Sitting of 2 March 1893

QUESTIONS.

  NEW HOSPITAL AT JERUSALEM.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make inquiries, through

  791
  Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, as to the reason of the long delay in granting the firman applied for for the erection of a new Hospital for Poor Sick Jews on the Jaffa road, outside the walls of Jerusalem, for which a site has been purchased and £5,000 provided to begin the building; and whether Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would move Sir Clare Ford to use his best endeavours to facilitate and expedite the granting of the firman?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): This matter is receiving the attention of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT BALLYMENA.
  MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken by the Board of Guardians of Ballymena Union, in connection with the scheme adopted by a committee of that Board, for the erection of houses under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in certain divisions of the Unions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed by the Local Government Board that on the 21st January last the Guardians had before them maps and particulars of the sites proposed for three blocks of labourers' cottages in the Union, and that the plans were approved of by the Guardians, who directed their solicitors to take the necessary steps with a view to the adoption of the proposed scheme.

  CLAREMORRIS RAILWAY.
  MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any progress is being made with the construction of the railway from Claremorris to Collorney, under the agreement made between the Treasury and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company; and if he can say when the line will be open for traffic?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company state that they are negotiating with a contractor for the construction of the line, and that the plans are being re-
  792
  vised by their engineer. The Company have been informed that, unless they give a reasonable explanation for the delay that has already taken place, and an immediate and satisfactory assurance that the terms of their agreement will be speedily carried out, steps will be taken to compel them to proceed. It is not possible at present to give a definite date for the opening of the line.
  MR. JACKSON: What time has been allowed then?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I have not the date here. I will let the right hon. Gentleman know.

  CRIMEAN AND INDIAN MUTINY VETERANS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state generally what are the conditions laid down by the War Office as to special pensions to veterans of the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny; what were the means employed to bring the fact of such special pensions being offered, and the conditions attached to the offer, under the notice of those likely to benefit by them; and if he can state what information the War Office possesses as to the number of similar veterans who are in receipt of an ordinary pension, and whose pension is wholly or partly appropriated by the Guardians towards their maintenance in workhouses?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The conditions required for the grant of a pension, up to the number of 100 a year, are that the applicant should have had 10 years' service, and should have a medal for a campaign before 1860, that he should be destitute, and that the pension would not be wholly claimed by Guardians for maintenance. In selecting men for the limited number at present available preference is given to those discharged with good character. It was not thought necessary to advertise these grants; but the conditions were given to every person applying for them. There is no information as to the number of "similar veterans" on pension who are in workhouses; but in 1888 it was ascertained that out of 63,000 pensioners only 616

  793
  were in workhouses in Great Britain, and the "similar veterans" would probably constitute a much smaller number.

  SHERIFF'S SEIZURES BY NIGHT IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet completed his inquiries into the alleged breaches of the Law by Irish Sheriffs in executing Civil Bill Decrees between sunset and sunrise; and, if so, whether he is now prepared, definitely, to inform the House for how many of the 712 alleged cases he has found proof; and if he will supply the particulars of such cases (if any), so that they may be inquired into and tested?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As I explained some short time ago, there was an overstatement in the figures supplied to me with regard to the number of cases in the time of the late Government of seizures, or attempted seizures, under Civil Bill Decrees between sunset and sunrise with police protection. The Constabulary Authorities have since carefully investigated the matter, and have now furnished details of 66 actual cases. I cannot undertake the responsibility of furnishing a Return of these cases, which might obviously form the basis of proceedings outside this House. But I shall be happy to permit the hon. Member to inspect it.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman made the promise, and I went to the Irish Office on Monday without result, I wish to know whether I can see them at the House on any particular day? I am not going to the Irish Office again.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I deeply regret that the hon. Gentleman has been put to any inconvenience. The Papers shall be brought to the House this evening.
  MR. A. J.BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): The original statement was that there were 712 cases; the present answer of the right hon. Gentleman speaks only of 66.
  MR. J. MORLEY: So far.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman describe that as an over-statement?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The over-statement arose from the fact that the authorities who prepared the Return and
  794
  furnished me with the figures took the hour named in the Sheriff's requisition as the hour of actual seizure.
  MR. T.M. HEALY (Louth, N.): Are the authorities who supplied the information the same as those who always supplied the Leader of the Opposition with his information?
  [No answer was given.]

  EDUCATION EXAMINERS.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with reference to the appointment of clerks in the Education Department to the post of examiner in that Department, whether practical experience in official work has been taken to qualify a Sub-Inspector of Schools as an Inspector; and whether there is any reason why special knowledge and practical experience of departmental work and requirements should not be taken as sufficient special qualification to enable a clerk to be promoted to an examinership?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,): Practical experience in the work assigned to him, together with other qualifications, personal and educational, have been held to qualify a Sub-Inspector of Schools for promotion to the Inspectorate. As I have already stated, there is nothing to prevent a clerk applying for an appointment as examiner, and receiving it, if he satisfies the requisite conditions.

  THE STATUS OF PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any practical difference in the work of a warder and assistant warder in Her Majesty's local prisons; whether he can inform the House of the average number of years it takes an assistant warder to rise to the post of warder; whether his attention has been called to the inequality of promotion in some prisons, as compared with others, sometimes caused by the drafting of warders from one prison to another, as in the case of the Walton Gaol; and whether his attention was drawn to a Petition from the assistant warders at Walton Gaol, sent to him on the 2nd February, before

  795
  it was refused by the Commissioners on the 4th?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The warder takes charge of a ward of prisoners and is responsible to the Governor for their safe custody, employment and discipline. In some cases it may happen that the assistant warder performs almost identical duties, but his normal function is, as the name implies, to assist, and in the absence of the warder to take his place. The answer to the second paragraph is that during the last five years the average period has been nine years. My attention has been called to complaints on the subject referred to in the third paragraph. The matter was investigated by a Departmental Committee in 1891, who reported that they did not consider it advisable to alter the present system of promotion or to abolish the distinctions of rank, and the Prison Commissioners are of the same opinion. The Petition in question has now reached me, and will receive my careful consideration. It was not, in the first instance, observed that the Petition was addressed to the Secretary of State, and owing to this inadvertence it was dealt with by the Commissioners.

  COLCHESTER INFANTRY CAMP.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR - LEYLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Military Report upon the Infantry Camp at Colchester; whether, as it is the intention of the Government not to confine the tenders to local contractors, he will place a clause in all the tenders fixing the minimum rate of wages to be paid in every class of work, since it can be conclusively shown that the work can be performed cheaper by local resident builders; and will he state upon what grounds it is proposed to import strange contractors for the purpose?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware to what Report the hon. and gallant Member refers. He seems to be unaware of the general system on which contracts are made. Tenders are always called for from local contractors of repute; but others not on the spot are included for the sake of securing a healthy competition. If local firms can do the work more cheaply than firms from a
  796
  distance, as ought to be the case, a local firm would naturally obtain the contract. Contracts provide that the contractor shall pay the wages current in the locality. If minimum rates were fixed, and wages rose during the contract, there would be nothing to prevent the contractor from paying less than the current wages.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS' MEETINGS.
  MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases in which the Local Government Board have sanctioned days for the meetings of Boards of Guardians which happen to fall upon Good Friday, Christmas Day, a Bank Holiday, or any day appointed for a public holiday, it is competent for the Guardians at a previous meeting to substitute the day before or after the sanctioned day, without obtaining the further sanction of the Local Government Board to such substitution; whether any business transacted at a meeting held upon such substituted day, without having obtained such further sanction, would be out of order and illegal; and whether, if such further sanction is essential and the business would be out of order and illegal, the Local Government Board will issue an Order to meet such cases?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The regulations in force as to meetings of Boards of Guardians empower the Guardians, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to change the day of ordinary meeting of the Guardians. The proceedings at an ordinary meeting which is held on a substituted day without such consent would be out of order. It is my intention to alter the regulations to meet the cases referred to.

  THE CASE OF WILLIAM VALLICE.
  MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that William Vallice, a cabdriver, badge 6147, was sentenced at the City Court to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, and his licence revoked, for wanton driving on the 9th inst; and whether, considering that the prisoner received an excellent character from his employer,

  797
  Who compensated the old man whom the prisoner had knocked down, and who had received no serious injury, and that this was the prisoner's first offence, he will consider whether some mitigation might be made in the sentence?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes; I understand the facts proved to be that Vallice was driving at the rate of eight miles an house, and on the wrong side of the street. He knocked down an old man of 79 years of age, and though shouted to by the bystanders he made no attempt to pull up. I am informed by the Magistrate that but for Vallice's good character his sentence would have been more severe. The compensation which the employer agreed to pay was regarded by him as no extenuation of the driver's offence, and had it not been paid by agreement, the Magistrate would have made an order for payment of compensation. Under the circumstances, I regret that I do not feel justified in interfering.

  POLYNESIAN LABOUR AT QUEENSLAND.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the figures for 1892 respecting the Polynesian labour traffic to Queensland, in continuation of those given in Return, No. 17, of Session, 1893; whether, in view of the lamentably high rate of mortality in Queensland disclosed by this Return, the Secretary of State can take any steps not only to secure that the traffic itself shall be conducted with due regard to the dictates of humanity, but that the mortality of the labourers in Queensland shall be reduced; and whether, apart from this high mortality on the plantations, the Secretary of State has any reliable information as to the humane and satisfactory conduct of the recruiting from the islands?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The figures for 1892 have not yet been received, and are probably not at present complete; but the Colonial Government will be asked to supply them as soon as possible. The death-rate among the labourers on the plantations, of rather over 50 per 1,000, is unquestionably
  798
  high. It has to be recollected, however, that in the islands themselves, from which these labourers are brought, the ordinary rate of mortality is also very high. The Secretary of State has no grounds for believing that the mortality on the plantations in Queensland is due to ill-treatment. I may add that, while the regulation of the traffic as regards the actual recruiting and the re-landing of the labourers is under the supervision of Her Majesty's Government, the duty and responsibility of looking after the labourers, so long as they are in Queensland, is entirely vested in the Colonial authorities under the powers of self-government granted to them. The Secretary of State has no reason for concluding that that duty has been, or will be, neglected. The Papers which will shortly be laid before Parliament contain much valuable and trustworthy information respecting the recruiting as now conducted; and my hon. Friend, after reading them, will be in a position to judge whether the recruiting, as now carried out, is being conducted in an humane and satisfactory manner.

  THE VOLUNTEER FORCE.
  MR. BROWN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of officers required to fill up the vacant commissions in the Volunteer Force; and whether he is going to take any steps to provide a remedy to fill up these vacancies?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The deficiency in Volunteer officers, if the maximum establishment is taken as the basis for calculation, is 1,417 subalterns, and 260 above that rank. It must be remembered, however, that there exists a relative deficiency in privates as regards maximum establishment. It is to be hoped that the steps already taken will result in an accession of strength to the number of officers.

  THE RAILWAY COMMISSION.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many days the Railway Commissioners sat, and how many cases they decided during the year 1892?
  MR. ASQUITH: During the year 1892 the Court of the Railway and Canal Commission sat in Court 22 days. This does not include the days the Commission met to consider applications for approval of working agreements, and to prepare and consider judgments, and for purposes connected with this administrative duties, nor the days upon which the Registrar sat to hear and decide interlocutory matters and inquiries as to damages. The work before the Court and the cases decided will appear in the Annual Report for 1892, which is in preparation, and will shortly be laid before Parliament.

  WAGES IN GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as it appears that the Labour Department of the Board of Trade is to examine into the rate of wages to be paid to men employed by other Departments of the State, he will take care that no steps are taken calculated to diminish the employment by the War Office of Reserve and discharged soldiers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The question of wages in Government Departments has been remitted to the Labour Department of the Board of Trade only for the purpose of the collection and collation of facts, the decision resting with the Heads of the several Departments. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I will do all in my power to protect the interests of Reserve and discharged soldiers in their claim to such employment as they are fitted for.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: When will the Report be laid on the Table?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Labour Department will not present a Report on the subject, but will supply material to the Government on which they can decide.

  THE WEIGHING OF CATTLE ACT.
  MR. SHAW-STEWART (Renfrew, E.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that since the passing of "The Weighing of Cattle Act, 1891," some auctioneers are erecting within their cattle marts weighbridges with automatic dials, the smallest divi-
  800
  sions of which show only quarters of hundredweight, so that the weight of cattle cannot be ascertained to a pound; and if he will ascertain whether Inspectors of Weights and Measures can accurately apply the test for sensitiveness on a dial weighbridge of which the smallest division marks 28 lbs., whereas under No. 55 of the "Model Regulations, 1890," the test is that 2 lbs. should move the finger of a 2-ton weighbridge?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I was not aware until I saw the Notice Paper of the particulars referred to in the first portion of the question of the hon. Member. It does not rest with the Board of Trade to approve the form of weighbridge to be used in cattle markets, but it has been brought to their notice that one or two Inspectors have not sufficiently applied the test for sensitiveness under the Model Regulations, and the Department are in communication with the Inspectors on the subject.

  SILVER COIN AT LAGOS.
  MR. SAMUEL MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Messrs. J. H. Schröder and Co. applied on 15th January last to the Crown Agents for the Colonies for English silver coin for shipment to Lagos, and that in the reply dated 16th January they were referred to the African Banking Corporation, who were the constituted bankers to the Lagos Government; whether he is aware that on 20th February Messrs. Schröder applied to the African Banking Corporation for £3,000 in English silver for Lagos, and were refused on the plea that the Crown Agents can grant no further orders until the prohibition of the Colonial Government is removed; and whether he has heard that silver coin is very scarce at Lagos, and that this refusal to allow silver to be shipped is a hindrance to trade?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The correspondence referred to as having taken place in January took place in January, 1892, not this year. The correspondence referred to as having taken place in February took place this year. The African Banking Corporation applied to the Crown Agents for an order for the £3,000, presumably required by Messrs.

  801
  Schröder; but the application was refused on the grounds that the Corporation had just previously received an order for £20,000, and the Governor had requested by telegraph that that amount, which is very largely in excess of the usual requirements of the Colony, might be treated as the limit of importation for the present. No representation as to a scarcity of silver coin at Lagos has been received from the Governor.
  MR. S. MONTAGU: Will the Under Secretary take into consideration the desirability of extending the limit?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have telegraphed for information, and, as I have already stated, the Governor does not think it advisable to have more silver sent out at present.
  An hon. MEMBER: Is the Under Secretary aware that the African Banking Corporation charge a very heavy commission? Cannot the merchants have silver direct from the Mint instead of through the Corporation?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The arrangement with the African Banking Company will cease very shortly, as they are going to withdraw from Lagos, and then some new arrangement will be made between the Government and the merchants.

  THE NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. PENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is contemplated to hold the Naval Manœuvres this year on the same scale as before?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,); It is proposed to hold Naval Manœuvres as before, but the precise form they will assume, and therefore the scale on which they will be carried out, has not yet been decided.

  THE ASSESSMENT OF THE LAW COURTS.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is willing to re-consider the assessment of the Courts of Law in the parish of St. Clement Danes, taking into consideration the fact that assessments on other house property in the district have greatly increased?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Parliament has expressly provided for the rating of the Law Courts property by the Courts of Justice Concentration (Site) Act, 1865. Section 4 provides that the lauds (which means the lands and all that may be erected on the lands)—
  "Shall continue liable to poor and other rates, but they shall not be assessed to any tax or rate on a higher rateable value than that on which they were assessed on January 1, 1865."
  There are similar provisions in other Acts of Parliament affecting a considerable amount of Government property.

  DYING, NOT DRUNK.
  MR. SPICER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the case of the late Mrs. Brown, whom it is reported, in spite of a doctor's injunctions that she should be conveyed to the hospital because she was suffering from apoplexy, was dragged to the Wolverhampton Police Station by two policemen and locked up all night on the charge of being drunk and incapable, with the results that she was found dying next morning and was dead by the evening; and whether there are no police matrons at this and other stations, whose duty it is to attend to women when under arrest?
  MR. ASQUITH: The conduct of the two policemen is now under investigation by the Watch Committee; in the meantime, they have been suspended without pay. The facts appear from the evidence at the inquest to be as stated, except that there was medical evidence to show that the woman's removal to the police station could not have affected her life, as it is stated that she could not have lived in any case. There is a police matron attached to the station; but by a most regrettable mistake she was not called in in this case, as both the sergeant and constable on reserve duty considered that Mrs. Brown was simply drunk and incapable.

  SCOTCH PROCURATORS FISCAL.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the necessity recently imposed on the Government of refusing its sanction to a nomination to a Procurator Fiscalship of Morayshire, made by the Sheriff, and the consequent great

  803
  delay in filling the appointment, he will consider the advisability of amending the Act of 1877 so as to place the nominations to the office of Procurator Fiscal in Scotland in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The appointment to the Sheriff clerkship has been transferred by legislation from the Sheriff to the Crown, and presumably the same transference of appointment will take place as regards the Procurator Fiscalship.

  THE MAXIM-NORDENFELDT COMPANY.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to an article in the current number of The Investors' Review, entitled, "The Maxim - Nordenfeldt Company," in which it is alleged that permanent officials at the War Office and officers on active service in considerable numbers, and often of high rank, are shareholders and Directors of this Company; whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the Service for officers in its purchasing and fighting branches to hold a greater or smaller pecuniary stake in companies interested in pressing a particular weapon upon the Government, or in furnishing foreign Powers with the best munitions of war; whether the Gardner gun has been proved to be a cheaper and better instrument than the Maxim or Nordenfeldt, and whether its comparative merits have been investigated and tested by the Department by public competitive trial or otherwise; whether there is any, and what, difference in cost to the Revenue between the Maxim and Nordenfeldt guns supplied by the Company and those manufactured at Enfield; and whether he can say if any, and how many, persons have been killed or wounded by the bursting of Nordenfeldt guns in any operations of the Service?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have seen the article in The Investors' Review, which contains what is alleged to be a list of the shareholders in the Maxim-Nordenfeldt Company. I do not find in that list the names of any permanent officials at the War Office, nor among the military officers named, as now holding shares, more than a very few
  804
  who are not either retired, unemployed, or belonging to the Reserve Forces. There is no rule against an officer holding shares in any company established for a legitimate object; but an official of the War Department—whether civil or military—is forbidden to hold shares in any company (other than a Railway Company or any similar company) which enters into a contract with the Department. The Gardner gun has not been proved to be cheaper and better than the Maxim or Nordenfeldt. The Gardner system was abandoned some time ago for future supplies in favour of other systems. A Gardner gun of a modified pattern has recently been submitted to us, and arrangements for its trial are now being made. No Nordenfeldt guns have been ordered from the Company since 1889. The Enfield cost of manufacture was then considerably lower than the price charged by the Company, but as royalty was not included no exact comparison can be made. The manufacture of Maxim guns has only recently been taken up at Enfield, and it is estimated that the price, including royalty, will compare favourably with the price now paid to the Company. No accidents of the nature referred to have occurred in the land service with the Nordenfeldt gun.

  GLIN PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN (Limerick, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Glin (County Limerick) Petty Sessions have been frequently adjourned during the past 12 months owing to the non-attendance of Magistrates, and whether the Irish Executive will take the necessary steps to remedy this state of things?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It appears that the Glin Petty Sessions are held fortnightly, and that on two occasions during the past 12 months they fell through in consequence of the non-attendance of Magistrates.

  H.M.S. HOWE—FERROL HARBOUR.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Squadron under Admiral Fairfax entered Ferrol Harbour with the engines going at the rate of 50 revolutions, but that, as soon as he

  805
  passed the Pereira Reef, an order was signalled for the revolutions to be reduced to 25, the result being that the Howe, the second ship, lost her steerage way and became slewed to port by the violence of the flood tide; if so, why the Board of Admiralty have issued a Memorandum condemning the officers of the Howe, seeing that in the same Memorandum they approve the finding of the Court Martial, which condemned the reduction of speed by the Admiral in the Narrows as inexpedient, as well as for entering the harbour on a flood tide; and will the Board of Admiralty, in addition to the Memorandum regarding charts issued on the 14th April, 1892, in future give instructions to Commanders-in-Chief and senior officers on entering harbours, whether at home or abroad, to take the assistance (as customary in the Mercantile Marine) of qualified pilots?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Squadron entered Ferrol Channel at 35 revolutions of the flagship's engines, which were reduced to 25 revolutions on nearing the harbour. The Howe did not lose her steerage way, nor was she slewed by the tide. No reason is seen to make any alteration in the present regulations relating to piloting Her Majesty's ships.

  H.M.S. HOWE— REPAIRING DAMAGE.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can inform the House the number of moulds that have already been used for the purpose of planking the damage to the port side of H.M.S. Howe, and can he state whether the starboard side has been examined; if so, how many moulds will be required to be used in planking them; in face of the incomplete knowledge of the damage to the bottom, can he now say whether or not there is much chance of saving the vessel; and, in case of failure, what remuneration are the salvors to receive beyond the value of the wreck?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: It is not known how many moulds have been made for planking the bottom of the Howe, as this work is entirely in the hands of the Salvage Company. The starboard side has been partially examined, but bad weather is delaying the work. The Salvage Company remain confident as to the ultimate successful salvage of
  806
  the Howe. In case of failure, the salvors do not receive the value of the wreck, or any other remuneration, except in respect of stores that may be salved.

  HERRING BRAND FEES.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the amount of the surplus collected from the herring brand fees still at the disposal of the Government; whether the greater part of this sum has been drawn from the Fisheries on the East Coast of Scotland; and whether a corresponding portion will be spent on the improvement of harbours on this coast?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: After taking into account the liabilities undertaken by the Board in respect of harbours, there is no surplus left available at present from the herring brand fees. Practically the whole of these fees are derived from the East Coast, the West Coast having in the year 1891 contributed only £30, out of £4,272. Since 1887, £18,000 has been spent on harbours on the East Coast, and £9,000 on the West Coast. As the Western Highlands get a special grant for harbours under an Act, the whole of this money referred to in the question ought to be spent on the East Coast.

  SMALL-POX AT HALIFAX.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement in the Manchester Courier of 16th February, that an outbreak of small-pox has occurred amongst the soldiers at Halifax Barracks; and that, on being detected, the men were at once removed to the hospital, and that since Saturday the soldiers generally have been confined to barracks; whether all the soldiers had been once or twice or more times vaccinated; and whether he is advised by the medical authorities that re-vaccination is a sure protection against small-pox?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Five Militiamen at Halifax were attacked with small-pox, and were removed to civil hospitals. The troops were confined to barracks for three days after the outbreak. None of the men

  807
  attacked had been re-vaccinated. I am advised by the medical authorities that, in their opinion, vaccination or re-vaccination is amply proved by statistics to be a valuable preventive to small-pox, and when the disease does occur it modifies its severity and reduces the mortality in a marked degree.
  MR. HOPWOOD: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is prepared to say that vaccination is a sure protection against small-pox?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not an authority on small-pox and vaccination. I merely quote the opinions expressed to me by my medical advisers.

  THE ILORIN TRIBE.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is correct as reported that the Ilorin Tribe, after inviting Governor Carter, of Lagos, to visit them, has refused to receive him; whether there is any reason to think this change of policy is due to any action of the Niger Company; and whether the Governments of Lagos and of the Oil Rivers District are satisfied with the action of the Royal Niger Company in its dealings with the tribes which dwell on the confines of their districts?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have received no information either in corroboration or contradiction of the paragraph which has appeared in the newspapers. Even if any change of feeling on the part of the Ilorin chiefs has unfortunately occurred, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that it is in any way to be attributed to any action on the part of the Royal Niger Company. As a matter of fact, the Company strongly repudiate the insinuation contained in the telegram; and state that they not only have no objection to the Governor's visit, but believe that it will tend to confirm and strengthen their influence in Ilorin, which is within their sphere of operations. Her Majesty's Government have received no complaints from the Lagos Government against any proceedings of the Royal Niger Company in relation to the border tribes. The Oil Rivers District is under the Foreign Office.

  OULART PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. THOMAS HEALY (Wexford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a great part of the business at the last Petty Sessions at Oulart, in the County of Wexford, had to be adjourned owing to the attendance of only one Magistrate, and that a recent Petty Sessions at Newtownbarry, in the same county, had also to be adjourned for the same reason; and whether the Lord Chancellor will consider the advisability of appointing gentlemen in the County of Wexford as Magistrates who are fully qualified and who will give a regular attendance at Petty Sessions?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the question. It appears, however, that two of the Magistrates who usually attend the Oulart Petty Sessions were ill and could not, therefore, be present on the occasion. No doubt the Lord Chancellor will give the matter his attention.

  BANKRUPTCY FEES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that until recently an employee in the office of the Official Receiver, 33, Carey Street, claimed fees for administering oaths to persons calling at the office in connection with the business of the Department; and whether the appropriation of fees by an employee is in accordance with the Rules of the Service?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am aware of the circumstances. The employee in question, who is not a permanent Civil Servant, but holds a position on the personal staff of the Official Receiver, is a solicitor, and as such holds a Commission to administer oaths in the High Court of Justice. The fees in question are not fees due to the Department or payable in respect of official services, but are personal fees, payable to such Commissioners. The practice in question has, however, been discontinued, the Lord Chancellor having made arrangements by which proofs of debt under the Companies (Winding-up) Act can be sworn free of charge by officers of the Official Receiver's Department.

  TELEGRAPHIC DELAYS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why no information can be obtained from the Department in reply to inquiries as to the cause of delay (2 hours 7 minutes) in the transmission of a telegram from Balallan, Plockton, Ross-shire, to London on the 2nd ultimo, and of a telegram from London to Balallan, Plockton, Ross-shire, delayed 1½ hours at Inverness on the 4th ultimo?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLET, Nottingham, E.): The first telegram mentioned in the question is probably one which was handed in on the 31st January, and not on the 2nd February, and was mentioned in the hon. Member's letter of the 2nd February, addressed to the Secretary of the Post Office. It contained 69 words and had to pass through six offices. Its transmission occupied one hour and seven minutes, not two hours and seven minutes as stated in the question, and I do not think that the time was unduly long. The second telegram was sent on the 4th ultimo. It was addressed "Balallan, Plockton, Stromeferry," and was written on the same form as one addressed "Balallan, Stromeferry." I ought to have pointed out that there is a telegraph office at Plockton, but unfortunately this was not done. When the telegram reached Inverness the mistake was noticed and delay occurred before the matter could be put right by reference to the hon. Member who had not paid the full amount for the two messages. No unnecessary delay has taken place in discovering the exact facts.
  MR. WEIR: I will place the telegrams in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and he will see that I am right, and that his statements are absolutely inaccurate.

  PUBLIC WORKS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what amount of the £40,000 granted last year under "The Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Works Act, 1891," has been expended to date; and whether he will insist upon the Department created under this Act spending the whole of the grant upon useful works before the close of the financial year?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: There has been expended up to date about £16,500, and the total expenditure up to the end of this month is estimated at about £24,000. I have explained to the House, in answer to previous questions, that great delay took place owing to the formalities required under the Highland and Islands Works Act; and that, at the point where several important schemes—such, for instance, as Portness Harbour, and Carloway Road and Carloway Harbour— have at present arrived the matter lies, not with the Department, but with the Local Authorities and the contractors whom they employ.

  MAGISTRATES IN ROSS AND CROMARTY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, upon the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of Ross and Cromarty, several persons have been appointed to act as Justices of the Peace in contravention of the Law of Scotland; and whether, if so, steps will be taken to have the names of these persons struck off the Roll of Justices of the Peace, and to promote the appointment of persons who permanently reside in the county?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Secretary for Scotland has no voice nor responsibility in the nomination of Justices of the Peace, or in their removal. But if the hon. Member is aware of appointments having been illegally made, and will lay the facts before me in a letter, I will inquire into the circumstances, and, if necessary, communicate them to the Lord Chancellor.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS IN IRELAND.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount outstanding of loans made by the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland), and whether he can state the amount of principal, and of interest, separately?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The amounts outstanding on loans (including those made out of the Church Fund) made by the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland) are at the present time approximately as follows:—Principal, £8,643,000; interest, £255,000: total, £8,898,000.
  MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.): Has any inquiry or calculation been made by the Treasury as to the proportion of this total sum which may be held to be irrecoverable?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot say.
  MR. SEXTON: In view of the very close scrutiny which is likely to be applied to this matter in forthcoming Debates I hope the right hon. Gentleman will get the information as soon as possible.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Certainly.

  NATIONAL EMBLEMS.
  MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers, non - commissioned officers, and soldiers in Her Majesty's Forces will be permitted while in uniform to wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Instructions have recently been issued— I hope they were in time for St. David's Day yesterday—enabling commanding officers to use their discretion with regard to permitting the use of national emblems on special days.

  TRIAL BY JURY IN BOMBAY.
  MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Bengal Jury Commission has power to report that the notification of Sir Charles Elliott, restricting the right to trial by jury, be rescinded; and whether, if the Commission should so report, the notification will be rescinded accordingly?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The Commission will have power to deal with the whole question, including, of course, the notification to which my hon. Friend refers. The Secretary of State cannot make any statement as to the action which will be taken on the Report until it has been received and considered.
  MR. PAUL: May I make an appeal to the Secretary of State through the Under Secretary? Considering the enormous gravity of the issue involved— [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. Member is not putting a question.
  MR. PAUL: I was about to lay the foundation for one. Will the Secretary of State consider the desirability to coming to an immediate decision on this question, which is exciting such intense interest and agitation throughout Bengal?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: It is obvious the Secretary of State must see the Report before he can come to a decision upon it.

  FISHING DISASTER IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in consequence of a storm on Tuesday evening the fishing fleet north of the Moray Firth was scattered, some of the fishing boats having foundered with loss of all on board, and others missing; whether the gunboat on the station did nothing to assist the fleet, and only, began to act after receiving telegrams from the Convener of the County of Caithness and the Provost of Wick; and whether he will explain on what grounds, when the gunboat came to Wick on Sunday to assist in the search for the missing boats, the commander refused the aid of the local fishermen to assist him in the search?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I am informed that the Watchful gunboat arrived at Cromarty on the 14th instant (Tuesday) passing several boats making for Cromarty in no distress. On the 18th the commanding officer of the Watchful received a telegram from the Provost of Wick saying one was missing, and he sailed immediately in search. The Watchful reached Wick on the 19th; fishermen came off and directed the commanding officer in which way to search. He acted on their directions; but unfortunately could find nothing. This intelligence comes through the Admiralty, and is confirmed by independent telegrams from the Fishery Board.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to give notice that on either the Naval Estimates or that for the Fishery Board I shall move the reduction of the salary of the captain of the Watchful.

  THE INVERNESS-SHIRE MAGISTRACY.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, considering that under the present system of nomination by the Lord Lieutenant there are now in Inverness-shire out of 190 Justices of the Peace not more than six representing the Liberal Party, will the Government make such arrangements as will place these appointments in the hands of some other Body, say the County Council, in order to redress this great disparity between Parties?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Lord Chancellor, whom I have consulted on the subject, was not aware of the relative proportion of the Political Parties on the Bench in Inverness-shire, but he has the matter under his consideration.
  MR. DARLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time consider the propriety of so preserving the proportion that the ratio as to Magistrates may represent that of the political opinions of the prisoners with whom they have to deal?
  [No answer was given.]

  NAVAL OFFICERS' LEAVE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that naval officers employed at home are allowed six weeks' leave each year, while naval officers serving abroad are allowed two weeks' leave for each year of foreign service, and that the latter category of naval officers on their return from foreign service are often deprived of part or of the whole of the accumulated leave then due to them, whether he is prepared to sanction such a change in the Regulations as would enable officers so deprived of their leave, to take it at some later time, instead of its being, as at present, wiped off altogether?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): It is only in very rare cases that it is necessary to withhold the leave which has accumulated during foreign service, and when this happens it is for strong Service reasons. It is not proposed to alter the practice heretofore followed.

  PROMOTION IN THE NAVY.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of encouraging the promotion of deserving and capable warrant officers in the Navy from lower deck rank to commissioned rank in the superior grades of lieutenant or upwards, on their passing a proper test examination, in order to give a stimulus to such officers, and to add to the insufficient inducements now held out to youths of superior talents and abilities to join the Service as blue-jackets?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Warrant officers are already promoted to commissioned rank as chief gunners, chief boatswains, and chief carpenters, and the Regulations give power for further promotion in the case of officers who may distinguish themselves by acts of daring and gallantry in the Service.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Are promotions given for any other merit than acts of daring and gallantry?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  NAVAL PENSIONS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that first-class men of the Royal Naval Reserve, when they finish their term of service in the Reserve, do not at once receive their pension, but have to wait for it till they attain the age of 60, and that many of them die before attaining that age, and thus lose their pension altogether, whether it would not be possible, on such men ending their service in the Reserve, to give them a pension to commence then and there, and thus to add to the inducements to enter the Reserve?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: No, Sir; it is not proposed to make any such change in the conditions of service of the first class of the Royal Naval Reserve.

  OFFICIAL NEWSPAPERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a number of attacks upon the Prime Minister in The Gibraltar Chronicle and Official Gazette; whether he is aware that

  815
  this is the official organ of the colony; and whether the Colonial Office will take any steps to deal with the matter?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the matter referred to. In an ordinary newspaper the paragraphs in question would have called for no remark. But it is distinctly improper that Party and personal attacks of this nature should appear in a newspaper which is designated the Official Gazette, and in which appear all official notifications, &c. The question of the continuance of The Gibraltar Chronicle as the medium of issuing public notices is under consideration.

  LAWLESSNESS IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice O'Brien at the opening of the Munster Assizes on Monday last, to the effect that the picture which the Constabulary Returns made presented to his mind a condition of lawlessness in the County Clare far exceeding in amount that which came tinder his experience in past times; that there was no security for life in the County of Clare, and that property was not more secure than life; and if, in view of this statement by the Judge of Assize, he proposes to take any steps to assert the supremacy of the law and to render life and property secure in that part of Her Majesty's dominions?
  MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.): Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that may I be permitted to ask him whether his attention has been called to that portion of Mr. Justice O'Brien's address in which he says that the number of crimes reported for the corresponding period of last year is slightly greater than the number reported this year; and whether, speaking of the state of the county, the learned Judge said—
  "It would not be accurate to attribute it to any change that had been recently made affecting the administration of the law?"
  MR. W. KENNY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received any official Report of the observations of the same learned Judge at the conclusion of the Clare Assizes yesterday; and, if
  816
  not, whether his attention has been called to the report of the observations as they appear in The Daily News of to-day?
  MR. SEXTON: With regard to the last question, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the speech delivered on the previous day by Mr. Justice O'Brien was in any sense a judicial utterance, a charge to the Grand Jury or to the Petty Jury, or whether it was a general public speech from the Bench?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In reference to the remarks of Mr. Justice O'Brien yesterday, I have only had an opportunity of reading one very short report of them, and I should say that, judging from that report, whatever else it was, it was not a judicial utterance. I will take means to get an authentic Report, and will go through it. In reference to the question on the Paper, my attention was of course drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice O'Brien in charging the Grand Jury. The first report I saw was a report in The Times newspaper, and a garbled report. The learned Judge did qualify his words as my hon. Friend the Member for Clare has just read to the House. He said that—
  "The number of recorded cases is slightly less than that of the corresponding period of last year."
  So far as my information leads me to know, the total crime is distributed nearly equally over the whole period of the year. The late Government were in Office till the middle of August; the present Government came in on 22nd August. The learned Judge did not attribute the condition of the crime to any change that has recently been made. Now, Sir, it will perhaps save the time of the House if in answer to this question I make a somewhat long statement. This is not the first time within the last two or three years that the Judges in charging the Grand Juries in County Clare have had occasion to make remarks on the unfortunate condition of affairs in that county. At the Summer Assizes in July, 1892, Mr. Justice O'Brien made some strong references to the state of the county, and amongst other things he said—
  "Unhappily, the County of Clare retains its bad eminence or pre-eminence in Ireland, and, though the latest to receive, it has been the longest to retain, the dangerous impressions and evil influences which have existed for some time in the country."

  817
  He remarks upon the increase of intimidation, especially in the form of threatening letters, and also on the prevalence of incendiary fires. At the previous Spring Assizes in March, 1892, Lord Justice FitzGibbon reported the continued bad state of County Clare, there being an increase in the number of specially reported cases. At the Spring Assizes in March, 1891, Lord Chief Justice O'Brien remarked that the Calendar before him presented a melancholy picture of crime. He found that crime had not diminished, and that in several classes of crime there had been, unhappily, a sensible increase. This was the first occasion on which Judges have commented on the state of the county. In reference to the remarks of Mr. Justice O'Brien the other day, and his allegation that there was a condition of lawlessness in the County of Clare far exceeding in amount that which came under his experience in times past, it is hardly borne out by the facts. One hundred and seventeen cases were specially reported since the Spring of 1892 as against 124 cases in the corresponding period of the preceding year— that is to say, a reduction of seven cases since the previous Spring Assize. There has been a decrease not only in the number of cases, but also in the more serious classes of crime. At the Spring Assize of 1892 there was no murder case as against two in 1891. There were 13 cases of arson at the last Spring Assizes against 9 this year, and 13 cases of cattle maiming against 5— a decrease under each head. In minor offences the number was 2,338 as against 2,439, a decrease of 101 cases. The state of the county, bad as it is, is not so bad, if we may judge from these Reports, as when the late Government last reduced the police force and revoked the Proclamation under the Crimes Act. I am extremely unwilling to give anything like a recriminatory character to so serious a subject, but I am bound to say so much of the comparative part of the learned Judge's remarks. I am fully alive, as the House hardly needs to be assured, to the hateful demoralisation that prevails now, as it has for years past prevailed, in some portions of the County of Clare. In answer to the last portion of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have only to say that I have had frequent and direct communication with the
  818
  responsible officers on the spot, more than one important change in police administration has been made, and no effort is being spared to reduce the present state of demoralisation and lawlessness. The hon. Member and the House will understand that it would not be convenient or conformable with practice to state more particularly the special measures under consideration. I may say, however, that probably among them will be the restoration of the extra police force which the late Government thought it right, perhaps prematurely, to withdraw last year.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.): Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Mr. Justice O'Brien did or did not state that the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects in County Clare are not safe? Are we to understand that that is accurate or inaccurate, as a matter of fact?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think it is true that life and property in the County of Clare are not so safe, unfortunately, as in most other parts of Ireland and in England; but, as the hon. Member well knows, the explanation is to be found in the social circumstances of the last few years.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask whether, in referring to the statement of the learned Judge as not judicial, the right hon. Gentleman meant to impugn its accuracy?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. COHEN (Islington, E.): May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be good enough to explain in what respect the subsequent Report of the learned Judge's remarks differs from the report in The Times, which he informed the House was garbled?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Surely the hon. Gentleman has noticed that The Times omitted that portion which entirely relieved the present change of adminisstration from responsibility.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not County Clare the county in which Head Constable Michael O'Halloran, with the approval of the present Leader of the Opposition when Chief Secretary for Ireland, gave a £10 note to an alleged member of a secret society with a view to get up an outrage?
  MR. CARSON: May I ask in how many of the 117 reported cases the offender have been brought to conviction?
  MR. J. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be good enough to give the figures with reference to the number of convictions in previous years? I think he will find that the average is about the same.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not by me the figures of previous years, and it would be travelling rather wide on the present question to give them; but I am quite prepared, if any hon. Member will put a question to me, to state what they were.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In reference to the statement made by Mr. Justice O'Brien that life and property are insecure in County Kerry, is it not the fact that during the last year no life has been lost by violence in County Clare, and that, so far from property being insecure, rents are generally well paid in County Clare, and no attacks have been made upon property; and whether it was not a well-known fact that crime and disturbance in the County of Clare was on a much larger scale when the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the Opposition held the office of Chief Secretary.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I can only say that the hon. Gentleman is quite right in the implication that the crime in County Clare is not at present marked by any agrarian features. It is not agrarian crime.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will always bear in mind, with reference to questions such as that put by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that the people of the County of Clare are strongly opposed to the Party of the hon. Gentleman?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is hardly a fair question to put.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I will put it in another form, Mr. Speaker. I will ask whether it is not the fact that systematic attempts have been made to blacken the character of the people of this county?
  MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.): As the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating the restoration of the extra police force, will he take into his consideration the necessity of restoring the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If the hon. Member will show me that that Act puts down crime in Clare, I will consider the necessity of its restoration.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consult the officials responsible for the good order of the county?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Reports of the County Inspectors are confidential, and I have no intention of communicating them to the hon. Member or to anybody else.
  MR. MACARTNEY: That is not my question. I think that the right hon. Gentleman misinterpreted the purview of the question. I asked him whether he would consult the constabulary officials and Resident Magistrates of Clare with a view to putting into force again the Criminal Law Amendment Act? Will he get their opinion as to what the effect of that would be in securing the peace of the county?
  MR. SEXTON: As to the question of the efficiency or inefficiency of the law in County Clare, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a better test— namely, the constabulary and judicial records. I would ask whether there is any assumption to be gained from those records that the Coercion Act has either increased the proportion of indictments to crime or the proportion of convictions to indictments?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think that I have shown that the operation of the Crimes Act in Clare did not materially increase the number of convictions, and that the Four Courts of Secret Inquiry proved completely inoperative. No single person was by them made amenable to the law.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In connection with what has taken place now, I desire to give notice that, should any attempt be made to place this county under the Coercion Act, I shall oppose it as strongly as I can.

  CLASSIFICATION IN HER MAJESTY'S DOCKYARDS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now able to state the decision of the Board of Admiralty with respect to the system of classification in Her Majesty's Dockyards?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 2nd February, the matter is receiving the very careful consideration of the Admiralty, and it is hoped a statement may be made at an early date.

  POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH ALDERNEY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is no direct mail communication between England and Alderney, which is a military station, and is the nearest of the Channel Islands to both England and France; whether it is true that a letter posted in London after 9 p.m. on a Monday would only be delivered in Alderney on the following Saturday, the distance by sea being 49 miles from the island to Portland; whether the Deputy Inspector General of Mails, about 18 months ago, informed a deputation on the subject that "the best would be done to secure for the people of Alderney a direct mail service to England"; and whether, in view of the fact that British mailboats daily pass and repass the island without stopping to deliver mails, anything has been or is about to be done in fulfilment of that undertaking?
  MR. A. MORLEY: This subject has received careful consideration, but no arrangement is practicable for affording a direct mail between England and Alderney. A letter posted in time for the night mail from London of Monday would be delivered at Alderney on Tuesday. If posted too late for Monday's mail, it would be despatched to Guernsey on Tuesday night, and would now be delivered at Alderney on Saturday, the postal service to Alderney during the winter being on Tuesdays and Saturdays. The deputation referred to were informed that the Department would be glad to arrange a better service within the limit of the present expenditure, which is very large as compared with the revenue from the letters, but no expectation was held out of a direct service with England. The matter shall not be lost sight of.

  HEMP DRUGS IN BENGAL.
  MR. CAINE (Bradford, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Secretary of State for India will instruct the Government of India to create a Commission of Experts to inquire into, and report upon, the cultivation of, and trade in, all preparations of hemp drugs in Bengal, the effect of their consumption upon the social and moral condition of the people, and the desirability of prohibiting its growth and sale; such Commission also to invite written Reports on the same from all Commissioners in the other Provinces of British India; and that the Commission shall be partly composed of non-official natives of India?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State proposes to request the Viceroy to appoint a Commission to inquire into the cultivation and trade in hemp drugs, and he will be glad if the result of their inquiry is to show that further restrictions can be placed upon the sale and consumption of these drugs. The Commission will be composed, in part, of non-official natives of India. The Secretary of State will give instructions to ensure that the inquiry shall be as thorough and complete as possible; but he does not consider it desirable to interfere with the discretion of the Commission as to the methods of procedure which they may think best to adopt.
  MR. CAINE: In consequence of the answer given, I beg to give notice, on behalf of the Member for North Manchester (Mr. Schwann), that he will not move the Resolution which stands first on the Order Book for to-morrow. That will facilitate the discussion of the question of railway rates.
  SIR J. GORST: Will the question of opium be considered by the Commission?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: No; the subject, however, is receiving the attention of the Secretary of State.

  UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ask the Embassy at Brussels to report upon the recent Referendum vote upon universal suffrage, the methods by which it was taken, and its cost; and if he will issue the Report as a Foreign Office Paper?
  SIR E. GREY: The Report will be called for and laid on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper.

  GLANDERS AND FARCY IN LONDON.
  MR. EDWARD H. BAYLEY (Camberwell, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the alarming increase of glanders and farcy in London, upwards of 2,000 cases having occurred in 1892, being 90 per cent. of the cases in the country generally, and the fact that glanders and farcy are contagious as regards human beings as well as horses, he will take measures to stamp out the disease by means of a system of inspection of stables and compulsory slaughter of infected horses, with or without compensation of owners?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. GARDNER,): As the hon. Member is aware, I issued an Order dealing generally with the subject of glanders and farcy in September last. Under that Order vigorous measures are being taken by the Loudon County Council, assisted by the police, to ensure notification, slaughter, destruction of carcases, and the prevention of the spread of the disease, and I am happy to say that the number of outbreaks recorded since the commencement of the present year is less than in the corresponding period of 1892. There is no cause whatever for alarm on the subject, but I am carefully watching the operation of the new Order with a view to determine whether any further action on my part is necessary.

  THE REGISTRATION BILL.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Registration of Electors (Amendment) Bill before Easter; and whether his intention still is to ask the House to refer a measure which contains important clauses, altering the Parliamentary franchise, to a Grand Committee?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: My answer to both questions is in the affirmative.

  PENSIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, he will lay upon the Table of the House the Regulations as to gratuities and pensions for Civil servants, and the Regulations as to gratuities and pensions for the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, which are at present omitted from the 5th and 6th Schedules of the Bill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I hope to be able to place these Papers on the Table of the House before the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill.

  THE ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many discharges have taken place from the Enfield Small Arms Factory during the last month; and whether it is contemplated making any further reductions in the number of hands employed?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): Sixty-one men have been discharged from the Small Arms Factory at Enfield during February; and it is feared further reduction in the amount of labour will have to be made, not only in Enfield, but in other Government establishments.

  BALTIMORE RAILWAY PIER.
  MR. W. REDMOND (for Mr. FIELD,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) have had under consideration any scheme for the erection of a suitable pier in connection with the Baltimore Railway; and, if so, whether they have come to any decision on the matter; and whether any surplus remains of the sum granted by the Treasury for the construction of the Baltimore Extension Railway; and, if so, whether he will take steps to secure that such surplus shall be used to aid in the erection of the pier?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Chief Secretary informs me that the Congested Districts Board have had under consideration a proposal for the extension of the pier at Baltimore in connection with the railway, but have not yet come to any decision on the matter. I am informed that there is no surplus under the Light Railways Act of 1889, and, even if there were, it would not be applicable to the erection of a pier.

  NON-AGRARIAN OFFENCES IN CLARE.
  MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the number of the non-agrarian offences committed in the County of Clare for the quarter ending the 31st December, 1892?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General reports that the number of non-agrarian outrages reported in Clare for the three months ended December 31, 1892, was 30, of which nine were threatening notices.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large tracts of County Clare have been, by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland, excluded from the operations of the Land Act, and that it is in regard to this that the troubles arise?
  [No answer was given.]

  PORTNESS HARBOUR.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the dangerous condition of the harbour at Portness, Island of Lewis, and take steps to have the alterations pushed forward more speedily than hitherto?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The faults of the Portness Harbour are its tendency to silt up and the difficulty of entering during rough weather. The Treasury under the late Government sanctioned £15,000 to build a breakwater and remedy these defects. For six months the Harbour Trustees have been trying in vain to find a contractor to take up the work. Now their engineer recommends that it should be carried out by daily labour, and the matter is under the consideration of the Trustees.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS COMMISSION.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Evicted Tenants Commission will be in the hands of Members?
  MR, J. MORLEY: The Report of the Commission was officially submitted by the Commissioners to the Lord Lieutenant on Saturday last. The printers have promised to complete the printing of the evidence within the next few days, and, upon its receipt, steps will forthwith be taken to lay both the Report and evidence on the Table of the House?
  MR. BARTLEY: May we rely upon having it early next week?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I should think so.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will lay on the Table of the House the Circular which he proposes to issue to the County and Burgh Committees in Scotland, in regard to secondary education?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Circular shall be laid on the Table of the House. It will be despatched to the Committees at latest to-morrow.

  RATES FOR THE CARRIAGE OF MILK TO HAWICK.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the London and North-Western and North British Railway Companies, with reference to the rates for the carriage of milk from Plumpton Station to Hawick, whereby the charges have been raised from 1d. per gallon to 10¼d. per gallon, being a figure 2¾d. per gallon in excess of the price of the milk, and so exorbitant as to threaten the immediate stoppage of the milk supply of Hawick from Plumpton and district; and whether he will make such representations to the Railway Companies as will bring about the abandonment of the new and oppressive charges and the resumption of the former rate?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have been in communication with the London and North-Western Railway Company on the subject referred to by the hon. Member. There can be no doubt that this extraordinary charge was made, but I am happy to be able to state that a rate of 1d. per gallon has now been adopted for the traffic in milk from Plumpton to Hawick, which will be applied retrospectively to the traffic that has been passing latterly.

  CAPTAIN HASTINGS AND THE ADMIRALTY.
  MR.HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what precedents exist for the entire reversal by the Admiralty of the decisions of duly-constituted Courts Martial; whether a prisoner, who has been fully acquitted after formal trial by a Court Martial, is liable to be informally re-tried and condemned on the same charge by the Lords Commissioners; whether the Court which tried and acquitted Captain Hastings attributed the accident wholly to the imperfection of the Admiralty Chart; and whether the Board of Admiralty alleged that the Circular Letter of April 14, 1892, and the instructions given in Notes on Navigation, ed. 1892, to which they referred in their recent Minute, were not within the knowledge of the Court Martial when they gave their verdict?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: In answer to my hon. Friend's first and second questions, there are precedents for the course taken by the Admiralty, notably that of the acquittal, in 1862, of Captain Sotheby for the loss of the Conqueror, and his subsequent censure by Minute of the Board. While not accepting the description in these questions of the action taken by the present Board, they are satisfied that what they have done has been perfectly regular, as well as just. To the third question I have to answer Yes; it is so stated in the Admiralty Minute. The Board of Admiralty allege nothing of the kind stated in the fourth question. They simply take the opportunity to call the attention of the Fleet to the Circular Letter, and to the instructions, with a view to doing all in the power of the Admiralty to avert further mishaps.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the Admiralty Minute when the Navy Estimates are under discussion.

  PROMOTIONS FROM THE RANKS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total amount paid to soldiers risen from the ranks for outfit allowances during the last 10 years; in how many cases during that period has the option of earlier promotion to commissioned rank, on condition of foregoing the outfit allowance, been offered before the outfit allowance for the year had been exhausted; how many men risen from the ranks have been promoted to commissioned rank during that period with or without the grant of outfit allowances respectively; and, how many of those so promoted without outfit allowance belonged to the same class of society as those who attained commissions by examination?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As regards the actual amount paid as outfit allowance to soldiers risen from the ranks during the last 10 years, I shall be happy to give the hon. Member a Return if he will move for it, and also of the total number promoted from the ranks. Since the practice commenced in 1886 of promoting warrant or noncommissioned officers without the outfit allowance, it has been customary, on noting a candidate, to ascertain, without reference to the number of allowances unappropriated at the time, if he would be willing to forego the allowance in order that his promotion might not be delayed. The outfit allowance is given as a matter of course in every case of promotion to a commission as riding-master or quartermaster, or as district officer of Artillery, or officer of the coast battalion of Engineers. It is only in the cases of promotion to commissions in the Cavalry or Infantry that the question of foregoing the outfit allowance can arise. Out of 197 such promotions during the last 10 years, 117 have had the allowance and 80 have not. No inquiry as to the social status of a candidate is made beyond the fact that a commanding officer is bound to satisfy himself that the candidate is in all respects qualified for the position of a commissioned officer.

  RAILWAY RATES IN IRELAND.
  COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland and Great Western Railway Company of Ireland has lately raised some of its charges for freight from 20 to 120 per cent.; if the principal distiller in Galway is now for the first time preparing to send his goods by sea owing to the high railway rates; and if Galway buyers are now being deterred by the rates from purchasing agricultural produce in Ballinasloe; and if he will bring in a Bill to regulate excessive freights by Railway Companies holding a monopoly of the inland carrying trade?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received several complaints of the rates charged by the Midland and Great Western Railway Company of Ireland, and I am in communication with the Company, through the Railway Association, on the subject. I am not able to say what action it will be necessary for me to take until I see the result of the negotiations which are now being daily conducted. I have no information on the second portion of the hon. and gallant Member's question.
  COLONEL NOLANasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say when he would be likely to know what action could be taken—in a week or a month?
  MR. MUNDELLA: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will address to me a specific complaint, I will, in a very short time, give him a specific answer; but I cannot say what action will be taken on the general complaint as to railway rates. The Companies must be allowed time for revision.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid he had named the railway and the percentage of rise. He had obtained his information from a meeting of traders. They wanted some specific answer to their complaint.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid that if the hon. and gallant Member would give any specific instance of goods carried by the railway in question at advanced rates, he would ask the Company to explain the increase. He could not do it on a general statement.

  SCREENING OF SIDE-LIGHTS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received a document, dated 31st January, 1893, signed by 143 Trinity House pilots of the Port of London, protesting against the new system of so screening ships' side-lights as to make them squint across the ship's bow, as being misleading and dangerous; whether he has received a letter, dated 14th February, 1893, from the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, objecting to the new system, and urging the suspension of the Order in Council until the concurrence of Foreign Powers has been obtained; whether he has received a communication, also objecting to the new system, from the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom; whether he is aware of the consensus of opinion adverse to the new system expressed by the organs in the Press of the shipping interests; and whether, under these circumstances, he still adheres to his determination not to re-consider or suspend the operation of the Order in Council whereby the new system is imposed?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received the communications from the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association and the Chamber of Shipping, together with what purports to be a copy of the document signed by the pilots. I cannot undertake to estimate the extent of Press opinions in the matter. I have seen expressions of opinion both for and against the Order. As already explained by me, in answer to previous questions, the Order in Council makes no new regulation, but interprets existing regulations framed in the interests of safe navigation, and there is no sufficient reason for suspending its operation. The instructions as to screening of sidelights was issued on the 14th August, 1889, since which date it has been generally adopted throughout the British Mercantile Marine. The Order in Council explaining the rule was passed in the interest of British shipowners.

  THE "WARSPITE" COURT MARTIAL.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any objection to lay on

  831
  the Table of the House the Minutes of the proceedings of the Warspite court martial, together with any Admiralty Minute thereon?
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: It has not been customary, unless in exceptional cases, to lay the Minutes of courts martial on the Table; and unless there is a general desire on the part of Members, the usual course will be followed.

  THE NEW COINAGE.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that samples of the new coins shall be on sale to Members at the Post Office before the Coinage Vote in the Supplementary Estimates comes on?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I shall see whether arrangements can be made to that effect.

  SURVEYOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it was decided by a Treasury Minute seven years ago to abolish the office of Surveyor General for Scotland; and, if so, whether he will state to the House the contents of that Minute?
  MR. A. MORLEY: There is no Treasury Minute on the subject. But in a letter dated the 29th January, 1886, the Treasury concurred in a proposal made by the then Postmaster General that on the retirement of the present Surveyor General the title should be abolished and that of Secretary revived.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter at an early date.

  PUBLICANS' LICENCES.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Probate Duty on the value of a publican's licence has hitherto been calculated on the full term of his tenure; and, if so, whether, in view of the legislation which he proposes, and of his statement that licences are annually terminable, he will direct that the practice be discontinued, and Probate Duty assessed at one year's value only in future?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; I think that is a matter well deserving of consideration. I will communicate with the Inland Revenue on the subject.

  DISTURBANCE AT BODYKE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conflict between the police and people at Bodyke last week, when the sheriff seized some cattle on the estate of Colonel O'Callaghan; whether he can state how many police were engaged upon the occasion, and whether it is true they charged the people with clubbed guns; whether he is aware that the people of Bodyke find great difficulty in paying the judicial rents; and whether, to avoid further disturbance in this locality, the Government will introduce a short Bill for the revision of judicial rents in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have called for a Report in reference to this question, and not having received a reply must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer it for a couple of days.
  MR. MACARTNEY: As to paragraph 3, is it not a fact that a number of the people when their cattle were seized came in and paid their rents?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have asked for a Report on the matter and have not yet received it.

  WAR OFFICE ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the selection of provincial newspapers in which War Office advertisements are inserted, the amount of circulation is the guiding principle, or whether any other circumstances, such as political opinions, are taken into account?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the amount of circulation is the guiding principle; but the hon. Gentleman, if he investigates the matter, will find that the amount of circulation somewhat varies according to the politics of the Government in power.

  WELSH GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will explain why

  833
  a copy of the schemes of management of the Intermediate Education Fund in the County of Carnarvon, of the Grammar or Friars School, Bangor, and of the Grammar School, Bottwnog, which was presented to the House and ordered to be printed on the 9th February, have not yet been printed and circulated; and whether he is aware that the period allowed for moving an Address to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from such schemes, expires on the 9th April?
  MR. ACLAND: The dates mentioned are as stated by the hon. Member. The scheme was sent to the Stationery Office on February 9th, but, on inquiry, I find that it has not yet been received back from the printers. I regret the delay that has taken place. Meanwhile the scheme has been available to the public for some time, and copies can be obtained at the Charity Commission Office.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the schemes and present them again, so that the period contemplated by the Statute for objections should not be curtailed?
  MR. ACLAND: As the scheme has been available to the public for some time, I do not think that would be necessary.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid that on Thursday he should move an Address to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her assent from the schemes.

  BUTESHIRE MAGISTRATES.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that of the 15 new Magistrates appointed for Buteshire since 1st February, 1893, 13 are Unionists, and only two Liberals; whether the two Liberals appointed are Provosts of Rothsay and Millport; and if he will represent to the Lord Chancellor the advisability of remedying this disparity?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have already placed a representation with regard to this matter before the Lord Chancellor, who, I have no doubt, will give it his consideration.

  THE BANK OF IRELAND STOCK.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of the Government has been called to the serious fall in the value of the Stock of the Bank of Ireland, the principal Irish railways, and commercial undertakings since 13th February, 1893; and whether he will grant the Return which is to be moved for this day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Yes; I have noticed the fall in the Bank of Ireland Stock and the fall in one or two other—noticeable falls—Irish securities, but I have no observations to make upon the subject, and I have no means of giving official information to Parliament. I can only refer to the public sources of information, which are as open to the hon. Member as they are to me.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the amount of depreciation which has occurred in eight of the principal Irish securities amount to nearly £2,000,000?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONErose.
  MR. WEIR: I should like to ask whether the "bears" have not been particularly active during the last few days?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEdid not reply.

  THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF MALTA.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Adriano Dingli, Chief Justice of Malta, has been appointed Vice President of the Council with a salary of £150 a year, to be paid out of the Civil List of the Islands; and whether this sum is in addition to the salary of £1,000 a year, which he receives as Chief Justice?
  MR. BUXTON: The answer to both questions is "yes." I may add that Her Majesty's Government consider themselves fortunate in having secured the services of Sir Adriano Dingli as Vice President of the Council.

  PLEADING IN COUNTY COURTS.
  MR. MORTON (for Mr. BRAND,: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether it is competent, or in accordance with ordinary practice, in cases coming before a County Court Judge, that a son of the said County Court Judge should plead on behalf of one of the parties?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL, Hackney, S.): I have to say that it is competent for a son to appear before his father, but I cannot say that there is any practice one way or the other. It is a question of good taste.

  EQUALITY OF MEMBERS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to carry out more effectually the principle of the absolute equality of all Members of this House, he will consider the propriety of depriving Members of the Bar of the exclusive privilege they now enjoy of being addressed as "honourable and learned"?
  MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.): Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I should like to ask whether, to carry out more effectually the equality of Members, he will consider the advisability of depriving them of the right of putting themselves down on the Notice Paper under the title of "Doctor"?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think it is evident to my hon. Friend from what has already taken place that if I were to give an incautious answer we might become involved in great complications. My hon. Friend will take note that this is a matter entirely of private judgment and free independent practice, in which it would be very dangerous for me to attempt to interfere.

  SCOTCH BUSINESS AND THE DELEGATION SYSTEM.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is true, as reported, that it is the intention of the Government to refer all purely Scotch measures to a Committee consisting of all the Scottish Members; and, if so, whether all purely English measures will in a like manner be referred to a Committee consisting of all the English
  836
  Members; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not know whether it is open to put the construction upon questions that they are not sometimes in their tone favourable to Home Rule because of the anxiety shown as to what will follow that measure. As to the immediate subject of the question, it is undoubtedly a fact that there is a wide-spread dissatisfaction among hon. Members with respect to the progress, or rather the non-progress, of Scotch business in the House of Commons. I sympathise with Scotch Members, and recognise that there is cause for their dissatisfaction; and we are very desirous to consider whether it may not be possible, by some judicious measure affecting the Procedure of the House, to remove some part of the evil. On the first opportunity we have to make a proposal on the subject, if we are able to do so, I will take care that due notice of it is given to the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my question.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not think it is convenient in the interest of Public Business to heap contingency upon contingency. The established practice of many Departments with regard to contingencies is not to arrive at a conclusion or say what they would do until the contingency arrives. I cannot consent to go beyond the answer I have already given with respect to Scotland, and if we take a step of that kind with respect to Scotland it will be for the noble Marquess to consider whether it is desirable to propose any such step with regard to England.

  ACCIDENTS IN MINES.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of deaths caused in the United Kingdom by defective pit-ropes and chains during the past 10 years; whether he is aware that at present no official test is applied to ropes or chains used in lowering and raising workmen engaged in mining to and from their work; and whether he will consider the practicability of instituting some official test?
  MR. ASQUITH: The number of deaths caused by defective pit-ropes and chains during the past 10 years is reported to be 20, or an average of two per annum, in metalliferous mines, and 46, or an average of 4.6 per annum, in coal mines. There is at present no official test applied to ropes or chains. My hon. Friend is aware that by the fifth General Rule of Section 49 of the Coal Mines Act, 1887, it is the duty of mine-owners to have the ropes and chains examined every 24 hours by a competent person. I have consulted the Mines Inspectors, and have come to the conclusion that it is undesirable to relieve the mine-owner of his proper responsibility in this respect, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to institute any official test for these ropes.

  PATENT AGENTS' RULES.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent case of "Lockwood v. The Chartered Institute of Patent Agents," in which it has been decided by the Court of Session that the Patent Agents' Rules, 1889, are not in accordance with "The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act, 1888," under which they purport to be made, and that the Institute of Patent Agents have no power to impose fees for registration of patent agents; whether he is aware that the fees hitherto charged have been greatly in excess of any requirements of registration, and have been used for the general purposes of the Institute; and, if so, what steps he will take to secure the restitution of such fees already paid; and whether he will recall the Rules in question, and will issue a fresh set, by which the Register of Patent Agents shall be kept by the Comptroller General of Patents or other officer of the Board of Trade, and not under the control of any private Association?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the decision referred to by the hon. Member. It is my intention to give a reasonable time in order that it may be decided whether an appeal against this decision will be presented. If no appeal is presented and the decision is not reversed, I shall lose no time in cancelling the Rules. I am not at present able to say anything
  838
  as regards the form in which new Rules, as they become necessary, will be framed. I have no power to order the restitution of fees, but the matter, I understand, is under the consideration of the Institute.

  PAHANG.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have considered the three alternative courses, recommended by the British Resident in Pahang, with regard to the policy to be adopted towards that State, as stated in his Annual Report for 1891, recently presented to Parliament, namely, raising a loan, either in the open market or otherwise, to provide for an annual expenditure during the next five years of two or three hundred thousand dollars on public works; attaching the administration of Pahang (qua the European staff) to some more prosperous State, such as Selangor, and combining the budgets; returning to the system in force when he was appointed Resident of Pahang in 1888—namely, leaving all collections, as well as the general administration, in the hands of the Sultan and his Native officials, the Resident having only a Sikh bodyguard and one or two European assistants, and having regard to the strong recommendation contained in the concluding paragraph, whether the Government have come to any determination upon the subject?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Secretary of State is not prepared at present to make any statement on the subject of Pahang. The decision largely depends on financial considerations. Lord Ripon is in communication with the Governor of the Straits Settlements on the whole question, and is giving it his most careful attention.

  PUBLIC VACCINATORS.
  MR. WILLOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the Bill to abolish cumulative fines for non-vaccination, if passed, will operate to reduce the annual earnings of public vaccinators who, under the Compulsory Vaccination Acts 1867 and 1871, are in most cases paid by a fee for each child successfully vaccinated by a public

  839
  vaccinator or a private medical practitioner, he will recommend that such officers should in future be paid, in lieu of fees, a fixed salary equal in amount to their average emoluments from fees and other sources?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is by no means clear that the effect of the Bill will be to reduce the earnings of the public vaccinators. In the event of such a reduction taking place the Local Government Board will no doubt consider whether any and what measures should be taken, either by fixing a salary or raising the fee, to make provision for the case. But I cannot give any pledge on the subject.

  THE SCOTCH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Suspensory Bill for the Church of Scotland is to be introduced next week; and, if not, when?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is not to be introduced next week, but due notice will be given.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.): In view of the great agitation and distress that have been caused by the intended attack upon the oldest Institution of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman be so good as to name some day for the introduction of the Bill, or some day before which it will not be introduced?
  MR. DALZIEL: Is it not the fact that the people of Scotland, by an overwhelming majority, through their Representatives, have declared in favour of this Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: A large majority of the Representatives of Scotland are favourable to some change in the Ecclesiastical arrangements of that country, which is in the nature of Disestablishment. An opinion in that sense was declared on the part of Representatives of Scotland in the last Parliament. With respect to the Bill, I have stated that it will not be introduced before the end of next week, and I shall take care that no hon. Member shall suffer inconvenience with respect to the matter.

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  James Gibney, esquire, for Meath County (North Meath Division); William Allan, esquire, for Borough of Gateshead.
MOTIONS.
  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

    COUNTY CLARE (LAWLESSNESS).
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL,Member for South Tyrone, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "The lawless condition of the county of Clare and the total absence of security for life and property in that part of the Queen's dominions;" but the pleasure of the House not having, been signified,
    MR. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen,
    MR. SEXTON: On a point of order, I wish to ask whether, having regard to the statement of the learned Judge cited in the House to-day, that the amount of crime in County Clare during the last year was less than in the preceding year, and having regard also to the statement that has been made by the responsible Minister of the Crown, that he is engaged in concerting measures for the security of life and property in concert with the Authorities of County Clare, this is such a "definite matter of urgent public importance" as can be properly discussed on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of hon. Members who may choose to support the hon. Member's proposals.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I rise to a point of Order. I should like to ask whether it is in accordance with the Rules of this House that a Debate should be introduced upon a matter with regard to which hon. Gentlemen have not bad an opportunity—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I call on Mr. Russell.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that, after what had taken place that afternoon, he did not think it necessary to offer any apology for interrupting the Business of the House with his present Motion. It was the first duty of any Government to protect the life and property of its subjects. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary informed them that things were as

    841
    bad in County Clare 12 months ago as they were now, he (Mr. Russell) maintained that that fact simply increased the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, while it did not lessen his (Mr. Russell's), or that of any other independent Member. His contention was that, in view of the state of the County of Clare, a great and solemn duty was cast upon the Government; and not only that, but, in his opinion, a great and solemn duty was also cast upon Her Majesty's Opposition, and upon the independent Members of that House. If the law could not be asserted in Clare by ordinary means then let extraordinary measures be adopted. It was the primary business of the House to see that life and property in that part of the Queen's dominions were secure. Now, what were the facts in regard to this question? They had heard some observations that day in regard to Mr. Justice O'Brien, who had made two statements to the Grand Jury in regard to crime in the County Clare. Who was Mr. Justice O'Brien? [A VOICE: A promoted Crown prosecutor.] He spoke of Mr. Justice. O'Brien as one of the most distinguished of Irish Judges. He was one of the most learned and able of those Judges. Beyond all doubt this could be asserted with perfect propriety of Mr. Justice O'Brien, that if he were not competent to discharge his duty the fault rested with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister who appointed him. This was not an appointment of the Tory Party. It was ah appointment of the present Prime Minister, and it was one of the best appointments that the right hon. Gentleman had ever made. What, did Mr. Justice O'Brien say on this subject? Because it was worth while to get at the actual facts of this case. He (Mr. T. W. Russell) was not going to quote from the report of Mr. Justice O'Brien's remarks which appeared in The Times, but he should quote from the fullest report that he had been able to find in all the newspapers. In addressing the Grand Jury of County Clare, on Monday last, Mr. Justice O'Brien said—
    "I must say that the picture that the returns made by the Constabulary of the state of crime in the county present to my mind shows a state of lawlessness exceeding in amount—far exceeding in amount—that which has come under your notice or mine in past time, and destined, I fear, unless checked by some vigorous hand,
    842
    to increase. I have come to know that the state of this county of late has engaged the attention of a body corresponding, I suppose, exactly to your own class—the Magistrates of the County of Clare, all having a deep interest in the prosperity, industry, and happiness of this county, all well acquainted with its condition, and having the means of judging which local information can alone supply of the cause of this state of things. Therefore it becomes unnecessary for me, and, perhaps because of the the duty I have to perform at this Assizes, it is not desirable for me, to enter into any great detail by way of explanation of this state of things. The facts are all known to yourselves. You know there is no security for life in this county. You know that property is not secure any more than life; you know that a system of intimidation exists that is carried into all the relations of private and domestic life, carried into all the relations that arise out of trade and every kind of occupation, and unless some power intervenes of greater efficiency than mere judicial statement or exposition, I cannot but foresee that the evil will go on increasing."
    He asserted that no more solemn utterance could be considered by the House of Commons. It was not only what Mr. Justice O'Brien said on Monday; but let the House listen to what he said yesterday in closing the Assizes and dismissing, the Grand Jury. ["No, no!"] At all events, here were Mr. Justice O'Brien's words, and they were delivered in closing the Assizes. What did he say? At the conclusion of the criminal business at the Clare Assizes, held at Ennis, Mr. Justice O'Brien said—
    "He had refrained from making any allusion to certain matters dealing with the administration of the law in County Clare, in charging the Grand Jury at the commencement of the Assizes, because he did not wish to influence the result of the legal proceedings then pending; but he now considered it right to draw the attention of those who were charged with the maintenance of law and order and the preservation of life and property to the result of those legal proceedings, which showed that no kind of security any longer existed for property or for life, so far as the same depended upon the law, as it now existed, in County Clare. Seven cases had been tried before him, representing an infinitesimal part of the actual crime, but with the uniform result that the law had entirely failed to bring the offenders to justice, in spite of every means that vigilance, care, and zeal in trying to attain this object. Every kind of argument had been made use of to the jurors—to their sense of self-respect, to the common interests of the whole community, and to their sense of moral obligations, if such a thing remained—but without the least result."
    He said the jurors, in spite of every appeal to their consciences, had failed to do their duty, and this was to be attributed to

    843
    "A system of intimidation which existed in all the relations of life, which affected the whole framework of society, and which affected the administration of the law."
    A statement such as that, coming from Mr. Justice O'Brien, was one of the most solemn that Parliament could consider. This House was now seised of information—and seised of the best information it could be possessed of—coming, as it did, from one of Her Majesty's Judges of Assize, showing that there was no security for life, and as little security for property, in County Clare. In face of a statement like that from the Representative of Her Majesty in County Clare, he (Mr. T. W. Russell) at all events, as an Irish Member, should not have been doing his duty if he had not directed the attention of the House to the subject. Something had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary about things having been as bad some time ago in Clare.
    An hon. MEMBER: Worse.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes; or, perhaps, rather worse. But he would call the attention of the House to the facts of the case. Mr. Justice O'Brien had referred to a meeting of Magistrates held on the 22nd January last, under the chairmanship of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, Lord Iuchiquin, to consider these matters. Lord Iuchiquin in his opening statement that day took, for purposes of comparison, the first and second half of 1892, and pointed out that there were 40 serious crimes, and 60 crimes of a less serious nature during the first six mouths of last year; while from July to December there were 43 serious offences, as against 40, and the less serious offences had diminished in number from 60 to 44. These figures showed, therefore, an increase—slight, if they would—in the graver crimes, and a decrease in the less serious offences. That was exactly the position brought out at the Magistrates' meeting on 22nd January last. He would now give the House, roughly, a dozen or so of cases to show what kind of place County Clare must be for civilised people to live in. September 12 — James Hickey, Lower Tulla; turf burned and house fired into. September 17—Peter Maloney; hay burned at Nutfield. September 19—James Green, Tulla; assaulted seriously in the execution of his duty.
    An hon. MEMBER: Was he a bailiff?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that if the man had been a bailiff he would have been as much entitled to the protection of the law as the hon. Member himself. It would be an infamous thing for this country to ask men to perform their service and then say they could be assaulted because they were only bailiffs. He supposed that was what bailiffs would get in Ireland by-and-bye. September 22—John Ryan, Lisduff; attacked by two men and severely beaten near Rath-downey. September 27 — Thomas Walsh, Bodyke; fired at. October 2—P. A. O'Dwyer, New Park House, Ennis; house broken into and gun stolen. October 13—Michael Glynn, Ashline, Ennis; straw burned for employing a certain man, also served with threatening letters. October 16 — Thomas O'Driscoll, Drumbiggle, Ennis; house fired into, owner had a narrow escape; three or four weeks ago an attempt to burn his cowhouse; received threatening letters. October 17 — Michael Hogan, Ballycashin, near Ennis; moonlighters attacked his house; also fired at on September 17; three heifers belonging to him brutally mutilated at Coolbawn, November 12—John Sexton, Lisheen, aged 70; brutally assaulted for taking boycotted grazing. November 28 — Michael M'Mahon, Drumcarnamore; hay burned. November 24—Mrs. Carrick, Tormacleane; house entered by moonlighters, who demanded firearms; they carried off a gun. He could go on quoting the list. There were a large number of cases, but he had mentioned sufficient to show what a pleasant place the County of Clare must be, and, particularly, how delightful a town Ennis must be to live in. Mr. Justice O'Brien undoubtedly said that crime was fairly distributed over the whole year, but he (Mr. T. W. Russell) declined to take any notice whatever of any argument which went to show that crime was as bad in Clare 12 months ago as it was now. The Government of the day were responsible for the security of life and property, and he maintained that the House, before setting to any other business, was bound to see that this was done. What had been the action of the present Chief Secretary? He came into Office on 20th August. He knew the state of things in County Clare—it

    845
    was patent to everybody, What was his first action? Why, to suspend what was left of the Crimes Act. It was quite true that the Leader of the Opposition, while Chief Secretary, owing to the condition of the country had released Ireland from part of the Act; it was also true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds took off from County Clare some part of what the right hon. Gentleman had left. But let them see what the present Chief Secretary had cleared off, because it was a mistake to say that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary released Clare from the operation of the Crimes Act. When the present Government came into Office the condition of things was this: They had a right in the face of serious crimes to order a secret inquiry to take place. The right hon. Gentleman had parted with that. There was power to change the venue on the Motion of the Attorney General. The right hon. Gentleman had parted with that. There was a clause in the Crimes Act enabling offences to be tried by special juries. The right hon. Gentleman had parted with that. There was another clause enabling cases of riot to be tried under summary jurisdiction, and the right hon. Gentleman had parted with that.
    MR. SEXTON: He could not part with that. It is the law for all Ireland.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes; but the right hon. Gentleman parted with safeguards under the Crimes Act, and there is more difficulty in acting under the general law than under the Crimes Act. In the face of the serious condition of County Clare, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately parted with those safeguards which his Predecessor had thought necessary. The right hon. Gentleman would probably tell him that these provisions were no use; but he could not get off on that plea. Figures made an end of that contention. Take the state of things before the Crimes Act was passed. In 1877, before the land agitation commenced, there were only five agrarian offences in the whole County of Clare. That was an important point to start from. In 1878 there were eight; in 1879, 21; in 1880, 91; in 1881, when the Land League agitation was at its height, 213; in 1882, 207. The Crimes Act was passed in that year—not the Crimes Act of the right hon. Gentleman
    846
    the Leader of the Opposition, but that of the First Lord of the Treasury. Hon. Gentlemen told them that a Crimes Act was no use in Clare! In 1882 there were 207 agrarian offences; in 1883, with a Crimes Act in operation, they had fallen to 55; in 1884 they had fallen to 38; in 1885, they had gone up to 88; in 1886, when the Crimes Act was repealed or had expired, they went up to 141 again. Take off the Crimes Act, and agrarian crime went up. In 1887, the offences had gone up to 153; in 1888, with a Crimes Act, they came down to 104; in 1889 to 63; in 1890 to 58; and in 1891 to 94. Anyone who stated that Crimes Acts were of no use in dealing with a condition of affairs such as existed in County Clare could not possibly have studied the history of previous Crimes Acts under which Clare had been put. What was the real condition of affairs in County Clare? It was not an ordinary criminal state. He wanted to impress that upon the House. Anybody who knew anything about that county knew that for long years it had been in the hands of a secret society. Everybody in authority knew perfectly well that under the Crimes Act that secret society was broken up, and they knew well that its component parts—although there was no cohesion—were scattered throughout the whole country. There were branches in Ennis, Crusheen, and other villages. He had been through the whole county, and he had obtained his information on the spot.
    MR. W. REDMOND: From whom?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Never mind from whom. He said the leaders of these secret societies were as well known as hon. Members were known in that House. The question he had to ask, and to ask most solemnly, was this—whether these secret societies, these lawless organisations, were to be supreme, or whether the law of the Queen was to be supreme? The House would please to observe that it was not landlords who suffered in this matter. They were not subjected to violence because they could protect themselves, but if Members cared to go over this list of outrages in County Clare for the past year they would find it, was the poor men and women who desired to lead honest lives, and who had no sympathy with this ruffianism, who were subjected to violence and outrage.

    847
    For the sake of these poor people the right hon. Gentleman ought to be compelled to assert the supremacy of the law at all costs, and if he could not secure that safety to the subject in Clare to which every man was entitled by the ordinary law then it was his duty to come to that House and ask for extraordinary powers, and the Members of the Opposition were bound to compel the Government to do this if they would not do it of themselves. The whole case had been put in a nutshell by the Chairman of the meeting of magistrates, held on the 22nd January, who closed his speech by these words—
    "Their contention was that everybody in County Clare was entitled to say to the Government 'we call upon you to allow us to go about our business without let or hindrance.' Would anyone who knows the county say it was the case that they could go about their avocations without interference? They knew it was not the case."
    He (Mr. Russell) held he had conclusively proved the case that he rose to establish. He said that it was a definite matter of urgent public importance; he said now that nobody could challenge that assertion, and he maintained this: that before they disestablished churches; before they wrecked an Empire; before they made a laughing-stock of the English Constitution, aye, even before they closed public-houses, or attempted to close them—which they were not going to do—he said even before that they were bound to see that every poor man and woman in County Clare had the protection of the law to which he or she was entitled. He begged to move the Motion.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONseconded the Motion. He quite agreed with the Mover that under ordinary circumstances moving the adjournment of the House ought to be avoided. Some hon. Members might imagine that they had taken this step with a view to obstruction. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to hear that cheer, because if they remembered the Motions for Adjournment that were made in past years, it would appear from those cheers that there were hon. Members in the House who differentiated between the value of the life of a loyal Irishman and the life of one who was disloyal to the Crown. Men who lost their lives in assaulting the police were causes of moving the Adjournment of the House;
    848
    cases when the police were supposed to have used undue violence in maintaining the law of the land constituted a foundation for moving the Adjournment of the House; and here when a Judge had declared that the law no longer obtains in Clare, and that crime and outrage had been perpetrated unpunished, when they got up to move the Adjournment of the House hon. Members called it obstruction. Well, what had they succeeded in extorting from the Chief Secretary? He had told them he was going to think about moving a certain number of police into the County Clare. What good would that do? He did not believe, and he could not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman could believe, that whether he moved the police in Clare or did not move them would affect the cause of crime in Clare. The cause of crime in Clare was this—that crime in Clare could be committed with impunity, not because there were not sufficient police, but because when a criminal was brought before a Clare Jury he was instantly acquitted. The Chief Secretary in speaking of Clare had used these words—"In Clare a hateful demoralisation had existed for years past." That was a fearful description of a county, and he should like to know if that were an apt and accurate description of an English county would it not be felt to be the first duty of the Government to alter such a state of things. But when it happened in Ireland many people looked upon it as the natural condition in which an Irishman liked to live. He could, however, assure hon. Members that the people of Clare valued protection of lives and property just as much as they did in England, Scotland and Wales, and all that Clare asked—all that the law-abiding people of Clare asked—of the Government, was that the law might be re-established in that county when it no longer existed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Morley), when he assumed office, found certain clauses of the Crimes Act still in force. He swept those clauses away. He (Colonel Saunderson) thought the clause in the Act which was of real value in crushing out crime in Clare was that relating to change of venue, and which enabled offences occurring in that county to be tried elsewhere. Some hon. Members that afternoon asked whether convictions could not be obtained in Clare.

    849
    The history of the past 10 years had proved that a conviction for an agrarian crime in Clare was an absolute impossibility. In the last 10 years Clare had been stained with blood over and over again, but not one single conviction for murder had been obtained in Clare for the last 10 or 12 years. Elsewhere conviction had been obtained, but as Judge O'Brien told them, at the present moment to bring any prisoner before a jury in Clare for an agrarian offence was an absolute waste of time. He said that was a condition of affairs which ought not to be allowed to continue for one moment, and for the Chief Secretary simply to tell them he was thinking about drafting a certain number of constables over the borders of County Clare was trifling with the House of Commons, and trifling with the preservation of life and property in Ireland, which it ought to be his very first duty to maintain. The right hon. Gentleman might say that Clare was a demoralised county and had been so for many years past, but the figures which his hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell) had quoted showed that, up to a certain period of its history, Clare was as peaceful as any other county in Ireland. Clare had not that triple dose of original sin which the right hon. Gentleman might think. The demoralisation of County Clare could be traced to one cause, and one cause alone. How did Clare get into this state? Crime in Clare had been of an agrarian character, otherwise he did did not believe it was more criminal than any other county in Ireland. How did this species of crime originate? Clare unfortunately was ground which appeared to be favourable for the development of a certain class of crime, and those who sowed that crime were the present supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Land League was started in Clare. Fifty-seven branches of that organisation which now supported the Chief Secretary were started in that county, and they had in that county an executive police who carried out their unwritten law, without which the Land League would never have succeeded in holding its ground for a moment in any part of Ireland. Gentlemen then came up to Clare and made speeches, and this was why Clare had become what it was—a disgrace to any civilised country. He would just give a specimen of the
    850
    speeches made in Clare to keep the people up to the mark. The object of the hatred of the National League had naturally been land grabbing. The National League and its leaders devoted all their efforts to stamp out land grabbing. Land hunger in Ireland was so great, the temptation to Irishmen to possess farms was so strong, that even with the fear of death before their eyes, in many cases land grabbing took place. If land grabbing went on the whole of the agitation would fall into ruin, and this is the way land grabbing was treated in Clare. This was the speech—
    "We have and we shall continue to put down land grabbing, in spite of all the appeals of the Government. We shall continue to put it down in spite of the Coercion Act, and so long as the lands of Bodyke are unlet and unfilled and un-prolific, so long will you find the rest of the landlords of Clare much easier to deal with. I do not wish to detain you at any great length. You know the lesson."
    That speech was made on a Sunday. Sunday was a great day in Ireland for stimulating the Irish people to Christian obedience to the law. One week after the Sunday on which that speech was made by the Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) a deliberate attempt was made to murder a man called Sexton.
    MR. DILLON(interposing): It is only just I should be allowed to point out when that charge is made that that attempt to murder was organised by the police in Clare.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONwas not in the least surprised at that interruption, because hon. Members below the Gangway always imputed the breaking of the law that had occurred during the last 10 years to the Government of the day, and to the police and the Judges. But, at any rate, it could not be denied that an attempt was made to murder that man, which was only defeated by the fact that the police got information, and intervened, saving Sexton at the expense of one of their own lives. That was the way that the Moonlighters—who were, and always had been, the Executive of the Land League—were kept up to the mark; that was the way that this condition of affairs—which the Chief Secretary had described as the "hateful demoralisation of Clare for years past"—had been secured. Who were the demoralisers? The Member for Mayo and his friends.

    851
    Some of the people objected to coercion. Was there coercion in Clare at the present moment? The Coercion Act which was passed by that House had been denounced and decried before all the constituencies in Great Britain. Was the Coercion Act passed by the House of Commons ever so abhorrent, so detestable, so abominable as the coercion in Clare to-day? As far as he was concerned, he deplored the crime in Clare, but he said that at the present moment it was a fortunate thing that the British people should get some definitive idea of what Home Rule meant. They had Home Rule in Clare. They had the law-breakers, the criminal law-defiers, masters of the situation. It was the duty of the Executive Government to put that down and stamp this thing under foot. But instead they proposed to make these men masters of Ireland. He said that this discussion on the condition of Clare and the Charge of Judge O'Brien in dismissing the Jury should ring round the land, and would prove to every right-minded man that in attempting to make this abhorrent rule supreme in Ireland the Government had made a mistake, and that they who intended to resist it and crush it under foot were more than justified in doing so.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The hon. Member who moved the adjournment wore his broadest phylactery and used his most pharasaic language—[Ministerial cheers and Opposition cries of "Withdraw"]— used his most pharasaic language, [Opposition cries of "Withdraw!"] When I have used an unparliamentary word the Speaker will call me to order. The hon. Member talked about the great and solemn duty that had been cast upon him, but we all know what the real reason is. We all know what the secret of it is. It has nothing to do with Clare. This Motion is made because gentlemen opposite have been castigated in leading articles in their own Press. This Motion is their way of showing that they are not maladroit, that they are not lethargic, that they are not nerveless, that they are none of the things that
    852
    their own friends during the last few days have been saying they were. A great deal has been said as to the responsibility of the Government of the day. I accept that responsibility, for my part, in its fullest sense. I quite agree with the hon. Member and with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Armagh that the first duty of the Government is to see that the law is obeyed. The first duty of the Government is to see that security of life and property is restored in Clare as speedily as may be. But I wonder why the hon. Member who makes this Motion and who feels such a tremendous weight of moral responsibility, why he did not feel it before? Why did he not feel it in March last, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds withdrew the extra force from Clare?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: How much extra force?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Forty-seven men. [A laugh.] Gentlemen opposite laugh. I wonder if they know what proportion of the whole force in Clare that is. They withdrew them, mark, at the request of the Grand Jury, the very gentlemen to whom the Judge was speaking. Why did he not feel this weight of responsibility? Why did he not call the Government of that day to account, and beg them to recognise that the first duty of the Government was the security of life and property, when the Government of that day revoked the Proclamation of the Crimes Act, so far as certain clauses are concerned, in Clare? Why did he not make his speech in July?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The reason why I did not do it was that my attention had not been directed to it by a Judge.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Gentleman talked about Mr. Justice O'Brien's Charge. I do not want to use a single disrespectful word of Mr. Justice O'Brien.
    MR. CARSON: You did.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I said if a certain utterance, apparently abbreviated, was authentic that it was not in my opinion a judicial utterance. Now, I am not going into any recriminatory charges as to the conduct of the late Government compared with my own. All this goes to show, if the case be true, that the state of Clare was as bad for the last six

    853
    years, during which hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for it, as it has been in the six months during which I have been responsible. What does it show? If the House were serious, if the hon. Member were serious in his contention, it shows that the task is one which has been too much for either one Government or another. Does it not show that? If the right hon. Gentleman and his friends had control of the Government and had their Coercion Act in force for six years, and still left Clare as we know it was left last July, and if we are able to make no better report to-day than we are able to do, I say what does it show? You will give your own Leader credit for force, judgment, and firmness, whether you give it to me or not. What does the fact show? That he, with all the force and with all the special legislation that he had at his command, was unable to do any more than I have been able to do, but rather less. The hon. Member quoted from the Judge's Charge the reference to the meeting of magistrates. I make no complaint of the magistrates in any respect. I do not impugn their motives in holding that meeting, but this I do say—that they, at all events at that meeting, brought no charges against Her Majesty's Government. What were the points that they dwelt upon? The first was the withdrawal of the military. It is clear enough that a troop of hussars or a troop of dragoons is not of much use in catching moonlighters red-handed. But they said, and it has been held by many responsible for the Government of Ireland, that the presence of a military force has an overawing effect. But the military forces were not withdrawn by me, but were withdrawn in 1890 by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The withdrawal of the extra police I have already dealt with.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What was the date of the withdrawal of the extra police force?
    MR. J. MORLEY: March, 1892. The Magistrates, no doubt, said we ought to give them a larger share of what is known as the "free force"—that is to say, the force for which the county does not pay. I pointed out in February that that is what we cannot do. The free force, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite well knows, is a quota fixed by
    854
    statute, and only revisable at triennial intervals. The time for revising the free force for the County of Clare will not be till 1894. In a matter of that kind I am bound to consult advisers with police experience, and I am assured—and I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman will differ—that for the purpose of discovering crime in Clare, with which we have to deal, an importation of outside detectives would be one of the most foolish things any Executive Government could propose. I will not weary the House with many figures; but I should like the House to be kind enough to mark a few of the figures. No doubt, as the hon. Member says, about 1884 and 1885 the average of crime in Clare was very low; but he forgot to say that that was probably due to the Land Act and the Arrears Act, and it was not at all due to the Coercion Act, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). Now what are the figures? I will not weary the House with them, but they are really all you have to go upon. The figures for the quarter ending December 31st, 1891, when the late Government were in Office, were 17 agrarian, 25 non-agrarian, or a total of 42; for the quarter ending December 31, 1892, when we were in Office, exactly the same total, 12 agrarian and 30 non-agrarian; for the half-year ending June 30, 1891, 40 agrarian and 48 non-agrarian, or a total of 88.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman include moonlighting among agrarian offences?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I have not the proper answer to that question to hand, but I may say that the classification of moonlighting offences as agrarian or non-agrarian would depend upon the circumstances attending it. I do not deny for a moment that there are some of the most troublesome and worst cases now perpetrated in the County of Clare which would not figure in the Agrarian Returns, because they are not connected, so far as the police could ascertain, with agrarian circumstances. But the question of my right hon. Friend is a perfectly apt question, and I will deal with it fully at another time. For the half-year ending December 31, 1891, the figures were 54 agrarian and 55 non-agrarian, a total of 109; for the half-year ending Decem-

    855
    ber 31, 1892, 35 agrarian and 63 non-agrarian, giving a total of 98, or a reduction of 11. Then taking the whole year ending December 31, 1891, the agrarian outrages in Clare were 94, non-agrarian 103, or a total of 197. In our year—that is the year ending December 31, 1892—they were 79 and 122, or a total of 231, and an increase of four only, and these, as the learned Judge remarked in his Charge, are distributed pretty equally over the year. I could amplify those figures if it were worth while, but I do not think it is. Perhaps the House would, however, care to know the total number of specially reported agrarian cases in Clare for the last six years. They were in 1887, 269; in 1888, 224; in 1889, 162; in 1890, 156; in 1891, 197; and in 1892, 201. Now, Sir, though it is quite true that the Judge remarked that there is an absence of security for life in Clare, it is worthy of note that there has been no case of murder in Clare since 1892.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many attempted murders?
    MR. J. MORLEY: There have been far too many cases, as the hon. Member knows. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster) suggested that I have altered the classification of outrages. There has been no change in the classification whatever. There is all the difference between firing into dwellings and attempted murder. Firing into dwelling-houses is now the favourite crime in County Clare. The serious crimes are murder, firing at persons, killing or maiming cattle, and firing into dwellings. For the last six years the numbers under these heads were—in 1887, 22; in 1888, 18; in 1889, with the Coercion Act in full swing, 27; in 1890, 24; in 1891, 25; and in 1892, 12. Now, the whole weight of the hon. Member's charge against me was that I had released Clare from certain clauses of the Crimes Act, and he mentioned especially the secret inquiry clause. I can tell the hon. Gentleman this—the late Irish Executive held four of those courts of secret inquiry, and in no single one of those four cases did they get such evidence as would justify them in returning a single person for trial. So much for the secret inquiry. I repeat, that in dropping that weapon I was only drop-
    856
    ping a weapon which had proved, so far as Clare is concerned, wholly useless in the hands of the late Government. With regard to change of venue, I have no doubt that by suspending that portion of the Crimes Act in Clare or elsewhere we deprived ourselves of the power of changing the venue at will. But we are not quite powerless in the matter of change of venue. If we think it necessary and can establish a proper case, we can go to one of the Superior Courts, and that Court will make an order for a change of venue. Therefore we have not allowed this weapon to fall out of our hands, but it is a very curious thing that even this power of changing the venue was not a very effective weapon, so far as Clare was concerned, in the hands of the late Government. For example, at the last Spring Assizes in Cork in two cases only was a change of venue from the County of Clare thought proper. In one of those cases an emergency man was convicted of firing at one John Moloney, and sentenced to nine months. In this case you had a change of venue and got a conviction; but whether or not you would get a conviction against an emergency man in Clare, I do not know. In the other case a man was tried on a charge of a rape and was acquitted. So that if this year we had used the power of change of venue, which you used last year, and if the same figures held good, we might possibly get a conviction in one case but not in another. The difficulty in Clare is that at this moment, at all events, it is not agrarian agitation which is the root of the mischief. Does anyone suppose that I have got up here to traverse the Judge's statement that the condition of Clare is profoundly unsatisfactory? I do not for a moment advance any such proposition, and I have no desire to conceal anything from hon. Gentlemen opposite, or from the House. There are some forms of outrage and intimidation of the most objectionable kind which undoubtedly show some tendency to increase, but our difficulty arises, as the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman opposite arose, from the fact that these outrages do not spring from general combination. They are not the result, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, if my information is good, and I believe it is good they are not the result, of any widespread organisation or great general

    857
    conspiracy. If such an organisation or conspiracy existed you could break it up. If there were a great criminal organisation you could destroy it. But there is no general conspiracy, there is no general policy in this outrage-mongering in Clare. These outrages are committed by small local gangs of moonlighters for private reasons of their own—for foul reasons, but in private individual cases, but you cannot deal with such outrages in the way that you can deal with a general organisation. The character of this mischief is well understood by those on the spot who are responsible for putting a stop to it, and it is well understood by myself. But you blame me because I have not solved in six months a riddle which the right hon. Gentleman opposite could not solve in six years. You do not make a single suggestion. You indulge in general platitudes, but you have no suggestion to make.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The Crimes Act.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Crimes Act! Why, I have been endeavouring to show that it was when the Crimes Act was in force that these outrages were greater. What is the use of my right hon. Friend's asking me to restore the Crimes Act?
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I did not myself ask the right hon. Gentleman to restore the Crimes Act. The right hon. Gentleman said no suggestion had been made. I said one had been made —namely, the restoration of the Crimes Act.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not wish me to restore the Crimes Act? He has been Chief Secretary himself, and he knows what the difficulties of the Irish Government are as well as anybody else. Well, Sir, that is the situation. You have got a very deep - rooted and intractable disease to deal with in some parts of County Clare. We think we know the root of the mischief. Probably the right hon. Gentleman and I would agree in our diagnosis. He could find no remedy. I do not profess to have found a remedy. All I know is this—and I do not say more, because, after all, this is but a spurious Motion. When I assumed a share of the Government of Ireland I never thought that I could in six months make Clare into a new heaven or a new
    858
    earth. All I can assure the House is that the Government are fully alive to their responsibilities, that all the officers concerned are in frequent communication with me and with one another, and that no effort is being spared. New steps are now under consideration; but I do not think that the consideration of these measures, and the effect of these measures in the County of Clare is at all likely to be furthered by such a demonstration as we have had to-night.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.): With regard to the tone of the bulk of the speech to which we have just listened I have no complaint to make, though I will have something to say with regard to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman—arguments which were delivered in a moderate and quiet tone. But the beginning and the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech contained an attack upon the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and upon those who have supported it, which surely is undeserved. Here we have a Judge in Ireland, with all the solemnity attaching to his office, making an utterance of the deepest gravity with regard to the condition of one of the counties in which he has been exercising his functions, and the Representative of an Irish constituency desires to call the attention of the House to the matter, which is undoubtedly a matter of urgent public importance. The right hon. Gentleman thinks it consistent with truth, and consistent with the dignity of his own position, to describe this Motion as a bogus Motion, and to say that the Party which, rightly or wrongly, mistakedly or unmistakedly, has been endeavouring during the last six years to enforce the law in Ireland is acting pharasaically when it endeavours to call the attention of the House, and, through the House, the attention of the country, to a condition of things which, whether it be remediable or unremediable, is surely worthy of our most serious consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a great many statistics on the subject of crime in Clare. I do not mean to traverse the statements which he has made. I am aware that he possesses means of information which are not necessarily shared by the House, and I am the last person either to question the

    859
    accuracy of the facts of the right hon. Gentleman or his bona fides in laying the facts fully and completely before the House. But there is one thing to which I should like to call his attention. The right hon. Gentleman congratulates himself and the country on the fact that there had been no murder in Clare during the six mouths of his tenure of Office. Sir, it is not the question whether there was a murder or not; the question is, whether there were attempts at murder or not? Whether the object and victim of a dastardly crime was killed or was not killed is very important to him, but it is not a matter of importance for this House when they are considering the condition of the county, for, after all, the escape of the victim of an outrage cannot be due to the condition of the county, but may be the result of bad shooting of the would-be assassin. It would have been much more important for us to know whether there were or were not attempts at murder during the six months with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt. I must put one question on the subject of moonlighting. The right hon. Gentleman very wisely, in my opinion, has maintained the system of recording crimes which he found in operation when he took Office, in order that there might be some certainty in the records. In my judgment, the system is not a good one, because it often happens that an offence like moonlighting cannot be classed as an agrarian offence— although it clearly arises out of the agrarian agitation, and is undoubtedly connected with the desperate state of the country—unless you can particularly connect it with some agrarian question or dispute. The result is, therefore, that in estimating the condition of the country from those Returns a great deal of the value of the Returns is removed by the system under which they are compiled.
    MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): Why didn't you change the system?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not change it for a reason which may come home even to the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not change it, because if you change the method of presenting statistics the possibility of comparison between one period and another ceases. For that reason I maintained a system which I did not approve, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman is
    860
    maintaining a system of which he does not approve. The fact that under this system offences really agrarian may not appear as such should be borne in mind when an attempt is being made to draw comparisons between one period and another. The right hon. Gentleman, let me observe, is in the habit of dating his responsibility for occurrences in Ireland from August 22nd, when he assumed the reins of Office; but, in my opinion, the new system for which, not the right hon. Gentleman himself, but his Party, are responsible, came into force when it became clear that the General Election had gone against the Unionist Party. From that date Irishmen had to make up their minds whether it was likely to pay best to continue the system of trying to make the Government of Ireland impossible, as far as they could, which they pursued under the late Government, or whether it would not be more conducive to the realisation of their ulterior aims to do their best to aid the new Chief Secretary to govern Ireland under the new dispensation. At all events, let it be recollected that the date on which the new half-year began was the date when the Irish people became cognizant of the fact that a Separatist Government was coming into Office and a Unionist Government going out of Office. Now, I pass to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's defence. It is this—that though during the late Government certain clauses of the Crimes Act were in operation in Clare, crime in that county was maintained at a certain level, and that he has no reason to believe that any evil results have followed from the repeal of those clauses, because crime remains at the same level. I say that that is a most crude and ineffective method of argument I have ever heard, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has used it. What were the clauses of the Crimes Act which were in operation in Clare when we left Office? They were, in the main, two—the clause respecting secret inquiry and the clause respecting change of venue. With regard to the secret inquiry clause, the right hon. Gentleman says that it has been tried three or four times in Clare and never produced any result. Sir, there is no doubt that secret inquiry in Ireland is carried on under great difficulty, and is often rendered abortive; but it is also

    861
    certain that under special circumstances it has been proved to be of the utmost value, and I want to know on what ground the right hon. Gentleman, knowing that this clause involved no interference with individual liberty, no violation of the principles of his own Party or of any Party, unless there be a Party in the State anxious to shield criminals— I want to know on what ground the right hon. Gentleman repealed this section, which, however difficult to apply, can sometimes be applied with great success. Though the case against the right hon. Gentleman is strong with regard to the clause for secret inquiries, it is incomparably stronger with regard to the clause for change of venue. This brings me to the Charge of Mr. Justice O'Brien, on which the right hon. Gentleman made a speech at Question time, and allowed himself to use expressions which, I think, now he regrets, by which he drew the vassal cheers of his supporters below the Gangway, cheers which are always at the command of any hon. Gentleman in this House who will attack a member of the Irish Bench [Nationalist cries of "Mathew."] Some hon. Members make an allusion to Mr. Justice Mathew, an allusion which I would not notice had it not been repeated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have heard more attacks on Mr. Justice Mathew in the last few weeks than I have heard on the whole Irish Bench in the last 10 years.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has not heard the last of the attacks that are likely to be made not on Mr. Justice Mathew, but on Sir James Mathew, President of the Irish Evicted Tenants Commission, who himself declared with absolute accuracy that he was not acting in a judicial capacity. When I attack a Judge of the English Bench acting in his judicial capacity there may be some relevancy in the interruptions of hon. Members below the Gangway and the remarks of the Prime Minister. Sir, what was the sum and substance of the Charge of Judge O'Brien which very naturally irritated the Chief Secretary, and which elicited rather unbecoming remarks from the right hon. Gentleman? The sum and substance of the Charge was this: that very few persons were
    862
    made amenable, and that where persons were made amenable—though the case against them was absolutely certain—they could not be brought to justice. Here are the words of the Judge in concluding the business of the Assizes—
    "Seven cases have been tried before me, representing an infinitesimal part of the crime that has been committed, and with the uniform result that the law has entirely failed to bring the offenders to justice, in spite of every means vigilance and care and zeal could use to attain that result. Every kind of argument and appeal has been made to the jurors, made with zeal and earnestness by the Court itself, to their reason, to their consciences, to their sense of self-respect, and of the common interests of the whole community, to their sense of moral obligations—if such a thing remains—without the least result. I do not know myself what is really the cause of, or what has led to, that state of things. I could hardly suppose the population of this county, or the class from which jurors are taken, are devoid altogether of moral sense, of integrity, or propriety—and they are certainly not devoid of intelligence—as an explanation of what happened; and I am constrained to arrive at the conclusion that it is owing to a certain system of intimidation influencing every single relation in the whole framework of society in this country, and directed to defeat the administration of the law."
    Are we to suppose that the juries in Clare have a double dose of original sin, to use the phrase once employed by the Prime Minister—that they are more neglectful of their oaths than the rest of Irishmen; more indifferent to such matters coming near their own interests as security to life and property? No; some less far-fetched explanation has to be found, and the explanation is that in Clare the juror does not do his duty because he dare not, and that the system of intimidation set forth by Mr. Judge O'Brien reaches not only the land-grabber, but the jurymen who are sworn to do justice as between the law and the criminal. As far as I know, there is but one remedy which has been suggested for this state of things, which strikes at the very root of law, order, and civilisation; and that remedy is to remove cases from where intimidation exists and try them where intimidation does not exist. No man knows better than the Chief Secretary that there is no hope of getting a verdict from any common, or even from any special, jury if the trial takes place where the crime has been committed and the crime arises out of agrarian causes. In these cases there are some that I understand arise out of

    863
    the Bodyke evictions. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that crime committed in connection with the circumstances of Bodyke and tried by jurors from the district would be followed by the conviction of the criminal? He knows that such a trial would be a judicial farce, and the man responsible for that judicial farce is the man who, without any adequate motive, repeals the law which removes this safeguard. The consequences of the policy of the Government are to be seen in other parts of the country than Clare. I have been told of a case where a moonlighter named Dooley was tried under the late Government before a special jury. He was acquitted, or, at all events, the jury disagreed. Further evidence was forthcoming, and it was decided to have a change of venue. The late Government went out of Office. The Crimes Act was repealed, and there could no longer be a change of venue, and, therefore, in spite of the undoubted fact that there was a case against this man, there was a nolle prosequi entered. They did not care to send him before a common jury, knowing the inevitable consequences of such action on their part.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Where did that take place?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In King's County, I am informed.
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is not Clare.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was giving an illustration of the general methods of the Party opposite. If my facts are wrong, the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into them. What is the reason which has induced hon. Gentlemen opposite to adopt this fatal policy of removing the whole of the Crimes Act from Ireland? Observe, that the attack made upon my right hon. Friend for having abolished that clause which gives the power of dealing with offences by summary jurisdiction has no relation to the present state of affairs. These moonlighting offences, and the offences to which Judge O'Brien alluded, are not offences that could be tried before a Resident Magistrate. Moolighting and attempted murder, and that class of offences mentioned by my hon. Friend, never came under the Summary Jurisdiction Clause. Therefore, the tu quoque argument against my right hon. Friend
    864
    the late Chief Secretary falls absolutely flat. What is the reason which the Government have to give for repealing this section? I listened to the speech of the Chief Secretary on the Debate on the Address, and I listened to him to-night. He has not denied, and cannot deny, that never since Lord O'Hagan's Jury Act, or practically never, have you ever been able to get a conviction in an agrarian case without a change of venue. He must be aware that unless there be some chance of obtaining a verdict crime will stalk absolutely unchecked through the land, and that the only possible control you can have is through any political machinery by which crime may be augmented or diminished at the will of politicians. He knows all this, and yet he abolished that clause. The only ground for doing this that I can imagine is that he thinks Ireland and England should be governed under precisely similar laws. He thinks, I suppose, with the Prime Minister, that because a Bishop in 1799, and an Under Secretary and Mr. Pitt, talked about equal laws—not at all having in their mind the case of a Crimes Act—that, therefore, the Government—this Government—which is to do justice to Ireland, is bound to see that no exceptional legislation exists in Ireland. Is that their reason? Is it some general theory of this kind? It cannot be pretended that justice is better administered without change of venue; but what hypocrisy is this? He knows perfectly well at this moment that he himself is maintaining not only unequal laws in Ireland—he knows perfectly well that, though he has abrogated the more showy and sensational and useful measures of the Crimes Act, he has maintained and is using exceptional legislation for the government of Ireland. I observe from the newspapers that he has in some way modified the action of the late Government with respect to the special legislation for the importation of arms.
    MR. J. MORLEY: There has been no modification. It was formal.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was aware it was formal in this sense: that no substantial change had been made in policy. My point is that he has maintained the policy of the late Government, and those are the men who on every platform have clamoured about unequal

    865
    legislation, who declare that we have violated every pledge said to have been given at the Union, and who are now violating every pledge and every statement which they have ever laid down. That I call hypocrisy. I confess that, as they can reconcile it with their political consciences to maintain that inequality in the law between England and Ireland, it surely might have been well that they should have retained that single section of the Crimes Act by which, and by which alone, there is some chance of bringing to justice the most dastardly form of crime with which even the annals of agrarian crime in Ireland have ever been soiled.
    MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)said, he would not have felt called upon to speak in that Debate after the speech of the Chief Secretary had it not been for the fact that be represented the County of Clare, which had been attacked by the Member for South Tyrone. When that hon. Member rose to move the adjournment he (Mr. Redmond) rose to put a question to the Chair, as to whether it was quite consistent with the Rules of that House and the ordinary rules of courtesy for an hon. Member to attack the constituency of another hon. Member without giving the slightest notice of his intention. That question, however, was not in Order, and he therefore regretted having put it at the stage he did. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had not given him notice of this matter, otherwise he would have been prepared to meet it by having consulted all the available records relating to crime in the county. But although they had received no notice that this subject was to be brought forward, the fact that it had been raised in such a manner would surprise no one who knew the attitude the Member for South Tyrone had determined to take with regard to Irish affairs. He declared that this Motion was part and parcel of a plot concocted when it became clear that the General Election would go against the Unionist Party, and the Members of the Opposition had every bit of information which had been brought forward by the Member for South Tyrone before them when almost as the last act they performed before leaving Office they withdrew from County Clare nearly every provision of
    866
    the Coercion Act, and it was a notorious fact that this was done by the late Government, in Clare and elsewhere, for the purpose of bringing on a Debate such as that which had been initiated by the Member for South Tyrone in order to cause embarrassment to the present Government. The late Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had used the word "hypocrisy" as regarded the action of the Government in this matter, but he (Mr. Redmond) declared that no greater act of hypocrisy was ever perpetrated than the action of the Member for South Tyrone and the late Chief Secretary in professing to be shocked and horrified at the state of Clare to-day, when they knew that upon the whole that county was in a better condition than it was when the late Chief Secretary withdrew the operation of the Coercion Act from Clare. It was difficult for Irishmen to know what to do. If outrage and crime existed in Ireland the whole of the Irish people were denounced for it; but if, happily, peace and tranquillity prevailed, they got no credit for it. The condition of Clare had improved latterly, as had the condition of the whole of Ireland, but it was significant that the indignation of the late Chief Secretary had been directed solely against County Clare. And why? Because County Clare was the only county in the whole of Ireland where the Judges of Assize had not had reason to congratulate the Grand Jury on the peaceful condition of the county. It ought to be a matter of pleasure to hon. Members to find that, when the Members and supporters of the late Government came down to the House to attack the administration of the right hon. Member for Newcastle, that out of the whole of Ireland since the Liberal Government came into Office they were not able to place their finger on a single place in Ireland where crime of an extravagant or violent nature existed except in the one County of Clare. The Member for South Tyrone had said there was a great deal of crime in Ireland in the Land League days. Undoubtedly there was, and the reason was plain. The people were suffering from grievances which bore heavily upon them, but when the Land Act of 1881 was passed which removed some of these grievances, crime decreased by leaps and bounds.

    867
    In 1883, when crime decreased, the hon. Member would have them believe that this decrease was in consequence of the Coercion Act, whereas in reality it was because the benefits of the Land Act of 1881 were being felt by the people, and exactly in proportion as these benefits were felt crime decreased. Again, the hon. Member said that in 1886 crime increased. That was true; but in that year there was great depression not only in Clare, but in the whole of Ireland, and as a result crime increased; and its diminution in the following year was not because of the Coercion Act which had been passed, but because in 1887 there was also passed a Land Act which removed the grievances which existed in 1886, and which were the consequence of the increase in crime. Anybody acquainted with the history of agrarian crime in Ireland knew that exactly in proportion to the depression of the times that crime had increased; and exactly in proportion as remedial legislation was passed that crime decreased in every part of the country. The hon. Member had drawn a terrible picture of the existence of Secret Societies in Clare, his knowledge of which had been derived from a casual visit to certain parts of the county. Now he (Mr. Redmond) was the Representative of the county; he had knowledge of every part of it, and he could assure the House there was no such deeply-rooted Secret Societies as the hon. Member would have them believe; there was no conspiracy against life and property, and nine out of every 10 of the crimes committed in Clare were attributable to the harsh exactions of the landlords and land agents; and to the fact that the judicial rents fixed 10 years ago had become impossible of payment owing to the depression in agriculture and trade. He himself had always denounced crime; and if he had any knowledge of the existence of any conspiracy against life and property in Clare he should denounce it at once, but he asserted that there was no such conspiracy. He and his colleagues in the representation of Ireland were just as anxious as the Member for South Tyrone and the Member for North Armagh that life and property in Ireland should be protected. As a matter of fact, the men who did most to protect life and property in Ireland and the just rights of the citizens were
    868
    men like the Nationalist Members, who came to that House to give vent to the grievances of the Irish people; and the gentlemen who showed, and threatened to show, the least regard for life and property were hon. Gentlemen from Ulster, who not long ago deluged the streets of Belfast with blood, and who were making speeches at the present time which were calculated to prejudicially affect both life and property in Ireland. Anyone who had listened to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion must have been reminded of the days when those two hon. Members went throughout the length and breadth of the country drawing dreadful pictures to the British people of the state of demoralisation in which the Irish people were, and the Member for Armagh accused the Irish Members of inciting and encouraging murder and crime.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Hear, hear!
    MR. W. REDMOND: I challenge the hon. Member to state does he mean by his cheers that we Irish Members encourage or sympathise with murder in Ireland?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. Member may take any meaning out of it that he likes.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that he considered the Irish Members had encouraged and sympathised with murder in Ireland. All he had got to say was that that was an untruth of a most infamous character, which he did not believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the courage to repeat before him outside that House.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Anywhere.
    MR. W. REDMOND: And it was one of those remarks which he believed tended more than anything else to show that House the real character of the man who came down to that House, and who did not hesitate for a Party purpose to charge his colleagues and countrymen in the representation of Ireland in being in sympathy with murder and crime. Bitterly as he was opposed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends from Ulster he would not think of charging them with being in active sympathy with murder, though he did think the speeches made by that hon.

    869
    Member and his friends were calculated in the highest degree to lead to breaches of the peace in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had made an infamous charge against the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), his insinuation being that the murder of Head Constable Whelan in what was known as the Sexton affair followed immediately after, and was the result of a speech of the Member for Mayo. But what were the facts? At the trial an informer named Cullinane admitted that he was in the pay of the police, that he himself had concocted the whole of the attack on Sexton's house, which resulted in the unfortunate death of the head constable, and duped the other men to take part in it. This informer admitted that he had been over and over again convicted of the most infamous crimes. And this was the case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman cited when he endeavoured to prove that murder had been committed in Clare at the instigation of the Member for Mayo and other Irish Representatives. He thought it was a sorry sight—a miserable spectacle—that any Irishman, much less an Irish Representative, could be found who, for the sake of Party purposes, would come down to that House, denounce his own country, run down his countrymen, and endeavour to make English and Scotch Members believe that the Irish people were lost to a sense of civilisation, and were given over to crime and outrage of every kind. The object of the Member for South Tyrone in bringing forward that Motion was patent. It was for the interest of the Unionist Party to try and make out that crime and outrage existed in Ireland; and after going through every one of the 32 counties in Ireland, they had not been able to find anything to complain of except in this one County of Clare, which they now dangled before the House with the view to showing that there was no security for life and property in Ireland. As he had said, he disapproved of crime as much as any man, and he had never scrupled to say so, but he totally denied the existence of such serious crime in Clare as the hon. Member had alleged existed. It was all very well for the hon. Member to quote Returns; but it had long been the practice of the authorities in Ireland to report under the heading of agrarian crime matters of the most
    870
    trivial character, and an analysis of the present Returns would show that there was very little real crime. It was not, fair to place so much weight on the representations of the Magistrates and Grand Jurors of County Clare, who were almost entirely composed of landlords and Unionists, and whose motive in meeting and condemning the state of Clare was caused not by anything extraordinary in the state of Clare, but by the fact that the Prime Minister had introduced his Home Rule Bill. The state of things was not worse, but better, than it had been some time before, yet the coincidence could not be overlooked that these Magistrates took no action until the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. The object at the bottom of that discussion was not to bring about an improvement in County Care, but to hamper the Government in passing their measure of Home Rule, and nothing would more delight the Members for South Tyrone, North Armagh, and other ardent supporters of so-called law and order than to see the same disturbances which were alleged to exist in Clare taking place in every other part of Ireland so as to obstruct the Prime Minister in his policy. Coercive and repressive legislation did not put a stop to crime, but ameliorative measures did; and he was convinced that before long the Chief Secretary would be able to show that not only had crime greatly decreased in Clare, but that there was general contentment amongst the people as the result of the policy introduced by the Government with reference to Ireland. Taking ordinary crime, and leaving agrarian crime out of the question, they would find that Clare was freer from crime than any county in England and Scotland in proportion to its population, and the same remark applied to the whole of Ireland. What crime there did exist in Ireland arose out of the agrarian difficulty, or out of a state of affairs which did not exist in England or Scotland. Outrage and crime existed in Clare because for long years the people had been treated unjustly, had been dragooned by officials, and taught to believe that no justice or fair-play could be expected from the governing authorities. Place the law in a position to be respected, let it be administered by a Government in which

    871
    the Irish people could have confidence, and the law would be obeyed and verdicts found as readily in Clare, and in Ireland generally, as either in England or Scotland. In the meantime, until they definitely settled the Land Question, and relieved the people from the judicial rents fixed 10 years ago, and which they could not now pay, they would not strike at the root of the evil. The people of Clare had been attacked, but he ventured to think that if a similar state of affairs had existed in the North of Ireland as existed in Clare the Members who now supported this Motion would have said little or nothing about it. As the Representative of people who had been attacked in a most hypocritical manner in that House, he declared that the people of Clare were as anxious to maintain law and order as any other people, provided they were given a fair opportunity of doing so.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 215; Noes 260.—(Division List, No. 17.)

  SUPPLY — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1892–3 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1892–3 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

    CLASS I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for certain Re arrangement of Rooms in the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    MR. E. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)said, he would like to say a few words on the Vote and move a reduction. The changes that had been made in the rooms of the House were by no means to the advantage of Members generally. They were chiefly made to convenience hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches. For example, the Whips had been very largely considered. The Committee was appointed to deal with the matter so that additional accommodation might be arranged for the Business in connection with this House; but, except in so far as the Whips were concerned, nothing of a satisfactory character had been done. The Surveyor of the Board of Works was called before the Committee, and
    872
    he advised that a larger number of rooms should be provided. He advised, in the first place, that the Hansard Room should be in another part of the House. The consequence was that that room had been removed to another and a most inconvenient part of the House. He had the utmost difficulty in finding where the room was. He had to go down a circuitous staircase and several dark passages before he could discover it. He regretted that Mr. H. M. Stanley had not been elected to the House, as, had he been, he could have assisted them to explore the passages leading to this new room. A Member might have to go to that room during a Debate, and, not hearing the Division Bell, might be shut out from the Division. Again, until now they had five Deputation Rooms. The number had been diminished by two or three. Hon. Members who were supporting and opposing a certain measure, the Direct Veto, for instance, might have to receive these opposing deputations at different ends of the same room, or rather, passage. Then there was a very useful body of men, the Members' secretaries, who had now only one room set apart for them, and it was not adequate for their requirements. Mr. Taylor, the Surveyor to whom he had alluded, pointed out before the Committee that there were two rooms not allocated. One of these rooms had been appropriated to gentlemen who took notes for the newspapers in the Lobby, but he understood that there was no furniture in it, and it was absolutely useless for the purpose for which it was intended. Mr. Jenkins stated that there was no place where Civil servants attending under the Gallery in order to aid Ministers in any business which might be before the House could arrange the important papers. Mr. Jenkins was allowed to go into the Public Bill Office for that purpose, but that was by the courtesy of the head of that office. Men in the high position of those gentlemen, who attended to instruct the Ministers of the Crown, ought not to be subjected to such inconvenience. The whole of the £3,000 spent on the alterations had been more or less thrown away, because, he believed, the expenditure was of a temporary character. The House of Commons and its offices were constructed at a time when the pressure of Public Business and the

    873
    attendance of Members were a great deal less than they were now. Out of the 670 Members of the House there were often 600 present. That was not the case in former days, for the Business was then a great deal less than at present. Whether they were or were not to retain the Irish Members, there was in reality not sufficient accommodation for the transaction of the Business of Parliament. Before spending any more money on these make shift arrangements, the question ought to be looked at in a much broader and more comprehensive spirit. A Committee sat in 1867 and 1868 to inquire into the matter, and they found that the pressure was very great, because at that time a Reform Bill was before the House. But at the present time a vast number of burning questions came before the House with kaleidoscopic rapidity. The Committee of 1867–68 reported that the accommodation of the House was inadequate, and there had been no improvement since then—
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. MELLOR): The present Vote is for alterations recommended by the Select Committee of 1892, and we cannot go into what happened long ago—in 1867 or 1868.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, it was regrettable that the Committee of last year did not have before it the Report of the Committee of 1867 and 1868. Mr. John Taylor, and he thought also Mr. Palgrave, were no doubt examined before the Committee of last Session, but he held that the scope of the Reference to the Committee would have allowed them to consider the whole subject of accommodation in a broader aspect before recommending the expenditure of £3,000, or any other sum, on these petty and mainly useless alterations. He did not deny the removal of the bar had, no doubt, improved the look of the Members' Lobby, but it was like one of those puritanical pruderies of the Radicals who objected to public-houses being open till 12 p.m. because they were en evidence, but allowed bogus clubs to be open all night for drinking purposes, if they were hid from sight. He ventured to say the Committee should have gone into the matter at length, and considered all the details. He did not desire to disobey the ruling of the Chair, but in his opinion the expenditure had been absolutely wasted,
    874
    and he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,900, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Webster.)
    MR. J. PARKER SMITHsaid, there was one class of gentlemen for whom a great deal had been done, and it was a class for whom he had often expressed his admiration—he meant the Whips on both sides; but he felt that these alterations had been made simply in the interests of the Whips, and of nobody else. It was their business to look after the Members of the House, but in this case they had certainly looked after No. 1. A very serious responsibility rested on the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) for an alteration which had been made at his instance—he meant the removal of the bar from the Lobby to a more private place, which must have encouraged secret drinking. He thought it had encouraged secret drinking, and he should move for a Return in order to ascertain what had been the increase in the consumption of liquor which had taken place in the Lobby now that Members did not take their refreshments under the observance of the public eye. Members now had to push a door open as was necessary in the "jug and bottle" department of a public-house. With regard to the accommodation in the Conference Rooms, it was most inadequate. Strangers who came to the House to confer with Members could either be seen in the Lobbies or the Smoking Room (where many gentlemen strongly objected to an atmosphere of tobacco and whisky-and-water), or they might be taken into one of the little Conference Rooms. These rooms, however, as now arranged, were most uncomfortable. They were really only passages through which people were constantly moving to and fro. He thought a more satisfactory arrangement should have been made; in fact, before proceeding to improve the accommodation of the Whips, a little more comfort should have been provided for the House generally. During the summer strangers could be taken outside on to the Terrace, but it must be remembered that for two-thirds of the year our climate made walks 3n the Terrace almost impossible. The

    875
    House of Commons had been called the best club in the world, but to his mind it was the most uncomfortable, as it was the most expensive club for strangers to visit. He thought there was room for improvement in the accommodation for Civil servants, and he was also of opinion that, instead of being turned into the Lobby leading to the Central Hall when the Division Bell rang, these gentlemen should be allowed to go into the Members' Gallery. Then the members of the Press (as Mr. Shaw, of the Press Association, had pointed out in a letter to the Serjeant-at-Arms) had ground for complaint in the entire absence of accommodation for them to write out their notes in the Lobby. They had a room, but it was a considerable distance from the Lobby. This building was a vast one; but whenever accommodation was wanted in it for any purpose they were told, "Oh, there is not a room anywhere." The fact was, there was plenty of room, but the arrangements were imperfect. He should be out of Order if he endeavoured to raise the larger question of the accommodation in the House generally; but what had been said to-night showed how necessary it was, if there was to be any comfort outside this Chamber, that there should be a more perfect utilisation of the space than had entered into the minds of the Chairman and Members of this Committee.
    MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)regretted that he could not raise the whole question of the re-arrangement of the space in the building. The Committee had been appointed to consider "the re-arrangement of rooms;" therefore, he should have thought it would have been competent for a Member to go into the general question. It seemed to him that the Committee had lost a great opportunity of dealing with the whole question. What they had done was anything but satisfactory for the convenience and accommodation of Members, and the amount expended had been great and quite out of proportion to any advantage which had accrued. He did not think the accommodation was at all too good for the Whips, particularly the Opposition Whips. As for the Conference Booms, they were a Scandal to the House, and would not be tolerated in a second-rate house of business. They were not fit places for Members to re-
    876
    ceive deputations from their constituents in. In regard to the Lobby Refreshment Bar, though he did not make use of it much himself, he asserted that it was a most inconvenient place. It had been put into a back corner, and was a hot, stuffy room, and the only advantage the Temperance Party had secured by the re-arrangement was the ornamentation of the back of the Bar with a large number of empty champagne bottles advertising the fact that that beverage might be purchased there. Everyone would admit that the alterations were not advantageous, and that the Conference Rooms were very uncomfortable, and, coming to the question of expense, as a Representative of the taxpayers he protested against £3,000 having been spent on these alterations. There was evidently something quite wrong in the way in which these affairs were looked after. The accommodation of Members was a matter of great concern to them, and it was a matter of comparative unimportance whether it cost £3,000 or £6,000 so long as it was all that it should be. As a matter of fact, however, the Committee had only recommended two or three little changes on the fringe of the subject, and had succeeded in making Members more uncomfortable than they were before. It was idle to say that what was suitable 40 or 50 years ago was suitable now, and he must say he thought the Committee had wasted a great opportunity. He should support his hon. Friend in his protest against this Estimate, and trusted that a Division would be taken.
    SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)said, he had taken great interest in this question, and had found that the two Front Benches utterly ignored the convenience of private Members. It did not concern them at all. They had private rooms reserved for them in the House, and every other accommodation. But it did concern private Members like the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Parker Smith) and himself, who were nearly always in their places, and who spent a great deal of time within the precincts of the House. The other day, with two other Members of Parliament, he had to receive four gentlemen. To find a room they had to go a long way, and before commencing their business they had to

    877
    disturb several other sets of gentlemen. Though they only occupied half an hour with their conference, they were interrupted 9 or 10 times. To his mind, the changes which had been effected 'were a disadvantage, and to call them "improvements" was an absurd misnomer. With regard to the removal of the Hansard Room, he had not up to the present time succeeded in finding the new office. It was not a convenience to private Members to have this office where nobody could find it, though, no doubt, it might be a convenience to Ministers by preventing Members from making references and obtaining quotations. Then there was the question of access to the bar. It was absurd that the means of getting at the bar should be through a door through which two Members could not pass conveniently at the same time. When a Member got through the door he had to push through several other Members, and the apartment was so small that, according to the best calculation, not more than 12 or 14 Members could stand there together. He trusted that the bar would be replaced in the position it formerly occupied. So far as he had been able to see, everything that had been done for the "improvement" of the House had been to the disadvantage of private Members, and the only thing that had been gained by the expenditure of £3,000 was the provision of better rooms for the Whips. He quite agreed that the House ought to afford the Whips reasonable accommodation, but he did not see why other Members should suffer because the Whips were treated properly. The Committee ought, in his opinion, to mark its sense of the mistake that had been committed by voting the reduction of the Estimate. The general convenience of the House had not been consulted, and the money had not been well spent.
    MR. PLUNKETthought it only fair that as he was primarily responsible at the time when the Committee on whose Reports these alterations were made held its sittings, he should explain the nature of the task that had been assigned to that Committee. He did not himself concur altogether in the criticism which had been passed upon the alterations carried out. With regard to the Hansard Room downstairs,
    878
    he might point out that it was not as far from the door of the House as was the old Hansard Room, and, as to Members not being able to hear the Division Bell there, he was quite sure that if such were the case the First Commissioner of Works, would at once see that the matter was set right. With regard to the new Conference Rooms, his recollection was—although he could not speak with certainty on the point—that the cubic space of the rooms was the same, or was almost identical with that of the old rooms. Of course, it would be much more agreeable if there were abundant space to dispose of for the convenience of Members; but the present Deputation Rooms were, it must be remembered, an improvement of recent times, no such rooms having been provided in the old days at all. He wished to call attention to the fact that the Reference to the Committee of last year precluded it from dealing with the larger questions as to the future arrangement of the House which had been brought forward during the discussion. The Committee were asked to consider the arrangement of the rooms contiguous to the Members' Lobby, and had nothing to do with anything else. It had been said that the work had already been carried out with the object of giving greater convenience to the Whips of the various Parties. He could assure hon. Members that that was not the purpose for which the Committee sat at all. The main object was to arrange the Members' Lobby itself; and he was bound to say that, whatever the convenience or inconvenience of the present arrangements were, there had been an enormous improvement in the appearance of the Lobby, and there was now considerably more space than there used to be for the use of Members. The main object was to get rid of the Refreshment Bar, which then stood in the Lobby, and to arrange the Post Office and the other rooms in a more convenient way. The recasting of the Whips' Rooms was a mere accidental circumstance which grew out of the alterations. He claimed that, as far as the main object was concerned, the Committee had been very successful. As to the expense, he did not think that for the changes which had been made the sum of £3,000 was at all excessive. Two witnesses had been examined by the

    879
    Committee. One of these was Mr. John Taylor, of the Office of Works, than whom the House could not have had a more competent adviser, and who had for many years past succeeded in greatly conducing to the convenience of the arrangements of the various rooms, and adding to the comfort of Members who had to spend a considerable time in the House. Many of the criticisms which had been made appeared to be entirely new. He could not say he shared in them, and he believed that, generally speaking, the changes which had been carried out had given satisfaction to Members.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not desire to occupy any further the time of the Committee with this matter, but he might say that he was glad be had introduced it. His sole object was to secure economy. He had no objection to providing rooms for the use of the Whips; but the interests of other Members of the House ought to be considered. He did not blame the present Commissioner of Works so much; he was not responsible. The late Commissioner was the official who had charge of the Committee; but, unfortunately, they had to remember that the present Commissioner was in reality the official responsible to Parliament. He admitted at once that he (Mr. Morton) might be responsible for the alteration in connection with the bar—responsible so far as appearance went; but he was not inclined to be dissatisfied, because he found from what had been said that night that hon. Members could not always get into the bar as at present constructed, and, from the point of view of temperance, that was a great advantage. On the whole, the change spoke well for the advance of temperance principles in the House. Any change that had taken place was a change for the better. They had heard that the change might—and, in fact, it had been said did—lead to secret drinking. That might be in some cases; but how did the hon. Gentleman who spoke of secret drinking know anything about its going on? However, what he was mostly concerned in was the question of economy, and he wanted to know from the Government how much more these
    880
    works were likely to cost? What were they going to do with the money voted last year and not spent? £320 had been provided for double windows in the Members' Dining Room and other rooms; but the windows had not been provided, and he assumed the money had not been spent.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not included in this Estimate, and cannot be discussed.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that was so, but when a sum had not been spent it should be returned to the Treasury, and not spent on other objects without the consent of the House of Commons. He was entitled to speak on the question of economy, and he was anxious to have the actual cost, and he would like to know also from the right hon. Gentleman when he replied whether the Bar Room which had been provided was to be supplied with whisky and intoxicating liquors only?
    An hon. MEMBER: No; lemonade.
    MR. MORTONsaid, they were entitled to have tea and coffee provided in that place for those who did not indulge in whisky drinking. If they supplied tea and coffee those who went into the bar might be induced to take either one or the other instead of whisky—and it would be much better for them. That was one of the reasons why he rejoiced at the removal of the bar from the Lobby. Its removal meant the removal of temptation from Members; and he was sorry to say it was within their knowledge and they were aware that the bar in the Lobby had been the ruin of some Members of the House. He was most anxious that the bar should be removed. Having done that, they should go further and supply tea and coffee. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner would say that he had nothing to do with supplying tea and coffee, but the right hon. Gentleman had provided the means of supplying both, and he (Mr. Morton) hoped they would be supplied. In these days of temperance they in the Parliament of Great Britain should set an example to the rest of the country. He would only say, in conclusion, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman

    881
    would be able to give some satisfactory reply to questions which had been put to him.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVKE,): The hon. Gentleman asks one or two questions which I think I can answer to his satisfaction. In the first place, he wants to know whether all the work is included in the Estimate. Yes; all the work to be done is included in the Estimate that is now before the House. The sum mentioned will complete the works indicated last year.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: Furniture and all?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes; furniture and all. I think, altogether, the result has been most satisfactory. It might have been better; but hon. Members will be glad to hear, in regard to the Refreshment Room, that since the bar has been removed the consumption of liquor has been much less than it used to be. Whether that is due to the change of Members effected at the General Election or to the moving of the temptation further from the Lobby I cannot venture to say; but, Sir, the fact remains. I shall do my best for the accommodation of hon. Members, but it must be remembered that a large portion of this building is set apart for private residences. The number of these private residences may be reduced, especially those occupied by officers of the House of Lords. When I was Commissioner of Works previously I made great efforts to obtain possession of the house occupied by the Librarian of the House of Lords, who did not reside there, but I was unable to do so. Anything I can do shall be done, and I hope the House will pass the Vote without further discussion.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, he joined in the objections that had been advanced against these alterations. The Front Benches had been attended to, but no one else. The way to look at the matter was this: One right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Bench spent the money, and the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench was responsible for
    882
    it. To say that the money had been well spent was not true. The appearance of the House had not been beautified, and the convenience of Members had not been considered. The Whips had been considered, of course, but the Conference Room was a standing disgrace to the House, and whoever had been responsible for the work had done nothing but waste money. Then the bar change had been objected to. He could not but think that a great deal of money had been thrown away.
    Mr. JOHN BURNSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid that the accommodation in the Conference Room was very bad. He did not know what suggestion to make, but he thought they ought to have a Committee to go into the whole question of the accommodation in the House.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid that the extreme haste of some new Members was rather indecent. It did not pay to closure any of the Estimates. He had received no answer from the First Commissioner to the questions he had asked, and unless some change in the arrangements for private Members were made he should raise the question again on the general Estimates.
    Mr. JOHN BURNSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put; "but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I would say, Sir, that for an hon. Member of such very limited experience to persist with his Motion for the Closure, notwithstanding the well-merited snub he has received from the Chairman, is an incident which demands the emphatic condemnation of the Committee. The hon. Member should remember that he is not in the London County Council.
    MR. BUENS: And neither is the right hon. Gentleman on Newmarket Heath.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The hon. Member will have to endeavour to behave himself according to the Rules of the House, and that remark applies also to the hon. Member's friends who join with him in disorderly cries. The Estimate is £3,000 in excess of the sum originally voted, and that excess is of a very alarming character. For my part. Sir, although the expenditure is limited in comparison to other expenditure on behalf of the nation, I look upon it as relatively great, and we should see that we have something in return. Of course, I am aware that the excess and the whole sum was expended under the advice of a Committee of the House—a Committee composed of gentlemen pre-eminently qualified to form an opinion. I think, however, there were many things the Committee might very properly have considered. Taking this building as a whole, there is no great public work that has been executed at a greater cost and with a less satisfactory result, having regard to the object intended to be carried out. The Palace of Westminster affords the most inadequate accommodation for those who assemble within its walls to discharge their legislative functions, and it has always appeared to me to be an instance of peddling penny wisdom, not to say pound folly, these enormous sums which have been expended with a net result so extremely unsatisfactory. Reference has been made to the inadequate accommodation afforded by the new Conference Room. The Conference Room, which should really be called a room for interviews and deputations under the old arrangement, was by no means satisfactory, but I think the room provided for these purposes under the new rearrangement is much worse. The present so-called Conference Room is no Conference Room at all. The accommodation it affords is totally inadequate; it cannot hold a fair-sized deputation, and, to my mind, it is a disgrace to the House of Commons. I do not wish to use any harsh expression towards the Committee which recommended this re-arrangement
    884
    of the rooms, for I suppose they were in the position of having to make bricks without straw, but I cannot help saying that they have made the original bad arrangement much worse. I impress upon the First Commissioner of Works that in the interest of Ministers themselves, as well as in the interest and convenience of Members generally and also of persons who are not Members of this House, that an adequate Conference Room, where deputations can be satisfactorily received by Ministers, is an absolute necessity. Indeed, the whole question of the accommodation outside this Chamber for Ministers, and for Members with private secretaries, and who wish to have private interviews with constituents or with draftsmen, or with people on private business affairs, should receive the anxious attention of the Government. The First Commissioner of Works, in the course of his remarks, referred to the fact that the private residences of officers of both Houses of Parliament occupied a considerable amount of space that might be made available otherwise. These remarks seem to me to have been misinterpreted by some hon. Members. I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to have specially directed his observations to the officers of the other House. I took his remarks as general, and as suggesting that some re-arrangement of the residential portions of the Palace might be properly considered when the matter is dealt with on the whole, as I hope it will be on an early date. This used to be called—and I always considered it a fiction and a figure of speech—the best club-house in London. To my mind, there is no pothouse in Europe so badly provided. For instance, the accommodation for writing is wretched. I have frequently wandered through the rooms and through the lobbies seeking for a vacant seat at the writing tables, and I have found the greatest difficulty even to get sufficient room to write a couple of lines or address an envelope on my knee. I do not think that is right in the House of Commons. I think that in this building there ought to be every facility afforded to Members to enable them to discharge their duties to the House without being compelled to neglect their own private affairs. I find that amongst the

    885
    new re-arrangements which have been effected is the allotting of a room to the Whips, so-called, of one section of the Irish Party. We now appear to have embarked on the Continental system of groups rather than of Parties, which I do not at all regret, because the stereotyped two opposing lines of Party-hacks is by no means an ideal condition of affairs in politics, and I am not at all sorry that the group system is about to prevail. The various groups will require accommodation for their Representatives, and as a beginning I suppose a room has been apportioned to one of the sections of the Irish Party. I am told that that room discharges functions not usually assigned to the rooms of Whips. I am told that if this room, on which a portion of the £3,000 now under consideration has been spent, is examined—and as the First Commissioner of Works has the right of entry into every room, I would suggest to him the exercise of his powers in regard to this particular room—if it be examined it will be found to present an appearance more suggestive of the establishment of Messrs. Lincoln and Bennett, one of the great hat emporiums, than a Whips' Room of the House of Commons, and I understand it is devoted to the active interference with the privileges of Members of this House. I am told that these hats have not been collected for the purposes of sale. I believe there is no barter or commerce connected with the transaction, but I understand that on a given signal, on certain occasions, one of the persons having entrée into this room selects a number of these hats, walks into this Chamber, and distributes the hats on the Benches below the Gangway, thus involving a breach of the Standing Orders regulating the obtaining of seats. That is a matter which I commend to the consideration of the First Commissioner of Works as a matter affecting the privileges of Members of this House. This room, for which we are asked to pay for in this Vote, is now used for the contravention of the long-established principles of courtesy upon which the relations of Members stand in this House. It has always been considered that Members of long-standing, or of many years' service in this House, should be allowed to occupy certain seats, or corresponding seats, at the other side of the House, as
    886
    Parties changed places. Of course this position—as the Speaker said early in the Session—rests not so much on Standing Orders or Rules, as on the general good sense and good feeling of Members; but when we find an Estimate submitted to us by the Government for an expenditure of £3,000, a portion of which has been spent on a room which has been used for the purpose of furthering the contravention of the long-established usages and courtesies of the House of Commons, I think it is time that the matter should be discussed. What does this departure from the usual courtesy of Members come to? It comes to this: that Members who have occupied seats for over half a century have been deprived of these seats. Take my own case. I am sorry to say I have been a Member of this House, on and off, for 27 years. It is close on a quarter of a century since I first represented a Public Department—
    MR. CREMER; I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the question the right hon. Gentleman is discussing is pertinent to the Vote under consideration?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must say I think the right hon. Gentleman is wandering from the subject. The Supplementary Vote is all we have to consider.
    MR.JAMESLOWTHER: Of course, Sir, you are quite right, and I bow to your ruling. If I had gone into this question as a question of courtesy between Members, I would undoubtedly, to some extent, have gone rather near the mark in regard to the Vote; but I was careful to point out the actual fact of the allocation of this room, and in that I was distinctly in Order, as the hon. Gentleman opposite who interrupted, and who has had only a few years' experience in the House, will get to know.
    MR. LITTLE: I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, is the right hon. Gentleman observing the ruling of the Chair in debating this question on this Vote?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he is wandering from the

    887
    Vote. I do not say that his references to this particular room are out of Order, but I do think that his references to the use the room may or may not have been put to is apart from the Supplementary Vote.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Of course, I shall not labour that side of the question. I desire always to support the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me can scarcely have read the Report of the Committee, or the evidence given before the Committee, or else he would see that the room which has been allocated to the uses of the Whips of the Irish Party comes under this Vote. I must protest against this attempt to muzzle the House of Commons. I can tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that we do not intend to be muzzled, and I, for one, do not intend to take my instructions as to the laws of Parliament from those who have little or no experience of Parliamentary life. As to this Vote, there is a widespread feeling on the part of Members of all Parties in the House that we must have additional accommodation provided. It is a matter that can no longer be delayed. Here are 670 Members of this House. We demand that the convenience for the discharge of their duties should be provided in a generous spirit.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I can assure the House, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that I do not desire to muzzle any hon. Member, but I wish to make an appeal to the Committee that we have now discussed this Vote for two and a half hours, and we ought to proceed to a Division. Most of the speeches we have heard have been delivered by private Members, who have asserted very strongly their grievances with respect to the accommodation afforded by this House. I can say that I very much sympathise with the grievances which have been expressed by these private Members. We have heard the cry of private Members for better accommodation, and I trust the time is not far distant when this question will be considered, so as to provide better accom-
    888
    modation not only for Ministers and for occupants of the Front Opposition Bench, but for all Members of this House. Much has been said about the re-arrangement of the accommodation provided for by this Vote, and fault has been found with the way these rooms have been allocated. But I wish to point out that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works merely carried out the arrangement which had been provided for by his predecessor in office on the suggestions of the Committee, and I am sure he will be quite willing to consider, especially with respect to conferences, whether a better room could not be provided for the purpose. It is very desirable in all our interests that, when we have conferences with persons coming on business, we should have a proper and satisfactory room for the meeting, and I hope before long we shall be able to have that room. Great fault has been found with my right hon. Friend for his references to the House of Lords. I do not think these references were at all intended in the sense imputed. What my right hon. Friend said was that there was a room or rooms for the Librarian of the House of Lords which were not used by that officer. I do not see there was any harm in drawing attention to the fact that these rooms were unoccupied, and that they ought to be made use of for the accommodation of Members of this House. We all desire the same thing whether in Office or out of Office, and that is to make the House as comfortable as possible for every Member attending it. I trust, therefore, that as this question has been discussed long enough we may be able to take a vote on the Amendment before the House and proceed to Business.
    MR. WEBSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given a pledge that the Government would consider carefully the accommodation of what were called private Members, but whom he described as Members of this House. At the same time, they considered that this £3,000 had not been spent in the way they thought it ought to have been spent—for the benefit of the Members of the House; and as they were determined to carefully consider the Estimates, and not to allow money to be wasted—as he was grieved

    889
    to say it was wasted by other Public Bodies in this Metropolis—they would, as a protest, go to a Division.
    MR. CREMERsaid, he wished, first, to say that it was not through want of courtesy or any desire to be disrespectful to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Lowther) that he just now rose on a point of Order; and he had not the slightest desire to attempt to muzzle the right hon. Gentleman, because if there was any one man in the House whom he would not like to attempt to muzzle it was the right hon. Gentleman. The question under consideration was not what experience one had had, whether a Member had been here for three or 13 Parliaments; it was a question of common sense. First of all, he wanted to call attention to the composition of the Special Committee, to which some allusions had been made. The question of the composition of the Committee seemed to him an exceedingly important one. It was proposed, if he remembered aright, by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman in Office, and therefore he was responsible for its composition and Report. Let anybody take the list of that Committee and read it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think I must call the hon. Member's attention to this: that the composition of the Committee is not in question. The only question for the consideration of the Committee is the expenditure of this £3,000.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: On the point of Order, Sir, I submit to you whether, as this money is being voted upon the recommendation of the Committee, the hon. Member's remarks are not in Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The composition of the Committee was the act of the House. The question here is the action to be taken on the Report of that Committee.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I think what he ought to do is to confine himself to showing—[interruption.] On the point of Order, I take it I am right in saying that while it is not in Order to go into the
    890
    original appointment of the Committee, the hon. Gentleman is distinctly in Order in discussing the Report.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Two hours ago I laid down that point of Order, and the only reason I rose to interrupt the hon. Gentleman is this: he seemed to be going a little too far, and into the composition of the Committee.
    MR. CREMER,resuming, said he would content himself with saying that as the Committee was constituted no other result was possible, as there was not a practical man upon it. As long as the House contented itself with appointing mere theorists upon Committees, they could not expect any other result. There were practical men in the House acquainted with buildings from foundation to roof, but not one of them was invited to sit upon the Committee. With regard to the results which had followed, he had not yet found a Member of the House who approved of them. The Conference Room was simply a disgrace. It was inconvenient enough before, but it was much more inconvenient now, after the money had been spent upon it. The Bill Office was placed in a part of the building where it was nearly impossible to find it. But the real cause of all the difficulties in this matter was the fact that upwards of a third of this enormous building was occupied by permanent officials; and before anything satisfactory could be done for the convenience of hon. Members some of those officials would have to be dispossessed, and the rooms they now occupied placed at the service of Members. Two years ago it was stated in this House that the Librarian of the House of Lords, although a bachelor, had no less than eight bedrooms at his disposal, while hon. Members could scarcely get a corner of space to discuss matters with their friends. He did not know whether he would be in Order, but there was another question upon which he felt strongly. He was afraid the Chairman would rule him out of Order, and if he did he would sit down immediately. That question was the accommodation, or the want of accommodation, that was afforded Members of the House in the Dining Room of the building.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will not be in Order in referring to that matter.
    MR. A. F. JEFFREYSrose to speak, and was met by cries of "Divide!"
    Mr. JOHN BURNSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I was unable to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Battersea to the same effect upon the first and second occasions, because I thought this was a matter in which many Members took an interest, and that it would not be proper to close the discussion. I think now that it will be unnecessary to accept the Motion of the hon. Member, because I think the Committee is ready to come to a decision upon it.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I only wanted to ask if I should be in Order on this Vote in alluding to the lighting of the Library and the Reading Room?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be in Order.
    MR. F. G. BANBURYsaid, he would like to say a few words with regard to the expenditure of this money. When he came into this House in August last there was a bar in the Lobby, and since then it had been moved. He did not know whether there had been any increase of convenience to Members by the moving of the bar, or whether there had been a saving of expenditure to the nation. He presumed that some hon. Gentlemen opposite who were in favour of teetotalism had benefited by the removal of the bar. [Cries of" Divide!"] He moved to report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I decline to put that Question.
    MR. BANBURYsaid, he simply wanted to ask whether it was worth while at considerable expense to move the bar from the position which it occupied last August to the position which it now occupied?
    MR. T. R. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.): On a point of Order, Sir, I desire to ask whether it is competent
    892
    for an hon. Member to deliver a second speech on the same subject?
    THE CHAIRMAN: In Committee an hon. Member may speak twice.
    MR. BANBURY,continuing, wished to point out that the majority of the House were not in any way benefited by the removal of the bar.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."—(Mr. John Burns.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 134.—(Division List, No. 18.)
    Question put accordingly,
    "That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding £2,900, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for certain re-arrangement of rooms in the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 250.—(Division List, No. 19.)
    Sir JOHN HIBBERTclaimed "That the Original Question be now put."
    MR. BARTLEY: On the point of Order, Sir—
    MR. BROMLEY - DAVENPORT: Mr. Mellor, Sir, I would like to explain I rose to a point of Order. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman opposite moved "That the Question be now put," and I wished to ask whether he was in Order in making that Motion?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I could not then allow the hon. Member to say anything. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he claimed that the Original Question should be now put, which is the proper form.
    Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
    £5,500, Supplementary, Diplomatic, and Consular Buildings.
    DR. CLARKregretted that he could not support this Vote, which he considered to be a more important matter than the original Vote. Before the year 1890 the Consular Buildings in Cairo were rented at £400 a year. About four years ago, instead of paying a rent of £400, they thought it

    893
    better to have a building of their own. The estimated cost of the land was £3,000, and the estimate for the building to be erected was about £20,000. After that they had an Estimate for £30,000, which was to include the land, the erection of the building, and the furniture; but this year the Estimate had been increased from £30,000 to £39,000, and he supposed they would have to get a third Estimate. In 1891 they voted £9,000; in 1892 £17,519; and in 1893 they voted £7,519, making, in all, with the present Estimate, about £40,000. Already they had spent over £30,000, and this new Vote was not £5,500, because if they looked at the bottom they would see there was £8,000 more; and if they estimated that at 4 per cent. they would find that the cost was not £400 a year, as formerly, but £1,600 a year, and it would be very likely £2,000 before the thing was finished. They originally got an Estimate that they were going to get a place built for themselves at a cost of about £20,000. Since then the Estimate had been twice revised. They were spending £1,000 beyond that, and still the place was not finished. He thought it was time the House of Commons should prevent this throwing away of money. It was time when they had an Estimate that should be an honest one, and a good reason should be given why an Estimate should increase from 50 to 100 per cent. He did not know why this extravagant policy should be pursued, unless they were going to annex the country. He should like to hear some reason why all this money had been spent already, and how much more they wanted before they finished these Consular offices. A few years ago they got on very well with a cost of only £400 a year for these offices.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The original Estimate for providing the site, building, &c., of Consular building at Cairo, was £30,000, and it is now certain the cost will be about £39,000, of which £38,000 is provided for in the original Estimates and the Supplementary, leaving about £1,000 for next year. I venture to say, however, that will complete the entire work. This excess of £8,000 or £9,000 is due to a variety of
    894
    causes, some of which were not anticipated at the time the original Estimate was before the House, and another part is in respect of further demands made by Lord Cromer and assented to by the late Government. Difficulties that have arisen since, and which were not expected at the time, were of this character: First, the Local Authority at Cairo raised the levels of the road near the new residence, and that necessitated larger and more costly works in the erection of the building. Secondly, it became necessary to embank the Nile in front of the building. Then, again, Lord Cromer made further demands for increased accommodation, which were agreed to by the late Government. There is a further addition to the cost of the building, the exact cause of which I am unable to tell the Committee, because the Clerk of the Works, who was to have reported on this point, has been unable to do so through illness; all we know is that this increased cost will be incurred and the money provided for it in this financial year. We do know that the cost will amount in the whole to £39,000 instead of the original £30,000, and that this £8,000 or £9,000 excess is due to the causes I have stated. It appears that in erecting the house it was found impossible to make a contract for the whole building. The building has been erected under an arrangement of schedule prices, under which, from time to time, there is somewhat of an uncertainty as to the cost; but I am able to assure the Committee that the total cost will not be more than £39,000, and I believe that £1,000 is all that will be required in the Estimates for next year.
    MR. A. C. MORTONdesired to support his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) as to the cost of these buildings; but before making a few remarks on that matter, he wished to call attention to another item in the Vote, and that was the appropriation in aid. The hon. Member for Caithness had said the real Vote was £8,000 and not £5,500, but, in the first place, he found it was made up with £600 taken from other sources. Then £500 was deducted for appropriations in aid; therefore, dealing with that question alone,

    895
    they were not asked to vote the actual sum, even with regard to the other £2,000, but to vote a less sum because some other sum was brought into the account and deducted, which had nothing to do with the matter, and that put forth to the public that they were spending less money than they were spending. Last Session the right hon. Gentleman who was now the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), and another right hon. Gentleman, now the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler), protested against the then Government putting the Estimates before them in that way, because they said it was an improper and untruthful way of putting the Estimates before the Committee and the country. He did not wish to be too hard upon the new Government with regard to these Supplementary Estimates, but he wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was going to stick to his guns and present the Estimates to them not in the form they were presented to-day, but in the way he suggested they should be put last Session—["Question!"] The hon. Member said "Question," but he was dealing with the £500 which was in the account now before them. He was raising the question on this Vote in order to give them fair notice that when they had the regular Estimates he should expect them to be made out in the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the late Government ought to have made them out. Now, he wished to make a few remarks about the cost of this Consular Building. The country was told some years back that the building, site, furniture, and everything would only cost £30,000; but now they were told it would cost £39,000; and probably there would be a few more thousands added to that; therefore, he should not be wrong if he said the cost would be over £40,000 before they had done with it, because the right hon. Gentleman had not told them whether the £39,000 would cover the furniture.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It will.
    MR. A. C. MORTONwas glad to hear that; but he might take it at present that it would cost £40,000, and this was the third increase upon the Estimate.
    896
    This was a charge, of course, against the late Government more than the present Government, but they ought to have better Estimates than that; the Estimates ought not to be exceeded by 30 per cent. It was unfair to come to the House of Commons and the Committee and say they would build this residence and furnish it complete for £30,000, and afterwards be told they wanted £39,000. When they voted £30,000 they considered that should be all the money required. The right hon. Gentleman told them part of the excess had occurred through having to make some new road levels, and that another extra was in consequence of having to embank the Nile. He ventured to say that unless some old woman made the estimate and not a professional man, both these questions—the embanking of the Nile and making up the roads—ought to have been thought of when they made the Estimate, and it was no excuse at all that the persons they employed were so ignorant of the ordinary professional duties of architect or surveyor that they never estimated the embankment or the making up of the road. He said, therefore, that was no sufficient excuse. He knew it was no use carrying this very far now, because the money was probably expended, but he wished to bring about a better state of things in the future. There was another objection he had to this Vote, and that was this: It said the real cost was £8,000, "less savings on other sub-heads £1,000." He entirely objected to this, whatever Government was responsible for it. They were told by the late Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) that it was wrong to take the money voted for one matter and use it for another; therefore, he objected to the taking of this £1,000, which was voted for other matters altogether and under other sub-heads. He objected to their taking this money without getting the consent of this Committee. He was told that in the case of the Army and Navy Votes money voted for one purpose might, with the consent of the Treasury, be devoted to another, but with regard to the ordinary Estimates the Government had no right to spend money voted on one sub-head for an entirely different purpose. He would, therefore, ask the Government

    897
    in future to put these Votes fairly and squarely before the Committee—let the Vote be £8,000, and let the savings under other heads be returned to the Treasury as they ought to be, if not expended for the purposes for which they were voted. He understood they had got an assurance that this building would not cost more than £39,000, but they would carefully watch the matter. But he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was the officials did not understand their duties better than to forget the embankment of the river and the making of the roads when they gave the Estimate? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give him some assurance as to using these appropriations in aid, otherwise he might have to discuss it upon every Vote. He saw it occurred in almost every case, and in some cases to very large amounts indeed, to over £100,000; therefore, he should like an assurance with regard to the matter.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: My hon. Friend will find when the Estimates are presented there are no new appropriations in aid this year.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he had been to the Library and now had the Estimates for last year. On page 28 of those he found that the revised Estimate then was for £30,000. There was a further sum of over £3,000, so that £33,000 had been spent at that time. £9,000 were spent in 1891, £17,000 in 1892, and £7,000 last year, which made £33,000, and in addition there was £8,000, making £41,000 spent already. If they took the three years during which they had been voting this money they would see an expenditure—the first year of £9,000; the second of £17,000; the third of £7,000. How long was this to continue, and what did it mean? If they examined the figures they would see that they were always 50 per cent. above what they were estimated originally. It might be said the French had a better Consulate than they had, but when they had a statement of policy they might then understand that. He was not going to attack any policy upon this point; he would leave that until the Speaker was leaving the Chair on the general question of Supply, and perhaps then the Government would tell them what their policy was. The financial aspect of the question was now before
    898
    them, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible for it. The real responsibility rested with the right hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket). For his part, he would vote against the Vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year objected to appropriations in aid. Would he now stand to his guns?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Referring to the excess over the original Estimate, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that that was due to circumstances over which we have had no control. The Supplementary Estimate makes up £39,000; and although we may go to £40,000, my belief is that we shall not exceed the £39,000. I will take care, at all events, that the expenditure is as low as possible. On the whole, I do not think we shall exceed the £39,000.
    SIR J. GORST: I think, Sir, I can say that if the right hon. Gentleman voted or spoke last year against appropriations in aid, the Member for Peterborough may be assured that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not stand to his guns. The right hon. Gentleman did not stand to his guns last Session. Although he and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board upon a particular night last Session made a furious attack upon the appropriations in aid, and afterwards put a notice upon the Paper with regard to the matter, yet they never brought that Motion on, because they found upon further inquiry that the appropriations in aid were introduced into the Estimates in consequence of a long practice which was sanctioned by the Committee of Public Accounts. They also found that one of the largest appropriations in aid was introduced into the Estimates in consequence of the suggestion of the Secretary to the Admiralty, at that time Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. When the Estimates were produced for the present year, I said that in every single Vote in which appropriations in aid were usual in the past year it would be found that appropriations in aid were asked for this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer nodded his head, and therefore I must be

    899
    right. I can tell the Member for Peterborough that if he intends to stand to his guns and says he adopts this view about the appropriations in aid, he will have a very heavy task before him.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not know anything about the Chancellor of the Exchequer nodding his head in assent to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but he hoped they were not going to have appropriations in aid this year.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I merely said there should be no new appropriations in aid.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not quite understand that at present. He knew, however, that last year the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of keeping all appropriations in aid out of the Estimates, and he approved of the humour he was then in. To deduct appropriations in aid was neither an honest nor a straightforward course. They had no right to tell the House that they wanted £5,500, when in reality they wanted £8,000. He distinctly said that he would stick to his guns upon this question. He was sure it was not an honest or a straightforward way of putting accounts before them. He had not heard any reply to his remarks about the economy that might be effected. It was impossible for hon. Members to find out the items they wished to discuss. The only way for them to detect the defects or the flaws in the figures was to make a careful study of the Appropriation Account and the Report of the Auditor General. It was only in this way they could find it out at all, if there was anything wrong. The Radicals were supporting this Government, and he hoped they would have the courage to inquire into these matters. He asked for some little explanation about the money voted for one purpose and then applied to another.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, before the Vote was submitted to the judgment of the House he would like to ask who and what this Agent in Egypt was? Was he to be there for a temporary purpose, or was he
    900
    to be withdrawn on the day they of England evacuated Egypt? If he was to be a temporary Agent the case would be met by furnished lodgings. If the Government had a case for a permanent agency they would be able to justify the spending such a large amount as this; but not if they should, on the other hand, early redeem their promises with regard to the evacuation of Egypt. They were giving the Vote under a wrong impression if this residence was to be used, and if public work were to be done for the benefit of the Egyptians alone, such as the embankment which had been spoken of. Was this embankment a temporary one? This was a very important Vote. It raised the whole question of the continuance of the temporary occupation of Egypt
    THE CHAIRMAN: The only question before us is the question of the Supplementary Grant.
    MR. BOWLES: But surely the whole thing turns upon the character of the Agent, and whether he is entitled to have this residence?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question is this: Whether the Committee is prepared to grant the excess sum asked for by the Government. The original purpose was sanctioned by Parliament at the time, and all that is asked now is a sum which was not voted before. The question is: Is this sum excessive or not under the circumstances?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.): I rise to a point of Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether I have correctly understood your ruling? You have, as I understand, stated that by the original Vote the House sanctioned the principle of the Vote, and that now we have only to discuss whether the excess is reasonable or not. What I wish to ask is this: Have we not also the right to discuss the principle of the Vote upon this demand upon us for an additional sum?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot think that upon a Supplemental Vote—[Interruption]—any principle of general policy can be involved. The House of Commons sanctioned the building of a residence. The Supplemental Estimate asks for an additional sum. It is not com-

    901
    petent for an hon. Member to go into a question of general policy upon this Supplemental Vote.
    MR. BOWLESregretted that his limits of action were so circumscribed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise upon a point of Order. The ruling which I understand you, Sir, to have given is of such importance that I should like fully to appreciate it. Do I understand you to rule that upon a Supplementary Estimate the policy involved in the original Estimate is not open to be discussed? That is a novel principle, and we ought clearly to understand it.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I would ask you, Sir, to lay down a principle for our instruction upon these Estimates, and I would put this case:—Supposing a Supplementary Vote is put down, say, for £200 for the drains of the Foreign Office, would it be a proper occasion to raise the question of the whole foreign policy of the Government?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Upon a Supplementary Estimate such as this the question of policy is not involved, and cannot be discussed.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The question which we desire your opinion upon is, not whether the whole foreign policy can be raised, but whether, upon a Supplementary Estimate, it has not always been held to be perfectly in Order to discuss the original Estimate?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
    SIR J. GORST: I rise to ask a question upon a point of Order. Is it not the usual practice of the Chair of this House to rule only on concrete cases, and not upon general principles?
    MR. SEXTON: I rise to a point of Order. In view of the combined attack that is being made to embarrass and intimidate the Chair—[Cries of "Order, order!" and "Withdraw!"]
    SIR J. GORST: I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
    Mr. SEXTONdid not resume his seat.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELLrose—
    SIR J. GORST: I rise to a point of Order.
    MR. SEXTON: I am in possession of the House.
    SIR J. GORST(still standing): I rise to a point of Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge rose to a point of Order, which he conceived arose out of the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
    SIR J. GORST: I wish to ask whether it was in Order for an hon. Member to attribute to other hon. Members of this House combined action to intimidate the Chair?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the hon. Member distinctly, but I under stood the hon. Member to point out to the House that there was a general disposition to rise to Order upon this particular question, and I understood the hon. Member was about to address himself to that question.
    Mr. SEXTONrose again.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sexton. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
    Mr. SEXTONagain attempted to speak, but was met with cries of "Withdraw!"
    THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the Committee will allow the hon. Member to proceed.
    MR. WEBSTER: I rise to a point of Order. Is it in Order, Sir, for an hon. Gentleman——[Cries of "Sit down!" and "Name!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sexton.
    MR. WEBSTER: Mr. Mellor, I rise to Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Name!"] Is it in Order for—[Interruption.] I beg to call attention to the fact—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Member for Belfast—[Cries of "Kerry!"] The hon. Member for Kerry is in possession of the House.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I must ask—[Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! I say the hon. Member for Kerry is in posses-

    903
    sion of the House, and it is only fair he should be heard. [Cries of "Why did he insult us?"]
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: He has insulted us. Withdraw!
    THE CHAIRMAN: I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to insult any one.
    MR. SEXTON: I am entitled to hold the opinion I have expressed. ["Withdraw!"]
    Several MEMBERS rose.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is in possession of the House. He originally rose to Order, and has not completed what he was about to say.
    MR. WEBSTER: He has insulted the Conservative Party.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think it only fair, before any comments or remarks are made upon what he said, the hon. Member should be heard.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT: He repeated the insult to the whole Conservative Party.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Nobody understood what he intended to say.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: He repeated it. He has no right to insult the House.
    MR. HULSE: I rise to a point of Order.
    Mr. SEXTONalso rose.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand there is only one point of Order. It is impossible to think the Committee can appreciate the importance of this point of Order until it has heard what the hon. Member in possession of the House has to say. I call upon the hon. Member for Kerry.
    MR. SEXTON[Cries of "Withdraw!"]: I can tell the hon. Member for North Armagh that I did not withdraw what I said about him once before.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Is that a point of Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Kerry will be good enough to confine himself to the point of Order.
    MR. SEXTON: I am not allowed to proceed, Mr. Chairman.
    MR. HULSE: I rise to a point of Order. [Cries of "Name, name!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: There can be only one point of Order. The hon. Member for Kerry rose to a point of Order, and it is only right that the hon. Member should be heard.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The hon. Member has no right to insult us.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have to repeat—and I am quite sure the whole Committee will see the importance of it—that if an hon. Member rises to a point of Order he ought to be heard. The hon. Member for Kerry is in possession of the House, and I hope the House will hear what he has to say.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask you, as a question of Order, the point having been raised before you, whether upon a Supplementary Estimate for the erection of a building, and the Main Vote having already been determined by the House, and you having more than once given a clear and specific ruling, you will permit your ruling to be made the subject of further discussion?
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid on this point of Order he wanted to ask if, in the interval between the decision of the last House and the House now sitting there had been a change of Government which had placed a right hon. Gentleman in Office whose views upon this question were in doubt, so that many hon. Members were not sure that their policy in Egypt was the policy which was pursued by the House which sanctioned the original Vote—if then this Supplementary Estimate was in true continuation of the Vote to which the House of Commons had given its assent?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I would venture to appeal to the House, after what has taken place in the last quarter of an hour, that what has taken place has not been to the advantage of Public Business. I understand that the Chairman of Committees has made a ruling. Whether hon. Gentlemen agree or not, I would venture to submit that when the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees makes a ruling upon a point, it is to the advantage and credit of this House that the ruling should be accepted, and that we should

    905
    not proceed on one side or the other to debate the ruling of the Chair.
    SIR H. JAMES: I am sure we shall all be disposed to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that hon. Members should abide by the ruling of the Chair; but I think, Sir, your ruling is of such very serious importance that you would yourself wish we should not hastily pass away from it as a matter of principle. I should like very respectfully to ask whether I have a right to point out on a Supplemental Estimate of, say, £20,000 to an original Vote of £5,000, that the £20,000 ought not to be granted because the original Vote of £5,000 has not been properly expended? If you rule that the first Vote of the sum of £5,000 governs us, however great the Supplementary Vote may be, we must hold our tongues. What you have laid down now is so important to the privilege of Parliament that if it is persisted in no Supplemental Estimate can ever be brought forward again. With all respect to your ruling, I think, Sir, that you yourself must wish this matter should be determined. I would therefore suggest that the proper course would be to report Progress—I do not propose to move to report Progress myself—and ask the Speaker to rule whether we are to be deprived of the constitutional right on a Supplemental Estimate of showing that the original Estimate should not be added to.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I did not understand your ruling to go the extent my right hon. Friend declares. I understood it to be, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts it, that in a particular Supplementary Estimate for a Foreign Office building it is not possible to discuss the whole foreign policy of the country. I did not understand you to preclude our raising on a Supplemental Estimate the question of the policy of the original Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: What I meant to rule, and what I think I did rule, was that it was not competent for any hon. Member of the Committee on the Supplemental Estimates like this to raise questions of policy. In addition to that, I pointed out that the Vote for purchase of this Agency house had been sanctioned by
    906
    Parliament, and that, therefore, the policy of sanctioning or providing an Agency house could not be questioned. But I certainly never ruled, and never meant to rule, that it was not perfectly competent to the Committee to say that no more money should be spent because the previous money had not been properly spent.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I understand it, Sir, you have ruled that the policy of the original Vote cannot be discussed on the Supplemental Estimate. That, I venture to say, is a new ruling. ["Order!"] I do not say it is wrong, but it is new.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It has been ruled again and again.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Never. It has never been ruled that the policy involved in the original Vote cannot be re-discussed on the Supplemental Vote.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; over and over again.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Never. I should hope, Sir, that that does not represent the ruling you would wish to put before us. Before further proceedings are taken on that point, I suppose I am now in Order in asking you to call upon the hon. Member for Kerry to withdraw the statement he made when, under cover of rising to a point of Order, he accused hon. Gentlemen in this House of a combined attempt to intimidate the Chair. You, Sir, ruled, and I have no doubt ruled correctly, that there could only be one point of Order before the House at one time; but now that the hon. Member for Kerry has furnished what he described as his statement, I hope you will order him to withdraw an imputation which certainly, I think, was unparliamentary and should not have been made in reference to any Members in this House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Two appeals are made to me, and I will deal with them in their order. I did not understand the hon. Member for Kerry to impute—perhaps I did not hear what he said—to hon. Members what would have been something in the nature of a conspiracy—[Several hon. MEMBERS: "He used those words"]—a conspiracy to intimidate the Chair. I need hardly say that if I had so understood him I should have

    907
    called upon the hon. Member for Kerry to explain or withdraw what he had said. Several hon. Members rose to Order, and I was anxious to hear what the hon. Member had to say. With regard to the other point, I want to make myself perfectly plain upon the question of a Supplemental Vote. I understand the rule which has been laid down on several occasions to be that you cannot, on a Supplemental Vote, which is a mere addition, go into questions of policy; and I also understand that where a Vote has been sanctioned by Parliament to this extent, we will say that Parliament has desired that a Resident's house should be provided in Cairo, the propriety of providing the house is not to be questioned on a Supplemental Vote. But I never meant to suggest that Members of the Committee could not contend that the house was worthless or that more money had been spent upon it than ought to have been spent, or that more money should not be granted in respect of it on the Supplementary Vote.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: From that explanation it results very clearly.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINdeclined to give way, and both Members remained standing for some time amidst loud cries of "Order!"
    THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. Chamberlain.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. [Loud cries of "Order!" and interruption.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINstill refused to give way, and Mr. HEALY remained standing and repeating "I rise to a point of Order."
    THE CHAIRMAN: As I understand, there is no point of Order now before the Committee. Mr. Chamberlain!
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I propose to raise a new point of Order. I wish to ask—[Loud cries of "Order!" and interruption.]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham rose upon the matter before the Committee, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be heard.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It results clearly from your ruling, Sir, that no Member of this Committee on a Supplementary Vote for a particular Service would be entitled to call in question the whole policy of the Department. I do not think, Sir, there is the slightest difference of opinion in reference to your ruling upon that matter. But there is a second point on which I am bound to say that I do not understand you. When a Supplemental Vote is taken on a particular Service some of us have understood that it would always be competent for us upon the Supplemental Vote to raise the question of the policy of the original Vote, not, of course, the whole policy of the Department. I quite understand it would be impossible for us on a Supplemental Vote for the Diplomatic and Consular Service, for instance, to raise the whole question of the foreign policy of the Government of this country; but upon the Vote before the Committee at present for the provision of Agency buildings in Cairo, some of us have hitherto understood that it would be possible to raise the question of the original policy of that Vote. I may point out how the matter may arise. It might be that circumstances had changed entirely between the time when the Vote was sanctioned and the time when the Supplementary Vote is demanded. Or, again, it might happen that the Parliament had changed, and that the Parliament which sanctioned the original Vote was altogether a different Parliament from the Parliament called on to sanction the Supplemental Vote. Under the circumstances, it seems to me unlikely that you intended to rule that the new Parliament should not be permitted to revise the position of the old Parliament. Now, it so happens in the present case that the policy of erecting Consular buildings in Cairo was decided by the last Parliament, and the present Parliament may take a totally different view of that policy; and it appears to me that, according to all previous rulings, they would be entitled to discuss that policy as well as the extremely small question of whether the policy being granted, the proceedings under the the contract were such as would command their approbation. I have endeavoured

    909
    to put the case clearly before you in order that you may, if you see fit, give any further explanation to show clearly whether it is or is not your intention to rule that, whether or not the Parliament is the same, it would be impossible for any Parliament to discuss the policy Upon which the original Vote has been Sanctioned by a previous Parliament.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Mr. Mellor, I Would ask you what is the question now before the House? For three-quarters of an hour we have been doing a thing which in my Parliamentary recollection I cannot recall. We have been debating with great heat the ruling of the Chair. I venture to submit to the House most respectfully that if such a practice as that is to obtain the House of Commons can do no Business whatever. If the House of Commons is not prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair without a protracted and heated Debate, the whole order of the proceedings of the House of Commons is at an end; and I do implore hon. Gentlemen on both sides not to encourage the continuance of such a Debate as this, but to accept the ruling of the Chair and proceed to discuss the Vote that is before them.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Saunderson.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure the whole House will agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the scenes like those of the last quarter of an hour are to be deprecated, and that every respect should be shown, and I am sure will be shown, to the ruling of the Chair. But I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what we have been engaged upon is disputing the ruling of the Chair. That certainly is not what has occurred in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Debating the ruling of the Chair.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are anxious primarily to discover precisely what that ruling is. It is evident that a question of the gravest import is now
    910
    before us—the liberty of this House to discuss upon Estimates the policy involved in those Estimates. That is one of the dearest of our privileges. Unquestionably, that privilege ought not to be stretched, so neither ought it to be curtained. We are only anxious to know whether you, representing after all the traditions of this House in the matter of our liberties in Committee of Supply, are giving a ruling which those of us who have had experience of this House for many years are inclined to think will greatly curtail the liberties we have been in the habit of enjoying. I should like, if I may, to repeat the precise question on the point of Order put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. No claim, as I understand it, has been raised for discussing the general policy of a Department upon a Supplementary Estimate in connection with the particular expenditure in that Department. All we ask, I will not say claim—all we venture respectfully to put before you—is this: that, according to the immemorial practice of this House, it has been permitted to its Members on a Supplementary Estimate to discuss the policy of the original Estimate to which that Estimate is supplementary. I would ask you, by way of illustration, whether, if the last Parliament had voted £5,000, we will say for the construction of a railway to Uganda, and this Government were to propose an expenditure of £200,000 for the same purpose, we should be precluded on the Supplementary Estimate from discussing the policy of such an expenditure. We may be mistaken, and I hope and believe we are mistaken, in thinking that the ruling you have given from the Chair would make that extraordinary curtailment of our immemorial privileges; but, at all events, whether we are right or whether we are wrong, we do think it necessary that a perfectly clear decision should be given by you on this important question.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think it would be advantageous that I should remind the Committee of what took place at the time I interposed, for it seems that that has been entirely lost sight of in the discussion that has taken place. Unquestionably, the matter is one of importance. I do not deny that it is;

    911
    but at the time when I interposed I distinctly understood that the hon. Member who was then speaking was about to open up the whole question of the Egyptian policy. I may have misunderstood him. He was speaking of a temporary occupation of Egypt and of a permanent occupation of Egypt; he was raising in various forms what appeared to me to be the policy of the Government, a matter which is not, and has never been, considered to be open in a Supplementary Estimate. I can only assure the Committee that I am the last person in the world to seek to curtail the privileges of the House of Commons. I am only endeavouring to administer the law as I find it, and, as I am bound to do, rule upon questions arising, to the best of my ability. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has put to me what seems to me to be the exact point; and I think that probably, when he has heard all I have to say, that there will not be very much difference between the view he takes and the view I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee. I am distinctly of opinion that no question of general policy can be raised on these Estimates. I think there can be no doubt about that; and what is more, I venture to submit to the Committee that it is most desirable, in the interests of the entire House and of the country, that the Debates on these Supplementary Estimates should be kept strictly to the point; that is to say, that the time of the House should not be spent on anything approaching a fruitless discussion. But while I endeavoured to distinguish between questions of general policy, I never went so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester seems to think. I did not hold that in this Supplemental Vote it could not be argued that the Agency house was worthless. I cannot go so far as to say that merely because there has been a dissolution of Parliament every question of policy can be re-opened on the Estimates. I draw myself a very clear and distinct difference between questions of general policy and the question opened on this Estimate. Having endeavoured to explain myself to the Committee, I sincerely hope that the discussion upon the matter itself may be allowed to proceed.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: With your permission, Mr. Mellor, I will now resume the remarks with which I was endeavouring to assist the Committee to come to a prompt decision on the Vote. The Vote is for part of the cost of a house for an Agent, and, if I may be allowed to explain, what I was endeavouring to open up was not the character of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but the character of the Agent for whom the House is intended, as bearing on the question of whether we are justified in voting such a house for such an Agent. I submit, Sir, that the character of the house depends entirely upon the character of the Agent for whom it is intended. If you have one kind of Agent you would be justified in voting one kind of house; but if you have another kind of Agent, another kind of house would be needed. I submit that that is the sole question—the character of the Agent—that I endeavoured to discuss. If I am not permitted to discuss the house, nor the Agent, nor the Acts which created the Agent, I would ask, "What may I discuss? May I discuss any part of this £6,000? If not, why do I sit here?" [Cries of "Order!"] I ask myself that as a serious question. When I came to this House I was charged by my constituents as one of my first duties to watch over the expenditure of the money of the taxpayers. I find, however, that on the first Vote of the first Estimate I am closured, and that on the first Vote of the second Estimate, when I endeavour, to the best of my ability, to give reasons why this £6,000 should not be voted to build this agency house, I am brought up by points of Order and interruptions which have entirely driven my arguments out of my mind. I wish to disclaim altogether any desire to stop any appropriate expenditure of money. I think I am justified in asking whether, inasmuch as the person for whom this house is required, is a temporary official on a temporary Mission, and not a permanent official on a permanent Mission (the Mission being one that is to be withdrawn in as short a period of time as possible), the expenditure of this large sum is not entirely out of place?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.): I would submit to my hon. Friend that this Vote should be allowed

    913
    to pass. The policy of the Vote was fully discussed in the last Parliament, and it was then abundantly shown that the character of Her Majesty's Agent in Egypt was of such importance that he ought to be properly lodged and able to support the dignity of his nation. Whether the military occupation of Egypt be long or short, it never can be the case that the British Agent will not occupy a very important position. The larger question of the occupation of Egypt is not now involved. I venture to think that this Vote ought to be passed. It will by no means destroy the right of hon. Gentlemen to discuss at any future time our policy in Egypt.
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Tomlinson,) put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 167.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [16th February], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.): I understand that it is the intention of the Government to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, and I desire to know whether it is intended to give the Committee power to take evidence? I hope the Government will also refer to the Committee the other two Bills on the same subject.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I trust that the hon. Member will not persist in his Motion. With reference to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put
    914
    to me, it is the intention of the Government to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, with power to take evidence. It is not our intention to oppose the Second Reading of either of the other two Bills; and if the House consent to give them a Second Reading, I should propose that all three be referred to the same Committee. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is adjourned by the clock. [It was striking 12.]
    It being midnight, the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate lapsed, and the Debate stood adjourned.

  COINAGE (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 221.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 27th February.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The object of this Bill is to continue the powers obtained by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the withdrawal of light coins. It contains two clauses only, and is very pressing.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Does it deal with five-shilling pieces?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No; only sovereigns and half-sovereigns.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 105.)
  Bill, as amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir George Trevelyan, Bill for the better regulation of Scottish Sea Fisheries, ordered to be brought in by Sir George Trevelyan, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Marjori-banks, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 244.]

  CHOLERA HOSPITALS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. John Morley, Bill to enable sanitary authorities in Ireland to take possession of land for the erection of temporary Cholera Hospitals, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Morley and Sir Walter Foster.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 245.]

  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Fenwick, Bill to amend "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. John Wilson (Durham).
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 246.]

  LICENSED HOUSES (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "for each Parish in Scotland, not being a Royal or Parliamentary Burgh, giving the following particulars respecting licensed houses, arranged in columns, and all of them to be added up; also a summary of the results for the years from Whit Sunday, 1883, to Whit Sunday, 1884, and from Whit-Sunday, 1891, to Whit-Sunday, 1892:—Population in 1891; number of hotels and public-houses; number of grocers' licences; number of licences to sell ale or beer only; the Return to be divided into two parts, the one containing those Parishes in which there are licensed houses, and the other those Parishes in which there are no licensed houses (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 426, of Session 1875.—(Mr. Peter M'Lagan.)

  CONTEMPT OF COURT (PERSONS DETAINED) (IRELAND).
  Address for "Return of all Persons detained in Prisons in Ireland under committal by Judges for Contempt of Court, or who are otherwise in Prison without trial and are not awaiting trial; the name, address, and occupation of each Prisoner; by whom committed, and the cause of committal; date of committal and imprisonment; Medical Report on physical and mental condition of each Prisoner; whether committed for a specific term or indefinitely, and if for a specific term when it will expire:"
  "And, in similar form, the names of all Persons detained in Prison for Penalties or Debts due to the Crown in Revenue suits."—(Mr. Matthew Kenny.)

  IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES.
  Copy ordered, "of Communication addressed to Mr. John Burnett and Mr. David Schloss directing them to inquire into and report on matters connected with the Immigration of Foreigners into the United States."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No,96.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

  A PERSONAL QUESTION.
  SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you if it is in Order for the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) to cross over the House, sit on the Bench below me, and indulge in language which, if it is not an insult, is offensive?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to say, Sir, that I have been sitting in my own seat for the last 10 minutes, and have been subjected to the most insulting observations.
  DR. TANNER: As a matter of fact, I have never addressed the hon. Member once since I crossed the House. I came over here to speak to an hon. Member behind me. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member is in absolute error. When hon. Members who ought to sit on the other side of the House sit on this side and vote against the Government, I say I have a right to sit here.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I can only say, Sir, that during the last 10 minutes I have been subjected to these insults?
  DR. TANNER: What insults?
  MR. SPEAKER: Of course, the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to cross the House if he thinks fit, and to sit where he pleases. No Member, of course, is entitled to use offensive language, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not use any language which gives offence to any hon. Member.
  DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir. If I used any language offensive to the hon. Member I call upon him to say what was the language I used.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be better that the incident should now close.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
SAT FIRST.
The Lord Teynham, after the death of his father.
TRADE UNION PROVIDENT FUNDS BILL.—(No. 21.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a measure of a very simple character. It has been passed by the other House, and approved there by the Government. Its object is simply to protect the funds of certain Trade and Provident Societies, so that they shall stand in practically the same position as the funds of Trade Societies which are now exempt from Income Tax, so that the interest on funds, which are used mostly for providing old-age pensions, and altogether for provident purposes by way of superannuation and otherwise, shall be exempt in future from Income Tax. That is the whole scope and object of the Bill, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Herschell.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]—(No. 6.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
AUTHORISED COMPANIES LIQUOR BILL [H.L.]

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE BISHOP OF CHESTER,in presenting a Bill for establishing a system of retail sale of intoxicating liquor by an authorised company, said it had been
  766
  thought desirable he should make a somewhat fuller statement than was usual—first, of the background of evidence and reason upon which the Bill rested; and, secondly, of its provisions. The Bill might best be regarded as an attempt to carry out the first recommendation of the Special Committee of that House which sat in 1878 and reported in 1879 upon the subject of intemperance. That recommendation was that legal facilities should be given for the local adoption of the Gothenburg and Mr. Chamberlain's schemes, or of some modification of those schemes. He would remind their Lordships of the composition of that Committee. The Duke of Westminster was the Chairman, and on the very rare occasions when he was not present his place was taken by Lord Aberdare, whose hand was also manifest in the drafting of the Report, and certainly in that part of it which dealt with the subject-matter under consideration. He was privileged to say that both noble Lords were among the leading authors of the Bill which he had the honour to present. The time which had elapsed between their first essays in this matter and the production of the present Bill exactly corresponded with that which elapsed between Sir W. Scott's first essay in romantic composition in prose and the publication of Waverley. Their Lordships would, he was sure, hail that as an omen. On that Committee were also Lords Morley, Kimberley, and Onslow, and the present Bishop of London, then Bishop of Exeter, the late Archbishops Tait, Thomson, and Magee, and the late Bishop of Carlisle. The Committee was eminently a strong one. It had the advantage of the best evidence available, and amongst others Mr. Chamberlain, then fresh from the study of the Gothenburg system in Sweden, and with a united and resolute Birmingham at his back, gave evidence. Birmingham at that time had resolved to adopt the system of municipal licensing in the Town Council by a majority of 46 against 10, and by the Board of Guardians unanimously. There were thus 120 gentlemen, representing 400,000 people, determined to carry out this system should legal facilities be given. He would pause for a moment to dwell upon the melancholy subject of lost opportunities in temperance reform in connection with

  767
  the Report of the Lords' Committee of 1879. Had Mr. Bruce's Bill of 1871 been carried, it was calculated that instead of our having 128,000 public-houses, we should now have less than 40,000; and had Birmingham received the legal facilities which it desired for making an experiment in municipal licensing and municipal socialism, it would have disposed of the whole temperance problem. The need was now as sore as ever. Intemperance and its offspring—pauperism, crime, insanity, and boundless expenditure—were amongst us as fiercely as ever. Although the evils of intemperance met laymen at every point—in public, in the streets, the Courts of Law, and in our asylums—yet he ventured to say that the ministers of religion felt its sorrow and its consequences more keenly because they came face to face with it in the people's homes. He was not going to speak about the Drink Bill, as it was called, of the country in any exaggerated language, but it was a fact of which it was hardly possible to over-rate the significance, for it was estimated that nearly one-eighth of the wages of the working classes was spent upon alcoholic drink. Surely, therefore, there was some room for reform and for a redistribution of that large expenditure. People spoke, and rightly, of the need of a Department of Labour, but we needed almost more a Department of Leisure. The entertainment of the people question was, he thought, one of the most important of the day. Again, who could deny that it was a matter of vital importance if it were possible, and surely it was possible to a great extent, to eliminate the influence of liquor from our political system? Beer in politics was altogether unlovely; and even Anti-beer was not always seen at its best. Those who had any close experience of the working of our electoral system must allow that anything which would diminish the influence of the licensed victuallers and of the counter-interest in connection with our political system was to be encouraged. Again, the growth of tied houses and of tippling houses was another reason why legislation should interpose. That system was of comparatively modern creation, and we hardly realised how powerful the influence of tied houses was over the retail trade of the country even in the country districts.
  768
  Taking the rural districts of Cheshire no less than 868 were tied houses out of 1,629, and he believed the proportion was larger in some of our great cities—as large as eight out of ten. That was surely not what the Legislature contemplated or intended. There might be something to be said for the tied houses system if some of the other wholesale traders had also an influence over the retail trade; but, whereas in licensed victualling all forms of refreshment should be represented and cultivated, it was beer and spirits that dominated the retail trade, and the consequence was, among other undesirable results, that in a large number of houses no refreshment but beer and spirits could be found. In rural Cheshire, he believed, a large proportion of houses, over 700, at the present time sold nothing but drink. As the need was sore, the remedy was well-established, and appealed to us more strongly than it did in 1879. As to the history of temperance reform in Sweden, the Gothenburg system came into existence in 1866. The name was, to a certain extent, a misnomer, because, although the system was first applied in Gothenburg, it was not invented there, and was certainly not brought to perfection in that place. In the early part of this century—for the first 60 years—Scandinavia was notable for its drunkenness. It was spoken of as the most drunken country in Europe, and that was due largely to the system of free and uncontrolled distilling of the native brandy, which was, and still is, to a great extent, the popular drink of the working classes in Sweden and Norway. In 1811 nearly every corn-grower was practically a distiller. In 1830 170,000 stills were at work in Sweden, and they had been reduced by legislation to 40,000 in 1850; and the temperance sentiment of the country was rapidly growing. In 1855 a very important Act was passed for local option; and it was a local option which gave (as local option should give) three alternatives to the people: It allowed them to reduce the number of public-houses almost, if not quite, to zero; it allowed them to leave the existing system of private licences, cut down and controlled, but still in existence, and holding the land to a very great extent, especially the towns of Sweden; and it also provided, as early as 1855, for the establish-

  769
  ment of what would be called by this Bill an authorised company. This legislation of 1855 did a great deal of good, especially in the country districts. In the towns, however, its operation was less successful, and the fact of the public-houses being so largely swept away in country places drove those who were determined to have drink into the towns. That difficulty from denuding the country districts of public-houses had been felt in Sweden and Norway. For a long time the systems of Sweden and Norway did not touch beer, which was looked upon as a temperance drink; beer and wine were left outside the operation of the controlling societies. But in the towns things got worse, and in 1866 the magistracy, in combination with the Town Council of Gothenburg, determined to adopt what we now call the Gothenburg system. The outward form of this system was a very simple one. It was a Limited Liability Company, pledging itself to work for the public, under the auspices and control of the public, devoting all surplus profits after the payment of a moderate interest, to the public welfare; and thus, in the most real sense, they had a public-house system from beginning to end. That was the outward framework of the Gothenburg system. What was its inward soul and spirit? It was the introduction of a new motive; and surely this was what they wished to bring to bear on our own system of refreshment for the people. The private purpose was dislodged, and zeal for the public good, operating under careful restrictions, was put in its place. Their Lordships were familiar with the advantages of a public system in connection with education. They all knew that a public school system of education was preferred—and rightly so—to a private system of education. Was it safer to leave this peculiarly perplexing and trying subject of the supply of alcohol to private arrangement, which must be continually gravitating towards private profit? In Norway and Sweden the people had thought it right to apply what was nothing less than voluntary socialism in the treatment of this well-known difficulty. He would illustrate his meaning by reading a very significant passage from a speech delivered by Mr. Gladstone on May 15, 1890, in which
  770
  the right hon. Gentleman laid his finger on the centre of the difficulty. Speaking on the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Duties) Bill, Mr. Gladstone said—
  "At the present, as I understand it, the case of the Government is that the number of public-houses is enormous. Yes, Sir, but something else ought to be taken into consideration. Why is it that the position of the public-houses in this country of ours is lower than it is in any country in Europe? That is the result of the management we have followed, and the number does not in the slightest degree tend to mitigate that statement. I am one of those who see the utmost, incurable, radical, and profound mischief from what is called the publican's monopoly, and not through any fault of the publican, or, indeed, of anyone. My firm belief is, that as the monopoly connected with private interests belongs to the trade, you will never have true and efficient police supervision exercised over the public-houses, and without that they must continue to hold the disparaged and unsatisfactory position which they do hold now, and have held for many generations."
  This, he thought, touched the root of the evil of the present system; and as long as they contented themselves with merely reducing the number of public-houses, he could not but think that they should be leaving the sting in the wound. The statistics, as far as they showed anything, bearing on the influence of the number of public-houses on the temperance of intemperance of a district, were curiously conflicting. Most persons believed that a reduction in the number of public-houses was an altogether desirable thing; but he pleaded that a further step must be taken; and when they had reduced the number of public-houses, they must endeavour to see that the houses were worked for the public benefit and not for private profit, co-operating with this mysterious craving for alcohol which was so common. Gothenburg had to deal with serious difficulties in the early years of the movement, such as high wages, the difficulties of compensation, and "The Brandy League," led by the Brandy King Lars Olsson Smith. But, in spite of all, the Gothenburg movement won its way, because it had the temperance sentiment of the country at its back, and because it was based on sound principles. The system rapidly extended throughout Sweden. In 1879 it had been adopted by every town but one (that was 27) of over 5,000 inhabitants, including Stockholm, which had 250,000 people, and by

  771
  19 towns with under 5,000 population. Norway was looking on; and it was surely a strong point in favour of this system that Norway, which did not always view too favourably the lead of Sweden, having appointed a Commission to examine this question, adopted the system with one important difference— namely, that the surplus profits should be applied to objects not connected with the rates, in order to remove all suspicion of the trade being fostered to assist the rates—Norway adopted the system, and it ran rapidly through nearly all towns with Licensing Authorities. There were not similar facilities for its adoption in the country districts. A short summary of the results was given by Mr. T. M. Wilson, a civil engineer, resident in Norway for 36 years, a gentleman intimately acquainted with the language of the country, and who, though starting 20 years ago as an opponent of the Gothenburg system, was now a convinced supporter of it, and one of its ablest champions. When the Earl of Meath visited Bergen not long ago he was struck with the admirable results of the system there, and he gave testimony in The Nineteenth Century to the value of Mr. Wilson's opinion, and a summary of the evidence given in his book on Local Option in Norway. This was a summary of what Mr. Wilson recently wrote to The Scotsman—
  "Control was introduced into Norway in 1871. Since then, practically every town that could form a controlling society has done so, and there are now 51 controlling societies. Population has increased 14½ per cent. Consumption of spirituous drinks has decreased 45 per cent. Crime has decreased 16 per cent. Poor's relief per head of family, or individual not member of a family, has decreased 15 per cent. The number of depositors in Savings Banks has increased 145 per cent. The value of their deposits has increased 100 per cent. The number of Total Abstinence Societies and branches has increased from 30 to 801. The adherents of Total Abstinence Societies have increased from 3,000 to over 100,000. The number of persons able to pay Income Tax and thereby acquire the Parliamentary franchise at the last General Election—two years ago—was just about doubled."
  He might add that Mr. Wilson had recently obtained 117 opinions from officials in Norway on the effects of the system, and of these 111 were favourable, three doubtful, and three adverse. There were other testimonies. First of all, there was the Report conveyed by Sir F.
  772
  Plunkett, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Stockholm, in October, 1890. That Report was eminently favourable. It spoke not merely of statistical reductions in the amount of spirits consumed, the number of cases of delirium tremens, and the number of arrests for drunkenness, but it showed that the opinions of the Consuls at Stockholm and Gothenburg, with those of 22 Vice Consuls and the Chief of Police at Stockholm, an eminent authority, were, without exemption, favourable. Mr. Brooks, a well-known American, who was formerly Professor of Economics at Harvard, and who for the past five years had been studying social problems in Europe, had lately inquired into the working of the Gothenburg system in Sweden and Norway, and he had concluded an article on the subject in the Forum by recommending it for adoption in America. In this article, too, Mr. Brooks quoted from a letter he had received from Dr. Gould, the expert of the Labour Department of the United States, who had also studied the system in operation in Sweden and Norway, and in that letter Dr. Gould stated that there was an almost unanimous opinion among all classes that the Gothenburg system, as compared with the old one, was an amazing improvement. "This," he adds, "is my opinion without qualification." Dr. Baer, of Berlin, had made a careful comparison of the state of drunkenness in 14 countries, and he found that the improvement in Sweden and Norway, traditionally given to drink as almost no other people, had been unequalled in any other country. Doubtless there were defects in the system. But very much misunderstanding was caused by the difficulties which sprung from unexplained and incomplete statistics, especially when the statistics related to and were compared with different countries which had different laws and usages. For instance, pauperism was reckoned in a different way in Sweden and Norway from other countries, and statistics on this point were very misleading. But the main difficulty in reference to the system in operation in Sweden and Norway was that beer was not placed under control. When the system was first introduced the drink of the labouring classes was chiefly strong native brandy,

  773
  but since then the consumption of beer had become more popular, and had increased annually from 35,000,000 litres in 1887 to 59,000,000 in 1891. It was consequently the general opinion that unless the use of beer was also brought under control the wall which had been erected in those countries against intemperance by the Gothenburg system would be broken down. One of the principal lessons to be learned from the experience of Scandinavia in this matter was that control, if it was to be thoroughly effective, must be made as complete as possible. The system was spreading. In 1887 Switzerland, after a careful inquiry, established a Federal monopoly for the wholesale trade in the higher classes of spirits, and the Reports received at the Foreign Office bore testimony to the success of the policy, for it had been attended by financial success, great care and precaution against adulteration, and a remarkable reduction in the amount of spirits consumed, though he was bound to say this, perhaps, might be discounted to some extent by the surreptitious dealings of various kinds which might have been going on. But the total result had undoubtedly been satisfactory. The profits derived from the wholesale trade in the higher classes of spirits in Switzerland were divided among the cantons on the understanding that 10 per cent. were devoted to combating the evils of alcoholism, and great care was taken that this condition was carried out. In 1889 the City of Basle adopted the principle in regard to the retail trade. To some extent the principle had been adopted in this country in isolated instances. For example, it had been applied by Lord Wantage on his own property, and clergymen in Sussex and Warwickshire had worked village public-houses on this plan; but the principal instance was supplied by our own Army. The Gothenburg principle had been applied practically to the Army by the development of the regimental and garrison institute system, with its many social and moral advantages to the soldier. Under the term "regimental and garrison institutes "were embraced, under one management, what existed previously, since about 1865 and up to 1882, under the names of regimental canteen and grocery shop, recreation
  774
  room, and library. In every barrack there were rooms set apart for the "regimental institute," which represented what in civil life was called a club. Its object was to supply the soldier with almost everything he might require at moderate prices, and to provide for his recreation and amusement. The institute was divided into two branches: first, the refreshment department, including the canteen for beer, the coffee-room for light refreshment, and the shop at which groceries and other articles can be purchased; second, the recreation department, which embraces reading-rooms (sometimes with billiard tables attached), libraries, skittle alleys, shooting galleries, theatre, &c. The institute was under the direct supervision and management of a committee of officers appointed by the commanding officer. Mr. Childers had, in fact, described the regimental institute as "a well-conducted beer-shop," and under this system the funds raised by the profits derived from the canteen were applied in aid of other branches of the institute, and also in the support of games and sports and other objects of approved utility for the men at large. General Goodenough had stated—
  "The Army, in fact, without knowing it, has been for nearly 30 years in the enjoyment of what, it is believed, is best known to the public as the Gothenburg system, under which the profits by the sale of liquor are employed, under careful supervision, for the good of the community. There is hardly any detachment station, however small, where the officers do not manage to establish a canteen for the men, usually as a branch from the parent institution."
  The system had also been introduced into the Regimental Regulations of the Army in India; and Sir George Chesney, after describing the growth of the system and various improvements that had been introduced into the Army in previous years, went on to say—
  "A still further improvement has been that due to the initiation and persistent energy of the present Commander-in-Chief, Lord Roberts, by which all these recreation rooms have been brought together as one collective institution— the Regimental Institute. This, in fact, is now a comfortable, well-ordered club, managed by a regimental committee, of course, like everything else, under the orders of the commanding officer. The equipment of the institute comprises a theatre, the parterre of which is used ordinarily for fencing, single-stick, &c., with a stage at one end for concerts and theatrical performances; a library and reading-room, a

  775
  billiard-room, and a refreshment-room, with cooperative store attached, in charge of a noncommissioned officer. The supplies from this are issued at a little above cost price, the profits going to the institute funds. Coffee, tea, aerated waters (made on the premises), and malt liquor are issued at the bar. The institute also contains a separate room for total abstainers, and a room for prayer meetings. The Army Temperance Society in India does very active work. It receives a considerable annual grant from the Government, and handsome subscriptions from the officers of the Army in India to supplement the funds derived from the subscriptions of its members, who, to the best of my recollection, now number about 15 per cent. of the British Army in India, and are steadily increasing. But the marked improvement in the temperance of the Army in India, among those who are not total abstainers, must be ascribed to the humanising influence of the new institutes."
  Total abstainers in the Army were increasing year by year, and this was very satisfactory, remembering that most of the crime committed in the Army was due to the evils of drink. Clearly, in the Army we had the proposed system at work among ourselves. Of course, it could not be perfect, because outside the soldiers' quarters there were the unreformed public-houses carrying on an unwholesome competition. No one could say that, if the outside houses were also reformed, it would not be better for both soldier and civilian. Looking at the cumulative effect of the evidence, and making full allowance for possible discount, it afforded very favourable testimony to the success of the system, and there was much stronger reason now than there was in 1879 for giving legal facilities for the adoption of the Gothenburg system, or of some modification of it. Passing on to speak of the Bill itself, if the Bill passed it would be known as the Authorised Companies Act—a title due, with very much besides, to the skill and kindness of Lord Thring. The Act would be adopted on the vote of a simple majority of those enjoying the Local Government franchise, which would include women. A system which took away public-houses might require a two-thirds majority, but for a system which simply substituted one set of public-houses for another and better, a simple majority would be enough. Ten voters would be able to demand a plébiscite, which would be taken in boroughs or in wards of boroughs, or in groups of parishes arranged by the County Councils, while there would be special arrangements for London. Any
  776
  10 persons qualified to vote might form a company whose Articles of Association would have to be approved by the Board of Trade, and one-third of the Directors must belong to or be nominated by the Local Authority, which would also appoint one of the two auditors. The business would be conducted in the full light of publicity, and would be open to the fullest criticism, which was not true of ordinary public-houses. In more senses, than one the existing houses were not really public-houses at all; but under this system, from its very framework and conditions, the whole matter must be public from beginning to end. The next point to which he invited their Lordships' attention were the terms upon which the licensed victuallers already in possession were to be removed. Existing licensed victuallers were entitled to equitable consideration, and it would be a grievous injustice that they should be evicted without equitable compensation and consideration. As far as could be judged, the country had made up its mind that there should be no compensation out of rates or taxes; but still there was room for something in the shape of equitable consideration. There had been such long possession and such reasonable expectation underlying the possession of property on which duties were levied that surely we were not offering too liberal terms if we named a five years' limit, which would practically be six, before which licences would not be disturbed; and during this interval there would be compulsory powers on both sides to buy out, or insist on being bought out, by arbitration. Many of the better class of publicans would be re-employed by the company to conduct the reformed houses under conditions which would be much more wholesome for themselves and their families. The brewers who at present dominated the tied houses, would still have their wholesale trade to fall back upon. A very marked difference existed between the position of the wholesale trader and that of the bonâ fide publican who was earning his livelihood in the retail trade, and who, if well-conducted, deserved all consideration at the hands of the public and of an authorised company which would be the minister and servant of the public. After the expiration of five years there would be a reduction of

  777
  licences to the maximum proportions of 1 to 1,000 inhabitants in towns and 1 to 600 in the country. All licences issued by Justices would be included so as to make the control as complete as possible, because it was obvious that if one set of public-houses was to be more strictly or more laxly conducted than another the result must be unfavourable. Too many private clubs were merely drinking clubs, and an endeavour would be made to bring them within the scope of the Bill by registration. Passing on to speak briefly of the financial arrangements, the company's interest would be limited to 5 per cent. on the capital, and the surplus profits, after one-third had been transferred to the reserve fund, would be applied to some public object or objects not directly met by rates, such as open spaces, public libraries and museums, hospitals, and the provision of old age pensions, or other purposes of a public and charitable nature. The reserve fund would be a security not only to the company itself, but also to the public in the event of anything going wrong with the company. There would be guarantees against the improper inclusion as Directors or Shareholders of any interested or unsuitable persons. The objects of the company were set out in a specimen Memorandum of Association followed by Articles of Association which would have to be submitted to and approved by the Board of Trade. The third paragraph of the Memorandum of Association was as follows:—
  "To establish, either in connection with or separate from premises used by them for the purpose of their business, tea or coffee houses, reading rooms, libraries, newspaper rooms, working men's waiting rooms, or any other convenience for the amusement, recreation, or instruction of the customers of the company."
  It would be agreed that while it was desirable provision should be made for those who took alcohol, it was certainly no less important that sufficient provision should be made for those who wished to keep altogether clear of it. The entertainment of the people should rest on a dual basis, and accordingly one object of these companies would be not only to provide well-conducted public-houses in which alcohol was sold under due restrictions, but also to encourage, directly and indirectly, the establishment
  778
  of temperance cafés conducted on the best method. It was wished to establish places of entertainment which could be used by women and children, places which could be used with safety by those who knew their weakness when tempted to drink, and places in which clubs and societies could hold their meetings free from the temptation to which their members were exposed at public-houses. He hoped that, if the system was adopted, it would work on both lines, though, of course, the Bill must have in view primarily, if not entirely, the establishment of public-houses in the ordinary sense of the term. The arrangements with regard to management would secure that the managers should have their interest based upon the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages; they would be partly paid by a fixed salary and partly by a bonus upon the sale of those refreshments, which, under the present system, were so sorely apt to go to the wall. No credit would be given, special rules would be made about the service, or rather non-service, of children and young people, special inspectors would be appointed, and careful precautions taken against adulteration. Those were social details which others, whose judgment was better than his own, had thought it undesirable should be introduced into the Bill itself; but he thought it well that the public, who might not very easily make out the true drift and meaning of a Parliamentary Bill, should know that those details would be provided for in the Memorandum and Articles of Association. The Bill would appeal to temperance reformers of all classes, even to the most thorough-going teetotalers, and he might say that it would appeal even to the publicans themselves to some extent, for the treatment contemplated for them was more liberal than might be obtained in other quarters. And the Bill was one which would readily co-operate with other Bills. He could not speak as one who believed in prohibition, but, supposing that the option of prohibition was given, this Bill would work side by side with it, and also with any general Licensing Bill. These measures were surely of the most vital importance to the country. They all knew Mr. Cobden's famous saying, "The temperance question lies at the

  779
  root of all social and political reform;" and if that were so, all attempts made in this direction were, in national importance, second to none. He was not blind to the other agencies which must be at work. He did not suppose for a moment that legislation by itself was going to do the whole of the work; but it could pioneer and prepare the way for those other agencies which were regarded by the promoters as deeper and more vital still. It had been said by an American divine that "The soul of all improvement was the improvement of the soul." Most true—deeply and vitally true; but was it not also subordinately true "That the body of all improvement is the improvement of man's bodily conditions? "That was what was contemplated by the present Bill, which would help to open the path and clear away the difficulties which those representing the moral and spiritual agencies of the country knew to be so tremendous at the present time. Though he could not expect all their Lordships to rise to the level of his own enthusiasm upon this subject of the entertainment of the people, an enthusiasm which was not the growth of yesterday but of nearly a quarter of a century, yet he hoped their Lordships would consider that the experiment which the Bill incorporated was one worthy of consideration; that it stood upon even stronger ground now than it did in 1879, and that it deserved to have a firm footing found for it among those various agencies and experiments which must together work out the solution of our tremendous intemperance problem. He begged leave to present the Bill and to move that it be read a first time.
  Bill for establishing a system of retail sale of intoxicating liquor by an authorised company—Presented (The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
  LORD THRINGsaid that, after the exhaustive speech of the right rev. Prelate, he would make but few remarks. The Bill steered a middle course between fanatical temperance and fanatical intemperance, avoiding the despotism of the one and the demoralisation of the other. He thought the objects of the Bill eminently deserved encouragement. It proposed to set up orderly and well-conducted houses—he would not say "public-houses," as that term was to so
  780
  many people objectionable—as places of entertainment, which should combine the best features of both coffee-tavern and public-house, where the artisan and labourer might go with his wife and children without reproach, and in which he would find no encouragement to drink beer, if he preferred non-alcoholic liquors, but where he could get the best of alcoholic liquors too if he desired them. This was surely a subject which was most deserving of their Lordships' consideration. It was not advisable for them to seek to narrow or restrict the amusements of the poorer classes. What they should endeavour to do was to refine and raise them. How could they do that better than by a proposal of this kind? It was useless attempting to reach too sublime a level, for everybody did not desire to spend their leisure in museums or picture galleries. The general use of bicycles and tricycles had opened up the country to an extraordinary extent to the working classes, clerks, and artisans, and what the promoters of this measure desired was to secure suitable entertainment everywhere for the people. There would be no possible inducement for the managers of these houses to force the sale of liquors. They would certainly be dismissed if they did so, or if they permitted any excess or disorder, or anything of an immoral nature to occur in the houses. In any town or village, where the provisions of the measure might be carried into effect, well-ordered houses of entertainment would be secured. He would not enter into further explanations at the present stage, but he might say their Lordships would find that there would be no difficulty in supplying the capital of the company. That would be easily raised at 5 per cent.; and the whole of the details had been fully thought out. The Bill, he believed, would tend far more than apparently more important measures to the improvement and to the comfort of the poor, and towards a higher standard of every-day life amongst our workmen and artisans.
  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTERsaid, the Bill dealt with one of our great social evils; and as it was not connected in any way with politics, there ought not to be any Party feeling introduced into the matter. The proposals contained in the right rev. Prelate's Bill had created

  781
  great interest throughout the country, and the measure had derived considerable support in many quarters which he hoped, as the Session proceeded, would increase and become sufficient to enable the Bill to pass—the sooner the better. The Bill frankly recognised that a great demand for alcoholic liquors existed in the country which was not to be stamped out by legislation; and, therefore, the right rev. Prelate's policy had been to meet the demand in that respect while rendering the supply as innocuous as it could be made. The Bill was of a constructive rather than of a destructive character. As had been pointed out, it was to be initiated by plébiscite and by a majority of the voters; and the percentage which the company would obtain was not exorbitant, as it was not to exceed 5 per cent., while advantages would be gained by the restriction of the hours and days of sale and by a material reduction in the number of public-houses. Though, no doubt, shutting them up in many cases would entail heavy cost upon the promoters, they considered that a fair and just principle had been adopted in dealing with people who had invested large sums in the trade carried on at present on the faith that their licences would, according to the long-established custom of the country, be renewed as a matter of course. Before the Committee which sat in 1877, of which he was Chairman, Mr. J. B. Carnegie, who had been long resident in Sweden, gave valuable evidence as to the system established there; and to quote the words of Lord Aberdare, the Deputy Chairman—
  "If the risks were considerable, so were the respective advantages, and when great communities deeply sensible of the crime and pauperism springing from the present system and watching with great anxiety the rapid growth of female intemperance constituting a new danger to the community, were willing at their own risk and hazard to take steps to remove those evils, it would seem somewhat hard that the Legislature should refuse to create for them the requisite machinery and to entrust them with the requisite powers."
  Since that time the evidence of the results in Norway and Sweden had become infinitely stronger, and the system had now spread so generally throughout those countries that, whereas they were formerly perhaps the most drunken in Europe, they had become the most sober —a very satisfactory testimony to the
  782
  invaluable results of the Gothenburg system. Those results—tangible, undoubted, and profitable not only to individuals, but to the community at large —ought to encourage us to initiate some such system in this country; and he was not aware that we were so different to the Scandinavians as to make that which had become a reality with them an impossibility in England. He would ask, therefore, that the promoters of this measure should be allowed to try the experiment as recommended by the Report of the Committee of 1877. Other schemes were in the air, one of a very drastic character, which would, to some extent, no doubt adversely affect the reform they wished to see brought about in this matter; but it could hardly he adopted generally throughout the country, at all events for a long time. This system, on the contrary, while far less drastic in its operation as regarded the great trade connected with drink fairly and honestly carried on, would promote better habits among the people; and as it would do as much towards making England free, sober, and great, as it had done in Scandinavia, it certainly ought to have a trial. Considering the degradation which affected so large a portion of our population, if the whole question could be taken in hand on the lines indicated in this Bill, great advantages would result not only in the promotion of temperance, but in the relief of taxation and in the direction of local improvements. The Bill was entitled to general support, first from the general public, because it would not deprive them of the drink which many thought they ought to have; secondly, from the teetotal party, because the public-houses would be reduced in number, and the licensing power greatly restricted; and, thirdly, it should, at all events, not meet with any great opposition from the publicans themselves, because they would be fairly and honestly dealt with. He hoped that those among their Lordships who were moderate drinkers themselves would support the Bill, which he strongly recommended to the House.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: There was nothing to be said in illustration or commendation of the scheme which the right rev. Prelate had laid before them in his exhaustive speech in presenting

  783
  the Bill. The scheme would have the support of a very large mass of those who were most intimate with the homes and the habits of the poor, and who saw so much of the degradation and misery which attended intemperance. The subject of drink was a many-sided one, and no method or master key had been found to deal with it on a very large scale, though alleviations and palliations had been discovered. Intemperance was still the great misery of our country, and many would be thankful for a scheme which would enable moderate people in some measure to have their way on the question. It was these moderate people who were in danger of being squeezed out. The drastic remedy was that persons should not be able, under any circumstances, to obtain that which seemed to them, and which seemed to many of them, to be an article of food. This Bill came not to please the extremists on either side, and he believed there was a large body of opinion in its favour among moderate people throughout the country. He would not speak in opposition to the plan which the Government had placed before the country at this moment. The desire of the promoters of the Government Bill was that it might be in the power of the inhabitants of a certain area by a majority of two-thirds to determine that there should be no public-houses, or only a limited number; but while power would be given for carrying out those objects, on the other hand a majority of above one-third would be able to determine that things should remain as they were. The simple and earnest request of the promoters of this Bill was that it might be also rendered possible for a majority in any area to secure for themselves a moderate supply of pure beverages under regulated conditions so as to ensure the respectability of those who live by the trade, and the best interests of those who are entertained. If the Bill were properly worked out it would further contribute to many schemes which would be of the greatest benefit and would promote the happiness of the people.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I wish to join in thanking the right rev. Prelate for having brought this matter before the
  784
  House. Your Lordships are aware that the Committee of which I had the honour to be a Member expressed the opinion that is was very desirable this experiment should be tried in order to see how far it would mitigate the evils arising from intemperance. It seems to me that the best mode of bringing the matter to a test is that the scheme should be embodied in a Bill. Mere vague statements on the subject do not enable us to deal with it in a satisfactory manner, and I am glad, therefore, that the right rev. Prelate has a Bill prepared to lay before the House, and then your Lordships will see what the machinery suggested is for carrying out the scheme, and whether there is in it sufficient to enable the experiment to be made successful if tried. Your Lordships will agree with me that it would be idle at this stage, as we have not seen the Bill, to attempt to review or criticise the various proposals which have been made. Obviously, they have been well-considered, but the matter is not one which is easy of arrangement. But I think it most desirable that a scheme of this kind, which promises, at all events, considerable alleviation of the evils of intemperance, should be laid before Parliament and fairly considered. As the most rev. Prelate has said, if a Bill such as this should pass, it will not interfere with a more drastic scheme. Therefore, it seems to me the most reasonable thing that a Bill on the subject should be brought before your Lordships' House, and I have no doubt it will receive the full consideration which so important a subject demands.
  Bill read 1a. (No. 26.)

HIGH SHERIFFS' FEES.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the fees and profits received by the High Sheriffs of counties or their Deputies in the execution of their office, and the mode in which the duties of the High Sheriff now ordinarily performed by deputy might best be carried out. He said that three years ago their Lordships had passed a Bill dealing with some of the duties of High Sheriffs and for defraying the cost entailed by their discharge. It

  785
  provided that County Councils should, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, make regulations for the reception of Her Majesty's Judges, and that the cost so far as it was not defrayed by the Treasury should fall upon the county rate. Considerable difference of opinion was expressed as the Bill was passing through the House, and the Lord Chancellor proposed an alternative plan going rather deeper into the subject and suggesting a rather more comprehensive remedy. That was, that if the fees now received by the Under Sheriffs for the discharge of the legal duties of the Sheriffs were taken over by the Treasury or by some Central Authority, the whole of the costs now thrown upon the Sheriffs might be defrayed without any charge upon the county rate. He himself, as introducer of the Bill, had no preference at all for one plan over the other, so long as relief was afforded to the Sheriffs, and he would be willing to accept the alternative plan if, upon inquiry, it should be found a preferable mode of dealing with the subject. Unfortunately, he had not been able to obtain from the Under Sheriffs a statement of the emoluments they were now receiving, and he therefore proposed to obtain that information by means of the appointment of a Select Committee on the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I think the information likely to be obtained by such a Committee as the noble Earl proposes would be very useful. The question of Sheriffs' expenses is of great importance, and it is desirable to deal with it in the best fashion possible. The proposal formerly was that the Sheriffs' expenses in receiving the Judges should fall upon the County Councils. There appear to be considerable objections to a scheme of that description upon which I will not dwell now; but it certainly deserves consideration whether this question of Sheriffs' fees should not be dealt with on a similar basis throughout the country; and if it should turn out that they are sufficient to meet the expenses of both Sheriff and Under Sheriff, that would seem to be a better scheme than allowing the matter to be dealt with by the County Councils, and throwing the burden upon them, in case it turns out that the fees are not sufficient to discharge those expenses.
  786
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the fees and profits received by the High Sheriffs of counties or their deputies in the execution of their office, and the mode in which the duties of the High Sheriff now ordinarily performed by deputy may be best carried out."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I think the Committee moved for by the noble Earl will be of great interest and importance, and I trust it will supply valuable information. In Ireland the difficulty has been growing in acuteness for several years—it is not a question of to-day or of last year alone. I know the great difficulties connected with the question; and that at this time of day, when the incomes of country gentlemen are certainly as much reduced in Ireland as in any part of Her Majesty's dominions, it is an obvious hardship upon them, with their increased family claims, to impose upon them the necessity of putting their hands into their pockets. At this time they cannot afford it. Many of them have had to diminish their family expenses; and it is unreasonable they should be called upon to make great sacrifices in order to enable them to perform what, after all, are partly the duties of the State. It is all very well to ask country gentlemen possessing thousands a year to undertake these duties, but it is a great hardship to call upon the poorer gentry in Ireland to perform them. It has been a matter of increasing difficulty, and in some counties requiring sometimes great pressure, to induce anyone to undertake this onerous and thankless task. We all know, from the public Press, that the difficulty has recently culminated in Ireland in litigation. I only refer to that to show that real difficulty exists in the matter, and that it is important, when the noble Earl suggests names for his Committee, that he should take care there shall be among them adequate representation of Ireland, in order that the matter as regards that country may be fully investigated and looked into in all its aspects.
  Motion agreed to.

LEVEL CROSSINGS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON,in asking Her Majesty's Government whether they would take action to obtain further

  787
  powers for the abolition of level crossings on railways, said: This question concerned both the convenience and the safety of the public. Great inconvenience was experienced at the level crossings over railways, particularly in these days when the great increase of traffic on the lines compelled the frequent closing of the gates, and delayed the traffic along the roads while waiting the passage of the trains. Further, level crossings were often close to the stations, which were generally situate on or near high roads; and though shunting operations were in breach of the Act of 1863, they were often carried on over level crossings. As regarded the danger attendant upon them, in the last Report (1891) presented to the House dealing with railway accidents Sir Courtenay Boyle said—
  "In most of the cases of level crossings which were brought to the notice of this Department by the occurrence of accidents or the complaints of Local Authorities and individuals the Board of Trade had no statutory power to compel provision to be made for the public safety, but in many instances the Railway Companies concerned have been communicated with and satisfactory arrangements, usually necessitating the construction of a foot-bridge or subway, have in several instances been made."
  The Railway Clauses Act of 1863 gave power to the Board of Trade to insist on the construction of foot-bridges and subways, but all the railways constructed before 1863 were exempted from the operation of the Act. In the Railway Clauses Act of 1845 (Section 48) it was laid down that no train must go over a level crossing at a speed of more than four miles an hour; and although it was no exaggeration to say that that provision had become nowadays a dead letter, it showed that the Legislature recognised the danger of level crossings. In 1891 66 people were killed at level crossings; in 1890, 83 people; and in 1889, 72 people. In the same years there were respectively 49, 41, and 44 cases of trains running through the gates at level crossings. That showed that the danger was not imaginary. The Board of Trade had from time to time insisted on adequate precautions being taken for the safety of railway passengers, and as a result only five passengers were killed in 1891—a number which compared very favourably with the number killed at level crossings in the same year. Again, what public excitement and sorrow were caused by
  788
  the lamentable Thirsk railway accident last year, at which, however, only 10 people were killed. The highways of the country should be kept as unobstructed as possible, and the public should be given immunity from unnecessary danger in the use of them. This country undoubtedly was far ahead of the precautions taken in the United States and on the Continent; but the Board of Trade ought to have the same powers over the lines built previously to 1863 as it had over the lines built since. The great railways running to the North—particularly the Caledonian—had already shown what could be done in the required direction; and in asking Government to promote legislation he would point out that, whereas the most elaborate precautions for the safety of railway passengers were sure to fail sometimes, an unfailing and positive remedy for the evil of level crossings was attainable.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, that it was to be borne in mind that, in flat districts where level crossings occurred, the formation of bridges either above or below the road level would cause great inconvenience to the people in the district, especially to the farmers, in consequence of the alteration of gradient. A well-known Inspector of the Board of Trade (Colonel Yolland) once said that he should be voted a nuisance in some places if a general provision of the nature suggested were to be carried out. Obviously, in any road traffic, steep gradients were inconvenient, and the ruling gradient in a district had to be kept in view. No doubt a load which at present required but one horse would need two if these bridges were introduced. Again, a large compulsory expenditure by a sweeping Ordinance would press very heavily on the railways. He urged this argument with diffidence, because he knew the Railway Companies were not now enjoying great popularity. But such an Ordinance would press baldly on some of the smaller companies, though in certain cases it might be very valuable. He would suggest that the Railway Companies were most anxious of their own accord to carry out the necessary improvements alluded to; and, indeed, as the quotation of the noble Lord from the Board of Trade Report showed, in many cases they had done so already. That quotation showed that the Railway

  789
  Companies recognised the seriousness and importance of the matter, and the necessity of carrying out these improvements wherever practicable, in such a way as to cause the least inconvenience for the purpose of preventing accidents. Moreover, it was to be remembered that the accidents of which statistics were given by the noble Lord, and which were much to be deplored, must be attributed in a large degree to the carelessness or want of caution of those who used the level crossings in their urgent desire to get across without regard to the safety which was most carefully enjoined upon the public by railway placards and other means. He hoped, therefore, there would not be too great a readiness on the part of the Board of Trade to issue a sweeping Order in the matter, while no doubt whatever recommendations might be made would receive the same attention as on former occasions.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, as to the new level crossings made since the Acts of 1845 and 1863, there were ample powers though some difficulties in the administration of the powers and duties imposed upon the Board of Trade under those Acts. The Board of Trade was bound, whenever a Bill was brought before Parliament, to send down an officer to examine whether a level crossing could be made with safety to the public. That duty was always performed, but there sometimes arose a difference of opinion between the Parliamentary Committees and the Board of Trade. Since 1875 up to the end of last year there were Bills brought before both Houses of Parliament in which 1,259 level crossings were demanded. The Board of Trade sent down their officer, and, as the result of his inquiries, the Board of Trade reported that 585 only ought to be allowed. Parliament sometimes went against the recommendations of the Board of Trade. Seven hundred and eighty-one level crossings were allowed by the Railway Committees before whom the Bills went, and they became law. Thus nearly 200 level crossings were allowed by the Railway Committees of both Houses of Parliament which the Board of Trade had said were dangerous and ought not to be allowed. He hoped a better understanding between the Parliamentary Committees and the Board of Trade would
  790
  arise from a recent amendment of the Standing Order which had been passed in both Houses, and which was that the Committees should hear the Reports of the officers of the Board of Trade and take their evidence if they objected to the level crossings. With that amended Standing Order he hoped none of those dangerous level crossings would be allowed. Many of the old crossings had become dangerous; for although they were originally in uninhabited places, the towns had extended there. The companies had not in many cases power to acquire land in order to make bridges; and, moreover, on account of the extension of the towns, it would be extremely expensive to do so. The Board of Trade did not think that legislation was required at the present moment. They had great confidence that under the new Standing Order of both Houses there would be a better understanding between the Committees and the Board of Trade, and that the level crossings would be given with great caution in the future.

  DEBTORS' ACT.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved that the following Lords be named of the Select Committee, namely,

  L. Chancellor.

  L. Watson.

  E. Dudley.

  L. de Vesci.

  V. Cross.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Bp. Rochester.

  L. Ashbourne.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Thring.

  L. Vernon.

  L. Knutsford.

  L. Kenry (E. Dunraven and Mountearl).

  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.