Sub-section 4, the statement that it will have to be decided by the Exchequer Judges. That sub-section is as follows:—
    "All legal proceedings in Ireland, which are instituted at the instance of or against the Treasury, or the Commissioners of Customs, or any of their officers, or relate to the election of Members to serve in Parliament, or touch any matter not within the powers of the Irish Legislature, have not power to repeal or alter, shall, if so required by any party to such proceedings, be heard and determined before the Exchequer Judges."
    1370
    The question is only to be brought before the Exchequer Judges if it "touch any matter not within the power of the Irish Legislature." So the effect would be that if these vague words are left in the sub-section with which we are now dealing a law might be passed by the Irish Parliament affecting the compensation to be given in a case of expropriation, and nobody would know whether that law was good or bad until you had been able to bring it before the Irish Exchequer Judges, and in the case I have referred to there is no provision by which it could be brought before the Irish Exchequer Judges—noprocessopen to the persons affected. To leave this word "just" in the clause would be to invite difficulties, and to leave it ambiguous whether that justice was to be decided by the Parliament of Ireland or by the Exchequer Judges. I mentioned these difficulties at an early part of the discussions, and my hon. and learned Friend said "just" meant according to well-established rules of justice. But enlarging the phrase gives no guidance to its meaning or enforcement; and as the case now stands I point out to the Committee that there is an ambiguity on the face of the clause, and some words will require to be added in order to clear it up.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEdesired to say a word or two upon this Amendment as he had one upon the Paper dealing with the same subject. If there was any real force in the contention of the Attorney General that this Amendment would stereotype the law in Ireland he thought it would be found by the hon. and learned Gentleman that his (Viscount Cranborne's) Amendment was not open to the same objection; but within certain limits left the Irish Parliament to legislate as they pleased, the limit being that in such cases of expropriation the amount given as compensation must be not less than that which would have been given by the Common Law of Ireland as modified by any Act of Parliament. The Attorney General entirely passed by all that interesting portion of the speech of the hon. Member for East Somerset which dealt with the American Constitution; and it was amazing, the Attorney General having himself said that this would be a written Constitution, that he did not think it worth while to pay attention to

    1371
    the successful Constitution to which the Mover of the Amendment alluded. That hon. Member showed that in the American Constitution the scope of these words included not merely the expropriation of owners for public purposes, but positively of private owners for the purpose and advantage of other private individuals. There were other matters on which the American Constitution was far less sweeping than the Bill of the Government—namely, and the question of contracts ex post facto laws. The interference with contracts and ex post facto laws were altogether excluded from the American Constitution; but they were not excluded from the present Bill, therefore on this question of compensation points would arise which could not arise in the case of the American Constitution. The Attorney General, however, did not deal with any of these topics. He seemed to treat the whole question as a small matter, and to argue that the Amendment ought not to be accepted because the Irish Parliament might adopt the betterment principle. It was playing with the House of Commons to treat them in that way. They knew perfectly well that the kind of proposal that was in favour in Ireland was far more sweeping than the Betterment Clauses of the Loudon County Council. But what they were afraid of was confiscation by the Irish Parliament for the benefit of the tenants or other people. There was one question which would probably attract the attention of the Irish Parliament, and that was migration from one part of Ireland to another; for proposals had often been made by Nationalist gentlemen that large grazing farms should be compulsorily seized in order to provide holdings for the distressed population of the West. How were eminent Judges to determine what was just compensation in such cases? He recollected that on a former Amendment the Law Officers of the Crown pointed to the words "principle and precedent." He did not know whether they were willing to insert these words in respect of compensation as they did in respect of due process of law. He submitted that even if they were it would not be sufficient, because what were the principles of Irish land legislation in the past? Was that what the Judges would have to look to? He did not desire to
    1372
    take a strong Conservative line at the present moment, but he desired to speak to the moderate Members of the House of Commons. He would not, therefore, trouble the House with any hasty views of his on past land legislation by the right hon. Gentleman the head of the Government; but he would say this—it would be extremely difficult for a Judge or anybody else to definitely lay down the principle on which the Land Act of 1881 and the Arrears Act which followed were passed into law. They might say, without offence, that the policy which led to the passing of these Acts constituted a progressive diminution of a landlord's legal rights. Under the Land Act of 1881 about one-third part of the landlord's rights was taken from them, and perhaps the Irish Legislature would propose to take away another third. Upon what principles of law or common sense were the Exchequer Judges or the Medical Committee of the Privy Council to decide when the Irish Legislature had passed the boundary which separated legal justice from injustice? It would be impossible for the Judges to have any conception of what the Legislature intended by just compensation. He, therefore, submitted to the Government that some words of definition were necessary. When the Attorney General spoke of the rigidity of the Amendment he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to accept words in the nature of those he (Viscount Cranborne) had put on the Paper. There was not a Member in the House who did not believe that the Irish Legislature would try to pass an Act still further to diminish the rights of the landlords. He did not believe that the followers of the Government in their hearts were desirous of committing a grave injustice. He would ask them to consider the provisions of the Bill, and if they were honestly convinced that the proposed safeguards would not protect the landlords they would be bound, in spite of Party ties, which they were prone to follow only too closely to support the Amendment.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, the noble Lord seemed to have a great deal of sympathy for the Judges who were to determine the question of just compensation, bat he wanted to force the hands of the Judges

    1373
    by laying down a standard they could not vary from. He was surprised that the Mover of the Amendment thought there was any safeguard whatsoever to the Irish landlords in his proposal. Surely the standard value of land was not fixed at the present time, but varied according to circumstances, and the Amendment gravely proposed now, and on which so much time had been occupied, sought to lay down a fixed standard which was not now the law in England, and could not be, and to deprive the Judges of all discretion into taking into consideration the circumstances of the case. He would remind the noble Lord this was not altogether a landlord's question. The noble Lord judged the question altogether from an English point of view, but there were also numerous tenants in Ireland who had recently purchased their holdings, and who were themselves in the position of landowners, and the best security both for them and the landlords was to allow the Judges to be the valuers of the land and to take into consideration all the circumstances of the time and place. As the tenants in Ireland who became the owners of their holdings increased so would the number of persons who would be able to protect the right to "just compensation" be largely on the increase, and the noble Lord might be sure there was little danger of the Irish Parliament running in the direction he alluded to, or confiscating the property of landowners or other people in Ireland without compensation. He thought the tendency would be rather the other way, and it would be found that a large body of people in Ireland would be deeply interested in seeing that fair compensation was given. It seemed to him that if the Government, instead of the clause which was in the Bill, had moved a clause similar to the Amendment of the hon. Member they would then have had an Amendment just in the direction of the clause as the Opposition were determined to have an argument and discussion either one way or the other. The clause was infinitely better than the Amendment. What they (the Irish Members) objected to in these Amendments was this system of endeavouring to beget litigation. There seemed to be a desire to bring the future Government of Ireland into continual collision with the
    1374
    Courts of the country, and to enable gentlemen in Ireland, who were not in sympathy with any form of National Government, to be constantly setting snares for the National Parliament, and calling the Courts of Law into requisition.
    MR. COURTNEYobserved that the action of the Government themselves showed how serious this matter was. One of the clauses in the Bill provided that for three years the Irish Legislature should not be able to deal with the relations between landlord or tenant, or deal with the question of land legislation. This Proviso dealt with the same matter, and would survive those three years; and if the matter was so grave that, for three years, it was to be withheld from the power of the Irish Parliament, surely it was necessary that they should hare this matter so strictly defined that, after those three years had passed over, the Irish Parliament should not be able to commit injustice. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin spoke of this Amendment as being designed to provoke litigation, and increase the possibility of conflict between the Irish Legislature and the Courts before which the Acts of that Legislature might be brought. He was afraid that, whatever they did, there would be too abundant opportunities of that kind. It was inherent in the subject-matter of the Bill that such litigation must be frequently provoked, and the action of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was directed, not to amplifying, but to limiting, the opportunities of such litigation by laying down more strictly for the guidance of the Legislature, and more clearly for the guidance of the Court, the conditions under which they could proceed. The whole question turned upon this matter of just compensation. Property was to be taken only upon condition of just compensation, and the Irish Legislature were not to be entitled to pass any Act which should interfere with that principle. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division, to show the impossibility of the Irish Legislature doing any act which would involve the taking of land without just compensation, asked them to consider what had been done in multiplying peasant proprietors in Ireland, and had said that, as they were the people who

    1375
    would control very largely the action of the Irish Legislature, they would gee very clearly that their interests would not be very injuriously affected. But, numerous as that class was, there was another class of landowners whose property had not been sold to occupying tenants, and it wag probable that very serious legislation would be proposed in the Irish Legislature affecting that class. He was not at present prejudging the question as to whether such legislation should or should not be dealt with.
    MR. HARRINGTON: This class are themselves in the category of landlords, and any class of legislation affecting landlords would affect this class.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid that, although the name of landlord applied to both, the legislation of which he spoke would not affect that class to which the hon. Member referred at all. They were speaking of the compulsory expropriation of the landlords demanded by a great class in Ulster; and how would the feelings and interests of the peasant proprietors to whom the hon. Member had referred operate to control the Irish Legislature and prevent them imposing upon these greater landlords terms which could not be considered to be just? The Attorney General said it would be easy for anyone to bring the matter immediately before the Exchequer Judges and to get their opinion as to the compensation, and if such compensation were not just the whole proceeding would fall to the ground. But he failed to see, in the machinery to which the Attorney General directed attention, the means of carrying it out. That machinery was to come into operation when the Irish Legislature dealt with matters with which it had no power to deal, not when it abused the powers conferred upon it. The Solicitor General, at an earlier stage of the Debate, stated that "just compensation" was compensation which was just, according to the ideas of our present time, when the Bill should become law; but that was a very vague criterion, and he thought some words should be introduced —if not those of the hon. Member then some others—to give greater precision of definition to the compensation to be given. The phrase in the clause was too vague to be of any value, and a
    1376
    much closer definition should be introduced for the guidance of the Legislature and the Court. In default of better words those which had been proposed by the hon. Member for East Somerset deserved attention, because he wished to have a strict definition. Some more definite words than those in the clause were absolutely necesary.
    SIR J. RIGBY(who was received with cries of "Divide!): In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin I desire to say a few words. ["Divide!"] We have got here an enactment that the powers of the Irish Legislature should not extend to any law whereby property may be taken without just compensation, and that, therefore, it is not within the power of the Irish Legislature to make any such law. In the sub-section which has been referred to by the Attorney General it is provided that any matter not within the power of the Irish Legislature which is dealt with by the Irish Legislature is null and void. It is certainly not within the power of the Irish Legislature to sanction the taking of land without just compensation. That is perfectly plain, and there can be no doubt on the point. ["Divide!"] If a person feels aggrieved he can go to the Exchequer Judges, and there is an ultimate appeal to the Privy Council. There is power given in other clauses to the Secretary of State or the Lord Lieutenant to send a question at once to the Privy Council; and if it were a matter of great public importance we might expect that to be done. By another clause of the Act Her Majesty may receive a Petition from any person aggrieved, and has full power upon a Petition of any aggrieved person to send it to the Privy Council, oven if the Lord Lieutenant or Secretary of State do not proceed. Now, as to the question of just compensation. [Cries of "Divide!"and interruption.] There is no fixed direction or rule. We must arrive at a result according to what is just. I will take a case which I do not put forward as a probable case. [Cries of "Divide!"] Suppose the Irish Legislature said that the "just compensation" in a certain case should be one-half the value. It is perfectly obvious that that would be an unjust compensation, and any tribunal to whom the matter might

    1377
    be referred would so hold. The Judges have perpetually to deal with eases quite as difficult as this, and I only need say one word in reference to what has been said as to the American Constitution, and that is that I never heard of a case in which the Judge complains that the Constitution has left to him the task of construing Acts of Parliament.
    SIR J. GORST(Cambridge University) (who was met with cries of "Divide!"): I will not detain the Committee. I only rise to point out to the Committee the very unfavourable circumstances under which this discussion is carried on. Gentlemen who have not been present at the discussion come into the House, and when the hon. and learned Solicitor General rises to meet a difficulty which has been raised by the opponents of the Bill he is met with loud cries of "Divide!"—[Cries of "Question!"]—from the supporters of the Government; and when, in the course of his speech, he says he will give an illustration to make his meaning more clear, he is met by the rude interruption of "We do not want your illustration."
    MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask you, on a point of Order, Mr. Mellor, if these remarks have anything whatever to do with the Amendment before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman had risen to a point of Order, as I understood him.
    SIR J. GORST: I rose to call your attention and the attention of the Committee to the conditions and circumstances in which this Bill was being discussed. I was saying it was impossible for the Government—["Divide!"]—to explain to the House and the country the propositions they brought forward in consequence of the interruptions of their own supporters.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 290; Noes 258.—(Division List, No. 152.)
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the following Amendment would come more appropriately under Clause 32:—
    Page 2, line 33, after "compensation," insert "provided that no law shall be passed by the Irish Legislature abrogating or prejudicially affecting the right of appeal from the Irish Courts to Her Majesty the Queen in Council, as hereinafter provided by this Act."—(The Marquess of Carmarthen.)
    1378
    The following Amendment was ruled out of Order:—
    Page 2, line 33, after "compensation," insert "being not less than would have been given by the Common Law of Ireland, or by any Act of Parliament varying the law."—(Viscount Cran-borne.)
    MR. CARSONrose to move—
    Page 2, line 33, after "compensation," insert "or whereby proceedings by petition of right may be altered or abridged."
    He said he was aware, from observations that had been made to him by more than one Member, that an impression prevailed that in bringing before the Committee this question of procedure by petition of right he was introducing a matter that was somewhat obsolete, or was some unusual process. He ventured to assure the Committee that petition of right was an ordinary every-day remedy, and the only remedy in certain eases. As the law at present stood, so far as he was aware, the only method of litigating a dispute with an Executive Government deriving authority from the Queen was by petition of right. In other words, in relation to a dispute with an Executive Government, the subject could not bring an action against that Executive Government; and, therefore, in the event of the Bill becoming law, as the Executive in Ireland which they were about to set up would be an Executive deriving its authority direct from the Queen, it would be impossible, in the event of a dispute arising between a subject and the Executive Government, to bring an action in relation to such dispute, save and except by the process known as petition of right. His Amendment, therefore, aimed at preventing the Irish Legislature from having the power of altering or abridging the only process existing by which a subject could contest his rights as against the right of the Executive they proposed to set up in Ireland. Matters in relation to petitions of right arose in this way—it was a fiction of our law, or a fact of our law, if they pleased, that the Queen could do no wrong; and as the Queen could do no wrong, the Executive, which derived its authority from the Queen, could do no wrong either, so that, therefore, no action could be brought against an Executive Government. But the same fiction that gave rise to the maxim that

    1379
    the Queen could do no wrong also gave rise to this—that if wrong were inflicted on a subject by the Executive Government, the proper mode to seek a remedy was to refer the matter, by supplication, to the Queen, and in that way have justice done. A petition of right was, therefore, simply a petition to the Queen asking that justice should be done in relation to a matter arising between a subject and the Executive Government. Matters of the kind arose in many cases. The most ordinary cases were cases in which subjects complained of damages arising in one way or other out of contracts entered into by the Government for carrying on the business of the country. If his Amendment was carried, all these matters would be left as they had been settled by Act of Parliament. The Irish Act of Parliament in relation thereto was long subsequent to the English Act; but under it actions in dispute between the subject and the Executive in exclusively Irish matters could be brought by petition of right and prosecuted in the Irish Courts. He had put down a subsequent Amendment, leaving all disputes that might arise hereafter between the Executive in Ireland and the subject to be litigated in the same way. The Committee would see that if they gave to the Irish Government the power of altering this procedure by petition of right they would be really giving one of the litigating parties in disputes between the subject and the Executive Government the power of altering the procedure for the trial of the disputes, and such a course would be absolutely absurd and unjust. The case of Sir Thomas Brady, who recently proceeded by petition of right in the Irish Courts against the Executive for depriving him of his office, was an illustration of the disputes between subjects and the Executive Government which would inevitably arise if the Bill became an Act of Parliament. There was no process, except petition of right, by which a subject could seek redress in such cases, and it was to secure that procedure to the subject in Ireland under an Irish Government that he moved his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 33, after the word "compensation," to insert the words "or whereby proceedings by petition of right may bealtered or abridged."—(Mr. Carson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR J. RIGBY: I quite agree that it would be a serious defect in the Bill if it were left to one of the, possibly, litigant parties to do away with the process by which the other sought a remedy; but, inasmuch as this is a question involving the honour and the dignity of the Crown, it ought not to be forgotten that the Crown's consent must be given to such a Bill of the Irish Legislature before it can become law. But there are other reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted. The effect of it would be that you would have a stereotyped procedure for petitions of right, and the Irish Legislature would have no power of improving that procedure in regard to ordinary matters. The hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misconception in what he said with regard to the Executive deriving its power from the Crown. There is no use made of that petition of right in, I think, any of the Australian Colonies, in New Zealand, or in the Straits Settlements. In most of our Colonies the petition of right no longer exists. And why? Because they have initiated a much more convenient and a much more beneficial system which it would be well to adopt here, and which the Irish Legislature would do well to adopt. That is to say, that when a claim is made against the Executive a Minister is named as defendant, and is sued, though he really represents the interest of the Crown as an ordinary litigant. If this Amendment were accepted the Irish Legislature would be prevented from altering the procedure in petitions of right, and they would be prevented from adopting the modern and most beneficial mode of dealing with Crown actions.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to have expressed, on behalf of the Government, on this question of the rights of the subject suing the Executive Government, a preference for the more direct method adopted in the Colonies than for the procedure of petition of right which prevails here. Am I right in saying so?
    SIR J. RIGBY: I said that the Colonies have adopted a more direct procedure, and that I think, personally, it is a better one than ours.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Am I to understand that in a later stage of the Bill the Government proposes to introduce that innovation?
    SIR J. RIGBY: We are not dealing now with the details of the procedure.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I understand that in this case, as in other cases, though the Government really admire such a procedure, they are not going to adopt it. We must, therefore, discuss that question on its merits. My hon. and learned Friend showed, beyond all doubt and question—indeed, that part of his speech was not questioned by the Solicitor General—that the rights of the subject as against the Executive depend, and depend solely, upon this petition of right. How, then, are those elementary rights to be preserved under the proposed Irish Parliament? The only answer given is to trot out again our old friend, the veto. It is the veto, and the veto alone, that is to be the sole bulwark between the subject in Ireland and the unrestrained power of the Executive Government. I would make two observations on that argument. The first is that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks the veto a sufficient safeguard for every subject in every emergency, why insert in the Bill any other safeguard at all? My second answer is that by common consent, if this Bill is intended to be a working measure, and if it is not a mere subject for academic discussion in this House, our object ought to be to relieve the Lord Lieutenant of functions which, if the Bill ever becomes law, would be too weighty for any single individual to carry out. Therefore, when the Government say that this thing should not be allowed, and that the proper person to prevent it is the Lord Lieutenant, I say that to prevent friction and lighten the responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant it would be a proper and statesmanlike course to introduce your limitation into the clause itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite says that this right of the subject for a remedy against. the Executive ought to be reserved, and he goes the length of saying it ought even to be extended—because he prefers the Colonial method, which does extend it—and yet with all these interesting academic views as to what the Irish Parliament ought or ought not to do, he is not prepared to introduce into the
    1382
    clause half-a-dozen words which would put the thing beyond question, and relieve the Lord Lieutenant of responsibility in determining the matter. I can understand the action of the Government in resisting Amendments touching the essential elements of the Bill. They, of course, are matters we must fight out; but why, in order to save time and render the measure more complete, they do not adopt an Amendment which will affect an object they desire, passes my imagination.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not really done justice to the hon. and learned Gentleman who sits near him, and who has proposed this Amendment. The fears of hon. Gentlemen on that side rise very high; but they have not yet risen in the case of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin—to the point of supposing it possible for an Irish Legislative Body to pass a Bill which would run thus—"Hereafter no British subject shall beat liberty to petition the Crown." The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has misread the Amendment, and, therefore, has misunderstood the arguments of my hon. and learned Colleague; because this Amendment does not prevent, or seek to prevent, the Irish Legislative Body from putting an end to the right to petition. It never entered into the mind of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin that such a Bill would be proposed for the acceptance of the Irish Legislative Body, or that if introduced it would ever, possibly, receive the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. All this Amendment deals with are "proceedings" by petition—the question of altering or abridging the proceedings.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Abridging?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: Abridging is shortening. Why should not the proceedings be altered? The point of the Amendment is "proceedings." It is not that the right to petition is not to be taken to be upheld, or that it is to be sought to be taken away, but that the Irish Legislative Body shall not alter or abridge proceedings.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he did not understand the object of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The object of putting down an Amendment that they

    1383
    were not to alter or abridge proceedings by petition of right was obviously to provide that the petition of right should stay as it was. The proceeding by petition of right was the proceeding of petition of right. The petition of right was in itself the proceeding. What else was it? It was the proceeding of commencing an action against the Queen. If that was altered or abridged the whole petition of right was no good. If they did not carry it on by petition, how else were they to carry it on unless they substituted some other process? The hon. and learned Member had given no answer whatsoever to the arguments which had been adduced. He had tried to draw a kind of technical distinction between proceeding by petition of right and petition of right itself, but had not attempted to refute the arguments brought forward. The Solicitor General had said that the Amendment would prevent an alteration in the procedure in the Courts; but that was not the case at all. If a petition of right under the Act of Parliament in force was valid it went to the Imperial Courts. The Act contained the words—
    "The procedure of the said Courts for the time being in reference to such actions."
    Therefore, the proceeding known as a petition of right having been taken, and the fiat of the Queen having been obtained to come into Court, it became an ordinary action, and the procedure was not that of the time of the passing of the Act, but that of the time of the adoption of the petition. It was of no use in trying to ride off on side issues. The matter to his mind was clear, and he should like to know if the Committee were to rest satisfied with the Attorney General's statement that the question was only one of procedure?
    MR. ROSSsaid, the Government were creating in Ireland an Executive that would be hostile to a very powerful portion of the population. Therefore, it was clear that disputes must, in the natural course of events, arise as between the subject and the Executive. But the only method by which these disputes could be adjusted was to be kept under the control of the Irish Legislature, who would be one of the parties to the disputes. He submitted that men should not be allowed to sit as judges in their own case. The
    1384
    argument of the Solicitor General as to the Amendment stereotyping the procedure had been answered by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Carson) reading an extract from the Act of Parliament. What was the answer of the Government? That of the Attorney General was a great deal too narrow, so that the Opposition were without any answer.
    MR. T. SHAWsaid he desired to say a word as to the Scotch procedure on this matter. He observed that no speaker who had addressed the Committee on the Amendment had uttered a syllable of admiration of the procedure by petition of right. He himself had no admiration for it at all. He thought it an antique, clumsy, and useless method of procedure. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the alteration by an Irish Parliament of procedure by way of petition of right, although it stood confessed that that procedure was expensive, clumsy, and altogether inadequate and useless. There was no proposal in the Bill or clause to affect or alter in any way this procedure. The proposal to involve or entangle the clause with the question of petition of right came from the other side. What they had on the North of the Tweed was a simple and logical system, whereby, when the Executive Government entered into any contract with a subject of the Crown, then that Executive was bound to answer in respect of that contract, the same way that any subject of the Crown would be bound to answer. Actions were brought every day against the Lord Advocate as representing the Board of Works, the Woods and Forests Department, the Board of Manufactures, and so on. There was no petition of right in these cases; and he submitted that if a Parliament were established in Ireland, one of the best things it could do in this department would be to simplify the present procedure by petition of right. He regarded the Amendment as useless, dealing with a subject not infringed upon by the Bill; but if the Irish Parliament could in any way have the power of dealing with the matter it should have the right to alter a clumsy, expensive, and ridiculously useless procedure. They should have the power of bringing that more into accord with the jurisprudence of Scotland.
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down had forgotten one little fact which made a good deal of difference in his argument, and that was that although it was quite true there were actions every day against the Crown, and though the Crown was represented by the Lord Advocate in Scotland, the reason that the Crown was so represented was because there were special Statutes bearing on the question. As he understood the Mover of the Amendment, he would be quite willing to accept words to prevent the stereotyping of a form of procedure in petition of right. That offer was pointedly put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but it was refused by the Government. What was desired was not the form but the substance of the Amendment. It was pointed out that the motto of Common Law was, "The King can do no wrong," and that the consequence of that motto was that if he could not proceed by petition of right the subject would have no remedy against the Crown. Those who supported the Amendment said—"Give us our remedy in one form or other, and if you do not go so far as the Colonies for a method, give us the Scotch system, and constitute some official—probably not the already overloaded Viceroy—the Representative of the Executive for the purpose of defending actions."
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, the question was whether the individual citizen who wished to bring an action against the Irish Government could do so. If the petition of right remained as at present, the procedure would be under the control of the Imperial Parliament; but, if not, the Irish Legislature might prevent the individual citizen from appealing against its decisions. The Government answered that resort could be had to the veto. That, he had understood, was ordinarily to be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant under the advice of the Irish Government. Naturally, the Irish Government would be disinclined to exercise the veto for the purpose of forbidding an Act of the Irish Legislature. If the Irish Legislature could exercise control over procedure of petition of right it could deprive petition of right of its full force and effect—[Cries of
    1386
    "Divide!"] The rights of the citizen should be made effective as in the United States by giving a direct personal power of appeal, and the mode of appeal should not be under the control of one of the parties to the proceedings.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 201.—(Division List, No. 153.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is not in Order.
    MR. HANBURY: May I, on a point of Order, explain what the Amendment really is, and ask respectfully for the reason why it is ruled out of Order—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I can tell the hon. Member at once that the Amendment is out of Order, because its principle has been already decided by the Committee.
    MR. RENTOUL, in the absence of Mr. Barton, moved to amend the clause by inserting in line 33, after the word "or," the words—
    "Suspending or prejudicially affecting the right of any person to the writ of habeas corpus."
    The Legislature it was proposed to establish in Ireland would admittedly be a subordinate Parliament; and it would, therefore, be improper to confer on it the right of suspending the habeas corpus, and of taking away one of the oldest and most treasured rights of Her Majesty's subjects. The privilege of habeas corpus was originally conferred in Magna Charta. It was enlarged and emphasized by the 25th Edward III.; but in the reign of Charles II., as the then existing law was availed of for political purposes, the granting of habeas corpus was rendered compulsory in the case of every person imprisoned without cause being assigned, and also providing for the speedy trial committed for treason or felony. A considerable number of enactments had been passed, bearing in the same direction, and they knew that within their own memory—in fact not more than 10 years ago, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by the Government of which the present Prime Minister was the head. What pressed on him (Mr. Rentoul) in this matter was that the Irish Parliament would always recall and, very justly, quote the precedent and example of the Imperial Parliament in everything they

    1387
    might desire to do. This writ of habeas corpus had been suspended under George III. in 1829, and under Victoria in 1844 and 1883, and the reasons assigned had been the troublous condition of some of Her Majesty's dominions or subjects. He did not say that the Imperial Parliament had been wrong in this matter; but if because a portion of Her Majesty's subjects were disaffected, that was a justification for the suspension of the habeas corpus; if this Bill passed the Ulstermen would undoubtedly become disaffected subjects to the Irish Parliament, and what was there to prevent that Parliament—who would always follow the example and precedent of the Imperial Parliament when it was their interest to do so—from pursuing a similar purpose and suspending the habeas corpus in Ulster, particularly in regard to those who had laboured energetically against the establishment of an Irish Parliament, and who still opposed it? So that the people of Ulster ought to have from Her Majesty's Government a very distinct deliverance on this subject. The Attorney General was himself an Ulsterman, though perhaps, not an Orangeman, and, therefore, not liable to the same danger as many other Ulstermen—as for instance, the hon. Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Barton). What would be more natural than that the Irish Legislature would say—"We will suspend the Habeas Corpus Act with regard to those persons who threaten that when a Government is established in Ireland they will try to upset it." The hon. Member for Mid Armagh would himself be hit by such action as that; therefore, he and many of those who acted with him desired that it should be made clear that their liberties should not be subject to the control and care of an Irish Parliament, but should be under the control of the Imperial Parliament. If it was necessary to insert clauses in the Bill tying the hands of the Irish Legislature in regard to education, religious endowments, and certain kinds of property, surely it was much more logical to tie its hands with regard to the much more important matter of personal liberty. If there had been no safeguards in the Bill at all, he should have felt himself unable to move an Amendment such as this. But they had a number of paper safe-
    1388
    guards which were of no value at all. He would rather be without them—he would rather be entirely in the hands of the Irish Legislature, so that his very weakness might plead with the hearts of the Members of an Irish Government, than see a lot of sham safeguards adopted which would only have the effect of irritating the Irish Parliament, and filling them with a desire to persecute the people in whose interests those safeguards had been enacted. Again, if the hands of the Irish Legislature were tied in some respects, what would be more natural than that they should exercise to the fullest extent the powers left to them? Therefore, he would ask the Attorney General to justify, if he could, the policy of the Government in leaving this great power of suspending the habeas corpus in the hands of the Legislature from whom they had withheld so many lesser powers. He and other Ulstermen considered that this was of ten times greater importance to the loyal minority than any of the other safeguards, which were, for the most part, valueless. They would rather have the hands of the Irish Parliament free in matters of property, religious endowment, and education, than leave them full power over the liberty of the subject.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 33, at end, to insert, "Suspending or prejudicially affecting the right of any person to the writ of habeas corpus."—(Mr. Rentoul.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR C. RUSSELL: This Amendment stood in the name of that most amiable and highly esteemed Member of the House, the hon. and learned Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Barton), and I have been asking myself how it was that the hon. and learned Member did not discharge that task. I have not been able to get at a reason satisfactory to myself; but, probably, we shall hear it in the course of the discussion. Perhaps it is because the hon. and learned Member has publicly proclaimed that if the measure passes he will resolutely defy it. I think he valorously proclaimed it to be his intention to line some ditch or other. I do not exactly myself know what lining a ditch is; but

    1389
    we shall learn all about it, I presume, when defiance is offered to the Legislative Authority created in Ireland by the Imperial Parliament. The hon. and learned Member does not himself move the Amendment, I suppose, feeling that he would be too much of an object-lesson in view of the attitude he intends to take up, assuming the distressing necessity should arise for lining the ditches in Ulster. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has made out a strong case for this power of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act being held in reserve by any Legislative Body responsible for the good government of Ireland. What does my hon. and learned Friend say? He says—"There is no use in concealing the matter; there is no use beating about the bush; Ulster is and always will be disaffected towards any Legislative Authority which may be established in Ireland by the Imperial Parliament." That is the measure of the loyalty of these particular subjects of the Queen—a loyalty which is quite a unique specimen. The hon. and learned Gentleman also says that it is very probable that it may be necessary, in order to preserve the peace in Ireland, that the Irish Legislative Body should have the right to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. But though he himself has demonstrated that the necessity for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act may in all probability arise, by a curious effort at argument he lays it down that the Irish Legislative Body shall not have the power to deal with an emergency which he thinks may arise. Let me say, in all seriousness, that I really cannot rise to the level of the terrified apprehension of hon. Gentlemen who speak in the name of Ulster.
    SIR H. JAMES: You do not live there.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I agree I am not living there, but I have friends who live there. The argument is hardly worthy of my right hon. and learned Friend. If that argument is to be used—and it is one I would not have used—I might retort that the Mover of the Amendment is not living in Ulster; he resides in London, where he is pursuing a distinguished career at the English Bar, and I heartily wish him all possible success to which his talents entitle him. But, as I have said, I cannot rise to the level of these fears. I believe these fears to be
    1390
    absolutely and wholly baseless. That there is a considerable amount of feeling in Ulster opposed to this change I recognise. I think it is perfectly natural. I can understand that a large community well-to-do or reasonably well-to-do— although I believe there have been suggestions on that subject also—would be disposed to say —"We are averse to change; we do not want to take what we regard to be a leap in the dark; the result is doubtful, and therefore we will not have this Home Rule."
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Hear, hear!
    SIR C. RUSSELL: That is the position which Ulstermen take up. I think they are wrong, but of course they are entitled to their opinions. My hon. and highly esteemed Friend opposite, the Member for South Belfast, has honestly persuaded himself that to give to an Irish Legislative Body the power of dealing with Irish affairs would be to give a Catholic majority power to oppress the Protestant minority, just as the ascendent minority tried in past times to oppress the Catholic majority. But the world has grown wiser. The world is more tolerant now on religious questions, and public opinion has a far greater and more wide-reaching force than it had in days gone by. But even if the modern tone and temper of mind on these questions were not, as I believe them to be, changed for the better, there is public opinion to be reckoned with; and if oppressive ideas possessed a Legislative Body, whether in Ireland, in Canada, in Australia, or at the remotest bounds of the earth where British rule and opinion prevailed, that opinion has too much volume to permit the oppression to be perpetrated. Why should there be those differences? What is there to divide Ulster from the rest of Ireland except these religious differences, which have been decidedly fomented, and accentuated beyond their natural growth? Outside influence has given to them a factitious importance, which cannot possibly be kept up, once all classes in Ireland understand that Parliament has decreed that their fate for the future is one, and that their interests are bound up indissolubly. So much for the religious question. What are the other possible questions on which differences might arise? The land. I agree as to the possibly extreme view

    1391
    which the Irish Legislative Body may take on the Land Question; but there are adequate safeguards in the Bill against injustice. To say that the Ulster tenant farmers, whose one desire in the world is to acquire on just terms the ownership of their own farms, would rebel against the Irish Legislative Body, whose prime object would be, by legislation and by just means, to give the Ulster farmers that opportunity, passes the bounds of absurdity. I must apologise to the Committee for having been led to this divergence; but I was really driven to it by the argument of my hon, and learned Friend who moved the Amendment. As to the Amendment, the Imperial Parliament has again and again found itself justified in suspending the Habeas Corpus Act; and why should the Irish Legislature, which will be responsible for the peace and order of Ireland, be deprived in great emergencies of the use of a weapon which the wisdom of this Imperial Parliament has often resorted to? Is it to be said that when the emergency arises resort must be had to the Imperial Parliament? [Cries of "Yes!"] Then Parliament having made a great effort to rid itself of the burden of governing Ireland, and to give self-government to the Irish people on their own responsibility, is still to interfere in matters about the conditions and requirements of which it cannot be as well informed as the Irish Legislature? I have been treated—I will not say discourteously, but to such derisive laughter when I have referred to the safeguards in the Bill, that I am afraid to dwell on the safeguards for the restraint of the Irish Legislative Body should they attempt to resort to the suspension of habeas corpus without sufficient justification. I think the common sense of the Irish Legislative Body counts for something. There will be a minority in that body which will be the more powerful in proportion as the claims of Ulster to superior intelligence are well-founded.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: They will not be there.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: My hon. Friend is not the dictator of Ulster. He does not know what will happen in the course of a few years. There will be a minority in the Irish Legislative Body—I do not say they will come exclusively from Ulster—which will be keenly alive to any
    1392
    invasion of public liberty. Then, again, if the Irish Executive were to advise that such a Bill should be passed and the Legislature were to hurry it through when the circumstances of the time did not justify it, would not the attention of the Ministry of the Queen be called to the matter at once, and are not they empowered to give instructions to the Representative of Her Majesty not to sanction the Bill? Is not that a sufficient safeguard against the undue use of this power of suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? We know that Acts of Parliament are not carried through by one branch of the Legislature in a day or in a month, and that sometimes they are never carried.
    MR. CARSON: This Act has been suspended in a day.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: Yes; I have known a case in which a Bill was carried through the House in a day. But that is a strong illustration of my argument, because it was a Bill directed to deal with a supposed great emergency, and it had a bearing on the question of the liberty of the subject. I say that if we are to give legislative powers to the Irish people we ought not to deprive them of one necessary weapon, which should not indeed be lightly used, and which I admit cannot be justified except in the case of a great emergency.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, that the Attorney General had candidly confessed that the power of suspending habeas corpus should be given to the Irish Legislature for the purpose of dealing with the case of Ulster. The Solicitor General never would have made that admission.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I deny that I said that this power is to be directed against the people of Ulster. I only described the position taken up by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, who said action in Ulster might require its exercise.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was one of whom every Ulsterman, whether Protestant or Catholic, Unionist or Nationalist, was proud; and they classed him, with another Ulsterman, Lord Cairns, as one of the most distinguished lawyers of his time. But when he says that he cannot rise to the level of our fears we believe him. We say he cannot possibly

    1393
    do so whilst he enjoys the otium cum dignitate of an English citizen in this City of London. The hon. and learned Gentleman, so far as Ulster is concerned, is a distinguished absentee. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment may not live in Ireland, though he goes there for some part of the year; but he represents 50,000 people who live in Ulster, and I myself represent very nearly as much. We represent a vast population who may be said to be adscripti glebœ, and who cannot live outside of Ulster, and who have everything in this world staked upon this cause. If the Attorney General cannot rise to the height of our fears, we cannot rise to the lofty altitude of his indifference. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the question of ascendency. There was an ascendency in the last century. But there was no ascendency now. There was equality in the eye of the law, or, if there was not equality, let the inequalities be removed by the Imperial law, and they would bow to it. But the object of this Bill was to establish a new ascendency in Ireland in place of the old ascendency which had existed before they were born, and the new ascendency would be the more odious and tyrannical, because it would be supported by a permanent and unalterable majority. It was said that Lord Salisbury, when he went to Belfast, fomented the spirit of resistance to this Bill. He no more fomented that feeling than the President of the United States, if he visited Niagara, could be said to cause the waters to overflow. There was going on in Ulster now what was not going on in any country in the world. But it was not fomented—it could not be fomented. It was a voluntary conscription. [Laughter.] Ridicule was, perhaps, the wisest policy to indulge in with respect to this matter. They had in the North of Ireland a voluntary conscription of 160,000 men—[Laughter]—of all classes, from the highest to the lowest, and that was a fact which hon. Members might laugh at, but which, in certain circumstances, they might find no laughing matter. He should complain that the Attorney General had not dealt at all with the Amendment before the Committee. This was one of the most important Amendments proposed in the
    1394
    Bill, and it would illustrate to the public in Ireland, England, the United States, and the world, what their so-called subordinate Parliament meant, and what the talk about freedom and liberty in Ireland and a free Ireland meant. It meant the giving of coercive powers to this subordinate Parliament such as was given to no State of the American Union. What was the foundation of our liberty? It was the right which every citizen had by means of his right to the writ of habeas corpus, if illegally detained, to apply to the Courts to be set free. And if the Amendment were rejected, it would be in the power of the Irish Legislature to suspend the right to the writ of habeas corpus, and to establish a power of imprisonment at the discretion of the Executive. He declared that there was no right which should be more jealously preserved than the right of habeas corpus. The meaning of that right had been well summed up in the words of an Irish Judge—
    "The Queen is supposed to be entitled to know why any of her subjects are kept in restraint."
    It was a mistake to suppose that the right was created by Statute. It existed before Magna Charta. Magna Charta merely confirmed the right of the people to the writ, and the Habeas Corpus Acts passed in England in 1679 and in Ireland in 1781 only rendered the right more available and enforceable by making the remedies, as had been well said, short, sharp, and decisive In moving the Amendment they were, therefore, not asking the Committee to restrain the power of the Irish Legislature to make beneficial laws, but they asked the Committee to restrain the power of the Irish Legislature to suspend the high prerogative right—the most valuable right attached to the Crown, and which the Crown should be slow to part with or delegate. The writ of habeas corpus had, no doubt, in past times been suspended. It was suspended only once in England—in 1817—in the present century. It was suspended six or eight times in Ireland during the same period, and he thought that that fact was a most powerful argument in favour of the Amendment. On

    1395
    every occasion on which Parliament made this great encroachment on personal liberty it limited its operation to a brief period of time, and never resorted to it except in times of the greatest emergency. He would like to quote the opinions of a few representative men on the writ of habeas corpus. Chatham said that the first three Latin words of the writ—nullus liber homo—were worth all the classics; Burdett, who was the Leader of the Radicals in Parliament when the writ was suspended in 1817, said that it was one of the best and most distinctive rights of Englishmen, and Lord Liverpool, who proposed the suspension of the writ in the House of Lords in 1817, said he had to admit that he was asking for most odious powers. It was said that they had the veto as a protection. He entirely repudiated the idea that the veto was an adequate protection in cases of this sort. The veto would depend on a Party vote in the House of Commons. In other words, the prerogative writ of habeas corpus would be placed at the mercy of the British Executive, only checked by indirect responsibility to one of the Houses of Parliament. This was a result which would be repugnant to the spirit of the British Constitution. Blackstone had pointed out the Constitutional principle applicable to the power of suspending habeas corpus. He wrote as follows—
    "The happiness of our Constitution is that it is not left to the Executive Power to determine when the danger of the State is so great as to render this measure expedient, for it is the Parliament only, or legislative power, that can suspend the Habeas Corpus Act."
    But the proposal of the Government was that this power should be withdrawn from the Legislative Body and handed over to the Executive. In the majority of the United States the habeas corpus could be suspended only in case of invasion or rebellion. In eight of these Sovereign States it could not be suspended in any case, and the tendency was to remove the exceptions and to provide that in no instance should it he suspended within the State. It could not be suspended in Vermont, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and Texas. In Georgia, by the Constitution of 1868, and in Ala-
    1396
    bama, by the Constitutions of 1819, 1865, and 1867, it could be suspended in case of rebellion or invasion; but by the most recent Constitutions of these two States it had been provided that the writ of habeas corpus could not be suspended at all. With all the experience gained in America, the tendency was to get rid of exceptions and to substitute absolute prohibition. In America the fact would be appreciated that the Irish minority were being handed over to a Legislature which was called subordinate with a power that was not entrusted to the Sovereign States of the United States, and the American people would know who were on the side of liberty. How could it be necessary to give this power in Ireland to deal with invasion and rebellion when war and treason were reserved to the Imperial Parliament by the Bill? Invasion was only a form of war, and rebellion was an untechnical name for treason. If war and treason were reserved to the Imperial Parliament there was no reason for not also reserving the power to suspend the habeas corpus. The power could be given only for the purpose of coercion. This Amendment would test the sincerity of the Prime Minister's eloquent exordium in introducing the Bill, when he spoke of the two paths of autonomy and coercion, and invited the House to substitute autonomy for coercion. It was now rendered abundantly clear that coercion was part and parcel of this new Constitution for Ireland. Autonomy and coercion would be twins rocked in the same cradle and growing up together until a freedom-loving people arises to lay them in the same grave. It could not be said the power was to be given with the idea that it was not to be used, for the Attorney General claimed, as did the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that it was given in order that it might be used. If the Irish Legislature could not govern Ulster without this power, this Parliament had no right to give it Ulster to govern; and further, the power would be of no use, because the prisons in Ulster were not large enough to hold the men who would go into them if the power were used, nor were bars and bolts strong enough to keep them there. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Loyalism.]

    1397
    The Prime Minister had been so spoiled by the adoration of some of his followers that he forgot what loyalism was—that it was loyalty to the Constitution, of which the habeas corpus was one of the foundations. There was no man who, when he found himself face to face with the risk of losing this protection, would not resist to the utmost. It would not strengthen the hands of the Irish Legislature to invest it with this power, for the possession of it would justify disaffection and precipitate resistance. The minority did not want to have their liberties put in peril. Let the Attorney General know in what company he was ridiculing the value of the habeas corpus. James II., in his advice to his son, quoted by Lord Milton in the Debates of 1817, said— "It was a great misfortune to the people, as well as to the country, that the habeas corpus had been passed, as it obliged the Government to maintain a great force and enabled the turbulent to prosecute their evil designs." But he would rather appeal from the opinion of James II. to that of the great historian Hallam, who had written that "If temporary circumstances, or the doubtful plea of political necessity, should lead men to look on the denial of the writ of habeas corpus with apathy, the most distinguishing characteristic of our Constitution would be effaced." The Government were looking on the denial of the writ of habeas corpus with apathy. They might convince themselves that they were right in yielding to the pressure of their Irish allies, but in process of time he thought that a provision like this would bring home to the humblest and the greatest in Great Britain and Ireland what was the real character of the Bill. It was a measure for really investing the authority in Ireland deliberately and knowingly with the power of coercing a portion of their fellow-countrymen, and with the power of withdrawing from men of whom Great Britain had nothing to complain on the score of loyalty or peaceableness the protection of the Imperial Parliament.
    SIR H. JAMES: My learned Friend the Attorney General seemed, from the speech he has delivered, to have forgotten that he was Attorney General and almost that he was a lawyer. My hon. and learned
    1398
    Friend has delivered a purely Second Reading speech, and, what is more, a purely political speech. Long ago I recollect receiving a piece of advice as to the manner in which a Minister, engaged in steering a Bill through Committee, should act. The advice was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was to this effect:—"Never speak for five minutes, and never say one word which your opponents can object to or answer." I venture to recall that piece of advice to the attention of the Attorney General, who spoke for 25 minutes, and who has uttered many words to which his opponents must necessarily object. We shall have to follow the lead of the Attorney General to discuss the wrongs and the dangers of Ulster, to discuss their fears, to reply to his taunts and his insults; and in doing this we ought to receive the support of the Nationalist Members who cheered the Attorney General that this is not digression, but is the proper way in which to conduct a discussion in Committee on the sub-section of a Bill. What right, I would suggest, has the Attorney General to enter into the "last ditch" argument? The hon. and learned Gentleman is steering this Bill, but instead of avoiding the rocks, he has run right upon them, and appeared to be pleased when he got on them, and sorry when he got off. He said, What has the Imperial Parliament to do with anything that goes on in Ireland, even if the Irish Legislature should suspend the Habeas Corpus Act? The Imperial Parliament has a great deal to do with the question. I understand that the supremacy of Parliament is admitted to be a real supremacy, and that the Bill has been launched by means of promises, that the minority in Ireland shall be protected through this supremacy. If you allow the majority in Ireland to deal with the minority without the protection of the Habeas Corpus Act, what protection can possibly be given to any minority? The Prime Minister was unfortunately not present while this rhetorical attack was being made on Ulstermen; if the right hon. Gentleman bad been present I believe that it would not have been uttered. I repeat, that the Attorney General said that if the Irish Legislature think it right to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, what have we, the

    1399
    Imperial Parliament, to do with the matter.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I beg distinctly to say that I said no such thing. What I said was this: I was dealing with the suggestion of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and I referred to the result of throwing upon the Imperial Parliament, when it had made an effort to rid itself of Irish local affairs, the duty of considering that question, although they were not in the same position to judge of it as the Irish Legislature.
    SIR H. JAMES: That is much as I have stated, and I think I have correctly represented the Attorney General. I am now asking the Committee to consider whether the Imperial Parliament has not something to do with this very grave question. I know of no subject with which the Imperial Parliament ought to deal more seriously than with the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the Irish Legislature is to be a subordinate Parliament this is a strange power to give to it. The Legislature of Ireland would have the power of taking away the liberty of the subject, and the Executive would be in possession of the power to mark down for punishment, and without trial, every opponent. But I am told that Irishmen would never wish to use the power. Then for what purpose do they wish to have it? If it is improbable that the power would be used, why should it be granted? I appeal to the Prime Minister, who in his time has enjoyed great responsibilities of government. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether the slightest success attended the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1881. Did it pacify Ireland? The fact is, that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act can only be effective where it leads to people running away and escaping from justice. When it is met it becomes of no service, and never can be of service in restoring peace or obedience to the law. I now repeat, in the hearing of my right hon. Friend, that the Act of 1881—
    MR. MAC NEILL: Who was the Attorney General then?
    SIR H. JAMES: I do not think the Prime Minister looks back to his suspension of the Act with satisfaction.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My suspension?
    SIR H. JAMES: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I spoke only of the Government as a whole. It was done in the belief that good would come out of it. [Laughter from the Irish Members.] Do hon. Gentlemen think I shall be disturbed by what occurs there. [Laughter.] Why should those jeers take place? I have acted faithfully towards the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. I have formed no compact with him to get something from him; I have not abused him one day, accused him of political crime one day, and followed him servilely the next. I was not for one moment complaining of the policy of the Government of my right hon. Friend; I was asking him if he thought this policy had produced good results. I understood that in 1882 we departed from that which was represented by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and I do not think my right hon. Friend looks back on it with pleasure.
    MR. STOREY: What about yourself?
    SIR H. JAMES: My hon. Friend below me thinks I introduced the Bill. I was not a Member of the Cabinet; I was never consulted before it was introduced. So far as I can recollect I never uttered a word in favour of it, and all the right hon. Gentleman can taunt me with now, by word or gesture, is that I did not resign Office because he introduced that Bill. I do not think that precludes me—because I had the great honour of serving my right hon. Friend—from saying the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and although I share the responsibility with other Members of the Government of the passing of that Act, is a dangerous policy. I know the step was taken with the best motives, but I think the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—Mr. Forster—regretted that he had to use a weapon so dangerous. I do not intend to say more

    1401
    in relation to the policy of suspending this Act in the past than I have said, and to which I have referred for a moment with a desire to criticise the action of a former Government. We have now to decide whether that power is to be given to the Irish Legislature. I take the words of the Attorney General (Sir C. Russell). His description was that the Irish Legislature would have power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, but only in accordance with the established precedents, and if there was an emergency or a state of circumstances that justified the act. I wish my learned Friend would tell us the meaning he wishes to attach to those words. All that would be required would be an Act of one clause saying that the Habeas Corpus Act should be suspended after a certain date in any year. Who will try the validity of that Act? A person might be arrested under it, and he might, before the Skibbereen Petty Sessions, charge the police officer with an assault. The officer would reply, "I arrested you by warrant of Dublin Castle." The accused would say, "Here is the Habeas Corpus Act; you have no right to arrest me." The officer would say, "The Act has been suspended, and the suspension was a good one." "No," the accused would say, "it is bad, because it is not an Act passed according to the established precedents, nor was there an emergency or a state of circumstances to justify the Act." The Petty Sessions at Skibbereen would have to decide whether the Legislature of Ireland had acted according to precedent or national emergency. If they found the Legislature was acting in accordance with precedent they would remit the accused into the custody of the officer; but if the procedure goes to the extent of enabling the Magistrates to say the Act was passed without precedent, they would have to release the accused and to detain the officer in custody who made the arrest. But I am told there is an appeal to the Exchequer Judges. So there is, but I understand the appeal to the Exchequer Judges is to be on a point of law. According to this canon of construction laid down by the Attorney General, the Exchequer Judges are to be a Court of Appeal over the exercise of the discre-
    1402
    tion of the Irish Legislature. The Irish Legislature, by a large majority, vote that the Act ought to be suspended. The Court of Exchequer Judges have to say, "Yes, so they did; but we do not care for that; we will look into the state of Ireland, and will inquire whether there are Ribbonmen in West Meath or Fenians in the South of Ireland; we will sit in a High Court, and say we think the Irish Legislature was wrong; there were no such disturbances which, according to precedent, would justify the Legislature in passing this Act." And then they are to say, "We, the two Judges, not agreeing with the Irish Legislature, will over-rule the vote of that Legislature; we will set that Act entirely on one side, and declare that the Act has not been passed on account of a national emergency." I think the Committee will see the tangled web into which this Bill has now got. Here we are going to introduce into this old Constitution of ours this new-fangled form of the American Constitution. We are now to reduce to this positive level the liberties and the greatest power over the liberties. [Laughter and interruption.] Of course, Mr. Mellor, the Nationalist Members do not understand such arguments, and they gibe at them; they are foolish gibes. They are not thinking of the liberties of anyone. If you give this power of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, we believe and hold that the Irish Legislature will use that power, and, therefore, we ought to take good care that there shall not be given to a subordinate Parliament powers which ought never to be given to any Body but that which possesses extreme responsibility. We take note that to-night there has been developed by the refusal to accept this Amendment, exaggerated to some extent by the strange arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, a feeling that this Bill will produce results full of the highest danger and disaster to the loyal minority in Ireland.
    Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: We are accustomed to acknowledge, and I am accustomed greatly to acknowledge, the advantage we derive in intricate and difficult legal discussions from the presence of sages of the law on one side or

    1403
    the other. We expect from them everything that tends to allay our passions, to enlighten our understanding, and to direct us without prejudice or disturbance of the balance of our minds towards the various issues before us. But my right hon. Friend has introduced quite a new element. During these Debates, in certain things, not on all occasions, he has, undoubtedly, contributed some of the most stirring, some of the most animated, and some of the most disturbing disquisitions I have ever heard delivered in this House; but I think he has excelled himself on the present occasion. My right hon. Friend has stated to-night that during a Government of which I had the honour to be the Chief, that he served us loyally. Sir, that is perfectly and absolutely true, and I look back upon it, even at this moment, with unmixed satisfaction; but he served us with a completely simple and sober-minded loyalty that is in most extraordinary contrast with the speech he has delivered. If my right hon. Friend has lost nothing in ability, he has certainly lost nothing in warmth and power of appealing to passion—nothing whatever. On the contrary; in those respects, if they are desirable, he has largely gained, and is altogether in advance of the Attorney General. His new position has inspired him with new zeal; he has before him, apparently, objects far more sacred than those which were present to him when he held the humdrum office of Her Majesty's Chief Law Officer. How jauntily has he dealt to-night with the question of the habeas corpus. He refers to my suspension of the habeas corpus—he had nothing to do with it— my suspension of the habeas corpus. I accept the responsibility in this matter, and I shall not say one word to extenuate it; but I think the Attorney General of that day had a little more responsibility about it than he seems to be aware of. Under what pretext does he shelter himself? He believes he never made a speech in favour of it; he only followed loyally the Government to which he belonged. Yes, Sir; but an Attorney General who follows in Constitutional and legal matters the Government to which he belongs is supposed to have some concern with the character of any proposals which they make. What is
    1404
    the true and sound doctrine as to the responsibilities of Members who, as my right hon. Friend carefully reminds us, were not in the Cabinet? Well, Sir, my doctrine has ever been this, and scores of times I have had to deliver that opinion in practical advice and in other exigencies of political life. I have always held that a Member of the Government not in the Cabinet, when a measure is adopted by the Government not in his own specific Department, has no responsibility until he has to pronounce upon that measure in his character as a Member of Parliament; but when he has to pronounce in his character as Member of Parliament, he becomes as fully responsible for that measure as any Member of the Government. My right hon. Friend, who has endeavoured tonight elaborately to relieve himself of that responsibility—
    SIR H. JAMES: I shall not appeal in vain to my right hon. Friend's justice. I do not think that he heard all I said.
    Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Every word.
    SIR H. JAMES: My right hon. Friend was engaged in conversation with the Attorney General. I said distinctly that I blamed nobody, and that I did not wish to depart from accepting responsibility. But I asked my right hon. Friend, did he not look back with satisfaction upon the result of that measure?
    Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is a very easy part of the question. I do not look back with satisfaction; but I might reply to the Attorney General of that day, the great defender of the law, the great champion and pillar of Constitutional principles, by asking him whether he, who gave his votes in Parliament on that subject, reflected with satisfaction upon them? Well, Sir, my right hon. Friend has done to-night what I think is extremely unusual. I have heard my right hon. Friend, even under the excitement which attends our present Debates, do most kind and most handsome things within the last few weeks. Never would I be the man to do him consciously, or any other man, injustice;

    1405
    but my right hon. Friend to-night took a very extreme course. He differed entirely with the Attorney General as to the sense of the speech and the declarations made by the Attorney General. In his recollection, in his honourable recollection, he differed absolutely from the honourable and independent recollection of my hon. Friend. Now, Sir, it is a uniform rule in this House that when a gentleman finds himself in that predicament, when he has put a construction on the speech of an opponent, and that opponent rises and interjects an expression denying and reversing that construction of the speech, and states what he said is distinct from and opposite to it, it is the established practice to accept that declaration. My right hon. Friend has set an evil precedent; he continued to construe the speech of the Attorney General in the sense which the Attorney General had emphatically disclaimed. I wish to enter my protest against that mode of conducting the Debates of this House. I should enter my protest against it even if it occurred in the speech of the most insignificant and newest Member, but especially when it occurred in the speech of one of the great sages of the law, to whom we have to look, even in this House, for the anticipatory exercise at least of some of those judicial qualities that are supposed to lead gentlemen on in that happy path to the highest positions in the legal firmament. Now I come to the Amendment itself. ["Hear, hear!"] I welcome that cheer; I acknowledge that cheer; I acknowledge its justice; I acknowledge I have been at a long distance from the Amendment, but who led me there? The effect of this Amendment, as I understand it, beyond all question is to deprive absolutely and under all circumstances the Irish Legislature, acting on its own responsibility, of the power of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. What is the position which we take up in answer to that contention? Our position is this: that while I, for one, entirely disclaim the slightest intention of imputing to the future Irish Legislature any disposition to an unjust or capricious suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, yet I do not hesitate to say in my judgment, and I believe in the judgment of those to whom we look as our legal
    1406
    guides on this question, we have endeavoured so to frame the phraseology of this Bill as to place it beyond the power of the Irish Legislature to exercise such a disposition which I am certain it will never do. ["Oh, oh!"] That is the strange and eccentric opinion which I hold of the future of the Irish Legislature. But allow it, permit it, forgive it, because though I hold that opinion I admit that I, with others, have acted as though we did not—that is to say, we have met you, and not unwillingly met you, to this extent: that we have endeavoured to frame the phraseology of this Bill in such a way that were this Irish Legislature capriciously and in utter forgetfulness of British liberty under our ancient Constitution; were this Irish Legislature to be capable of capricious, wanton, and needless suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, with no circumstances to warrant and demand it, our Bill as it is framed would not allow it. Such an Act, even if it could receive the Royal Assent, which I believe to be impossible; even if it could escape the intervention of this House, which I believe to be impossible also, the action of the Courts of Ireland, by the appeal that would be made to them, and by the final judgment of that Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, would entirely quash and nullify that not only unwise but wicked act of the Irish Legislature. That has been our object, and the question is whether you will adopt an Amendment which shall bind you to this principle that under no circumstances shall the Irish Legislature be enabled to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. ["Hear, hear!"] I am sorry to say I understand that cheer, though it is limited to a particular corner which is rapidly acquiring a peculiar notoriety for cheers of a certain character, and renewed at a particular part of the evening. Our position is that, while taking securities, if you please, against the wanton, the wicked suspension of the habeas corpus, we also determine to impose on the Irish Legislature the duty of enacting laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland; and, having imposed on them that duty, we have no right to deprive them of this last and all-powerful weapon, which, in circumstances not to be supposed, and, I am

    1407
    firmly convinced, never to occur, but still within the range of possibility, and of the survival of which our opponents sometimes give indications—we have no right to withdraw the means of dealing with a terrible crisis if it should arise. If this were done it would be open to the Irish people to say that they had been appointed to a great, solemn, and responsible charge, and then had deliberately taken from them the means of discharging it. That requires no illustration drawn from the inconsistencies of late Law Officers or others to condemn it. It is a simple proposition which will, I think, recommend itself to this Committee; and, therefore, I ask you to reject the Amendment.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, the Prime Minister had made a very forcible speech; but the Committee must recollect—he (Lord R. Churchill) had a good recollection in the matter—having heard the right hon. Gentleman speak very differently on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. The attack made by the Prime Minister upon the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) was utterly unfounded. The main ground of that attack was that the Member for Bury consented to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1881, but now objected to that right being handed over to the Irish Parliament. When the Member for Bury supported the Prime Minister in 1881 the latter professed very different views to what he now upheld with regard to the government of Ireland. If the Prime Minister had never deserted the old Liberal principles which for years he held as to the government of Ireland, he would have the right hon. Member for Bury and many others with him now. But when the Prime Minister and leader of the people abandoned it in the course of a few weeks, without consultation with any of his Colleagues as to the new policy for Ireland which he was going to pursue, he should not, years afterwards, turn round and accuse the right hon. Member for Bury for departing from all his old principles. That was a most unjust charge to be brought against a former Colleague, who, to his know-
    1408
    ledge and recollection, gave him more assistance for the suppression of Ireland than any single Member on that (the Treasury) Bench. The Member for Bury remained true to every principle of political honour to which he was pledged, and experienced the greatest sorrow at departing from his Chief. The Ulster people who, at one time, gave the Prime Minister their support—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: They, in the exercise of their undoubted right, turned out everyone of our supporters.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, that they were quite right to do so, after the legislation which he had adopted for Ireland. He remembered the noble Duke (Devonshire), who was then Marquess of Hartington, going over to Belfast and saying that the government was unsatisfactory, and a departure from the great principles of Liberal government. The Attorney General had deliberately said that the reason the Government objected to the Amendment was that the habeas corpus would have to be used against the people of Ulster.
    SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, he must correct the noble Lord. He was dealing with the argument of the Member for Down (Mr. Rentoul), who said there would in all probability be a state of things in Ulster in which the Irish Legislature would think it right to apply the Habeas Corpus Act; and he went on to show the hon. Member that the state of Ulster opinion was not what he thought it was.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, that was a manœuvre which was called "willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike." The Attorney General's whole argument was directed to the power of the Irish Legislature to put down rebellion, or what they might choose to regard as rebellion, in Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Opposition seriously thought the Irish Legislature would forget the great principles of English liberty. When, at any time of their history, did the Irish people learn those principles? They had their own principles of liberty, which were fatal

    1409
    when a large minority were opposed to their ideas. The Opposition held, therefore, that the Irish were not fit, and never would be fit, to suspend the liberties of a large portion of their countrymen, because at the least sign of opposition the Irish Parliament would be ready to suspend every safeguard for liberty. The Government were driving nails into the coffin of the Home Rule Bill. Of all the Amendments proposed to this clause none exceeded the present one in importance. When the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the government of Ireland, he did not hesitate to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and to imprison about 2,000 persons —village ruffians in their thousands, and Members of Parliament in their scores. The inconsistency of the Government on this subject was incomprehensible and phenomenal. They did not seem to realise what weapons they were putting into the hands of the Opposition. He had had some experience and he knew the effect that could be produced on Englishmen by asking them whether their Irish fellow-subjects were to be deprived of their great securities for liberty—the Habeas Corpus Act and the petition of right—especially when it was known that those rights would only be valuable to the Protestants and Loyalists, and that the suspension of them would be a political strength to the Nationalists. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) professed to be a most faithful supporter of the old Radical faith, but he would help to give this power to the Irish Executive. Mr. Bright would never have consented to it; he would not even vote in this House for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus—
    The CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. Morley,): He voted for it.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman—
    MR. J. MORLEY: He voted for it once.
    An hon. Member: Twice.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; he voted for it twice.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, there might be exceptions here and there; he
    1410
    did not admit it until he had had the opportunity of verifying it. If Mr. Bright voted for the suspension, it only showed the influence of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. But your modern Radical voted for it gaily. The right hon. Gentleman might pursue his way; but undoubtedly the progress of the Bill had not been very gratifying. [Cries of "Question!"] He was speaking to the Question. Why was progress slow? Because, at the time when there was grave anxiety among the Government's supporters as to whether the Bill would be got through Parliament at all, and at a time when the elections showed clearly—[cries of "Oh!" and cheers]—utter distrust, and in many places great hostility to the measure, the right hon. Gentleman would insist on driving the Opposition to their last resort by refusing concessions on the vital and essential parts of the British Constitution, and by refusing to listen to or to answer arguments.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 241; Noes 270.—(Division List, No. 154.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. J. Morley) —put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SEAL FISHERY (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL [Lords].—(No. 393.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): In moving the Second Reading of this Bill it will be unnecessary, I think, for me to detain the House more than a few minutes. Some Papers have already been published which explain the reason why it was necessary to make this agreement, which is a provisional measure intended to endure for one year. The Bill has arisen out of exceptional circumstances that are as simple as they are exceptional, and no one who has read the Papers will be in doubt as to the merits of the ques-

    1411
    tion or why it is necessary to bring the Bill before the House without delay. The circumstances which have led to it are these: Last autumn certain Canadian vessels were seized by Russian cruisers on the ground that they had been transgressing International Law by capturing seals on the islands on the western side of the Behring Sea in the North Pacific which were within Russian territories. The circumstances of those seizures as reported created some indignation and some bewilderment as to what the intention of the Russian Government really was. I am glad to say that these circumstances have formed the subject of investigation in no unfriendly spirit between the British and the Russian Governments, and that, whatever may have been our first impression as to the seizure of those British vessels in the Behring Sea, it is now clear that the discussion between the two Governments will proceed solely upon matters of fact, and will not raise wide questions as to jurisdiction or International rights. It was very natural that the Canadian Government should, at the beginning of this year, request Her Majesty's Government to inform them what the procedure of Canadian vessels in that portion of the Behring Sea was to be during the ensuing season, and what measure of protection would be afforded to Canadian vessels. The British Government replied that British cruisers would support the action of Canadian sealing vessels in the North Pacific, except where they transgressed the three miles limit of the Russian territorial waters. The Russian Government demurred to that on the ground that the seals which visited these extra-territorial waters were bred on islands inside their territorial waters, and that, owing to the severe strain that had been put upon them, the seal rookeries on the islands in question were in danger of being altogether depopulated, and that the seals on them would be entirely destroyed. That, I think, was a fair ground for demurrer on the part of Russia supposing it could be supported by good reasons. Russia supported it by good reasons, pointing out that it was owing to exceptional circumstances—that is to say, the closing of one part of the Behring Sea to all sealing, that the sealing vessels concentrated their operations upon the Russian side of the sea.
    1412
    It was in these exceptional circumstances that Her Majesty's Government thought that there was fair ground upon which they could meet the proposals of the Russian Government, and that measures might be adopted which were beyond those usually sanctioned by International rights for the purpose of protecting these seal fisheries, as there was a danger of the extinction of seal life in that part of the world. I think the House will admit that there was a reasonable ground on which we could agree to discuss the adoption of special measures with the Russian Government. But something else followed. We submitted that if we were to submit to restrictions for the preservation of seal life then the Russian seal hunters should submit to other restrictions to help in that preservation. The Russian Government, on their own part, undertook to submit to restraint, and not to permit more than 30,000 seals to be taken annually from the rookeries, in place of 50,000 previously taken, and, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Government, in their turn, agreed that no sealing operations should take place within 10 miles of the Russian territory, or within 30 miles of the rookeries. That proposal was not accepted at once, but the Canadian Government were first sounded on the point. They admitted that it did appear reasonable, and said it was a proposal which would be acceptable to them. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government saw no reason why the proposal of the Russian Government should not be accepted, provided the details could be satisfactorily arranged. There was only one cause of dissension between the two Governments. The Russian Government claimed the right to seize vessels engaged in sealing outside the territorial waters, but within the two prohibited zones of 10 and 30 miles. It was agreed that British vessels ought not to be subjected to Russian jurisdiction, and a demand was therefore made to the Russian Government that if they seized any English vessels they should be handed over to the English authorities. The Russian Government complained at first that they could not effectively police their own waters and also take charge of any English vessels found engaged in sealing in the prohibited waters

    1413
    in order to hand them over to the British authorities. The answer was that to British authorities only would British sealers be made amenable, and Russia showed that she came to the discussion of these matters in no unfriendly spirit by agreeing to an arrangement whereby, if they could not retain the vessels, they should be content with seizing their papers, and then sending the vessel to some port with the papers following to be dealt with. That was an evidence that the Russian Government, in asking for an agreement of this kind, was not raising difficulties in a captious or vexatious spirit, but was prompted by the necessities and difficulties of the case. In regard to the preservation of seal life in that part of the world, Her Majesty's Government found that the agreement was acceptable to the Canadian Government; that it was reasonable; would serve the purpose for a time at least, and would prevent further friction and dispute in the regions concerned, such as had occurred in the previous year. Now, by entering into this agreement Her Majesty's Government have undertaken the responsibility of prosecuting British vessels which transgress it, and they are bound in honour to pass an Act of Parliament to enable them to discharge the obligation. If the House approves of the agreement, as I believe it will, it will be bound in honour to pass a Bill in order to enable the Government to keep faith with the Russian Government. I have, therefore, only to submit the present Bill to the House, with the confidence that being submitted as a Bill for a provisional arrangement, it will be accepted as an arrangement absolutely necessary to meet the exceptional circumstances of the case, and as being fair and honourable to all parties. It has the approval of Lord Salisbury in another place, and, therefore, I commend it to the consideration of the House as the best arrangement which can be arrived at for the moment, which will obviate future dangers and causes of friction, and will prove of advantage to both countries. I move that the Bill be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir E. Grey.)
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, that as perhaps he was one of the few Members who had been personally to the Islands dealt with in the Bill, he desired to say a word or two. With the exception of two objections he heartily approved the Bill, and hoped it would soon become law. His first objection was that the Bill had not been presented to the House at an earlier period of the Session. He knew the men engaged in these sealing operations, and he had the greatest respect for them. They were some of the first sailor men in the British Empire, and he regretted that the Bill had not been brought in earlier, for, in justice to the men, a decision on the matter ought to have been come to before, so that they might have been made acquainted with the arrangement before they left the ports of British Columbia. He rejoiced that we bad a Second Chamber in which useful legislation of this character could be initiated, and in which Bills of a highly-important character could be brought forward early in the Session. His second objection was that we had conceded too much to Russia, for he did not believe that the destruction of seal life had been so great as was pretended. Nevertheless, he considered that the Bill was a good and necessary one. He should like to know whether in Committee Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept verbal Amendments, as there were one or two points in regard to which slight amendments would strengthen and improve it?
    MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I do not think I need trouble the House above a moment or two in saying that I congratulate the Government on having arrived at the agreement with Russia embodied in the Papers recently laid before the House. I think I may say that, so far as this side of the House is concerned, there will be no objection to rapid progress being made with the measure. It was obviously desirable, after the events which took place last year in the matter of the seizures of British vessels, that an un-

    1415
    derstanding should as soon as possible be come to with Russia on that question, and all matters germane to it, after that Government had made themselves fully acquainted with the circumstances under which the seizures took place. On the general principle of the Bill no criticisms need be passed; but I should like to ask whether the Under Secretary means that the Bill is to last only for one year, seeing that the arrangement can be renewed from year to year? I may have misunderstood him, but I thought he said the Bill is only to last for one year. I think it would be very undesirable to pass the Bill for only one year, so as to necessitate the passing of a second measure next year. The Bill should be made permanent, and should be carried out by Orders in Council. I cannot really blame the Government for any delays that have taken place in bringing the Bill before Parliament. Of course, as will be seen from the Papers which have been presented, negotiations have been somewhat prolonged, and on comparing the dates of the various Despatches I do not think any charge of delay can fairly be brought against either the Russian Government or Her Majesty's Government. I certainly would do nothing to delay the passage of the Bill, and I conclude by saying that, so far as this Bench—and I think this side of the House—is concerned, the Bill will receive our hearty support.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he rose with diffidence to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months. He should be able to show that the Bill raised a serious question with regard to British subjects and the powers of British Ministers. Attention had been called to the statement that the measure was to be passed for one year only, but no such limitation was in the Bill.
    SIR E. GREY: When I said that I did not mean to imply that the Bill would only last for a year, but that in passing it the House sanctioned an agreement which was only for one year.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Then the Bill is to be perpetual?
    SIR E. GREY: In the Behring Sea.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, to put it in a few words, the effect of the Bill was to give power to Her Majesty's Ministers to protect sealskin cloaks at the expense of the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects on the high seas. What interest had we in the seal? Our interest lay exclusively in the use of it in the shape of clothes. No question of humanity could be urged, for there was as much inhumanity in driving the seals ashore and clubbing them as in shooting them on the high seas. He would call attention to the difference that existed between the question that had arisen as between the American Government and the British Government with regard to seals, and the question that had arisen between the Russian Government and the British Government. The American Government, no doubt, in 1886 seized, in a very high-handed way, a number of British sealing vessels. They took them into port, however, and tried the crews. They subjected the sailors to due process of law, and when they found they had no case they gave up the vessels, or a great number of them. But last year, encouraged apparently by the conduct of the Americans, but still more, he thought, by the results of the General Election of last July, the Russians entered upon a course of seizure of British vessels, under circumstances set forth in the statements made to Admiral Hotham, and which appeared in The Times dated September 8th. It appeared that they took the vessels into Russian ports, and, without placing the crews on their trial, treated them with the greatest inhumanity. Again and again he had asked Her Majesty's Government to give information as to these violent, outrageous, and lawless seizures by Russia, and not one word had been vouchsafed in reply. No Papers had been presented.
    SIR E. GREY: They have been laid to-day.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that here was a Bill sent down from the House of Lords to be read a second time, and they were told that the Papers relating to it had only been laid on the

    1417
    Table to-day. These outrages were committed last July, and certainly no reparation had been made in January last, when the Foreign Secretary was invited to come to an agreement with Russia. His first complaint of the agreement and of the Bill that professed to carry it out was that, without having obtained any reparation for these acts, Her Majesty's Government showed themselves ready to enter into an agreement with the Power that had committed them, giving that Power special rights over the high seas. The making of an agreement of indulgence with the Power that committed the affront showed that Her Majesty's Ministers were scarcely conscious of the high trust that had been committed to them. The Foreign Secretary (Lord Rosebory), in his first Despatch to the Russian Government, said that Her Majesty's Government gathered from the language used in 1891, and from previous public utterances of the Russian Government, that Russia made no claim to prohibit sealing in the waters adjacent to her territories except within the ordinary and recognised three-miles limit. Of course, no one had any right to complain of the action of Russia in this respect within the three-miles limit. His whole objection to the agreement was that it permitted Russian seizures outside the territorial limits, or, in other words, on the high seas. The Foreign Secretary was soon undeceived, for the Russian Government replied that they had themselves decided that no vessel should be allowed to fish for seals within 10 miles of the Russian coast or within 30 miles of the Commander Islands. After a certain amount of negotiation, an agreement was made. Lord Rosebery, unmindful of the interests of British subjects, forgetful of the wrongs inflicted upon them, and regardless of his duty to get reparation for those wrongs, entered gaily and easily into this agreement. Here he must complain of the English translation of the Russian documents. Those documents had been absolutely watered down in the translation. To give only one instance, the English translation made the Russian Government say they "desire" to preserve complete liberty of action as to choosing in future between the two systems of issuing their own orders or of
    1418
    making agreements with England. In the original the word was not "desire" but "intend," so that in the translation the meaning was entirely watered down. It was true that Lord Rosebery said that the British Government did not admit the Russian claims to jurisdiction over the high seas; but, as a matter of fact, he had agreed to Russia prohibiting sealing on the high seas within 30 miles of the Russian territories. The House was told that the consent of the Dominion Government bad been obtained to the agreement; but they were without a single Paper on the subject. What sort of consent had the Dominion Government given? Was it an unconditional consent, or the sort of consent they gave in 1891 to the modus vivendi with America—namely, a consent that was conditional on compensation being given to the sealers who were interfered with? Was the House to be called upon to provide in the Estimates for the compensation of the sealers? In 1891 Lord Salisbury declared that he would do nothing with regard to the modus vivendi until the consent of Parliament had been obtained. Her Majesty's Government now, without waiting for the consent of Parliament, had agreed with Russia to desist from the protection of British subjects, to which such subjects had a right. He said that this was a most monstrous usurpation of the power of a Minister, exercised under the pretext of the Prerogative of the Crown. The Bill gave very serious powers. It gave the power to prohibit, during the period specified in an Order in Council, all sealing by British ships in such parts of the seas as were specified in the Order. The Act had been drawn in a most careless and slipshod way. The Act was to apply to the seas within
    "That part of the Pacific Ocean known as Behring's Sea, and such other parts of the Pacific Ocean as are North of the 42nd degree of latitude."
    But whether North or South latitude was meant was not stated. If what was meant was South latitude it would close the Pacific Ocean from New Zealand to the North Pole. The Bill gave power to any commissioned officer to seize a vessel if he was of opinion that she was preparing to seal, and also provided that

    1419
    if a vessel had any shooting or fishing implements on board—which might be construed to mean a fish-hook or a gun for signalling—the onus should be laid upon her to prove that she was not engaged in the seal fishery. All those points were to be decided by Her Majesty the Queen in Council. As a matter of fact, Orders in Council were drawn up by clerks in the office, and "Her Majesty in Council" was really only a cover for a permanent official. The effect of the Bill, therefore, would be to put under some permanent official every subject of Her Majesty sailing on the high seas between certain degrees of latitude. It would also—and this was the worst part of it—place Her Majesty's subjects at the mercy of every Russian cruiser who sailed those seas and enable the officers on board to seize British ships, capture their papers, and hand them over to some one of Her Majesty's cruisers. He said that even to ask for such powers as this was unconstitutional; and he was sure that if the House, instead of being called upon to decide in 50 minutes upon a matter of this magnitude, had due time to consider the Bill, it would refuse to place the life, the liberty and the property of Her Majesty's subjects at the mercy of permanent officials.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does anyone second the Amendment?
    No hon. Member rose to second, and the Speaker therefore again proposed the Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he thought his hon. Friend who had just sat down had done quite right in reminding the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) of the circumstances attending the seizure of British sailors last year, and he thought that the hon. Baronet in introducing the Bill ought to have told the House something about the high-handed proceedings of the Russian Government. He (Commander Bethell), however, was quite at one with the Bill, as it was quite essential that some step should be taken to prevent the destruction of seal life which was now going on, and which would end before long, if it were not stopped, in the extinction of
    1420
    seals. He had merely risen to accentuate the remarks of his hon. Friend in regard to the most arbitrary proceedings of the Russian Government in capturing British sailors last year, and he thought the hon. Baronet ought to have given some explanation and perhaps have made some apology for it on behalf of the Russian Government.
    MR. TOMLINSONinquired whether the Government expected to be called upon to give an indemnity to the crews of any of the ships seized last year?
    SIR E. GREY: By the leave of the House I will just say a word on the point which the hon. Member has raised. In the speech I have already made I explained that the discussion with regard to these seizures by the Russian Government would turn on questions of fact and not of questions of International Law or abstract right. In the Papers that have been laid on the Table to-day it will be seen that the Russian Government dispute the statements of fact which have been referred to by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) and state that the sailors who, according to the point of view put before us, were seized at a considerable distance from the land, were in some instances, according to their investigations, sailing within prohibited limits and were caught in hot pursuit. In two instances, however, at least, the Russian Government admit that they cannot prove that, and have offered an indemnity. That is the position of affairs at present, and if the matter is pursued the discussion will proceed on questions of fact.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill road a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BILL.—(No. 263.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 15th June.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [SIR J. GOLDSMID in the Chair.]
    Clause 1.
    MR. TOMLINSON MR. TOMLINSON rose to move an Amendment to the clause.
    MR. T. M. HEALY, on a point of Order, asked whether the question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill" had not been put?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No; the Question has not been put. The hon. Member is in Order.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  APPEALS (FORMA PAUPERIS) BILL [Lords].— (No. 313.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Objection taken.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I hope the opposition to this Bill will not be maintained. The Bill came down from the House of Lords. It has the assent of the Appeal Committee, and is not a Party matter. The object is to prevent vexatious appeals. Paupers are now allowed to prosecute appeals to the House of Lords on a certificate from two barristers that there is good ground for the appeal. The consequence is that many persons who are successful in the inferior Courts are subjected to vexatious litigation without any primâ facie ease. This Bill will enable the House of Lords to refuse to entertain such cases if the Committee of Appeals report that there is no primâ facie case.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does it apply to Irish appeals?
    MR. ASQUITH: Yes, to all appeals.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  COUNTY OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 891.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2.
    MR. HOZIER: Will the Secretary for Scotland say whether the Government do not intend to follow the precedent of Edinburgh? The Lord Provost of Edinburgh is ex officio Lord Lieutenant of the County of the City of Edinburgh. Is that privilege to be withheld from Glasgow?
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): This is an important question. On his or her accession to the Throne, the Monarch appoints the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and his successors to this post, and it is the intention of the Government to request Her Majesty to issue a Commission of the same sort for Glasgow. I hope it will be a long time before it is necessary to repeat the request.
    MR. HOZIER: It is not provided for in the Bill.
    SIR G. TREVELYAN: It is the intention of the Government. I do not think we can bind Her Majesty to take any course.
    Clause agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 235.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I hope the Bill will be allowed to pass. It was accepted unanimously by the House the other night. There is only one clause practically. The object is to enable landowners in Scotland to charge upon

  1423
  their estates the expense of planting trees. Under the Act of 1864 they were unable to do that either in England or in Scotland unless the trees were for shelter. By an Act passed in 1882 English landowners were allowed to do this, and it is now proposed to give Scotch landowners the same facilities. The Bill is approved by both sides of the House.
  MR. BROMLEY - DAVENPORT: Although this Bill was unanimously accepted by the House on Friday, this is the first explanation we have had of its provisions. I am bound to protest against the action of the Government in asking us to take the Second Reading of any Bill on such meagre explanation.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Identically the same explanation was given the other night.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I was present and heard it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask whether the Rule as to the reception of Motions to report Progress applied after 12 o'clock in the same way as before?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I hope the hon. Member who has moved to report Progress will consult his friends. He will learn that this Bill is very much desired in Scotland.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has got all the time of the House. He cannot expect us to pass these Bills after midnight.
  MR. H. GARDNER: This is a Bill of a character which is never brought on except after midnight.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I shall press my Motion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL.—(No. 294.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. HOWELLsaid, be only asked the House to take a formal step. The Bill must be amended by including Amendments agreed to by the Treasury.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that if it was only desired to take a step pro formâ he would not object. But he was sure the Bill would have to be most carefully considered, and it would probably have to be referred either to a Select Committee or one of the Standing Committees.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that the Amendments be inserted.
    MR. TOMLINSON: What are the Amendments?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): They are Amendments agreed to by the Treasury. It is desirable that they should be seen by Members of the House generally before they are added to the Bill.
    Amendments inserted.
    Bill reported.
    SIR F. S. POWELL: I presume the Amendments stand now for consideration?
    MR. SPEAKER: Yes. The Bill will be re-committed.
    MR. HOWELL: I propose to put it down for Friday next.
    Bill to be printed, as amended [Bill 395]; re-committed for Friday.

  PROHIBITED PERSONS (DRINK) BILL. (No. 372.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CONYBEARE: What is the object of the Bill?
    MR. BILLsaid, the Bill provided that persons who had been convicted of drunkenness more than twice in the course of a year should be prohibited from entering a public-house. It might be suggested that this was an unusual Bill.
    An hon. MEMBER: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  SACRED MUSIC ON SUNDAY BILL. (No. 15)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR G. SITWELLsaid, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time, and that the hon. Member from Scotland who was opposing it would be content with moving in Committee that the operation of the measure be confined to England.
    MR. REES DAVIES: What are the objects of the Bill?
    SIR G. SITWELLexplained that under the Lord's Day Observance Act it was impossible for sacred music to be played on Sunday in cases where money was taken at the door. The Bill was to enable sacred concerts to be held on that day and money to be taken at the doors, and so to prevent those promoting such Sunday concerts from being subjected to the heavy penalties imposed by the Lord's Day Observance Act.
    LORD F. HAMILTONasked how on earth it was possible to define what was sacred music? He himself had heard "Tommy make room for your uncle" sung as a sacred tune. Obviously the definition was difficult, and he hoped the supporters of the Bill would consent to the omission of the word "sacred."
    MR. TOMLINSON: I object.
    SIR G. SITWELL: I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to allow the Bill to be read a second time.
    MR. TOMLINSON: It is a Bill which clearly requires discussion. I am not going to argue the question now. I must object.
    Further Proceeding adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  FINES IN LIEU OF IMPRISONMENT BILL.—(No. 203.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Objection being taken,
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: I hope the Bill will be allowed to proceed.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I should have been happy not to object, but you stopped the Sacred Music Bill.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: It is rather hard on me to object to this Bill because someone else objected to another Bill.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 390.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was authorised by the Chief Secretary to state that he was willing this Bill should pass.
    Mr. J. HAVELOCK WILSON: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS (EXTENSION TO FISHERMEN) BILL.—(No. 350.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Objection being taken,
    SIR R. TEMPLEexpressed a hope that the opposition would be withdrawn. The Bill was a simple one. It extended to fishermen certain advantages as to the acquisition

    1427
    of cottages enjoyed by labourers, and surely it ought not to be opposed. These advantages had been already given to the labourers by several Acts of Parliament. The argument extended equally to fishermen; and the Bill aimed at giving a small though just advantage to industrious men known as Englishmen who had travelled on the Irish Coast.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. (No. 375.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 370.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 368.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.—(No. 369.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. (No. 378.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.—(No. 365.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 336.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  SALMON FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.— (No. 389.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 383.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  SWINE FEVER BILL.—(No. 24.)
  Order for Second Reading road, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SPIRITS (BELFAST, CORK, AND DUBLIN).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 24th April; Mr. Arthur O'Connor]; to lie upon the Table.
  RUSSIA (No. 2, 1893).
  Copy presented,—of Correspondence respecting the seizures of British Sealing Vessels by Russian Cruisers in the North Pacific Ocean [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RUSSIA (No. 3, 1893).
  Copy presented,—of Despatch from Sir R. Morier enclosing the Reply of the Russian Government in regard to the Seizures of British Sealing Vessels by Russian Cruisers in the North Pacific Ocean [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
  Copy presented,—of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.
  Copy presented,—of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented,—of Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 212, of Session 1892) (as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities) for the year 1892 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF DROGHEDA.
  CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
  Ordered and Directed, That a Certificate be sent by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, stating that the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom has reported to the House of Lords that the right of the Earl of Drogheda to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of him the said Lord Chancellor; and that the House of Lords has ordered such report to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland: And it is hereby also ordered, That the said Report of the said Lord Chancellor be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.

NEW PEERS.
Sir Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Baronet, G.C.B., G.C.I.E., V.C., General and late Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces in India, having been created Baron Roberts of Kandahar in Afghanistan, and of the City of Waterford— Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Sir Henry Hussey Vivian, Baronet, having been created Baron Swansea of Singleton in the County of Glamorgan— Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Mowbray, after the death of his father.
BREAD-STUFFS.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAMmoved to resolve—
  "That in view of the grave danger which threatens this country hi time of war, owing to the fact that it would be entirely dependent for its supply of daily bread upon uninterrupted communication with other countries by sea, this House urges upon Her Majesty's Government the duty of providing, by immediate legislation, that the quantity of bread-stuffs in the United
  1282
  Kingdom shall not at any time fall below the amount necessary to provide bread for the whole population for six months."
  He said that, if any doubts at this moment surrounded the question of the security of our food supply in time of war, it was a good thing by public discussion and debate to dissolve and remove those doubts; and, if such a discussion were to take place, it was important that it should take place in time of profound peace, when the political atmosphere was not charged with electricity; and when, therefore, the discussion of the question would not have the effect of bringing upon us the storm which might otherwise break. There could be no doubt that there was a growing anxiety in the country as to the security of the food supply; and it arose from a greater understanding of the problem with which we should have to deal, and the struggle which the country would have to face if engaged in war with a great Maritime Power. It arose, also, from the increasing dependence on foreign countries for bread-stuffs. Last week the noble Marquess who was at the head of the late Government, speaking in the South of London, said—
  "It is our great difficulty and danger that two-thirds of the food we consume we obtain from foreign lands, and therefore it is upon the ocean that the battle will have to be fought."
  The accuracy of the noble Marquess's figures was not in dispute; but he, in part, differed from the noble Marquess in thinking that the battle would have to be fought on the ocean. Although the ultimate issue must be decided on the ocean, there was a step which common-sense men could take in time, and which would place, if not the whole, a substantial part of the issue in a position of absolute security, not on sea, but on land. The danger really to be apprehended was not so much the possibility that the food supply of the country would be actually interrupted, or that the Navy would be unable to afford substantial protection to it; it was to be found in considerations which hitherto had been almost overlooked— the position of the food supply immediately after war was declared, and before it could be shown that the most admirable naval arrangements were sufficient. At present 27,000,000 quarters was the supply of bread-stuffs needed to keep the British population beyond want. Of the annual supply 16,000,000

  1283
  quarters came from abroad, and the home supply was only 9,250,000. This home supply, moreover, was only available between the months of harvest and February; because the British farmer, being needy, could not afford to hold his produce, but must sell at the earliest possible moment. He would, therefore, call their Lordships' attention to this strategic point. At the very time when, in all probability, war would be declared—the early spring—the whole of the home supply of bread-stuffs would have been exhausted, and for the next six months the country would be absolutely dependent on the supply from abroad. On the 1st June in the present year the supply of English corn in the country only amounted to one month's consumption, or 2,250,000 quarters. He would point out the dangers which surrounded such a position; and he would submit a simple, effectual, costless, and opportune plan by which the statesmen of this country, if they would take a common-sense view of the matter, could place the country out of the reach of immediate danger. The average supply of bread-stuffs in this country at any given moment did not exceed one month's consumption for the whole population; and within the last 10 years it had more than once happened that the supply of bread stuffs had been reduced to 14 days' consumption. There was no law to insure even that very precarious condition of things; and what would happen if, in the midst of it, as was not inconceivable, the country were plunged into a war in which France and Russia were arrayed against us? The Amendment which had been placed on the Paper by Lord Sudeley was of an extraordinary character on account of the grave admissions which it contained— admissions which noble Lords on either side of the House would not be likely to agree to. Everyone who had followed the course of naval history during the last seven years must have seen that the attention of both Parties equally in Parliament and in the country had been wakened to the absolute necessity of placing the Navy in a position of supremacy; and, therefore, to ask Her Majesty's Government to accept an Amendment pledging them at this hour to provide a Navy which would insure this country's supremacy at sea was to put them in a peculiarly unfortunate and
  1284
  even ridiculous position. The Amendment did not traverse his Resolution, but urged upon the Government the duty of providing—
  "For the maintenance of such a Navy as will in their opinion and on their responsibility, insure to this country the supremacy of the sea."
  He thought it would be most unfortunate if it were to go forth to the world upon the authority of their Lordships that our Navy was not, at the present moment, in a position to insure the supremacy of the seas, for he thought that politicians on all sides were agreed that we had not only done our utmost, but that we had done sufficient to place our Navy in that position. If this Amendment were to be moved at all, it should be moved as a substantive Resolution; and the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he agreed with it, should bring it forward on his own authority, and it would then form the subject of many and important Debates in their Lordships' House. His point, however, was not that the Navy was in-sufficient for our present requirements; and, therefore, he believed it would be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. He trusted the noble Lord would see the desirability of with-drawing his Amendment, inasmuch as the Resolution did not traverse the position which the noble Lord took up in that Amendment. Suppose that we were engaged in a war with two first-class Maritime Powers, such as France and Russia—this digression was imposed upon him by the noble Lord's Amendment— what would be the duty of the Government? We should have to send a battle fleet to keep the battleships of these two nations in their own ports; we should have to scud fleets to the Baltic, Black Sea, Toulon, Cherbourg, and to the Pacific, where Russia had a naval station; and in each case it would be necessary that the blockading force should be at least one-third in excess, of the force to be hemmed in, inasmuch as that force would not necessarily be under steam at all, whereas we should be under steam and far away from our coaling stations. We should not only have to protect our grain ships from the attacks of cruisers and armed merchantmen issuing from hostile ports, but we should have to watch neutral coaling stations where those vessels might take

  1285
  in supplies of coal. We should also have to send out fleets of protection to watch points of accumulation where the shipping of the world converges, such as the Atlantic Equatorial crossing, making their way to our ports to discharge their cargoes. These operations would have to be conducted simultaneously, and there should not even he a week's delay after war broke out before these vessels were at their different stations, for, otherwise, what was to become of this country with our limited supply of provisions? He hoped the Government would not put forward the objection that if hostilities were to break out we should then be ready to take the necessary stops in regard to our food supply, for it would certainly be impossible to do anything of the kind. Another danger would be that, assuming our telegraphic communication was imperfect—and there were few persons who were not aware how weak we were in this matter, for not many years ago, when there was a breakdown on the Suez Canal route, every message that was sent to our Indian Empire and to Australia had to go through Russia— we should have to communicate through other countries. Pleasant messages in time of war to send through Russia that we urgently required a supply of grain from any quarter of the world! Again, the tasks that would be imposed upon our Navy under the ordinary conditions of war would be immensely enhanced by an unfriendly or hostile attitude on the part of Ireland. The noble Marquess, in his speech in South London, had referred to this matter, and had drawn attention to the position which Ireland occupied towards Glasgow, Liverpool, and Bristol, and to the fact that our food supply came from the West. The fact that the Government which it was proposed to set up in Ireland would focus all the disloyalty and disaffection of that country, and that they would, no doubt, be in sympathy with large classes of their fellow-countrymen who were an influential voting power in the United States, would bring us face to face with another difficulty. At present no less than 38 per cent, of our foreign food supply came from the United States, and 12 per cent, from Russia. Supposing that by an Act which could not be construed into an act of war, the United States were to say they would prevent
  1286
  that 38 per cent, of grain from coming to us, Russia would, of course, close her ports, and we should have then 50 per cent, of our food supply cut off, and we should not be able to prevent it. It would be in vain that our Navy was there ready and willing to protect the grain-ships, if they were prevented from starling at all. He was not disposed to concede anything to the argument which might be advanced that even if our own commerce was driven from the seas we could get our supply of grain in neutral bottoms. No less than 80 per cent, of the whole ocean-carrying trade of the world was done under the British Flag, and only 20 per cent, remained, therefore for neutral bottoms. When it was considered that these would be scattered all over the world, and that it would be impossible to unite them in reasonable time, as we might have to rely on them at a fortnight's notice, he thought that the argument would be seen to be sufficiently absurd. But, even supposing the Government were to say that some of our ships might be transferred from the British Flag to neutral flags for this I purpose, this expedient would merely be a colourable pretence which no Court of Law would entertain for a moment. Besides, what was there to prevent a belligerent from declaring bread-stuffs contraband of war? It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that, during the war between France and Russia, France declared rice to be a contraband of war, on the ground that it was the main food supply of the country with which it was at war. He would concede that it might be probable or possible, within even a few weeks, to make the naval dispositions to which he had referred. But that was where the crux of the whole question lay. What would happen to this country while the naval arrangements were being made? What was wanted in this matter was not an admirable theory—not the opinion of the Government, not even their responsibility, whatever that might mean in these days, but an absolute security, something that the people of this country could see, touch, and handle. They wanted the supply of corn on shore, and not at the mercy of the winds, the waves, and our enemies, though they might believe that the united Fleets were inferior to our

  1287
  own. The real danger, in his opinion, lay at the point at which war was declared or begun. The naval warfare of the future was a matter of experiment. It existed only, so far, on paper; it had not yet been tried; and, however admirable it might be on paper, they could not know for certain that there were no contingencies to provide against. History afforded instances in which the calculations of the most eminent statesmen had been corrected by experience. Supposing war broke out and an attempt was made to put this naval programme into force. In 1815, when this country was a self-supplying nation, the conditions were totally different. Even at that time, however, although our Fleet was not diverted as it was now from the primary duty of protecting the interests of the country at large in order to maintain our food supply, yet with our Fleet dominating the sea there were captures reckoned by hundreds under our very guns and in the Channel itself. What would happen supposing anything of the kind took place under present conditions? There was nothing more certain than that a declaration of war would produce two economic results in this country. In the first place, it would produce a great rise in the price of bread. In May, 1887, when there was a rumour of war with Russia, the price of wheat went up to 65s. 10d. per quarter, and in the Crimean War bread went up to 11d. per loaf. If the price should go up to 1s. per loaf, that made a difference in extra payment to the people of the country of £109,000,000 a year as compared with the price of bread at this moment. Other things would tend to raise the price of bread. In the next place, there would be an immense increase in insurance and freights, and the English holder of wheat would be suddenly transformed from a weak into a strong holder. They had also to add the rumours which might be expected to arise from interested speculators on the Stock Exchange and elsewhere. Not only would there be a rise in the price of bread, but in the price of raw material as well. The margin of profit would disappear; the price of bread would be raised to a point at which the working classes would be unable to pay for it, while large numbers of labourers and artisans would be thrown out of employ-
  1288
  ment owing to the inability of manufacturers to employ them. What would be the effect? Was it to be supposed that, in a Government ruled by the people, the people wold wait until the condition of affairs was equalised again? Would the people believe the assurances of the Government when it was known that the Government had nothing else but assurances to give? Even though the food supplies were safe and on the road, the Government could not assure the people that they would be able to buy supplies at a reasonable price. The result of an outbreak of war, no matter how strong our Fleet might be, would be to strangely move the working classes of the country, possibly to social disorder and panic; and the people would come knocking at the doors of Parliament insisting that they should have their food supply guaranteed to them, so that the hands of the Naval and Military Departments would be tied at the very moment when they should be most free. Under the plan he suggested the Government would have it in its power to insure the working classes their daily supply of bread; and surely, if that could be done without sacrificing public money, it should be done. The time now was opportune. They would have behind them at the time when the greatest tension was put on the chain a six months' supply of grain; and they would insure that the most important link of all, the moral support of the people, would not be wanting behind them. He submitted that this fact, of itself, showed that the scheme was well worthy the consideration of their Lordships' House. But, besides conferring these benefits, the plan would be economical. Suppose war declared in April, it would not be as in the time of the Thirty Years' War, when the troops went quietly into winter quarters, and renewed operations in the following spring. The war between Franco and Germany was declared and over in a very short time—practically settled in less than a month. War declared in April might be reasonably expected to be decided by the following August; and what would be the use of our starving population knowing there were millions of acres of land in the country on which the corn was six inches high? No doubt the encouragement of

  1289
  wheat-growing was a subsidiary clement of value. But what was the real answer to the problem? He suggested that they should establish State granaries. [Laughter.] He saw that some noble Lords laughed at that idea; but it was not an original idea on his idea dated back to almost times, and was following the Joseph in Egypt. It was at years old, and this would, commend it to the Conservative mind generally. It had been the means of saving a great historical people, and he believed, if well managed, it would add to the resources of the Imperial Treasury. He did not know what answer would be given on the part of the Government; but he would proceed to show that the establishment of these granaries would cost the State nothing, and might be made, as he said, to increase the Revenue. Now, his proposal was that these granaries should be established in different parts of the country, easily accessible by sea, and within easy distance from the great centres of population. They would be erected by the Government, and the Government would be obliged by law to see that the contents never sank beneath six months' food for the people. He did not desire to go into detailed figures on the question; but he had had some leading figures supplied to him. The minimum in the granaries ought to be 13,000,000 quarters, and for a maximum of 20,000,000 quarters the cost of storage at 30s. per quarter, including cost of buildings and interest at 2½ per cent.—for which they could easily borrow the money—a sum of between £32,000,000 and £33,000,000 would be needed. The plan would be to buy English wheat in the autumn, and by keeping that in the granaries under proper engineering appliances the wheat would increase in value, and could be sold in the spring as first-class English wheat. Those who knew what fluctuations took place in the grain market and the difference between buying and selling prices would not be surprised to hear that, managed by a Government Department, the profit was calculated at £1,000,000 a year to the country. This would pay the interest on the loan and leave a margin. He submitted that the plan he set out would be a measure of great public security; and he failed to see how the Government
  1290
  could any longer refuse to avail themselves of so obvious an escape from the difficulty. There was much, at the present moment, to make a proposal of this kind opportune. The crisis in the agricultural counties was accentuated by the present exceptional drought; and if the plan were adopted they would, in addition to taking a measure to establish national security, render an important service to the agricultural interest. They would render an enormous service to the market where sales were made at cost price, and the increase in the price of wheat would not affect the price of bread, for it was well known that the price of bread did not rise proportionately with the price of wheat. They would bring that hope to the farmers which they had hitherto looked for in vain. It was possible that some of their Lordships had underrated the inherent importance of the matter. The working classes of this country might possibly persuade themselves on the occurrence of a crisis that it was their duty to wait events patiently; but how could a statesman look forward with complacency to the certainty that those classes would have to face privation that might be averted by a simple economic arrangement which would give them bread at a reasonable price? Surely a strong case was made out for consideration; and, at any rate, he hoped their Lordships would not accept the proposed Amendment, which seemed to imply that our Navy was not equal to the task that would devolve upon it. At least, he hoped their Lordships would not decline any longer to look in the face those difficulties that were inevitable, and difficulties such as no man of common sense would ignore in the case of his own family. Surely the possible starvation of the people could not possibly be tortured into a Party question. The question was not one of protection in any other sense than protecting the lives and liberties of the people; and, therefore, he hoped their Lordships would accept the Resolution.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That in view of the grave danger which threatens this country in time of war, owing to the fact that it would be entirely dependent for its supply of daily bread upon uninterrupted communication with other countries by sea, this House urges upon Her Majesty's Government the duty of providing, by immediate legislation, that the quantity of bread-stuffs in.

  1291
  the United Kingdom shall not at any time fall below the amount necessary to provide bread for the whole population for six months."—(The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham.)
  LORD SUDELEYmoved (as an Amendment to the above Motion) to leave out all the words after the word ("providing,") and insert—
  "For the maintenance of such a Navy as will in their opinion and on their responsibility insure to this county the supremacy of the sea."
  He agreed with the noble Earl in so far as he had pointed out the grave danger that would threaten this country in time of war if commerce were interrupted, but did not agree in his remedy. The noble Earl had persuaded himself, on insufficient data, that we could not undertake to keep such command of the sea as would prevent our commerce being destroyed. To take the measures he proposed of locking up enormous quantities of bread-stuffs to feed the 30,000,000 of our people during six months would be attempting an impossible task at an enormous expenditure. It would be, at the same time, proclaiming to the world that we had given up once for all that splendid position of naval supremacy which prevented any interruption of our commerce, and of which we had hitherto been so proud. If the financial difficulties were overcome, he could not but come to the conclusion that such a scheme was utterly wrong, and was one that could only be resorted to if we had been reduced to a second-rate Power, and had no Navy to depend upon. If we were prepared to spend a large sum of money for such an insurance, let it be spent on making and keeping our Navy absolutely efficient. During the last two years we had had "the influence of sea power" in all its conditions most admirably laid before us in that very powerful work written by Captain Mahan, of the United States Navy, which completely proved his (Lord Sudeley's) case. It had been well said by Mr. Dasent—
  "That the value of Captain Mahan's work consists above all in this, that they enable even civilians to grasp the principles which govern modern warfare, the principles on which the British Empire must be defended it the present time as in former years."
  Did the noble Earl want us to adopt a new policy? Were we to sit in passive defence behind
  1292
  great fortifications and, like Egypt in patriarchal times, to lay in stores of grain and to fill our granaries, and was the noble Earl to become a second Joseph? Nobody could have read these works of Captain Mahan's and then vote for the Resolution. So long as we had a Navy commensurate to the requirements of this country there need be no fear; but otherwise some proposal like the noble Earl's might become necessary. The noble Earl's Motion expressed a feeling which was spreading gradually throughout the country—that our Navy was not in such a state of efficiency, as compared with other Navies, as would render the security of our commerce absolute in time of war. Unfortunately, this was correct, and ought to be remedied. Credit was due to the late Government for the strides they made under the Naval Defence Act, and that policy, to the credit of the present Government, was being continued; but vastly more was required to be done, both as to matériel and personnel—we ought to have more ships and more men. What was the real state of the Navy at the present moment? We were not in the same position relatively with other nations that we once were. France and Russia had, during the last few weeks, determined to increase their shipbuilding programme to such an extent that they were together spending £2,000,000 a year more than Ave were. Our ships were magnificently built, our officers and men wore a splendid set of sailors devoted to their duty in every way; but, unfortunately, we had not a sufficient supply of either ships, officers, or men. It would be easy to show any Committee of Inquiry that it was the opinion of all naval experts that we had not enough battleships, not enough torpedo-boat destroyers, and not enough cruisers. Amongst many other requirements, there was not even a single shell on board the ships ready to fire melinite or picric acid like the Navies of France, Germany, and Italy. Whatever might be the result of the noble Earl's Motion, he (Lord Sudeley) hoped that, at any rate, it would call attention to the danger we were in unless we had an absolutely powerful Navy. The position of the Naval Reserve also was not satisfactory. We were supposed to have 23,000 of them ready trained; but, as a matter of fact, only about 500 of them

  1293
  had ever been trained on sea-going men-of-war. They were simply trained in hulks with obsolete guns, and the whole matter required looking into most urgently. Again, our armaments were of far too diverse a character, necessitating stores of the most complicated kind all over the world, instead of having four or five special types. The policy of the noble Earl might be summed up in the words of the parable—"Soul take thy ease, thou hast goods laid up for many years." He counselled, on the other hand, that their Lordships should remember that the command of the sea made costly forts and stores unnecessary, and that it was the only way for insuring a ready supply of food for our people. He, therefore, begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after the word ("providing") and insert ("for the maintenance of such a Navy as will in their opinion and on their responsibility insure to this country the supremacy of the sea.")—(The. Lord Sudeley.)
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, he declined to be diverted into a discussion upon the efficiency of the Navy, and would deal with the Resolution offered for the acceptance of the House. It was an extremely important one, and he wished to discuss it upon the merits of the proposal itself. He was not surprised that the noble Earl thought the time had come when statesmen should consider the altered condition of British agriculture. From 1850 to 1860 our home supply of wheat and flour amounted to 73 per cent, of our consumption. At the present time the home production of wheat and flour only amounted to 32 per cent, of the consumption, and the foreign supply to 68 per cent. The noble Earl dealt with this as a startling change; but there were many startling things connected with the production of food and manufactures. It was very startling, for example, to learn for the first time that the whole world was within 12 months of starvation. It was very startling to think that if the production of manufactures were stopped for two years the whole world would become as naked as the most primitive savages. But, somehow, the world was able to get on tolerably well, notwithstanding these not very probable contingencies; and the reason was that commercial
  1294
  activities adapted themselves in a wonderful way to supply a demand. Now, what was the case which the noble Lord put before their Lordships? As to some of his figures, there could be little dispute, but with others he could not agree. The money value of the 26,500,000 quarters at 30s. per quarter, to which he referred, was £39,750,000 sterling, or say, in round numbers, £40,000,000. The noble Lord's proposal was very simple: that the Government should be under statutory obligation always to keep up a reserve of 13,000,000 quarters at public granaries at a cost of £20,000,000, reducible by sales. The initial cost would be much greater, for we must, of course, build public granaries to receive and store the corn. The noble Lord said we might tax foreign corn 1s. a quarter to pay the interest on the £20,000,000, and, as he thought the foreigner paid the tax, he would rejoice at the imposition. But Free Traders contended that all Import Taxes came out of the pockets of the consumers in this country, who would not appreciate this annual tax of £950,000 sterling. He further believed that a smart Government Department would necessarily buy in a cheap market and sell in a dear one, and, like the Post Office, be a revenue-producing Department, agreeable to Chancellors of the Exchequer. Whether the noble Lord had ever submitted his scheme to experienced merchants he did not know; but corn merchants assured him—and it was his own opinion—that if Government were to go into the corn trade all private trade would be disjointed, and might even be paralysed. It was a trade that needed the greatest watchfulness. People engaged in it required to watch its variations from week to week, and almost from day to day. If a Government were continually to interfere in the markets, trade calculations would become unreliable. But one thing was certain—that when Government had to buy for replenishment of its granaries it would have to buy at the top of the market, and when it unloaded its stores it would have to sell at the bottom of the market. Suppose the Government had to purchase 5,000,000 quarters at a given time, under conditions of a bad harvest, the effect on foreign markets would be to raise the price from 10s. to 20s. a quarter—a

  1295
  result which would please the noble Lord greatly, but would make bread much dearer to the people of this country than it would have been under the operations of individual enterprise. Let their Lordships consider a case which was far from being infrequent. In October, 1891, there was a bad harvest in this country, and also in France. Californian wheat, which now sold at 29s. 3d., rose under the apprehended scarcity to 46s. 6d. under individual trading; and it probably would have cost the Government, buying under statutory obligation, from 50s. to 60s. But the scare passed away, and in a few months it dropped to 36s., so that there would have been a loss of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 upon the transaction. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be pleased, under those circumstances, with the noble Lord's method of storing up corn? What would be the position of a Government which had filled its public granaries at 50s. or 60s., and found itself encumbered with a six months' supply at a shrunken valuation of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 sterling? It must sell because the commodity was perishable, and it must either face the loss or try to get the higher price by charging the people with an extra 2d. on the 41b. loaf. This would lead to bread riots if persisted in, and the Government would be forced rather to submit to the loss of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 sterling, and so derange the Budget for the year. The noble Lord looked, no doubt, to his scheme for raising the price of wheat to a more remunerative figure than it was at present. In normal years it would, on the contrary, have a tendency to lower the price. Whenever the foreign supply of wheat in spring or summer reached about 6,000,000 quarters in port and afloat prices generally yielded and became low, because then the quantity was inconveniently large for millers and bakers, and might deteriorate by storage. By the plan of the noble Lord we must always have 13,000,000 quarters stored, or about double the amount which was now found to break down prices. Traders would never know when the Government might unload, which they must do frequently to prevent deterioration. Consequently prices must fluctuate greatly. As a rule, when Government sold prices would fall, and when it
  1296
  bought prices of foreign wheat would rise, because the Government must buy in the cheapest market, which would be abroad and not at home. The noble Lord doubtless believed that his scheme would benefit British agriculture, while he contended that it would seriously injure it. He did not know whether the noble Lord was aware of the gigantic Socialism of his plan. A paternal Government could not work economically in competition with individual effort; but it might succeed in deranging that wonderful working of production and distribution which followed the usual course of undisturbed trade. It was far safer to leave our provision trade to those agencies even in the eventuality of war. His estimates of the supplies of wheat and flour available in this country at different periods of the year were very different from those of the noble Lord, who said in the letter that he had already quoted—
  "We have only about enough wheat at a time in the whole of England to last the country a fortnight."
  The figures which he gave had been placed at his disposal by the Board of Trade, the Board of Agriculture, and the War Office, and they differed immensely from those of the noble Lord. Suppose their Lordships began with September after the harvest. At that time our usual supply was for six and a half months. It was made up as follows:—Home product, less seed, 7,500,000 quarters; foreign supply at our ports, 3,000,000; and 4,000,000, of which two-thirds was always within one week of delivery, afloat on its way to our shores. To that might be added the supply of three-quarters of a month which was estimated to be in the hands of millers and bakers, and that would give upwards of seven months' supply after harvest. But what would be our position in March? Well, in that mouth it was estimated that 3,300,000 quarters of English wheat were still undelivered. The stock of foreign wheat and flour at the ports was 3,800,000 quarters, and the amount afloat on its way to England was 3,200,000 quarters. Adding these figures together, there would be a supply of four months and three-quarters in advance of consumption, and with the stores of millers and bakers an actual supply of 5,500,000 in advance of the consumption

  1297
  in March, when the noble Lord had supposed war would begin. He would refer only to one other period, the month of Juno, which was that of lowest supply. In the first week of that month it was estimated that 1,700,000 quarters of English wheat were still undelivered; 2,600,000 of foreign wheat were in our ports, and 3,900,000 were afloat, making 8,200,000 quarters, or three and three-quarter months in advance of consumption. If to this amount the millers' and bakers' stores were added, there would be in the month of June four and a half mouths in advance of what was required for consumption. Besides, we should then be within a few weeks of a new harvest. At present only one-eighth of our arable land was under wheat; but with threatened war a much larger proportion would be devoted to it, and having this store in hand what was the use of being in a panic? The only exception that the noble Lord could take to these figures was that they included the supply afloat. But could their Lordships conceive that any combination of Powers could make their preparations so speedily for an effective blockade of England as to prevent our receiving the supplies already actually on the sea. In fact, at the present time nearly two-thirds of those were within a week of England. The probability of an approaching war and attempted blockade must be known to all the world, and there would be a rush to supply us from all the wheat-producing countries. Our total foreign supply was 4,000,000 tons, and this country in an emergency could readily get 1,000,000 tons of shipping to bring supplies from neighbouring countries. This would victual us far beyond the six months' reserve which the noble Lord thought necessary. Although he thought that the noble Lord's scheme of forming a gigantic Government Corn Company was Socialistic in principle and unwise in practice, he admitted that much could be said for it if there wore a general consensus of military authorities that this country could not be defended without a public reserve of food. But there was no such consensus, and he was authorised on the part of the War Office to say that they saw no need for legislation in regard to food reserves. He now turned to the Amendment of his noble Friend behind him. He entirely agreed with that
  1298
  noble Lord that we should rely on the efficiency of our naval strength to protect our commerce at sea. If it was not already sufficient for that purpose it would be far cheaper and better to spend money in that direction than in the proposal contained in the original Resolution. But he was not prepared to admit that our Navy was not efficient. Of course, it was obvious to all that if any hostile Powers ever became so strong as to defeat our first line of defence at sea so as to establish an efficient blockade, it was not starvation that we should have to fear, but serious disaster to our commerce. He had shown that there was no danger as to our supplies of wheat and flour, while there were other large stores of cereals, such as oats, barley, and maize. Oatcake formed a large and nutritious portion of the food supply of Scotland. The barley and maize alone nearly equalled the supply of wheat and flour. There were also abundant supplies of potatoes, an inexhaustible supply of fish, in addition to large quantities of live stock, cattle and pigs, as well as preserved animal food. The starvation of England, by any combination of Continental Powers, was an absolutely chimerical idea. Our insular position and numerous ports would make an efficient blockade almost impossible. The hostile Powers would have to deal with the United States in addition to England. The sympathies as well as the interests of that great country would be on our side; and unless the blockade were very efficient the United States would refuse to recognise it. Food products formed her chief exports, and England was her chief market. It was not our food, but our commerce, that required protection, and if the Amendment related to that only it would be a truism. But Lord Sudeley's Amendment adopted the first part of the noble Earl's Resolution, and thus raised unnecessary alarm as to food supplies. Besides, he ended his Amendment with an old formula, particularly disagreeable to foreign nations, that Britain must always preserve the supremacy of the sea. It was this supposed wish for an arrogant supremacy on the part of England that made France so unwilling to join with us in naval undertakings. It was that jealousy which had prevented France

  1299
  joining with us in the North Sea liquor traffic legislation, and on various other occasions which their Lordships would remember. Great Britain, at least in modern days, wanted no supremacy of the seas. What she did want, and ought to have, was a sufficiently powerful Navy to protect and defend her great Imperial interests in all parts of the world, without any thoughts of aggression against any other Power, and without constantly drumming and telling other countries that "Britannia rules the waves." He hoped that both Motion and Amendment might be withdrawn, and that the two noble Lords would be satisfied with having raised a useful discussion which might prove instructive to the outside public.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord opposite will take the advice which has been tendered to him by my noble Friend (Lord Playfair), and will withdraw his Amendment, and then the noble Earl behind me will do the same with his Resolution. I do not wish to go further into the discussion now; but I cannot conceive anything more calculated to destroy the trade of this country than that the Government should itself become a great trader.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAMsaid, he would also consent to withdraw the Motion.
  Amendment and Original Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD NORTONsaid, it was now more than 40 years since legislation on the subject began in 1853, and it was consolidated in the Acts dating from 1866. In 1880 Sir Godfrey Lushington, in a Home Office Memorandum, pressed urgently for a revision of the system of both reformatory and industrial schools, the idea of such schools not being yet clearly recognised. Reformatories were schools for children who had been punished upon conviction for crime, and
  1300
  had no good homes to go back to from which they would attend national schools. Their crimes were not of the more serious kind, which must be dealt with otherwise. It was essential that parents should not by their neglect throw the whole cost of their children's care and education on their neighbours. At present the public were taxed for reformatories alone to the amount of £140,000 a year, parents being charged only £7,000. In 1884 a Royal Commission, of which he was a Member, and Lord Aberdare Chairman, reported in favour of several improvements of the system, and that they were urgently required. The first recommendation was the partial transference of these schools from the police to the Education Department. This was obviously to the interests of all concerned; but he postponed dealing with that matter till it was better understood. The second recommendation was that punishment of juvenile offenders by imprisonment should not be in common gaols if there were any other means of confining them elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Court committing them; and that boys for ordinary offences should rather receive summary corporal punishment than any imprisonment whatever. This recommendation was supported by almost all the Petty Sessions in the Kingdom to whom the Commission referred. Thirdly, a better enforcement of parents' payments for their children's schooling, after such punishment for crime. Fourthly, that the children should be earlier got out from school to work, not only on licence, but whenever opportunity offered, by apprenticing or enlistment, or emigration, and not be shut out from public service, or free industrial employment; instead of keeping them in the reformatories till the age of 17 or 18, which was an entire mistake both in their own and in the public interest. Bills for consolidating the law on these recommendations had been introduced by the Government for two or three Sessions. Failing these, this Bill dealt with a few of the most pressing Amendments, which might be made without further delay. The 1st clause gave a preference to any other place the Court might approve for imprisonment rather than a common gaol, and preferred whipping to imprisonment for ordinary cases of boys' punishment. The 2nd

  1301
  clause proposed earlier discharge of the school children, not only let out tied by the leg on licence, but that they should also be sent out whenever fit opportunity offered for industrial apprenticeship and free engagements in service. The 3rd clause adopted the Report that boys should not be sent to ship reformatories without a medical certificate of fitness for sea life. At present 50 per cent, of the boys sent to ship schools never went to sea; they were totally unfit for it, and were brought up as tailors in the places where it was pretended they were being made into sailors. The 4th clause enforced parents contributing to the extent of at least what their children must have cost them at home, so that such parents should not make a profit by neglect. The 5th clause threw this enforcement of payment on the Local Authority. The Commission proposed the Guardians. Either would be better than the present ineffective mode. The 7th clause adopted the Government Bill's resort to the Bastardy Acts for recovering payments. The late Conference at Plymouth debated and unanimously approved this Bill. He might claim for himself some authority, as having introduced legislation on the subject in 1853, and as having founded and supported successful institutions ever since under the Acts. As the Consolidated Bill could not be introduced this Session he thought these amendments in the law, based upon the recommendations of the Committee, should be made without further delay; and he, therefore, asked their Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  LORD LEIGHsaid, that, having for nearly 40 years taken an active part in the management of reformatories in his own county, he should willingly support the Second Reading of the Bill, because he had always entertained a feeling of strong opposition to the imprisonment of children before they were sent to reformatories. The Bill proposed to give power to the Magistrates to send children direct to reformatories if they thought fit. That was a step in the right direction, but he hoped that the provision would be made compulsory, so that children should not be sent to gaol at all. He thought that two or three days in the lock-up would be quite sufficient before the children were sent to the reformatories. He also objected to the
  1302
  provision as to the whipping of boys. A large percentage of the boys in certain reformatories he had visited were the sons of worthless parents and had not been brought up to know what was right or wrong, and as he considered it would not be fair or just to punish all boys indiscriminately with whipping he would propose in Committee to amend the Bill by giving the Magistrates a discretion in the matter. Clause 2, in his opinion, was not necessary, because the principle it contained had been acted upon for many years, and he did not know of any single occasion on which the Home Secretary had refused to order the discharge of a boy if he was fit to work. He did not, however, object to the clause, and as the Bill was a step in the direction of doing away with the gaol qualification for the reformatories he should have much pleasure in supporting it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that, with reference to Clause 2 of the Bill, the Committee of Management of Feltham School—the largest industrial school in the Kingdom, of which he was Chairman—were unanimously of opinion that the present law was satisfactory. He did not think that the clause as drafted would effect any change of the law at all; but if it did anything in the way of inducing managers to discharge boys from school rather than license them out to employers his Committee was of opinion that it was a retrograde step which ought not to be adopted. It was far better to license a boy out to employment than to discharge him from school, because if he did not do well, or if from any reason the boy left his employer's service, it was better that he should go back to the reformatory school than that he should be thrown entirely upon the world. There was a good deal of force in what the noble Lord said, that the present law was to some extent unsatisfactory as to parents' contributions. It seemed to him that the present law was unsatisfactory, for the reason that it absolutely gave no object at all to managers for wishing to increase the contribution of parents towards the support of children in these schools, because all the money received went into the Treasury and not into the

  1303
  pockets of the managers. He suggested that it might be desirable for the Treasury or the Home Office to give the managers of schools some inducement to find out those cases in which a parent did not pay as much as he reasonably might pay. Managers might, therefore, be allowed to retain a certain portion of the money obtained through their information which enabled the Treasury to obtain more money from the parents than could be got by dimply going before the Magistrates or otherwise. The payment of such a commission would in the long run produce a much larger amount to the Treasury.
  LORD VERNON: The noble Lord who has introduced this Bill to the notice of your Lordships' House has, I am credibly informed, always shown a predilection for flogging as a means of correction for youthful offenders; and the pith of this Bill, which I am instructed to oppose, is to substitute whipping for the 10 days' imprisonment which a boy is now forced to undergo before being qualified for a reformatory school. In theory a large proportion of the outside public, and I should imagine of your Lordships' House, would prefer to see a moderate dose of the birch substituted for other punishments; but in practice it has been found very difficult to insure this instrument of correction being used with discretion and judgment. It is only a week ago that an inquiry was held at Coventry in consequence of a girl of 16 running away from an industrial school and complaining that she had been several times flogged, and on the last occasion, for eating and giving to others bread and treacle, she had been publicly whipped with three other girls before the whole school. As your Lordships are aware, several classes of the children at industrial schools not only have never been convicted, but are entirely free from criminal taint, and it would be monstrous to allow managers of industrial schools to use the birch at discretion if its use is prohibited at the ordinary schools in the country. I am aware that the noble Lord has confined his Bill to reformatory schools, but the similarity between the two institutions is very close. They both have the leading characteristics that they are places of training under voluntary management, but largely subsidised by Government and subject to Govern-
  1304
  ment rules and Government inspection, in which the inmates are legally detained by order of a Court of Justice, against the will both of themselves and their parents, and from which they cannot, before the effluxion of the prescribed term, be displaced without the order of the Secretary of State. The two institutions have in the main the same class of children, and have gradually become more assimilated to each other. At the present time much depends on the discretion of the Justices to which of the two a child is sent; for in many cases they may either convict and send to a reformatory, or, without convicting, send to an industrial school. Many of the children now in reformatories might, as will be seen, be with equal or even greater propriety inmates of industrial schools and vice versâ. Though at a reformatory the discipline is necessarily somewhat more stringent, still there they are considered to have been punished by imprisonment before their admission, and no less than at an industrial school the object really is not to treat the inmates as criminals or criminally disposed, or to make the school a place of punishment, but, on the contrary, to treat them kindly, make them happy, and encourage their self-respect in order that they may grow up into respectable men or women. It may interest your Lordships to know that in the last Return to which I have access (a Return up to December 31, 1891) there were 4,701 children in reformatory schools, and the total school expenditure was £117,836. In industrial schools there were 18,985, and the expenditure was £371,338. The Home Secretary has no objection to a Bill which will assimilate the law in England with that now existing in Scotland under the Act which passed your Lordships' House this Session. The existing law in England provides that a child must be imprisoned for 10 days before being sent to a reformatory school. In the Scottish Act imprisonment may be dispensed with, or detention may be in a place not a prison. In the present law a child may be dealt with at any age if only under 16, but not under 10 unless previously convicted. The Scottish Act has substituted 12 for 10. Now, in England a child must be detained for two years and not more than five. Three

  1305
  years is substituted for two in the new Act; and whereas in England a child, if sent just before attaining 16, can be detained till all but 21 years of age, it will not in Scotland be kept in such a school after 19. The only change the noble Lord proposes in Clause 1 is the power to substitute flogging for 10 days' detention, and this the Home Office cannot approve. Clause 2 could not possibly be agreed to by the Government. By the present law, managers, after a child has been detained 18 months, may grant a licence, and, in case of misbehaviour, such licence may be revoked and the child brought back to school. After being out on licence the managers may apprentice the child, and the Secretary of State may at any time discharge him. This Bill provides—
  "Whenever managers may report, through one of Her Majesty's Inspectors, that a child is fit to leave school and that proper employment is found for him, the Secretary of State shall authorise his removal from school."
  This puts the Secretary of State in a wrong position, as it should be optional to him to authorise or not, as he thinks fit. Further on, the clause says—
  "After such report child shall not be detained in school."
  This would seem to take away from managers power to revoke licences in cases of misconduct, and this places them in a false position. I cannot think this is the intention of the noble Lord. Clause 3 is unnecessary and objectionable. The authorities naturally put the children to work at employments which they think suitable, and no man who would deliberately set a child to work at employment which he is not able to do is fit to be in the position of manager. Clauses 4 and 5 are objectionable. In the 25th clause of the Act of 1866 the Magistrate has power to fix the contribution of the parent up to 5s. a week. The complicated calculation in Clauses 4 and 5 would lead to all sorts of difficulties. In Clause 6 the noble Lord proposes entirely changing the mode of raising and dealing with the contributions of parents. It might be better that they should go to the Local Authorities instead of the Treasury, but such a change should be part of a much larger change, part of which would be to make a certain contribution by the Local Authority compulsory. Clause 7 would make an
  1306
  exception to the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. Under that Act the money due from a parent towards the maintenance of his child in a reformatory is a civil debt, and enforced by the mild procedure prescribed by that Act with reference to civil debts, whereas an order in bastardy is enforced as a conviction on information, and the father not paying is subject at once to distraint and then to imprisonment. But if the powers granted to those suing under an order of bastardy were extended to the authorities who were enforcing the payment of contributions due by the parents on account of children in reformatory schools, such powers would have to be given to all those who were suing for the recovery of civil debts; and the milder procedure now in force for the recovery of such debts would have to be assimilated to that under an order in bastardy. The Government are quite alive to the fact that there are grave errors in the reformatory system as it now exists, and they do not consider the principles contained in the Bill of the noble Lord bad in themselves. It only deals with a part of a very large question which should be dealt with as a whole. Such schools are dark spots not reached by the search-light of public opinion. The children in them have no home to go to, and no parents who can complain if abuses exist. It is only accidental if such a case as that at Coventry becomes public by a grown girl running away and complaining to the police. No doubt it would be advisable if these institutions were under the supervision of Local Authorities; but one great difficulty in this direction lies in the fact, that they are used not only by those who live in the district in which they are situated, but also because they are subsidised by the Treasury, that pays more than half the sum actually spent each year in maintaining them! These are only a few of the difficulties connected with the question, and till a radical change is made in the law it would be difficult to meet the views of the noble Lord. I am, however, directed to say that if he should introduce a Bill in character similar to the Reformatory Schools Amendment Act, lately passed by your Lordships' House for Scotland) it would receive the support of Her Majesty's Government. They cannot support any change in the administra-

  1307
  tion of the schools unless the whole system is remodelled and placed on a different basis. I trust that the noble Lord will not try and force this Bill forward in your Lordships' House, and if not the Home Office will give him every assistance to place the reformatory and industrial schools of the country on a footing that will satisfy the noble Lord and be a lasting memorial of the great interest he has taken in educational reforms during his lifetime.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I hope it will not go forward to the world that the reformatory schools are black spots upon our system.
  LORD VERNON: I said "dark spots."
  VISCOUNT CROSS: Well, then, dark spots. I hope that will not go forth, because no doubt those schools have done great good. This Bill was considered by the Society of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, over which I had the honour to preside. We were obliged to take the Bill as it was printed, and no doubt there was considerable objection to many parts of it. The 1st clause, as drawn, is, to my mind, most objectionable, because, although it may be quite right that these boys should not be sent to prison, it is hardly right to say that every boy must be whipped before he is sent to the reformatory school. To that we objected very strongly. I am quite sure that clause would never pass this House, and I am equally certain it would never pass the other House of Parliament. The objection to sending children to prison at all is, of course, quite another matter. I hoped the noble Lord opposite would have stated that the Government will bring in a Bill themselves in order to remedy the existing state of things.
  LORD VERNON: There would hardly be time now.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: If they admit there is a grievance, it would be much more satisfactory that the Government should bring in a Bill themselves, even though they may not be able to pass it. If I can get that assurance, Ave should be satisfied with the discussion that has taken place.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of Kimberley): I am afraid that assurance cannot be given. The Bill which passed this House was brought in by a private
  1308
  Member, and the Government do not feel that they can undertake another this Session. My noble Friend said that if the noble Lord will bring in a Bill similar to the Scotch Bill it would receive the support of the Government.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HERSCHELL): I should like to give the noble Viscount the reason why it would be better the Bill should not be brought in by the Government but by a private Member. I have experienced lately that a Bill perfectly non-contentious which met with universal assent in this House from noble Lords on both sides on the ground that it was urgently required to prevent injustice, when it went down to the other House, though nobody there objected to it in the slightest degree, was prevented from passing simply because it had been introduced by Her Majesty's Government. I think that will be a sufficient reason why those who desire this legislation should not adopt the course suggested.
  LORD NORTONsaid, if he had understood that the Government had intended to oppose the Bill, he should have asked his friends to attend to support it. The Members of the Government who were now the only occupants remaining of their Lordships' Benches would no doubt throw out the Bill, and he must leave entirely upon them the responsibility of hanging up the subject. This was the only proposition which had been brought forward, and now the fate of the matter must be what it had been for three years past—promises without any performance whatever, and the abuses still remaining the removal of which the Government Department was urgently pressing in 1880. The point most objected to was the introduction of the word "shall" in the 1st clause with reference to whipping, and the substitution of "may" would dispose of that objection. With that exception, the 1st clause was agreed to by everybody. The other objections hardly required an answer. The mode of recovering payment under the Bastardy Act was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission; and with regard to letting boys out to work without keeping them tied by the leg to the reformatory school, that proposal had the entire support of Her Majesty's Inspectors. He left with the

  1309
  Government the entire responsibility of hanging up a subject, which they themselves allowed to be urgent, sine die. He would challenge a Division, but asked the noble and learned Lord whether a sufficient number of Members were present in the House?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If there is not a quorum present the Bill cannot be further proceeded with tonight.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.

PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Lord Chancellor.) (No. 152.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. (No. 153.)
Road 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.—(No. 154.)
Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
SALMON FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 155.)
Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 121.)
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMYARD, &C.) BILL. [H.L.]—(No. 85.)
House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 140.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 141.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL. (No. 113.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. (No. 126.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 61.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (EDINBURGH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 125.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL. (No. 127.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 136.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL.—(No. 145.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.—(No. 133.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.