Sitting of 15 September 1893

QUESTIONS.

  MILITARY COURTS MARTIAL IN INDIA.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he inquire whether a sergeant of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was tried at Kasanli, India, on the 17th July, on a charge of drunkenness, and, expecting to be summarily dealt with, in reply to the usual question of his Commanding Officer, admitted and expressed regret for the offence; was the sergeant remanded to a District Court Martial, and then, on a plea of "not guilty" being put in, did the Court, deeming the evidence insufficient, call witnesses to prove the admission made to the Commanding Officer; did the prisoner protest that this was no confession, quoting par. 72, c. 6, M.M. (large edition), and was the objection overruled on the authority of par. 81, c. 6; was the prisoner then convicted on his alleged confession, although before a Court Martial itself a plea of "guilty" may be withdrawn and cannot be availed of to prejudice the accused; and whether, in view of the fact that such procedure and reception of evidence raise a large question of principle affecting the rights of soldiers, and also considering that men will be placed in a position of great difficulty in answering the questions of their Commanding Officers when expecting to be summarily dealt with, the Military Authorities will give the matter their immediate attention?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): It is impossible to answer this question without referring to the proceedings of the Court Martial, which are not in our possession. The Commander-in-Chief in India has been asked to forward them to the War Office with a full Report on the whole case.

  EVICTIONS ON THE MARQUESS OF SLIGO'S PROPERTY.
  DR. R. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there are evictions taking place on the Marquess of Sligo's property without notice having been served on the Relieving Officer; whether the landlord or the Sheriff is bound by law to give such notice; if he is aware that the Sheriff has been written to by the Westport Board of Guardians and asked to give the required notice, but refused to do so; and whether he will see that either the Sheriff or the police will give such notice?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): There were four evictions on the estate referred to on August 9 and 21, but, except in one instance, the tenants were re-admitted as caretakers, and in several other cases evictions were avoided by settlements with the tenants concerned. Neither the landlord nor the Sheriff is required by law to give any notice to the tenants of the intention to evict; the decree or order of the Court is supposed to be sufficient in this respect. But the law does require that notice shall be served on the Relieving Officer before evicting; and this requirement, I am informed, has always been carried out. The Sub-Sheriff states that he has no recollection of having been written to by the Board of Guardians on the subject.
  DR. AMBROSE: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the proceedings of the Guardians in The Mayo News of last Saturday?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not had that report before me.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Was not notice given to the Relieving Officer?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe the Sub-Sheriff informed the Relieving Officer.

  IRISH PRISON WARDER MATES.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why a warder named Mates was in April, 1887, transferred from Tullamore to Limerick, and subsequently

  1267
  from Limerick to Cork; and whether the warder named has been granted any compensation for the personal expense and hardship entailed by these removals?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The General Prisons Board inform me that Warder Mates was transferred from Tullamore Prison to Limerick Female Prison for the performance there of certain duties, and that, subsequently, in the interests of the Public Service, he was transferred to Cork Prison. The cost of the transfers was in each case borne by the Prisons Department.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Did Mates receive any compensation for his removal?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I presume he did not. If a warder or any other official is transferred he receives no compensation beyond the expense of the transfer.

  INSANITARY BAKEHOUSES IN LONDON.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the startling revelations which have recently been made concerning the insanitary state of bakehouses in Marylebone, at the East End, and other parts of London, the filthy conditions under which bread is made, the terribly prolonged hours of labour of the operative bakers, and their low rate of wages; and whether the Local Authorities are making any efforts to remedy the evils; and if they are not, whether he will forthwith take the necessary steps for ascertaining the truth concerning the condition of the places in which the food of so many millions of people is prepared, the condition of the operative bakers who prepare it, and, if necessary, rigidly enforce the authority vested in him by "The Public Health (London) Act, 1891"?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The attention of the Local Government Board has not been drawn to the revelations as to the condition of bakehouses in Marylebone, the East End, and other parts of London. It devolves on the Local Sanitary Authorities to put in force the provisions of the law with regard to the sanitary condition of bakehouses,
  1268
  and I have not received any communication alleging default on the part of Sanitary Authorities or their officers in this matter. If there is a failure on the part of any Sanitary Authority to discharge their duty with regard to bakehouses, complaint can be made to the London County Council, who are empowered to take action with a view to the enforcement of the law. Speaking from memory, I may add that the Local Government Board cannot interfere except at the instance of the London County Council.

  FIJI.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies the date when Sir J. B. Thurston was appointed Governor of Fiji; and is it usual to retain a Colonial Governor for more than six years in one Governorship?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Sir J. Thurston's Commission as Governor was dated the 9th December, 1887, and he assumed the government on the 27th February, 1888, from which day the usual six years will date. In reply to the second question, I may say that it is not usual to extend the term of a Colonial Governor beyond six years, but it has been done.

  THE SCOTTISH BOARD OF SUPERVISION.
  MR. BEITH: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has received recently a communication from the Town Clerk of Inverness protesting against the ineptitude of the Board of Supervision for the relief of the poor in Scotland, in regard to the administration of the laws relating to public health; if he is aware that, beyond issuing an occasional Circular as to a possible epidemic of cholera, no practical measures have been taken by the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh to anticipate this evil; if he will favourably consider the various suggestions made in the communication from Inverness; and, in particular, that questions relating to public health be removed from the control of the Board of Supervision and be placed under a Department created

  1269
  for the purpose; and if he will, without delay, take practical steps to secure that Local Authorities (urban and rural) in Scotland be urged and required to exercise their powers for enforcing sanitary improvements in view of possible conditions which every day become more probable?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I have received and considered the communication from the Town Clerk of Inverness referred to by the hon. Member. The Board of Supervision are in frequent correspondence with Local Authorities as to sanitation and water supply, and their officers communicate with the local officials when visiting their districts, and report to the Board. The Scottish ports have all been inspected and reported on, many of them repeatedly, by the Board's inspecting officers; every port is now believed to be provided with the means of isolating cases of cholera; the attention of all Local Authorities has been called by special letters, as above described, to the weak points noted in the Annual Reports of the local sanitary officers, and the replies show that these points are receiving earnest consideration; every sanitary medical officer in Scotland has been required to report specially whether, in his opinion, the preparations in his district are adequate to meet the threatened epidemic, and when any doubt was expressed strong pressure was applied to the Local Authorities. The Board of Supervision is careful to make known to all Port Local Authorities the existence of disease in Continental ports. In the face of these facts, I do not consider that the allegations made by the Town Clerk of Inverness regarding the action of the Board are accurate. As I have already stated in this House, I am prepared at the earliest opportunity to take up the question of the re-organisation of the Board with a view, amongst others, of placing matters relating to public health on the most satisfactory basis.
  MR. BEITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sanitary Congress at Ayr the other day expressed a strong opinion against the "antiquated and useless Board of Supervision," and favoured the creation of a Central Board of Health for Scotland? Is it not the universal opinion
  1270
  in Scotland that the Board of Supervision is fitted only for the administration of the Poor Law, and is not an Organisation calculated to effectively administer the duties of a Public Health Board?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In the discussion that took place on the Estimates I expressed an opinion that while the Board of Supervision did its utmost in these matters, it was not a satisfactory Organisation for purposes connected with the public health.

  HIGHGATE WOODS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, as a Church Estates Commissioner, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have consented to sell to the Hornsey Charity Trustees a strip of land in Muswell Hill Road, abutting on Churchyard Bottom Wood, Highgate, on condition that an existing road through the adjacent land belonging to such Trustees is widened by 10 feet; whether this is preliminary to a scheme for building on the site of the Wood, or on a portion there of; and whether, before the adoption of any such scheme, Parliament and other Public Bodies will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion respecting it?
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. LEVESON-GOWER,): The answer to the first paragraph of the question is "Yes." The Commissioners gave for a public park the Gravel Pit Wood, comprising 69 acres, in the year 1886, and in the same year they provisionally agreed on terms for a sale to the Hornsey Local Board of the Churchyard Bottom Wood, of about 49 acres, adjoining the Gravel Pit Wood, subject to the necessary Parliamentary powers being obtained. This sale was not, however, carried out. The condition made by the Commissioners as to the widening of the existing road was for the purpose of providing better access for building purposes to the land belonging to them beyond Gravel Pit Wood, as well as to the Wood itself, in the event of a sale of the Wood to a Public Authority not being effected. In reply to a similar question in the year 1887, it was stated that the Commissioners are not prepared to give the undertaking asked for in the last paragraph of the question.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that it is the intention to destroy that portion of Highgate Woods by building on it?
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: No, Sir; my hon. Friend must not understand anything of the kind.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN IRELAND.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the nature and substance of the Report furnished to the Local Government Board by their Inspector, Mr. Bourke, as the result of his recent inquiry at Borrisokane into the scheme formulated by the Guardians of that Union for the erection of labourers' cottages in their district; whether he is aware that the Guardians, acting on the representations presented to them and the Reports of their sanitary officers, sanctioned and approved of a scheme for the erection of 32 cottages within the Union; that this scheme met with practically no opposition from the owners on whose lands the cottages were proposed to be erected; and that, notwithstanding, Mr. Bourke rejected 21 out of the entire number, and if he will state on what grounds,; whether, out of the 14 cottages approved of in the Division of Cloughjordan, 13 were rejected; and if he is aware that in this division several labourers have recently been evicted from their previous holdings, and are now without house or home; and that, as stated by a Guardian (Mr. Delaney) at a meeting of the Board, when one poor man, who had been dispossessed and was at the time only in temporary shelter of a barn, complained to the Inspector, he was told it was good enough for him; and whether, having regard to the serious nature of this case, he will cause full inquiry to be made into all the circumstances?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is true, as stated, that out of 32 cottages included in the scheme 21 were rejected by the Inspector. Of these 21 cottages, 13 were rejected on the ground that the persons for whom they were intended at present inhabited houses capable of being repaired; three on the ground that the persons for whom they were intended inhabited houses not unfit for human habitation, and not condemned by the Medical Officer of Health; two on account of no
  1272
  water supply being near the sites; one because the farm on which it was proposed to erect is too small; one owing to the site being placed on the wrong person's farm, and one was withdrawn at the inquiry. To some of the sites there was considerable opposition, but in the majority of cases no opposition was raised in reference to the houses occupied by the 13 persons above-mentioned. Mr. Bourke, the Inspector, reports as follows:—
  "The houses in question are situated for the most part in the towns of Borrisokane and Cloughjordan, those in the latter town being substantial stone and mortar buildings two or three storey high with slated roofs. It is true that in nearly every case a certain amount of repairs would require to be done to them in order to make them comfortable dwellings; but as the Sanitary Authority have power to insist on the owners carrying out these repairs, if they wish to continue to let the houses, and have also power if they see fit to acquire these houses and improve them themselves, I do not feel justified in recommending that new cottages should be erected at the expense of the ratepayers, and buildings such as I have described allowed to become untenanted, as many of the houses in Cloughjordan at present are."
  As to the statement in paragraph 3 of the question, out of 14 cottages proposed for the Cloughjordan Division 10, and not 13, were rejected by the Inspector. The Clerk of Borrisokane Union states that three labourers were evicted in Cloughjordan Division; that for one of them a cottage is intended to be erected; that another of them was found by the Inspector dwelling in a house quite capable of being repaired, and the third was found in a habitation which is part of a substantial farm-house. Mr. Bourke, the Inspector, reports that he was not, nor is he aware of any labourers in the Cloughjordan Division being without house or home; and the Guardians of the Division assured him that there was ample accommodation in the town for all the labourers dwelling there, a statement which the Inspector's own observation corroborated. The Inspector states that he never told any man living in a barn that it was "good enough for him." If the Board of Guardians, who have the result of the inquiry and the Inspector's reasons for rejecting the cottages before them, are able to show that the Inspector was mistaken or misinformed in any particular instance they can, by applying to the Local Government Board, have the case re-considered.

  THE MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Merchant Shipping Bill proposes to consolidate the law relating to merchant shipping; whether he is aware that the Bill, and the Schedules as drafted, leaves three clauses of the principal Act of 1854 unrepealed, one also in the repeal Act of the same year, and several clauses in other and subsequent Acts; whether he will state to the House his reasons for this partial repeal; and whether he will accept Amendments to place the unrepealed enactments in the Schedule?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Merchant Shipping Bill, which has now been read a second time, purposes to consolidate the various Acts of Parliament relating to the Mercantile Marine, and repeals those Acts so far as they are re-enacted by the Bill. Any sections unrepealed have been allowed to remain in force on the ground that they do not relate to merchant shipping, and refer to other subjects not included in consolidation. The three sections of the Act of 1854 to which the hon. Member refers relate, so far as unrepealed, solely to fishing boats registered under an Act passed in 1868 for the purpose of carrying out a Convention with France; another section deals with pensions to past officers, which would be more properly dealt with by a Statute Law Revision Act; and the remaining sections alluded to deal with subjects other than merchant shipping.
  MR. HOWELL: Is it the fact that Section 16 of the Repeal Act is not incorporated in this Bill?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I should not like to answer that offhand; but the hon. Member may rest assured that the Joint Committee which has to deal with this question will see that this Bill consolidates everything that relates to merchant shipping.

  POOR LAW CONSOLIDATION.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the uncertainties of the law as regards the relief of the poor and the administration of the Poor Laws, he will introduce a Bill
  1274
  in the next Session of Parliament to consolidate the law, or, failing that, whether he will cause a Digest of the laws to be prepared, printed, and circulated to Members of this House?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will submit the suggestion to the Statute Law Committee, with a view to their seeing whether a consolidation of the Poor Laws can be prepared. But I must tell the hon. Member that the Acts and Orders are very voluminous.
  MR. HOWELL: Is there not a Digest of them at the Local Government Board Offices, and would not that suffice?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We have no Digest.

  MASHONALAND.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether communication between Cape Colony and Mashonaland is now closed by the Matabele route by Lo Bengula; whether there is any other safe route at present to Forts Victoria and Salisbury viâ Port Beira and the Beira Railway; and whether all postal communication to the British South Africa Company's territory goes by the Beira route, and to what extent that will expedite the transmission of letters to that country?
  MR. S. BUXTON: According to all our information, the various land routes into Mashonaland are open. The Beira route is quite safe; but the railway is not yet reported to be open, it being understood that Mr. Rhodes has started for Beira with the object of opening it. It is not believed that the Beira route is much used for postal purposes from the Cape, and, even when the railway is opened, its use would not expedite the transmission of letters.
  MR. WEBSTER: May I inquire whether the Government have received any further information from Sir Henry Loch with reference to Mashonaland?
  MR. S. BUXTON: Papers received up to a few days ago will, I hope, be distributed on Monday. We have nothing since.

  FUNDS FOR TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
  MR. BENSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the

  1275
  event of any failure on the part of County Councils to make use of their powers under "The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Act, 1890," for the furtherance of technical instruction, the Government will consider the question whether the whole fund dealt with by that Act should continue to be distributed among County Councils as at present, or whether some alteration of the law is not required; and whether, in considering this question, the Government will have regard to the fact that the assignment of this fund to Local Authorities was not proposed to Parliament as a measure of relief to local rates out of general taxation, but for the furtherance of a purpose of public utility for which Local Authorities would not otherwise have had funds available?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Under the Local Taxation Act, 1890, the County Councils and the Town Councils of county boroughs were empowered to apply the additional subventions received by them under that Act to purposes of technical and intermediate instruction; but no legal obligation was then imposed on the Councils so to apply these moneys. I am glad to say that a very large proportion of the Councils have complied with what may be fairly called the intention of Parliament in making these additional grants. I find that of 62 counties in England and Wales 54 applied the whole of the additional grant to technical and intermediate instruction, and in the remaining eight counties a portion of the grant was so applied. With regard to the 64 county boroughs, 50 have so applied the whole and 10 a part of the amount. In one no decision had been arrived at by the Town Council, and with respect to the remaining three it is stated that, although Returns have not been received, it is believed that the whole amount has been appropriated in this manner. A recent Return has been laid on the Table giving the details of the manner in which the Councils have devoted these funds for the purposes of science, art, technical, and manual instruction. I hope that it will not be necessary to propose any legislation in order to insure the application of these grants to technical education.
  MR. LODER: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House
  1276
  whether the London County Council have distributed a portion or the whole of the funds allotted to them for the purpose of technical education?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I believe that they have, but I should not like to say definitely without inquiring. I will tell the hon. Gentleman to-morrow.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many instances the instruction is of an absurdly elementary character, such as teaching the girls to grate nutmegs?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Local Government Board have no power to interfere with the County Council in such matters.

  POLICE INTERFERENCE WITH THE GALBALLY SHOPKEEPERS.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several shopkeepers of Galbally, County Limerick, have recently complained of the undue interference of Sergeant Kennedy with the conduct of their business on the grounds that he has often summoned farmers for having left their horses and carts outside the doors of shopkeepers whilst buying necessaries, one such summons having been dismissed on 12th April last, although the street has been often blocked by carts opposite the doors of his friends and relatives; is it in accordance with the Police Regulations to have any member of the Force serving in a district in which he has relatives; and will an investigation be ordered into the conduct of Sergeant Kennedy?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General reports that it is not true that the shopkeepers at the place referred to have recently complained of the action of Sergeant Kennedy for undue interference with the conduct of their business in the manner indicated. A summons at the suit of a constable was dismissed as stated on the 12th April last. The sergeant has no relations in the district in which he serves, and is reported by the Constabulary Authorities as a most efficient member of his rank. I understand that one person in the locality claims to be a connection of the sergeant, but the sergeant states his only acquaintance with this person was

  1277
  through the medium of the Petty-Sessions Court, where he had him fined on two occasions.
  MR. FINUCANE: I have personal knowledge of the facts, which are directly contrary to those supplied to the right hon. Gentleman. May I submit them to him?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any information I will cause further inquiry to be made.

  SESSIONAL PAPERS.
  MR. TOMLINSON: In the absence of the hon. Member for West Salford, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the inconvenience which arises from the absence of any general Index to the Sessional Papers of the House for the period 1880 to 1889, similar to that which was ordered to be printed on 16th March, 1880, for the period 1870 to 1879; whether he can make arrangements for the issue of such an Index at an early date; and when the annual Index to the Sessional Papers for 1892 is likely to be available?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I am informed that the compilation of the general Index to the Sessional Papers of the House for the period 1880 to 1889 can, practically, only be proceeded with when the House is not sitting; and, though great progress was made last year, I fear that the shortness of the Recess this year will retard the work, but I hope that it will be completed next year. A proof copy of the annual Index for 1892 has been in use in the Library since February last, and I hope that no unnecessary delay will occur before the final issue.

  DEFRAUDING CABMEN.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that one, Henry Harris, solicitor and a commissioner for affidavits, has been ordered within 14 days to pay three cab-drivers sums varying from 10s. to 21s. for fares, and that he has refused to comply with the order, so that none of these poor men have received either their money or the costs which they have necessarily incurred; whether he can assist these men; and whether he can
  1278
  provide some means of easy recovery of their fares for cabdrivers who have been defrauded more than once by the same individual?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With regard to the second and third paragraphs, I regret that in the existing state of the law I cannot assist the men, but I will take the earliest opportunity of endeavouring to amend the law. The Chief Magistrate reports to me that in the opinion of all the Metropolitan Magistrates the present state of the law ought to be remedied.

  DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON QUARRIES.
  MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the working of quarries has made its Report, or when it will do so?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Report has not yet been received; the inquiry is expected to be finished before the 1st of November.

  POSTAL CLERK CLAYDON.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a temporary clerk named Claydon was recently given a special increment of £60 per annum, bringing his salary up to £204; and, if so, what special circumstances justified this increment; and whether there are hundreds of appointed clerks, with many more years' service, receiving less salaries and performing far more responsible duties.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The servants of the late Submarine Telegraph Company, of whom Mr. Claydon was one, were promised appointments on the Post Office Establishment, and this promise it was not possible to redeem in Mr. Claydon's case on account of his inability to procure the medical certificate required by the Civil Service Commissioners. As some compensation for his disappointment, he has been given a fixed salary somewhat in advance of that received by his fellow-officers; but this salary, unlike theirs, will not progress by annual incre-

  1279
  ments, neither will he be entitled to pension on retirement.

  OPEN AIR MEETINGS AND STREET OBSTRUCTION.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Metropolitan Police have instructions to regard all public meetings held at street corners and attended by more than 10 persons as obstructive of traffic; if not, could he state what are the exceptions and who decides what meetings are to be exceptions, and what Act of Parliament, if any, authorises these instructions?
  MR. ASQUITH: No; the Metropolitan Police have no such instructions. No meeting is interfered with by the police unless it occasions serious obstruction to the traffic. Each meeting, therefore, is judged on its merits, and the question whether it occasions serious obstruction depends for an answer on a number of local circumstances, such as the area and position of the place where the meeting is held, the amount of traffic, and the like. I am not aware of any Act of Parliament that could authorise such instructions.
  MR. MACDONALD: Did not one of the Magistrates in a recent case hold that all street meetings were contrary to law if attended by more than 10 persons, whether obstructions were caused or not?
  MR. ASQUITH: In reference to that dictum, it would be presumptuous in me to criticise the Magistrate's exposition of the law. In my opinion, however, the police ought not to interfere unless the meeting creates a serious obstruction to traffic.

  H. M. S. "COLOSSUS."
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H. M. S. Colossus, whilst on her way home to pay off (after being on the Mediterranean Station for three years), owing to the loss of the Victoria has been ordered back, thus causing many of the crew to break their leave and otherwise misconduct themselves, five being sent to prison at Malta, three placed in cells, and others subjected to minor punishments; and whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of not keeping the men of this vessel so long sepa-
  1280
  rated from their relatives in a time of peace?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The Colossus was on her way home when, in consequence of the loss of the Victoria, it was necessary to detain her on the station for some time longer, in the interests of the Public Service. No Report has been received of such misconduct on the part of the crew as is suggested in the question. H. M. S. Anson was commissioned on the 12th instant, and will shortly relieve the Colossus.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Trafalgar, which was commissioned after the Colossus, was relieved before her?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I must ask for notice of that question.

  H. M. S. "CAMPERDOWN."
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can inform the House the cost of the damage sustained by the Camperdown arising out of the collision with the Victoria inclusive and exclusive of the cost of the crew; whether it is true that the "A" frame of the port propeller shafting is so damaged as to necessitate the return of the vessel to the United Kingdom for repairs, there being neither facilities or plant for doing the work at Malta; and whether the Admiralty in future will provide that vessels of this and all other classes shall always have on board spare shafting propellers and other spare gear which cannot be obtained in the event of accident abroad?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The actual cost is not yet known, but the estimate for repairing the damage to the Camperdown is £2,500. A slight defect, unconnected with the collision, has been discovered in the "A" frame which carries the port propeller shafting. This can be remedied without bringing the ship home. Spare gear, including spare propeller-blades, are carried by all Her Majesty's ships to the extent which experience has shown to be desirable. The Camperdown had spare shafting also.

  ST. KATHERINE'S HOSPITAL.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire, as a

  1281
  Charity Commissioner, whether any effort is being made to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report which Mr. Skirrow, years ago, presented to the Charity Commissioners concerning the manner in which the funds of St. Katherine's Hospital, in the Regent's Park, were being appropriated; whether the present master receives a stipend of £1,200 per year, and lives in the house assigned to him as an official residence, or lets it, as his predecessor did, for £700 per year, and adds that amount to his stipend; what are the duties of his office; whether the brethren who receive £300 and the sisters who receive £200 per annum now reside in the houses allotted to them or let the houses and receive the rents; how many boys and girls are being educated out of the funds of the hospital; how much of the endowment is expended upon education, and how much upon salaries, gifts, and expenses of management; and why the scheme for the reform of the hospital, which was prepared years ago by the Charity Commissioners and practically endorsed by the School Board for London, which inquired into the endowments of the hospital, has not been carried into effect?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): As it has more than once been stated, in reply to questions put by the hon. Member, the Commissioners have no power to deal by scheme with St. Katherine's Hospital, except upon a sufficient application. No such application has been made to them. The master receives the salary of £1,200 a year, including an allowance of £400 in respect of house rent. The house assigned as the master's residence was sold in the year 1888, and the proceeds added to the general endowment of the hospital. The Commissioners have no other information as to the duties of the office of master than that which is contained in the documents already before Parliament—namely, Mr. Skirrow's Report presented to the House of Lords in 1866, the Report of the Royal Commission presented to both Houses of Parliament in 1871, and the Rules by which the hospital is governed, which were laid on the Table of the House in 1889. The Commissioners have no information as to the residence of the
  1282
  brethren and sisters; nor are they aware how many boys and girls are now being educated out of the funds of the hospital. The expenditure of the endowment is apportioned as follows in the accounts for the year 1892:—Education, £561; salaries, £3,209; gifts, £190; expenses of management, £3,193. The Charity Commissioners have prepared no such scheme as is suggested by the question. The Charity Commissioners cannot deal with this Charity, except with the consent of the majority of the Governors. I regret that consent has not been given to deal with what seems to me to be a scandal.
  MR. CREMER: May I ask whether, in view of the extraordinary statements made by the hon. Gentleman concerning the waste and extravagance in this Charity, and in view of the fact that one of the Charity Commissioners, Mr. Skirrow, made a Report on the hospital some years ago, the Charity Commissioners will not deem it part of their duty to take immediately the necessary steps to reform the institution?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Whatever may be the views of the Charity Commissioners on the matter, they cannot deal with this Charity, because, according to the law, they have no authority to make schemes for Charities whose incomes exceed £50, except with the permission of the Governing Body of that Charity. The Commissioners have tried on several occasions to secure legislation altering this, but unfortunately they have failed.
  MR. BRUNNER: Will the hon. Gentleman invite the Governing Body of this Charity to make the application to which he refers?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: An invitation has, I believe, been made, but has not been accepted.
  MR. C. WILLIAMS: Is the master of the hospital a clergyman or a layman?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I cannot say, but will obtain the information if the hon. Gentleman desires it.

  THE SALE OF DISEASED MEAT IN LONDON.
  MR. F. FRYE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that two men, named John May and John Palmer, dealers in meat, are now

  1283
  awaiting their trial on a charge of having sold at their shops, situate at Charterhouse Street, Clerkenwell, diseased meat to retail butchers in London; and whether he has any reason to believe that diseased meat is being sold to an alarming extent, and that this traffic has been going on in this street for many years; whether he is aware that the matter has been under the consideration of the City Commissioners of Sewers and the Inspectors of Meat of the Central Meat Market who knew of these sales, but are powerless to interfere, Charterhouse Street being outside the jurisdiction of the City; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am inquiring into this matter. The question only appeared on the Paper for the first time this morning, and I have no information on the subject.

  HYDRAULIC CRANES FOR MAIL TRANSFERENCE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, although the Dublin Steam Packet Company offered some years ago to erect hydraulic cranes, and although the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company built special vans to enable the quick mechanical transference of the mails from the jetty to the steamer, the Government and the London and North Western Railway opposed this expediting arrangement, and refused to sanction its introduction; and whether this matter will be reconsidered?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The transfer of the mails to and from the steamers and the trains at Holyhead and Kingstown by machinery has been under consideration again and again for many years past; but the saving of time is extremely problematical, and, apart from the question of expense, there are practical difficulties, which the Department has never yet seen its way to overcome. Under the present plan of loading and unloading by means of porters, the mails, which are of very varying bulk and weight, are packed in the trains in such a way as to facilitate the sorting duties which have to be performed en route, and the subsequent disposal of bags for roadside stations. A transfer in crates would be less convenient in
  1284
  many respects, and not only would vans of a special construction be required, but also additional vans, which would increase the weight of the trains, and tend to hinder the observance of punctuality.

  IRISH POOR LAW DIETARY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take measures to have the dietary scale of Irish Poor Law Unions raided and put on the same basis as those of Great Britain; and whether he will also inquire into the general treatment of the inmates, particularly respecting those over 60 years of age, in Ireland, and have them treated on a similar system with that prevailing in England and Scotland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already told my hon. Friend that I hope to have an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Irish Local Government Board in a week or two, and I should not like to express any opinion till I have done so, nor can I grant the Return of which the hon. Member has given notice until I see how the land lies.
  MR. FIELD: I will not move for the Return till next Session.

  STAFF COLLEGE EXAMINATION PAPERS.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that doubts have arisen as to the meaning of the words "Geography of Europe south of the Danube and west of the Rhine," in A. O., 138, with regard to the next Staff College examination; and whether he will issue a more definite description of the area to be studied?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The words are undoubtedly rather vague, and the Director General of Military Education will issue a full description of the area in question.

  THE BECHUANALAND PROTECTORATE.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have agreed to give a grant of £20,000 per annum for 10 years (on conditions) towards the proposed railway extension in the Bechuanaland Pro-

  1285
  tectorate; and whether he is aware that the late Government refused to give any such grant without the previous consent of the House of Commons, as set out in telegram of 11th June, 1892, and in letter of 14th June, 1892?
  MR. S. BUXTON: As regards the first part of the question, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government have intimated their willingness, on certain conditions, to approve of the Bechuanaland Government subsidising the railway extension in question. The subsidy would, if granted, amount to £10,000 a year for 10 years on the completion to the satisfaction of the Bechuanaland Government of the railway to Gaberone's, with the addition of a similar amount for a similar period on the completion of the line to Palapye. The grant of the subsidy would not involve any additional charge to Imperial Funds, as the greater facility of transport would enable the Bechuanaland Government to effect savings equal to or exceeding the subsidy—apart from the increase of revenue that might be expected to result from the opening up of the country to settlers, and apart from the strategic and other advantages arising from railway connection between the Southern and Northern Protectorates. The possibility of the Bechuanaland Government entering into such an agreement, and its ability to fulfil it if made, must depend on the willingness of this House to continue the annual Bechuanaland Grant in Aid; and as to this Her Majesty's Government have not committed and cannot commit the House of Commons, which, of course, remains free to approve or refuse the Votes in Supply, as proposed by the Government. No agreement has yet been made between the Bechuanaland Government and the Railway Company; and it is understood that the latter is not yet in a position to commit itself to concluding the proposed Agreement, or to making the subsidised extension. In regard to the second part of the question, I have to observe that the attitude of the late Government appears to have been correct, and not to have differed in substance from that of the present Government.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: May I ask if it is the intention of the Government to obtain the assent of the House of
  1286
  Commons to the Agreement before it is finally signed?
  MR. S. BUXTON: No. This Agreement, if made, will be in the same position as other subsidies of a somewhat like nature. The House of Commons can, of course, refuse to pass it ultimately.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: My question was whether the Government intended to ask the assent of the House of Commons to the Agreement before it was signed, and not afterwards?
  MR. S. BUXTON: No.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: There is a sum in the Estimates of £100,000 for the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Last year £18,000 was returned out of a like grant; yet the same amount is asked for this year. Will it be in Order to discuss the question of this railroad on the Vote in Aid of the Bechuanaland Government?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Grant in Aid of the Bechuanaland Government affords an opportunity for raising any question of administration for which the Colonial Office is more or less responsible; and under these conditions, no doubt, a Debate might be raised. But there is no grant towards the railroad in the Votes for this year, nor is there likely to be for some years to come.
  MR. BARROW: What is the length of the line?
  MR. S. BUXTON: When completed it will be about 400 miles long.
  MR. PAUL: If a saving is not made, and there is a consequent deficit in the Revenues of Bechunaland, who will make that deficit good?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The proposition is that the Government of Bechuanaland will be able to produce savings which will not only meet the guarantee to be given, but will probably be in excess of it. But if there is a deficit it will have to come out of the Grant in Aid.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer put down the Bechuanaland Vote for discussion at a reasonable hour?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): They say that at night all cats are gray; and at this period of the Session all hours are reasonable.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a reasonable answer?
  [No reply was given.]

  NAVAL EXPENDITURE.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: In the absence of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the total sum, whether derived from a cash provision or otherwise, expended during the last financial year upon construction for the Royal Navy; and by what amount does such sum exceed or fall short of the sum to be expended during the current year?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The estimated expenditure from cash provision and otherwise upon new construction in 1893–4 (exclusive of contract ships building under the Naval Defence Act, the charge for which falls on the Consolidated Fund, and is spread equally over seven years) is £2,398,600. To this ought to be added the provision of £45,125 made under Vote 8 (see footnote, page 164 of the Estimates) for Transferable Gun-mountings and Auxiliary Machinery for the New Ships, making a total of £2,443,725, as compared with the actual expenditure of £2,268,000 in 1892–3, or an increased estimated expenditure in the current year of about £175,000. The difference between these figures and those given on September 1, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, is due to two causes—first, the inclusion in 1893–4 of £50,000, being savings from previous years; secondly, the substitution in the case of 1892–3 of the ascertained actual expenditure (per Expense Accounts) for the cash provision made in the Estimates.

  CHOLERA AND RUSSIAN IMMIGRANTS.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that 101 immigrants from cholera districts in Russia arrived in the Thames on 13th instant on the steamship Adler and 85 from Bremen; that the steamship Ellida with 26 from Libau also arrived in the Thames at the same time; whether he is aware that all these are Russian and Polish Jews, and most of them immigrants of the poorer class coming from cholera-stricken districts; whether the Government has given
  1288
  orders for the bedding and filthy rags coming with these immigrants to be disinfected or destroyed; and whether, while the danger of an outbreak of cholera exists, the Government will take such measures as will immediately prevent any further immigration of foreign paupers into this country?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understand that Russian immigrants have been arriving in the Thames from Bremen, Memel, and Libau, and that the Medical Officer of the Port of London prohibited the landing of 75 of the 85 immigrants from Bremen and of the 26 from Libau, pending their furnishing satisfactory evidence as to their addresses. If the bedding and clothing of the immigrants are in a filthy state they could not be delivered outside or landed, except on conditions as to disinfection or destruction. From the point of view of public health, the measures embodied in the Board's Regulations, which the Board believe are most efficiently carried out in the Port of London, appear to be sufficient. I may add that the Local Government Board understand that the German Authorities retain under medical observation for seven days all Russian Jews crossing the frontier; two more days' detention generally takes place at Berlin, during which time they are cleansed and their clothing disinfected; and, finally, before proceeding to German outports, they are again medically inspected.

  IRISH NATIONAL BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is there anything in the Rules regarding vested schools under the National Board in Ireland to prevent their being used as circulating libraries on Sundays?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that under the Rules referred to they could not permit the use of vested national schools as circulating libraries, as such libraries are not intended exclusively for the education of the children attending national schools—a requirement which is enjoined by the Rules.

  POOR LAW COMMISSION REPORT, 1834.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: In the absence of the hon. Member for North St. Pancras, I beg to ask the President

  1289
  of the Local Government Board whether he will have the Poor Law Commissioners' First Report of 1834 reprinted in a convenient form and circulated amongst Members of the House, and sold to the public at a cheap price, as such Report contains valuable information on important questions now very much discussed in the country?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Report referred to was reprinted and issued as a Parliamentary Paper in 1885, at the price of 2s. 5d.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I understand that it is out of print.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That is not asked in the question. I have reason to believe there are plenty of copies, but I will inquire.

  AUXILIARY LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what qualifications or services are necessary before an auxiliary letter carrier is raised to the position of a postman, entitled to pension and allowances; and whether some auxiliary letter carriers receive certain special allowances, while others do not; and, if so, what is the reason for such a difference?
  MR. A. MORLEY: All auxiliary postmen who conduct themselves well, and fulfil the conditions prescribed by the Civil Service Commissioners, are appointed established postmen as opportunity offers. In the few cases in which an auxiliary postman receives a special allowance, it is for some special duty which he performs in addition to his regular duty as auxiliary.

  DISCHARGES OF WORKMEN FROM DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that a discharge of workmen under the War Office at the Gun Wharf at Devonport is in contemplation; whether he is aware that a Trades Union among these workmen has been recently formed, and the workmen attribute the discharges alleged to be in contemplation to the establishment of the Union; and whether he will undertake that no man shall suffer or be discharged on the ground that he is a member of the Union?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The only discharges contemplated at Devonport are those of a few men who were taken on temporarily on account of extra work during the camping season. Workmen are entirely mistaken in supposing that they are in any way prejudiced by being members of Trade Unions; and they may rest assured that they will not suffer in any way on that account.

  THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make inquiries into the definite charges made by Mr. W. E. Jinks, in a letter which appeared in the Liverpool newspapers of 13th September, where he states that Mr. Wallace and Mr. Servel, servants of the Royal Niger Company, when the Natives under their charge laid down their arms, and wanted to be sent back to their homes because they had not sufficient food and water, the head man of the Natives and 17 others were killed and many wounded, and that Sir James Marshall, who is in the employ of the Company, has stated that he did not consider the men were in the wrong; that in a Memorial to Her Majesty's Representative at Lagos, signed by over 100 merchants and ministers of all denominations and 36 Native Chiefs, in which they direct attention to the case of the men who were recently disarmed, enclosed in a compound, and shot down at Lokoja, because they refused to continue a dangerous journey, in which they had already suffered the greatest privations; and if he has seen the Memorial?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): This is not a new case; a question respecting it was put and answered in the House on the 14th of December, 1888. It was inquired into, and the result went to show that if very severe measures had not been taken the Mission Station would have been destroyed.

  THE FEATHERSTONE RIOTS.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention

  1291
  has been directed to the verdict of the jury in the case of the inquest on the men killed at the riots at Featherstone, which took place on Thursday, 7th September; whether he is aware that the jury unanimously agreed that had the district not been deprived of police, who had been sent to Doncaster Races, there would have been no necessity for the presence of the military; whether he is aware that the jury, while Regretting that such extreme measures as firing on the crowd had been adopted by the authorities, refused to give a verdict in the case of James Gibbs as to whether it was justifiable homicide or not; and whether he will direct that a full inquiry shall be held as to the measures taken for the preservation of peace?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am aware that in the inquest to which my hon. Friend refers the jury expressed their opinion to the effect stated in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the question. In the inquest in the case of James Duggan, the other of the two men who were killed, the jury returned a verdict of justifiable homicide. I have called for the depositions taken at both inquests and a full Report of all the proceedings. Until I have had an opportunity of reading and carefully considering the evidence, and obtaining such further information as then appears to me to bear upon the question, I must defer answering my hon. Friend's concluding inquiry.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the inconvenience which is being caused to Members by not knowing which Amendment will come first on the Indian Budget, he will, to-morrow, fix a day for the Committee, so that the ballot for precedence of Amendments may take place on Monday?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: On Monday.
  SIR J. GORST: The right hon. Gentleman yesterday said the Debate on the Indian Budget would be taken on the same day as the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill. Would it not be more convenient to commence it on the day appointed for the Committee stage of that Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I shall have something to say about that presently.

  NEW ANTRIM CEMETERY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. J. K. Miller, of Muckamore, County Antrim, on calling at the office of the clerk of the Antrim Union, on the 26th June last, in order to purchase a grave in the New Antrim Cemetery for the interment of his child, found no one in attendance; and, on a second visit, and after waiting half-an-hour, was informed by a porter that the clerk of the Union, and also the master, had gone to Oldstone Fair, and that the time of their return was uncertain; and that Mr. Miller, as a last resource, applied to the caretaker at the cemetery, who at first refused to open the grave or receive payment except on an order from the clerk, but eventually yielded on the request of a medical man who happened to be present; whether he is also aware that the Guardians, whilst acknowledging receipt of the payment, refuse to give Mr. Miller the usual certificate of ownership of the grave, and call upon him to attend before them and explain why he said he would report their officials for neglect of duty; and what action the Local Government Board will take on Mr. Miller's complaints?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The occurrences referred to in the first paragraph took place on the 13th June, and the facts are generally as stated. The Rule requires that one day's notice should be given to the caretaker prior to an interment, except in certain cases, of which, however, the present was not one. It is a fact that the clerk to the Burial Board accepted payment of the fee through the caretaker, and sent Mr. Miller a receipt for the same, but it is not the fact, I am told, that the Board have called upon him to attend before them and explain his conduct. The Burial Board require him to make a formal application to them for a certificate of ownership, as that has been the procedure hitherto adopted. The Burial Board certified that the caretaker has no power to let graves, and that application should be made direct to them in such matters; but I think that, by friendly intercession on the part of the Local Government Board, and in view of

  1293
  all the circumstances, the Burial Board may be induced to waive the point in the present instance.

  CONNSWATER RIVER.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Connswater River at Belfast is in a condition dangerous to the public health, owing to pollution by sewage and discharges of fluid at high temperature from distilleries and ropeworks; and whether, as representations to the Local Bodies concerned have proved ineffectual, adequate measures will be taken to abate the nuisance?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph. The local Sanitary Authorities have agreed, however, to cleanse the river, and it is expected there will be no delay in proceeding with the work. The Local Government Board have also sanctioned a loan for the carrying out of an extensive scheme for intercepting the sewage matter at present flowing into the river.

  IRISH NATIONAL ASSISTANT TEACHERS.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in how many cases were temporary assistants paid salary under Regulation 170 (A) of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the month of vacation; and whether such payments were properly made, and in what districts did they occur?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Since the 1st January, 1892, the number of cases in which salary was paid to temporary assistants under the Rule referred to was 62. The payments were properly made, and were comprised in 26 districts, a list of which I will hand the hon. Member.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the auditor called attention to the fact that the payments were not properly made?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has not been called to that, but I will inquire.

  PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask whether the arrangement made with regard to moving the Adjourn-
  1294
  ment of the House after Government Business has been disposed of and before private Members' Bills come on is to be adhered to during the several stages of the Appropriation Bill?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have already stated that it will be adhered to during the present Sittings.

  THE IRISH MAGISTRACY.
  MR. SEXTON: I handed in a question on this subject last Monday, but it seems not to have got into the Paper. Can the Chief Secretary inform me of the total number of County and Borough Justices in Ireland, and how many of each class have been appointed since he came into Office?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The total number of Magistrates in counties and boroughs in Ireland appointed since the present Government came into Office is 410, of which number 332 are County Justices and 78 Borough Justices. I cannot say what the total number of Magistrates is, but the Parliamentary Return will show it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the Magistrates appointed were holders of licences?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe that some of the Borough Magistrates are, but I cannot say as to the counties. I may be able to answer as to that later.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it not the fact that, when Lord O'Hagan was Lord Chancellor, all holders of licences were bound to give up their licences on their appointment to the Magistracy?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That was before my time.

  THE OUTBREAK OF CHOLERA AT ASHBOURNE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information as to the extent and character of the outbreak of cholera at Ashbourne, and especially whether the Local Government Board have any knowledge of the general sanitary condition of the town and the very unsatisfactory condition of the water supply?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I despatched a Local Government Board Inspector to

  1295
  Ashbourne immediately on learning of this outbreak. He reports to me that this particular yard is of a very dirty and disreputable character. There are 39 residents in this one yard. There have been 15 attacks and nine deaths. In one house there were six cases and three deaths. When I tell the House the circumstances of the yard, I think they will not be surprised at the outbreak. There is a water-closet, used by tramps, paupers, and strangers, attached to a public-house. The soil pipe of this water-closet leaks into the soil within 2 ft. of the well. The well has now been pumped out and filled in with quicklime, and since those measures have been taken no fresh attack has, up to midday to-day, taken place. Dr. Low reports also that there is much enteric fever and diarrhœa in Ashbourne, and that it has a bad sanitary reputation. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that I mean to push this case to the extreme, with a view to seeing what the powers of the Local Government Board really are, if the Rural Sanitary Authorities decline, as I have no reason to suppose they will, to deal with the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: Bearing in mind the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday as to the insanitary condition of towns in Ireland, may I ask the Chief Secretary if he has reason to believe any Irish town is in as bad a state as Ashbourne?
  MR. J. MORLEYwas understood to say he hoped not, but he had no information on the matter.

  THE COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It may be convenient to the House that I should state that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire has convinced me that the Pistols Bill is controversial; consequently, the Bill will not be proceeded with. I must congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on having triumphantly vindicated the right of free pistol shooting at all ages. The Government have been more fortunate in their diagnosis of what is likely to prove controversial in the other Bills on the Paper, and that they have received the assent of the House is due to exertions on both sides. I wish to mention one matter which I think
  1296
  deserves the consideration of the House. When the Votes in Supply are finished there will, I hope, be a whole day available for the Report stage, and I may remind the House that on former occasions when we have desired to accelerate the close of the Session it has been the practice to discuss Votes, which could not be discussed at great length in Committee, on that stage, when a whole day is available. If we are fortunate enough to finish Supply on Saturday there will be the whole of Monday available for the Report stage. As to the Indian Budget, I do not wish at all to diminish the time available for its discussion, but rather to extend it, and it would be a great pity, if there were any time available after the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill on Tuesday, that it should not be given to the Indian Budget. The Bills on the Paper, with the exception of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, will, I hope, be disposed of by Saturday, and if Committee of Supply is concluded on that day the Report of the Votes can be considered on Monday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman relative to the Indian Budget, I think that probably the arrangement he suggests is a convenient one. If the discussion on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill were to last a considerable time, the Debate ought to be adjourned at a reasonably early hour and resumed on the following day. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that it would be possible to finish Supply i to-morrow; but as there are 50 Votes to be passed, some of which are likely to give rise to a good deal of discussion, I doubt whether the whole subject can be disposed of this week unless hon. Members are subjected to an undue strain. The Government, I feel sure, will admit that the Opposition have not unduly prolonged the discussion of the Estimates.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think that the necessities of the case would be met if the more important Votes were reported first on Monday. By that means opportunity will be given for discussing them sufficiently. I do not propose to set any limit to the hours during which the House will be asked to sit to-morrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten what passed on that day week when he

  1297
  said that he proposed to follow the example of the late Government respecting Saturday Sittings, and to close the Debate at 7 o'clock. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to that arrangement.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I intend to adhere to the example of the late Government, under whom at the end of a Session Sittings were prolonged to a much later hour than 7 o'clock.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would not prolong Saturday Sittings beyond 7 o'clock.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I did not make that arrangement with respect to all Saturday Sittings, but only with respect to last Saturday. As to-morrow will be the last Saturday devoted this year to the discussion, of Supply, it will, in my opinion, be wrong to limit that discussion.
  COLONEL NOLANreminded the House that on some occasions they had sat into Sunday. He remembered an hon. Member observing, with reference to one of those occasions, that many good things had been achieved on a Sunday, including the victory of Waterloo.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (SATURDAY).
  Resolved, That this House do meet To-morrow.—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

      CLASS III.
      1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £75,093, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Salaries, Allowances, Expenses, and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Divisional Commissioners, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he had to move a reduction of the Vote by £1,000 in order to call attention
      1298
      to the appointment of a certain Revising Barrister. He would have been glad if the circumstances had allowed him to pass over the matter in silence, but he could not do that. At the outset he wished to do the Chief Secretary the justice of stating that he was not personally responsible for the appointment, although it was his duty, as the Representative of the Irish Government, to answer for it in that House, and to defend the Vote. The appointment in question was that of Mr. Wylie, as one of the Assistant Revising Barristers for the City of Londonderry, and he thought that the circumstances under which it had been made would astonish the Committee. The original appointments for these posts of Revising Barristers were two in number, and one was held by a Nationalist, and the other by a gentleman who happened to be a Conservative. He was not raising this question on account of Mr. Wylie's politics—and he wished that to be clearly understood—but what had happened since the original appointments were made. The gentleman who happened to be a Conservative had been removed to another district, and in his place Mr. Wylie had been appointed. But Mr. Wylie's position in connection with the City of Londonderry was so peculiar that if there was one city or borough in Ireland to preside over the Revision Court of which he ought not to have been selected it was this particular city, and it was surprising that he himself had not seen the invidiousness which attached to him on account of his previous political history in Londonderry. He was not only a well-known professor of Nationalist politics and an extreme Gladstonian, but he had been a representative of the Party in two political contests in adjoining counties, having stood first for North Armagh, and later on, in 1886, for North Tyrone. Apart from that, he occupied a position of a confidential character in connection with the Nationalist Party in Londonderry itself; for he was informed, on moat reliable authority, that Mr. Wylie was standing junior counsel on that circuit to Mr. O'Doherty, the solicitor to the Nationalist Party, and a former Member of the House of Commons. Apart altogether from his having been an active politician—a fact which alone ought to have been sufficient to prevent the higher Judicial

      1299
      Authorities in Ireland from making him a Revising Barrister in the Province of Ulster—he had acted as counsel before the Court of Appeal on revision cases from the City of Londonderry Court, in which he had been instructed by Mr. O'Doherty. Without desiring in any way to impute unfairness to Mr. Wylie, he must say it was unfortunate that in the City of Londonderry, where Party feeling ran so high—for it was one of the places in the North of Ireland in which Parties were so evenly balanced that first one side and then the other secured the seat by only a small majority—a gentleman who was so closely identified with one Party should have been selected, and should have been willing, to revise the voters' lists. Again, he wished to say he was not objecting to Mr. Wylie's appointment because he was a Nationalist. The Government were quite entitled to appoint any barrister who was, in their opinion, qualified for the position, no. matter how pronounced his political opinions; but it was, he believed, absolutely without precedent in this country to appoint a gentleman as Revising Barrister in a locality in which he had been an active candidate for political life. He was aware that Mr. Wylie was selected for appointment as a Revising Barrister by a previous Government, but on that occasion he was sent to another part of the country where his political opinions were a matter of indifference. But it was totally different in Londonderry. If, in the opinion of those by whom the arrangements were made, it was thought necessary to remove the Conservative barrister originally appointed to another Court, surely they should have exercised a wiser discretion in choosing his successor, for there were many strong Nationalists who were, no doubt, equally qualified, and to whom the same objections would not apply. He was bound to say that he had rarely met, in the course of the whole history of Irish administration, with a more wanton and flagrant violation of the principles of fair play than this appointment was. The right hon. Gentleman could not for one moment expect, if the Irish Government persisted in retaining Mr. Wylie in that Court, that any confidence would be felt in the proceedings of the Court. On
      1300
      these grounds he moved the reduction of the Vote.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £74,093, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Macartney.)
      MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member declares this appointment to be one of the most wanton and flagrant cases of violation of the principles of fair play that he has ever come across in the whole history of Irish administration. He complains, in fact, that the proper authorities have sent to Derry as one of the Revising Barristers a gentleman of whom two things can be said—one true and the other untrue. The first allegation is that the appointment is most improper because Mr. Wylie was a candidate for the County of Armagh in 1885 and for North Tyrone in 1886. The hon. Member assumes that by reason of having been a candidate in a neighbouring constituency seven years ago Mr. Wylie is disqualified from being a Revising Barrister in Derry. Let us see to what that principle leads us. If a barrister had been a candidate in the County of Durham seven years ago, it would, according to the principle laid down by the hon. Member, be improper to now allow him to revise the lists in the City of Newcastle, in the adjoining county, and which is as hotly contested as the City of Derry. Let me carry it even further. Are the hon. Members for North Fermanagh and the City of Derry, who are both barristers, disqualified for being County Court Judges in an adjoining county because the County Court Judge is the superior revising authority in the district?
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it would, in his opinion, be unwise and improper to send them as Revising Barristers to adjoining counties. He was not referring to the County Court Judges.
      MR. J. MORLEY: But the County Court Judge is a Revising Barrister.
      MR. MACARTNEY: Certainly; but, then, he has the right to select his division, and I am certain that neither of my hon. and learned Friends would select one where Party conflict is great.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The impracticability of the hon. Member's principle is illustrated by the cases to which I have ventured to refer. If the principle which

      1301
      the hon. Gentleman has laid down, and which he has enforced with such strong language, were carried to its legitimate issue, no appointment of the kind I have suggested could ever be made, as he says a County Court Judge has functions as a Revising Barrister.
      MR. MACARTNEY: But he cannot become a candidate for Parliament.
      MR. J. MORLEY: No doubt, when he becomes a County Court Judge, he rightly ceases to have a right to sit in this House. The hon. Member based his case against Mr. Wylie on a second allegation—namely, that the appointment was an improper one because Mr. Wylie had been a standing junior counsel to Mr. O'Doherty, the chief Liberal agent in. Derry, and that he had been instructed by him in cases of appeal from Revision Court decisions. I have taken great pains to ascertain the facts in this matter, and I am informed that this allegation is not true. In only one case did Mr. Wylie act as counsel on an appeal, and this was as far back as 1889.
      MR. MACARTNEY: He appeared in two cases, which governed hundreds of other cases.
      MR. J. MORLEY: It does not matter much whether it is one or two cases. I adhere to my statement; but I will call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that all these cases that come up for decision on appeal after revision hearings are cases in which points of law only are determined. Is, it to be supposed that a barrister who has argued on a point of law before an Appeal Court is precluded for ever afterwards from sitting in the Revision Court from which the appeal emanated? The hon. Member, who really does not know his own ground, said that such an appointment was without precedent. I will give the hon. Member a precedent. A certain Mr. Bates, a strong Conservative, was year after year—and not merely once or twice—a counsel in appeal cases from Northern constituencies, including West Belfast and Derry itself, in 1889; yet in a very important and critical revision in a Northern constituency, before the General Election of 1892, Mr. Bates was appointed Revising Barrister.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: He was appointed to North Tyrone.
      MR. J. MORLEY: And, therefore, if what has been said as to Mr. Wylie were true—and that I do not admit—we have the strong precedent set by the late Government, and moreover we are not now anticipating—as the Conservative Government anticipated—that the lists about to be revised will govern a General Election.
      MR. MACARTNEY: Mr. Bates was never instructed by a solicitor to one of the parties in the district to which he was subsequently appointed.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I say that it is trifling with the time of the Committee and with common sense to argue that because a gentleman has been a candidate in a constituency and argued before an Appeal Court on points of law in 1889, this circumstance is to operate as a permanent disqualification for the performance of his official duties in the constituency in which the question he argued happens to have arisen. That is not all. I am told that the Warrant addressed to the Revising Barrister contains these words—
      "In future it must be understood that an Assistant Revising Barrister shall not accept fees to argue in a case reserved for the Court of Appeal by the Revising Barrister during the same Sessions in which he shall have acted as Revising Barrister."
      Surely if there is any sense in words, these give an indication that the Revising Barrister is at liberty in other periods to follow his profession. The hon. Member has not said a word against Mr. Wylie's qualifications as a Revising Barrister. He says, indeed, that he is a perfectly proper man to be appointed to such an office, but that he ought not to act in a Northern constituency because of his political partisanship. And that political partisanship consists in the fact that some years ago Mr. Wylie was a candidate for Parliamentary honours in two Northern constituencies. What an extraordinary view of the nature of political partisanship! The test is to be, then, a purely geographical one? A man who would be a violent partisan in a Northern constituency would, if sent out of Ulster, be entirely unprejudiced.
      MR. MACARTNEY: My argument was that it was quite impossible for the voters who came before the Court to have confidence in the decisions of one who to their knowledge has, in past

      1303
      years, advised the agent to the Deny Nationalists. I say it is impossible but that his Court will be open to suspicion; and I further submit, that if the authorities chose to remove the Conservative Revising Barrister, they should have substituted for him some other gentleman against whom no such suspicion could arise.
      MR. J. MORLEY: Has the hon. Member made out a case against the appointment of Mr. Wylie? I say that he has not. Now let me add a word or two as to the fairness or otherwise of the appointments of Revising Barristers for the City of Derry. The hon. Member's argument was that this constituency, being a disputed place where the Parties are tolerably equally divided, where any partiality in revision might have a fatal effect, the Authorities are bound to be especially careful that the Revision Court shall not wear a Party colour. How was the Court constituted for the City of Derry in the revision of 1892? As constituted now, the Court contains a Recorder who is a Conservative, and who may send Mr. Wylie where he cannot do any mischief. What did the late Government do in 1892? Did they give the Nationalists one Revising Barrister? Not one. The Revision Court constituted by the late Government in 1892 did not contain a single Liberal or Nationalist, either for the City of Derry or for the county.
      MR. DANE: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, from personal knowledge, that he is misinformed on that point.
      MR. J. MORLEY: At any rate, the Court for the City of Londonderry did not include a single Nationalist Revising Barrister. Then what becomes of the hon. Member's proposition that we have been guilty of a wanton and flagrant violation of the principle of fair play? It falls to the ground.
      MR. DANEsaid, he greatly regretted that the good sense of Mr. Wylie did not induce him to decline the proposal to transfer him from the County of Meath to the City of Londonderry. The objections to such a transfer were urgent, and had the Government acted in a spirit of fair play they would have sent him to some other region in which the appointment would not have been looked upon as a gross piece of partisanship.
      1304
      Of course, no one objected to the exercise and display by Mr. Wylie of his political opinions, and no one took exception to the fact of his holding office as a Revising Barrister, whatever his political opinions were. No person would more gladly testify than he himself to Mr. Wylie's legal abilities. But those were not the grounds on which the Unionists of Derry objected to this appointment. The real objection was due to special circumstances which connected him with the City of Londonderry, and under those circumstances the appointment was little short of a public scandal. Mr. Wylie was fully entitled to his own political opinions. No one disputed that. But what was his history? In 1881 he was appointed a Commissioner under the Irish Land Act, and he discharged the duties of that office for several years. The appointment, how-I ever, was only of a temporary character; and when the falling-off in the number of cases rendered his services no longer necessary, he resigned his post. Next, he became a Parliamentary candidate for the County of Armagh. No one objected to that. A year later, in 1886, he was sent to North Tyrone, and his action there threw a strong light upon his views of political rectitude. In North Tyrone he for a considerable time discharged his duties as a Sub-Land Commissioner, and had to fix judicial rents, and that probably was the reason why he was sent to contest that constituency. It was not known whether he came forward as a Nationalist or as a Gladstonian; he never stated what his political position was; he never addressed a single meeting from a single platform, and the only thing he did was to place himself in the hands of the Roman Catholic clergy, and, the day before the election, to issue a placard—"Vote for Wylie and Free Bogs." Bearing in mind that in that particular division the question of free bogs had long been an element of discussion, and that he had sat there as a Sub-Land Commissioner, surely it was very questionable taste not to address a public meeting, but to simply appeal to the self-interests of the electors, and to try and secure votes in his capacity as an ex-Sub-Commissioner by promising "free bogs." But that was not all. In addition to his exploits as a candidate for Parliamentary honours, and as a Sub-

      1305
      Land Commissioner, he was standing junior counsel on the circuit to Mr. O'Doherty, the solicitor for the Nationalists of Londonderry, and on two occasions he appeared, as he was perfectly entitled to do, in the Appeal Court on revision appeals, on instructions from Mr. O'Doherty, on behalf of the Londonderry Nationalists. And yet this was the gentleman the Government sent down to revise the lists of the City of Londonderry, where the conflict between political Parties was so keen and the balance of strength so even. On these grounds the Unionists certainly had strong cause for complaint. Why was Mr. Wylie, who was so closely connected with Derry, transferred from Meath, to which he was originally appointed? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the strongest possible complaints came from County Meath last year, and was not a strong feeling excited in that county when it was made known that Mr. Wylie had again been appointed to revise the lists this year? This was a serious matter. However invidious it might be for one barrister to refer to the conduct of another barrister, he felt he would have failed in his duty to the Loyalists of the North of Ireland if he had not stated his honest opinion on this matter. Knowing that his views were the views of every liberal-minded and honest man, he would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, whose genial kindness and impartiality he and his friends readily recognised, that it was not too late even now to make a proper appointment, and he would remind him that no injury would be done to Mr. Wylie by sending him to another division with which he had not the same political connection as he had with the City of Derry.
      MR. JACKSON: I confess I am a little surprised at the line taken by the Chief Secretary as to this question. If anyone had suggested to me that the right hon. Gentleman would have sanctioned a matter of this kind after it was brought before his notice, and after he had been made aware of the strong feeling that existed, I should certainly have declined to believe it. I would have said that the Chief Secretary would remedy it at once.
      MR. J. MORLEY: Although I am convinced the appointment is a proper
      1306
      one, I may just mention at this point that when the matter was brought to my notice there was no opportunity of making any change. If there is a strong feeling against the appointment, that would be an objection, but it was not brought under my notice.
      MR. JACKSON: The right hon. Gentleman confirms my opinion that the Chief Secretary would have interfered if the matter had been brought to his notice at an earlier date. The hon. Member who has brought the matter forward casts no reflection on the ability or fairness of Mr. Wylie, but he objects on the ground of Mr. Wylie's connection with local politics. The fact was clear that they had living in the district the solicitor who employed Mr. Wylie as counsel, and Mr. O'Doherty would go before Mr. Wylie as Revising Barrister, with whom he had long been associated. If a similar state of affairs had existed in this country there would have been a great outcry, and very properly so. I should have been glad if the Chief Secretary had treated the matter in a more sympathetic spirit, having regard to the strong feeling in the district. Even the right hon. Gentleman's defence seems to emphasise the complaint, because he practically admits that if the case had been brought to his notice sooner there would have been ground for relegating Mr. Wylie to another district. This discussion and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has created in my mind a very uneasy feeling. His reference to the action of the late Government with regard to similar appointments does not seem to me to be to the point. There is, I repeat, no reflection upon Mr. Wylie on account of his politics, because we know perfectly well that a man who has twice been a Parliamentary candidate must necessarily have been associated not only with men in the divisions he fought, but also with local politics. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not put forward the argument that because we appointed men of particular politics there was any intention that they should exercise an improper influence in the districts to which they were sent as Revising Barristers.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he also wished it to be clearly understood that the objection to Mr. Wylie was not because of his Nationalist

      1307
      politics. That that was so the right hon. Gentleman might judge for himself from the fact that, although of the five Revising Barristers whom he had appointed or the County of Tyrone four were Nationalists and only one a Unionist, they had never uttered a word of complaint. He happened to know all the gentlemen appointed. They were accomplished lawyers, and he was perfectly certain that they would do their duty apart from politics. Even in regard to Derry itself, they did not complain because two Nationalists had been appointed. He was exceedingly sorry Mr. Wylie's name had had to be referred to, especially as he numbered among his personal friends two brothers of that gentleman. But the facts were perfectly clear, and they could not be ignored. The precedent cited by the Chief Secretary was no precedent at all, because Mr. Bates was not, like Mr. Wylie, a strong political partisan, and had never been, and he believed had no intention of becoming, a political candidate. Apart from registering his vote, he doubted if Mr. Bales had anything to do with politics. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what would be said if it were claimed that the hon. Members for North Fermanagh or Derry City could not be appointed County Court Judges because they had been politicians and Members of that House. Well, his reply was that while he would be glad to see such an appointment conferred on them, the Government would do a very wrong thing to appoint them to a district for which they had sat in Parliament. A necessary qualification for a Revising Barrister, apart from legal competency, was that he should command the confidence of those who had business at his Court; and was it not of cardinal interest that the man appointed to revise the lists, especially in Derry, which was so fiercely fought, where the margin was so close, and where the strongest feelings were aroused, should be above suspicion? There was a precedent for the Chief Secretary acting even now. In 1892 the Revising Barrister appointed to North Tyrone was changed to the City of Derry at the last moment, and, if he remembered aright, after the proceedings of the Registration Court had actually commenced. Therefore it was not too late for the Chief Secretary to undo the wrong which had been done, even though the right hon.
      1308
      Gentleman might not look upon it as a wrong.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone to the Chief Secretary was that an eminent legal gentleman, against whose ability and judicial impartiality neither he nor any of his Unionist friends had ventured to utter a word, was to be subject to public disparagement, and to the insult of removal from the office to which he had been appointed.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It would not be an insult.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, that if after that Debate Mr. Wylie were removed, it would mean that the Chief Secretary had been intimidated into removing him, and the only theory would be that his judicial impartiality was not to be trusted. He should protest against any such gross public insult to Mr. Wylie, whom he did not know personally. The Unionist Party were growing exceedingly fastidious in regard to the matter. He would have thought that it was almost too delicate a, question for them to touch.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the gravamen of the case was that the Conservative barrister who was originally appointed had been removed at the last moment. Apparently, what was no insult to him was a deadly insult to Mr. Wylie.
      MR. SEXTONconfessed that he could not understand all this fuss about the matter. If a Tory had been selected as-Revising Barrister, no closeness of connection with the city would, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who brought this matter forward, have been inconsistent with his retention of the office. It was said that Mr. Wylie ought not to have been appointed, because seven years ago he was candidate, not for Derry, but for a neighbouring county. He (Mr. Sexton) thought the Unionist Party would not act in accordance with its own interests if it laid down the rule that all men who had been Parliamentary candidates should be debarred seven years afterwards from becoming Revising Barristers. Then it was contended that some years ago Mr. Wylie appeared as counsel in one appeal respecting the revision of the Electors' Lists of the City of Derry. This was a most audacious argument for the Unionist Party to use, in view of the fact that Mr. Bates had been employed from year to year as

      1309
      standing counsel in the revision business of the City of Derry. Mr. Bates was appointed by the Unionist Government as Revising Barrister for the City of Derry in 1892 before the General Election.
      MR. DANE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give the authority on which he makes that statement. It is without a particle of foundation.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the statement was perfectly true. The Law Reports had been consulted, and the name of Mr. Bates had been found in connection with Derry appeals. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) said that because Mr. Wylie might have before him solicitors who had employed him in his professional capacity he ought not to act as Revising Barrister. Was it contended that the Government, in appointing Revising Barristers, must take care not to appoint them to any Court in which solicitors who had instructed them professionally might appear? In the West Belfast revision of 1892—the revision on which the General Election depended—he and his friends found themselves confronted with four barristers, two of whom were engaged on the Northern Circuit, and, having local relations with Belfast, had, no doubt, been professionally engaged by some of the solicitors who appeared before them. For the whole revision of 1892, 32 Revising Barristers were appointed in Ireland, and of these only four were not Unionists. The four were sent to constituencies where the revision was of no account, because the majority was overwhelming, and, therefore, the peculiar skill of the Revising Barrister could not possibly be applied to any Party purpose. In the Northern constituencies of Ireland, at least six Tories of the North of Ireland acted as Revising Barristers. A scandalous attack had been made upon Mr. Wylie, and he trusted that the Chief Secretary would give no ear to the suggestion that that gentleman should be exposed to a public insult.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has been unlucky. I have no authentic information on the point, but I have some reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to exercise his patronage in such a way that no
      1310
      complaint should be made by any Party in this House. I am only sorry that in this case the immense trouble and annoyance which these questions of patronage necessarily involve should have brought' upon him a considerable amount of difficulty and perplexity. All the information I have with respect to this particular case I have derived from the speeches to which I have just listened; but I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider whether he ought not, even at the eleventh hour, to take the course suggested by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. W. Russell)? What is the objection to that course? The only objection yet stated is that Mr. Wylie, being a gentleman of ability and impartiality, could not be removed from Derry without conspicuous insult, and something amounting to a stain on his character. The right hon. Gentleman says that would be especially and necessarily the case after the Debate in this House. But surely the very course of this Debate proves conclusively that it carries with it no insult to Mr. Wylie. Every gentleman who has spoken against Mr. Wylie's appointment has shown that he is animated with no hostility to Mr. Wylie, but believes him to be gifted with the qualifications which would make him a most admirable Revising Barrister in any district in Ireland which did not have a special connection with the City of Derry. I confess that if it would be an insult to remove him the insult bears a meaning which it has never borne before. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down brought forward certain statements with regard to what passed in 1892 just before the General Election, and said the Party to which I belong acted in a most improper manner. He went so far as to say that of the very few Nationalists appointed as Revising Barristers not one was appointed in any doubtful constituency. I admit that there are doubts about the facts, and that no reference has been made to documents to verify the facts; but it has been suggested to me that Mr. dimming, who is a Nationalist, was Revising Barrister at Derry.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I may say it is not the case that all Revising Barristers for Derry were Unionists.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, if the case is as I have stated, down drops the

      1311
      whole fabric of allegation made by the ton. Gentleman.
      MR. SEXTON: Mr. Bates, who had been employed in revision business in Deny, revised Derry in 1892.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If my suggestion is correct, the late Government did appoint a Nationalist to carry out the work of revision in one of the most critical constituencies. The hon. Gentleman says Mr. Bates was occupied in appeal business before his appointment as Revising Barrister; but the hon. and learned Member for Fermanagh (Mr. Dane), who is engaged in work in that district, has alleged in the strongest manner that such is not the case.
      MR. SEXTON: I should like to hear what the hon. and learned Member does say.
      MR. DANE: I asked the hon. Gentleman what authority he had for his statement, because of my own knowledge I do not believe that Mr. Bates is anything of the kind.
      MR. SEXTON: My reply is that the Reports have been examined, and Mr. Bates's name is found in them.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought that my hon. Friend's statement was more positive; but, even as it stands at present, it appears to be of a more authentic character than the surmise which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) indulged in with regard to the Revising Barristers in Belfast, when he said he had no doubt it was their practice to take briefs from the solicitors who were engaged in election matters in that city.
      MR. SEXTON: I know that of these four barristers two were on the Northern Circuit, and I should be prepared to say that if they were offered briefs they would not refuse them.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the least doubt they would be prepared to take them if they were offered, but the point that requires further investigation is whether they were ever offered. The hon. Gentleman attached very great importance to the alleged misdemeanors of the Conservative Government just before the General Election of 1892, and said that what happened now was of very little importance, as no legislation was to take place during the course of the coming year. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having informed us what the intentions
      1312
      of his Government are on that point, but these things are not always determined by the Government. Accidents do occur, and unforeseen events transpire. However, the chief gravamen of the attack made upon Mr. Wylie is not that he has been retained in the Court of Appeal which deals with some of these election cases; the gravamen of the charge is that he has been an active politician in the neighbourhood of Derry all his life; that he has been connected for many years by close professional ties with the gentlemen who appear before him in election cases, and that he has been asked his opinion on the various points that have arisen in Derry in connection with election cases. That is of incomparably greater importance, if it were true, than the fact that he appeared on some question of law in Dublin. I would advise the Chief Secretary that he should even now make some alteration with reference to the gentleman who is appointed to deal with revision in Derry. This advice is based not upon any belief in the incompetence of this gentleman, still less on any belief in his unfairness, but on a principle the value of which everyone will recognise—namely, that the Revising Barrister should not only be fair, but that he should be known by those on whose cases he adjudicates to be fair—possibly an ideal which cannot always be obtained. I do not wish to infuse into this Debate the controversial element which the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) and gentlemen opposite have dragged into it. The hon. Member for Kerry said we desire to have a Tory barrister in Derry for the purpose of increasing the majority which now exists. That amiable suggestion has been backed up by the cheers of other Members. I am glad to think that my hon. Friend who started this Debate showed more judgment, better taste, and more fairness than the hon. Member for Kerry and those who cheered him. We do not bandy such charges across the floor of the House. We have never suggested that the result of appointing Mr. Wylie will be that any Unionist voter will be struck off the list who ought to remain on it. We do not suggest that, because, fortunately, we have not sunk to the controversial depths of the hon. Member for Kerry. What we do say is, that where the majority is so small that it rests in the power of the

      1313
      tribunal to decide whether the city should return a Unionist or a Nationalist it is most important to have a tribunal against which no charge can be made. The charge we make is not that there will be any unfairness, but simply that the connection of Mr. Wylie with the district in which his Court is situated, and his relations with one political Party, are such that those who have not the honour of his personal acquaintance, or a knowledge of his ability, which his friends in this House gladly recognise, may, perhaps, put a construction on Mr. Wylie's actions which may be not only injurious to that gentleman, but injurious to the cause of justice.
      MR. SEXTON: With reference to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that part of my case was broken to pieces by the fact that Mr. Cumming, a Nationalist, was appointed by the Tory Government to revise the lists in Derry, I am informed that the Tory Government, before leaving Office, appointed a Unionist to revise in Derry, and that Mr. Cumming was appointed by the Liberals after the Unionists had gone out of Office.
      MR. DIAMONDsaid, the practice that had always prevailed in Ireland was for the Government that was in power to appoint its own friends to do the work of revision. He believed it was only a pretence to say that the objections to Mr. Wylie's appointment were not based on political grounds, and he thought it came with a bad grace from gentlemen who had administered a Coercion Act in Ireland to speak about getting impartial men to carry out the law.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLinquired on what ground it was resolved at the last moment to remove Mr. Carew from his position as Revising Barrister, and also to move Mr. Wylie from Meath to Derry?
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) that there should be fair play all round, but he (Mr. Morton) could say, from recent knowledge, that the Roman Catholics at Londonderry had hardly ever been treated fairly or on an equality with the Protestant population either as regards registration or anything else.
      SIR J. GORSTsaid, it seemed to him that neither the Leader of the Opposition
      1314
      (Mr. A. J. Balfour) nor the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley), with the best intentions, had ever been able to appoint gentlemen as Revising Barristers in Ire-land who were not objected to by somebody or other. In England, where the impartiality of Revising Barristers he had never heard called in question, they were appointed by the Judges who happened to go to the Assize just before the revision took place. Would it not be possible to introduce into Ireland a similar system, and to place the appointments in the hands either of the Judges, or of somebody in Ireland whose impartiality would never be questioned?
      MR. J. MORLEY MR. J. MORLEY, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that if neither the Leader of the Opposition nor himself had given satisfaction in making these appointments he doubted whether the Irish Judges would be any more successful.
      SIR T. LEAsaid, that during the time of the revision there would be great lack of confidence in Derry in Mr. Wylie's impartiality. He held in his hand a list of the Revising Barristers appointed in the three touchy counties in Ulster—Fermanagh, Derry, and Tyrone—and it was a remarkable thing that out of 11 Revising Barristers appointed in the three counties where there were touchy Unionist seats only one was a Unionist.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      2. £732,249, to complete the sum for Constabulary, Ireland.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, this Vote would not require to be debated from the usual standpoint. Those Irish Members who on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were challenging the Votes had not been in collision with the Royal Irish Constabulary. They had not been arrested.
      COLONEL NOLAN: None of you live in the country.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that they had no complaints to make against individual members of that most excellent Force. But there were points to which he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary, with a view to having matters explained and cleared up, and not in any way in a bitter or controversial spirit. The first was as to the action of the Constabulary in the town of

      1315
      Cloughjordan, in County Tipperary. He had asked several questions earlier in the Session regarding some boycotting which he understood had gone on there, and the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Constabulary of the district denied all knowledge of such a thing. He (Mr. Russell) had produced a Memorial signed by a number of residents in the district giving the exact cases of boycotting, and the people who had suffered from it. He remembered that the Prime Minister took part in the Debate, and said it was a legitimate subject for inquiry. The Chief Secretary concurred, and there was reason to believe that he had made inquiry—that he had sent down a special officer for the purpose, whose Report, unless he was mistaken, rather told against the Constabulary view of the thing, and confirmed the view of the townspeople of Cloughjordan. He (Mr. Russell) would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give him some information on the matter, and could tell him that the boycotting had now altogether ceased. There was another question of importance on which he should like some information. He had received somewhere about 10 letters from different parts of County Tyrone, some outside his constituency and some within it, pointing out a rather singular thing which had taken place in regard to the movement of the police. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell him if there were any Rules regulating the distribution of the Force—any Rules decreeing that the Protestant Constabulary should be in one quarter and the Roman Catholic in another. He was informed that of late Protestant constables had been removed from places where there had never been anything else but Protestants, and where the vast majority of the inhabitants were Protestants, Roman Catholics being put in their places. Was there any rule to be observed in these matters, and how were they to account for the extraordinary movement which had been going on in Tyrone? A third point was as to the removal of Head Constable O'Halloran from County Clare. He had been informed by those who knew County Clare that a more efficient officer never performed duty in that county. He was a man who had been once removed from County Clare, but who had been sent
      1316
      back on account of the exigencies of the situation. First of all the County Inspector was removed, and then the Head Constable, who had an exceptionally good knowledge of the county. He did not dispute the right of the Government to remove officials of that kind, but he wanted to put this question pointedly to the Chief Secretary—Was the Head Constable removed by Sir Andrew Reid, the Chief Inspector of Police in Dublin, in the ordinary course, or was political pressure brought to bear upon the Irish Office in order to bring about the removal of those men? The fourth and last point he had to mention was one which would, perhaps, have more sympathy from the Chief Secretary than anything he had referred to. He wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the systematic neglect of the Sunday Closing Act by the Royal Irish Constabulary.
      COLONEL NOLANhere interjected a remark.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who interrupted him had commenced as a Sunday closer. He had supported the Irish Sunday Closing Act.
      COLONEL NOLAN: I have only voted three times on the question, twice for it and once against it.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was mistaken. He would be astonished to learn that on one occasion he had sat up all night to vote for the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. His point was that there was something like systematic neglect of the Sunday Closing Act in many districts by the Royal Irish Constabulary. This was a very serious matter. A great many people in Ireland felt the matter very keenly, and attached quite as much importance to it as Members attached to many political matters. It arose out of the bonâ fide traveller clause—or what the police and the Magistrates conceived to be the bonâ. fide traveller provision—of that Act. The general opinion in police circles was that if a man travelled three miles he was then entitled to have a drink as a bonâ fide traveller. ["Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members opposite concurred in that view. All he wished to tell them was that it was not the law which had been laid down by the highest Court. The law said in regard to the jaded traveller that after he had travelled three miles

      1317
      he should be in a position to obtain refreshment whether he was a bonâ fide traveller or not. This question had given a great deal of trouble in Wales, and the same idea was prevalent in the Principality as had got into the brains of a lot of muddle-headed Magistrates in Ireland. Take the village of Rathfarnham, three miles from the City of Dublin. The public-houses were closed there on Sunday. In the forenoon, when public-houses in Dublin were closed, the Dublin thirsty people went out to Rathfarnham and became bonâ fide travellers.
      An hon. MEMBER: Where should they go?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then they came back to Dublin in the afternoon, when the Dublin public-houses were open. [Laughter.] This was very amusing, no doubt. He was astonished to find a lot of Sunday closers amused by it. At the same time, it was a question which required the attention of the police, and the attention of the police could only be secured by representations from the authorities to the effect that a man was not a bonâ fide traveller who travelled for drink. The law was that a man might drink to enable himself to travel. The evil that was taking place at Rathfarnham was occurring all over Ireland, and the success of the Act was being seriously marred by it. He hoped the Chief Secretary would consider the subject worthy of his attention.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had had considerable experience of the Sunday Closing Act. He usually spent the whole of his time when the House was not sitting amongst his constituents. He was sometimes on the Bench, and he heard, of course, all the local gossip, and he was in a position to say that the Royal Irish Constabulary not only discharged their duty in regard to the Sunday Closing Act with efficiency, but might almost be said to make themselves a perfect nuisance in the matter. The district he lived in was very quiet. They were very well-behaved people there. The Royal Irish Constabulary in the district were very plentiful, and they had very little to do, and, as a consequence, they were always bothering the unfortunate publicans in every way. He found, as a Magistrate, that the charges brought against the publicans were rarely capable
      1318
      of proof. It was said, indeed, that in order to have something to do the Constabulary sometimes manufactured cases against the publicans. With regard to his own action, to which the hon. Member had alluded, he had had no experience of the matter when the Sunday Closing Bill was passed. On that Bill there were 43 Divisions, but, so far as he could remember, he had only voted three times on it—twice for the measure and once against it. His experience of the Act was that it created crime. People were constantly getting into trouble through it, and it created law where there would otherwise be no law. He was very much inclined to think that if the same Bill came before them again he should vote always against it; at any rate, if he voted both ways, it would be twice against it and once for it. If his constituents were to express a very strong opinion on the subject he should be inclined to vote always against the Bill.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I must say that it is a good many years since the Constabulary Votes have been discussed in such a genial spirit. I think that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken represents the view taken in Ireland of the Sunday Closing Act much more correctly than the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who talks of systematic neglect on the part of the Constabulary. This very morning I received two official Papers, in which it was stated that two constables or sergeants had made themselves unpopular by their activity in respect of this particular class of people So far from it being the fact, as alleged by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), that the Royal Irish Constabulary have been guilty of systematic neglect in regard to the operation of the Sunday Closing Act, they have displayed a vigilant attitude in this matter, and they will be encouraged to persist in that vigilant attitude. The hon. Member cannot expect me to go into the question of bonâ fide travellers, which is a very vexed question, both in England and Ireland. The hon. Member referred to the boycotting at Cloughjordan, in County Tipperary, and complained that the Local Police Authorities have denied the existence of the state of facts which he brought forward in this House. I, when I saw the Memorial which the hon. Member for

      1319
      South Tyrone received, at once directed an officer to proceed to Cloughjordan and report upon the state of facts in that locality. The point which has been made in this House is that the matter arose out of an eviction, and afterwards assumed a religious complexion. The Report of the police is that that is not so, but that it was much more a case of trade dispute and trade jealousy. Cloughjordan is rather a miserable place, with an excessive number of traders, and the intense competition amongst these traders fastened itself on a dispute about a farm, and gave rise to a good deal of disturbance and trouble. I am glad to say, however, that though there is still some feeling about the evicted farm, so far as active disturbance is concerned, it has certainly to a great extent subsided. The Report of the special officer, whom I sent to Cloughjordan, does not contradict in any way the Reports of the Local Police Authorities, but it brings new facts to light, which the Local Police Authorities had not already noticed. The hon. Member next asked me whether there is any rule regulating the removal of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary from a theological or ecclesiastical point of view, and he referred to what he described as a recent movement in Tyrone—namely, the substitution of Catholic sergeants for Protestant sergeants in places where Protestant sergeants had been stationed. All I can say is that whatever movements have taken place have been by direction of the Inspector General without any directions from me, or from any authority outside the Constabulary Force itself, and I have no doubt that the Inspector General is incapable of setting on foot the sinister movement which has been described by the hon. Member. There is no rule with respect to the distribution of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary on religious grounds. The hon. Member next questioned me with regard to the removal of County Inspector Fleming and Head Constable O'Halloran from County Clare, and he wished to know whether their removal was due to pressure brought to bear upon the Irish Office from political Parties. The change was not made in deference to any representation whatever from politicians. The hon. Member will easily understand that when we found
      1320
      the state of the County Clare not growing better, but growing worse, it was natural that it should be thought worth while to try whether a change of officers occupying important and responsible posts would not effect some good. County Inspector Fleming is a very efficient officer, but everbody will agree that the six months' police administration preceding this change was not so strikingly successful that it was not worth while trying a change in the personal elements of police administration at headquarters. Without throwing the slightest slur on either of the officers mentioned—who have been removed to posts quite as good as the old ones—I considered that the experiment was worth trying.
      SIR T. LEAsaid, he was very glad to hear that the movements of police officers in Ulster possessed no political significance. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had not expressed himself very clearly in regard to the administration of the Sunday Closing Act. They found that in most of the districts where the Sunday Closing Act existed the Act was well administered. The only difficulty was the question of the bonâ fide traveller, and a Select Committee had recommended as a means of removing that difficulty the raising of the limit from three miles to six miles. That change was embodied in the Bill which he and his friends were trying to pass through the House. He had next to advert to the action of the police in ordering the Derry publicans to take down the Union Jacks which they were flying in honour of the visit of the Marquess of Salisbury. The Chief Secretary had said, when the matter was first brought before the House, that the Head Constable had acted in an excess of zeal; but he thought that neither the law on the subject nor its administration was satisfactory. He found that the police in other parts of Ireland raised no difficulties about other flags than the Union Jack flying over public-houses. During the recent tour of the Lord Lieutenant the Member for the County of Sligo, who was a publican in Sligo, did his Excellency the honour to fly, not the Union Jack, but a flag with the words "God save Ireland" over his public-house. He did not object to the action of the hon. Member for Sligo; but he thought it was certainly a slur on our national

      1321
      honour that a Derry publican should be ordered to take down the Union Jack, while a Sligo publican was allowed without remonstrance to fly a flag bearing the words "God save Ireland." The law which prohibited the flying of political flags over public-houses was directed against the machinations of secret societies, and he did not in the least condemn it; but he thought it should be made clear that the police should not order the taking down of the Union Jack when it floated over any house. When the matter was last before the House the hon. Member for North Louth wanted to know whether one flag was not as good as another, and the Chief Secretary signified assent. Did the right hon. Gentleman really consider that the Union Jack was on the same level as any other flag? All patriotic men objected to such a statement, and it was objected to in particular in the North of Ireland, where a great jealousy of the status of the Union Jack existed.
      MR. SEXTON: I cannot wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who has very arduous and responsible duties to perform, should look very well pleased tonight. I confirm the testimony of the hon. Baronet opposite that, during the late Government and other Governments in my time, the Vote for the Irish Constabulary has been the occasion of one or two, even three, evenings of a contentious, violent, and animated Debate. But how wonderful is the change! I think it is one of the most remarkable and one of the most magical results of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this Vote is this evening even the occasion for such good-humoured, and what I may call comic, debate, because the Debate has certainly been one of the most humorous and farcical during the course of my period in the House. The hon. Baronet has nothing better to do than to press upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland the great Constitutional question of pulling down the Union Jack from some public-houses in Derry. He seemed to think that a slur had been cast on the national honour; but I think the national honour and the national flag will survive the slur. I fail to understand what he means when he says that he has discovered some sort of connection between
      1322
      the floating of flags over public-houses and the spread of secret societies. The hon. Member must think that Irishmen are very stupid; because, surely, if they were to set about establishing secret societies they would not commence by putting up flags over public-houses. Now, I wish to direct particular attention to one item in the Vote—the Appropriations in Aid. Although the amount for Appropriations in Aid has fallen off £10,000 since last year, still it remains at £46,000. It is gratifying, so far, that the right hon. Gentleman in one year should have been able to make such a reduction. But if I remember rightly, in the height of coercion, when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was in power, the charge for extra police never went beyond £60,000 a year; and though it has now fallen to £46,000, yet I say that is a very disappointing figure. There has been a substantial decrease of serious crime all over Ireland. Then there have been congratulatory Charges by all the Judges at the late Assizes in respect of all the counties except two or three—indeed, I think I might say in respect of all Ireland, because except in one district on the borders of Cork and Limerick there has been no serious crime; and, therefore, I am surprised that this charge has not undergone a greater diminution. £46,000 a year is too high a figure to be levied on a people perfectly orderly and peaceable for extra police in addition to the ordinary force. I think at present I can do no more than to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter, because I am sure he is as anxious as I am that the charge should be reduced as far as is compatible with efficient administration, and I will express the hope that we shall find the figure considerably reduced in the Estimate for next year which the right hon. Gentleman will have to draw up. I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition in his place, for I think he will probably agree with me that the cost of this Force might be greatly reduced if we were to revive Clause 13 of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, about which there was some conversation last night. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the fact of tenants being evicted, of the existence of vacant farms, and the fact that the evicted tenants frequently

      1323
      live in the neighbourhood of those vacant farms, is connected with the keeping of some of those extra police. Since the discussion that took place last evening I read a report of a meeting held in Cork, at which a resolution was passed strongly urging the Government to renew Clause 13. One gentleman at that meeting said he was aware from positive knowledge that Clause 13 of the Act would have been much more extensively utilised if the period allowed—six months—had been longer, and this gentleman admitted that in his own case he had actually entered into negotiations with his landlord, and the documents were drawn up; that owing to some informality in the forms they had to be prepared again; but before they were ready the period had expired. I have no doubt that other cases of that kind exist in Ireland, and I have no doubt there are a large number in which landlords and tenants would be willing to come to terms. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he should inquire from the heads of the Police Departments in Ireland whether, in their judgment, good order would not be further promoted by the revival of this clause, which, I think, would lead to a considerable number of negotiations being entered upon; and, in conclusion, I would express the hope that the Leader of the Opposition would make some such declaration as would lead the Chief Secretary for Ireland to introduce a Bill for the revival of this clause, and enable it to be proceeded with as a non-contentious measure.
      MR. BARTONthought that it should be borne in mind that the decrease in the cost of extra police was, in some degree, due to the fact that the political opponents of the present Government did not use their influence to have the administration of the law obstructed in Ireland. The late Government had to deal with the resolute, determined, and declared determination of their political opponents to render the task of governing Ireland not only difficult, but impossible. There were still more police in Ireland than there ought to be, and that was because there still remained that open sore of the evicted tenants which no one could deny was the direct consequence of the organised action of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in
      1324
      opposition to the late Government. The present Chief Secretary had no action of this kind to meet from his political opponents. He assured the Chief Secretary that, unlike the treatment given to the Leader of the Opposition, the political opponents of the Government, whether in Ulster or elsewhere in Ireland, would do nothing to make his task more difficult. But he rose more especially to suggest that there was some irregularity in the Police Returns of Outrages which required correction. He quite accepted the Chief Secretary's statement that he had made no alteration in the classification of offences, but undoubtedly there was a difference in the recent Returns presented at the Clonmel and Kilkenny Assizes. In one case the destruction of property, which the police believed was done by the owners for purposes of fraud, was not included in the list, while in the other case an offence of a similar character was included in the Return of Outrages. Undoubtedly there was a mistake there, and he was strongly of opinion that even when property was destroyed for fraudulent purposes it should still be returned as an outrage, as undoubtedly it was, and certainly it was as serious as when committed from' malicious motives. Again, he did not think that it should depend on the opinion formed by the police as to the motive of an outrage to have it included in the Return. A case occurred at the last Assizes in which the police did not return a particular outrage because they believed it was fraudulent and not malicious; but when the matter was investigated by the Grand Jury they came to the conclusion that it was malicious and not fraudulent, and they awarded compensation. The result was that the outrage never appeared on the Official Returns, for it was too late for the Return of that Assize, and it could not be included in the Return for the following Assize. He hope the Chief Secretary would give this matter his consideration.
      MR. DANEagreed that outrages, whether committed for fraudulent or malicious motives, should be included in the Police Returns. In relation to the question of hoisting flags over licensed houses, he suggested that the Chief Secretary should consult with the Inspector General of Constabulary with a

      1325
      view to framing a rule which would guide the police in their action. Of course, the old Statute prohibited the flags, under a penalty, but it could not, and should not, be the intention to discourage the use of the national flag. The law, such as it was, was not evenly and fairly administered. Last month, at Wexford, on the occasion of a Sunday Roman Catholic procession, a publican exhibited the Stars and Stripes, and was not ordered to remove it. Some rule was required which would be a guide to the police in the matter. He was sure that if the Chief Secretary and the Inspector General of Constabulary put their heads together they would be able to devise such a rule.
      MR. J. MORLEY: With regard to the exhibition of Party flags over public-houses, the police have their instructions laid down for them by law, which they are bound to follow, and I cannot entertain the idea of myself and the Inspector General putting our heads together to prepare rules by which the police may evade the law.
      MR. DANE: The right hon. Gentleman himself said that, so far as the exhibition of the Union Jack was concerned, he would be no party to allowing the police to interfere.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think I used language of that kind. With regard to the Union Jack, I think each individual case should be left to the discretion and tact of the police; but it is quite another matter to counsel them to break the law; and it certainly is not within the cognisance of my Office. With regard to the classification of outrages, the hon. Member for Armagh referred to a discrepancy in the practice which came out at Clonmel and Kilkenny Assizes. But it appeared afterwards that the action of the County Inspector in the Clonmel case was according to custom in classifying outrages for the purpose of presentation to Judges of Assize. I have said several times—and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has expressed the same view—that the principles upon which classification is carried out are not all that could be wished. But although I am not quite satisfied with the present system, there are great difficulties in the way of a change, the principal one being that the change might destroy the
      1326
      value of these statistics for the purposes of comparison in future years. If all parties can agree on a satisfactory plan I will not object, but then we would not have the power to institute those comparisons in which some of us revel or do not revel, as the case may be. My hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry has expressed his regret that there has not been a still further reduction in the figure respecting the contributions from localities for the Constabulary Force. Well, I fully share my hon. Friend's regret; but I think my hon. Friend will see that when the present Government came into Office and undertook the task of governing Ireland without exceptional laws, but governing Ireland solely by the existing law, it was their duty to be not less careful, but much more careful and vigilant in preventing and, if possible, in detecting crime. My hon. Friend will easily see that that was an indispensable element in our policy, and that accounts for the reduction in the extra police force not having been more rapid than it has. But, as the condition of things is not getting worse, but better, we shall be still more in earnest, and shall feel that we are walking on still surer ground in endeavouring to reduce the figure to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. My hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying that the greatest cause for the slow rate at which the extra police are being reduced was the question of the evicted tenants. That is the sore which every Government has to deal with, and we entirely agree that its existence is the greatest of the administrative difficulties that now confront the Irish Government, and will possibly confront them for some time to come. But as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not seen his way to communicate to us his final views of this difficult question I do not propose to add anything to what I have said.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not like this Vote, with which, in other days, I was extremely familiar, to pass without one word, at all events, of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I began the few remarks I made on the last Vote by saying he was unlucky. I have to begin my remarks now by saying that he has been extremely lucky; and if, as has been suggested, he has been given a very

      1327
      small amount of trouble over the Constabulary Vote, then he has enjoyed a fate which does not often come to us in this world. He has received a very rapid and good reward for his good works. I have nothing to urge against the general government of Ireland by the right hon. Gentleman. I gather, however, that subjects which occupied so much attention in former years still exist—that evictions take place; that resistance to evictions is not unknown; that public meetings have to be dispersed, and that a great many other things which occurred in the past still occur, and may still be made the texts of prolonged and envenomed criticism. I concur with the right hon. Gentleman that without legislation he is absolutely powerless to lay down any regulations which should modify the existing law with regard to the display of flags, and believe that the right hon. Gentleman and the police have at present no choice but to act in the matter as they have done. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Barton) has pointed out an obvious leak in the present method of collecting information for the list of offences placed before the Judges of Assize, and I think some plan might be adopted to stop that leakage. I was astonished to hear what the hon. and gallant Member for Galway said with regard to Sunday closing, because the evidence given before the Select Committee showed that every class in Ireland were in favour of that measure. I think the Chief Secretary has acted wisely in not hastily and rashly diminishing the number of police. The position of things has greatly improved. He has told us—and I am quite willing to accept that statement—that the reason why a certain class, obnoxious to the community in which they live, are permitted to carry out their industry in safety is that there is such a body of police, and there lives are so carefully watched that it would be a matter of considerable difficulty and danger to exercise upon them any of those lawless forms of revenge which have played such a prominent part in Irish history in the past. The moral that the hon. Member for North Kerry drew was that if the evicted tenants were removed agrarian crime would be diminished to such an extent that the extra police might be very much reduced, or wholly removed. I think
      1328
      there is great force in that observation; but I am afraid that so long as the relation of landlord and tenant exists there will be evictions, and so long as there are evictions there will be vacant farms, and the tenants who take them will not always be popular in the districts in which they live. Therefore, do not let us be so sanguine as to suppose that even if the evicted tenants are reinstated to-morrow the agrarian difficulty in Ireland will be settled. A very considerable step, however, would be taken to remove one of the gravest diseases from which Ireland suffers if the existing class of evicted tenants could in whole or in part be restored to their holdings. With that object in view a clause was inserted in the Land Act of 1891, under which it was possible for landlords and tenants to come to arrangements with regard to their holdings under favourable circumstances. The operation of that clause was limited to six months, and it has been alleged by the hon. Member for North Kerry that that period is too short. I have a very high opinion of the amount of delay which lawyers can introduce into transactions in which they are concerned; but I still think that if the evicted tenants had set themselves seriously to work as soon as the six months began there would have been no difficulty whatever in arrangements being come to over the whole of Ireland. The question now is, shall we or shall we not bring in a new Bill to renew for a limited period the same arrangements that were embodied in the clause of the Act of 1891? I certainly do not wish to speak in an unsympathetic or hostile manner of that proposal. I think it is quite possible that circumstances might arise under which that might be the best course to pursue. But when I am asked to give my opinion upon the subject, I must point out to the Committee that I am not a Member of the Government responsible for the Government legislation; it is only fair for the Government to tell me, first, what their scheme for dealing with the whole question is. I will be perfectly frank with the House, and will say what I think ought to be done. But to ask me, when I do not and cannot know the facts, to give blindfolded some estimate of the position is to ask me to do what no Leader of the Opposition has ever been asked to do before. We have had sug-

      1329
      gestions and hints that the Government have in contemplation a scheme for dealing with this difficulty. Far be it from me to pronounce upon that scheme before I see it; but to ask me to run a policy of my own parallel to that scheme is to ask me to take up a position which I might find embarrassing and which nobody else would find useful. I do not suppose the Government contemplate in the present Session telling us their views upon this important subject, and I do not press them to do so. But when they do tell us, I shall be very glad indeed to lay before the House or the Committee my view upon the question. In the meanwhile, I can only say that I think still, as I thought in 1891, that the clause we then introduced was fair to all parties, was liberal to all parties, could cause no complaint, and would not be even a just cause of objection to the British taxpayer, who is the principal and perhaps the only person whose interests could be in any way involved.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS IV.
      3. £539,969, to complete the sum for Public Education, Ireland.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that some time ago he put a question to the Chief Secretary in regard to the introduction into the National Education of Ireland of the revised edition of the Fifth Reading Book, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give some information, which, however, was not of a very extensive character. He supposed that that was not so much the right hon. Gentleman's own fault as the fault of the Commissioners of National Education, who, he had no doubt, were not too ready to illumine the dark corners in which they had produced this extraordinary book. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he had entirely defended the National Board, and entirely established the reputation and character of the book, by stating that the draft of it had been submitted to the mixed Committee of the Commissioners, which consisted of four Protestants and two Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman might have been literally correct in saying that the mixed Committee were
      1330
      unanimous in their approval of the revised publication. No doubt, the question of recommending the revised edition was carried unanimously; but it was entirely erroneous to say that the changes made in the revised edition met with the unanimous approval of all the Commissioners. As a matter of fact, he was aware that several most important changes were made against the strong protest of more than one of the Commissioners. But he desired to state that his objections to the changes which had been made were not at all based upon religious grounds. He objected to the book, not because he believed that the old book was a perfect book, or even reasonably good, but on the ground that it was not only no improvement on the old book, but exaggerated most of the defects which that Fifth Book contained, and it was the most recent example of the utter incapacity of the Commissioners to carry out their duties. He was quite aware that the Commissioners of Education did not lie upon a bed of roses; but he had no great respect for the methods that were adopted by them in country districts in Ireland. There were three classes into which the Commissioners could be divided: First, the pure officials of the Board; with them he always found it absolutely hopeless to do anything. Then there were the ex officies of the Board, who were in an equally hopeless condition; and then there was a body of gentlemen only one or two of whom he could say had any distinctive right to be on the Board, and the rest knew very little about education. This book had been trumpeted about as being a remarkable example of the capacity of the Commissioners of National Education. First, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could give him any further information as to who was the person who actually compiled this Reading Book, because the Committee of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke had nothing to do with the compilation of it; a revised draft was submitted to them, and they apparently pronounced a valuable judgment on the whole of it. He asked who was the gentleman who compiled it, because one of the papers connected with education in Ireland, The Education Gazette, a paper of rather a remarkable character, spoke of the one gentleman who

      1331
      compiled it, whilst one of the other papers spoke of a great number of persons; and he should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell him, if he could, who was the person, or who were the persons; how long they were engaged on this very important duty, and whether these people, when compiling the new Fifth Reading Book, had before them reading books for similar classes of children in England and Scotland? Now, the great complaint which had been urged by those who were interested in education against the old Fifth Beading Book was that it was not suitable for the children for whom it was intended; that most of the extracts in it were stilted; that they were beyond the comprehension of the children, or some of them; that they were not the best examples of English prose which could have been selected; and, besides that, many of the subjects which they dealt with were perfectly useless to the great majority of the children who were obliged to peruse them in school. This book was supposed to be an improvement on the old Fifth Reading Book; and, in the first place, he wanted to say a word or two upon its purely literary character. What was the index like? The old Fifth Reading Book had an index which was of some use; it was alphabetical, and, on turning to it, they could find the extracts they wanted to call attention to; and, in fact, it was a fairly good teacher. The new Fifth Reading Book had no index at all; it had simply a table of contents, which was of no assistance in finding any particular passage, and the only object that he could see for its introduction was to make it more difficult for teachers to find what they wanted. Then, what was the character of the passages omitted, and what were the new passages that were inserted? One of the new passages that had been inserted in place of those thrown out seemed to him to be an eloquent passage from a distinguished ecclesiastic; but the grammar seemed to be somewhat involved, and would require a good deal of explanation. It was an extract from a sermon of Cardinal Wiseman, and was t6 be found on page 275. He wished to go on to the question of the omissions. The first remarkable omission in the new book was the article on the British Constitution.
      MR. SEXTON: Hear, hear!
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he did not expect the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) would have much sympathy with it.
      MR. SEXTON: Not with such an article as that.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he had taken the trouble to read the three articles on the British Constitution in the Old Fifth Book? He (Mr. Macartney) had read them, and they seemed to him to be very simple, and not to contain any controversial matter whatever; and the only part in which they were not up to date was as to the right of Peers to vote by proxy. He should like to ask what were the passages containing any controversial matter which were in the slightest degree objectionable? He supposed the hon. Member for North Kerry was one of those people who would agree with The Education Gazette in Ireland, which spoke of this as "the dim memory of Archbishop Whately."
      MR. SEXTON: My view is that, in many respects, they were inaccurate, and in others quite out of date.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he did not see any special case in which they were out of date, except in regard to Peers voting by proxy. Archbishop Whately had always been the bête noir of a particular class of Commissioners on the National Board of Education; he was the one person connected with the national education of Ireland whose work and influence it had been the constant endeavour of one class of ecclesiastics in Ireland to undermine; and he had no doubt they were glad to take an early opportunity of getting rid of the most obnoxious article, to them, which appeared in the reading books of the Board of National Education. But supposing there were in these articles passages of a highly objectionable character that presented a wrong view of the British Constitution, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman why the National Board did not employ some competent person—his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Gibson Bowles) suggested the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Bryce)—to write an article to take its place? The Chancellor of the Duchy was a great authority on Constitutional Law, and he would

      1333
      probably be able to draw up for the National school system in Ireland a very admirable article on the British Constitution. But he must remind the right hon. Gentleman the answer he gave in regard to this particular article was not that there was anything objectionable in it, not that it was out of date, or that it conveyed a wrong impression of the British Constitution, but that it was considered too difficult for the readers. He (Mr. Macartney) happened to be connected with a good many schools, not in one county only, and he was bound to say he never heard a statement which from his experience appeared more absolutely devoid of any foundation, or more absurd than that they were outside the limit of the comprehension of those pupils of the class for whom they were intended. But what made it more extraordinary was that these pupils who were not supposed to be able to understand the articles on the British Constitution in the old Fifth Reading Book were supposed to be capable of understanding an article by the Right Rev. Monsignor Molloy upon "The Philosophy of the Candle." The Irish pupil who used that book, and who was supposed to be densely stupid that he could not understand Archbishop Whately's article on the Constitution, was supposed to be able to grasp that on "The Philosophy of the Candle." He would give one example. In the beginning of the article there was a head-note to explain to this child, who could not understand Archbishop Whately, what capillary attraction was. The writer said—
      "Capillary attraction is the name given to the property which lodes possess of rising their level in cubes."
      If the right hon. Gentleman could find a person in any of the classes, who used that Reading Book in the rural districts, who would read that through, and then tell him what capillary attraction was, and, at the same time, was incompetent to understand the article on the British Constitution, the right hon. Gentleman would have made out a considerable case for the new Reading Book. But, apart from that article on "The Philosophy of the Candle," there were two or three other articles on electric lighting by the same right rev. writer. He did not deny that Monsignor Molloy was
      1334
      well up in his subject; he was not at tacking the article on that ground; he attacked it because it was absurd to suppose that these children should understand elaborate articles upon electric lighting. He did not believe that, in the rural districts in Ireland, there was a single master in the first or second class—and certainly not in the third class—who would understand these articles on electric lighting.
      MR. KNOX: Trained masters?
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, trained masters; and perhaps he knew more of the schools and the masters than the hon. Member. And, besides, what good would it do the children in the rural districts of Ireland to cram their heads with learning about batteries and other things that they would not see and could not have before them for explanation? It was perfectly preposterous to suppose these children would have any idea of what electric lighting was. He was bound to say he thought the right hon. Gentleman, or rather the Commissioners, would have very great difficulty in supporting their contention that they had a right to exclude the article on the British Constitution because it was too difficult for the children, and, at the same time, include the very highly scientific articles on electric lighting, and the one on "The Philosophy of the Candle." That was the first of the omissions, and on that he would only say it took place coincident with the introduction of a Bill that was to do away with the British Constitution. He supposed the majority of the National Board of Education thought it was useless to instruct the children of Ireland as to the Constitution under which their forefathers had been brought up. He now took the second class of omissions—the articles on Political Economy by the same author, Archbishop Whately. He was willing to admit there were some themes of political economy on which there were some conflicting views, and that some of the articles in the old Fifth Book were too far advanced for the children for whom that reading book was intended. He was also perfectly ready to admit they contained matters of a highly controversial character; at all events, they contained propositions of political economy that

      1335
      were not recognised either by the Leaders of one political Party in Ireland, or by the heads of one particular Church; and, therefore, he did not object to their doing what they could to strike these articles out. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that not many years ago Archbishop Whately was regarded as a high authority at the University of Oxford; but what he objected to was that the whole of the articles should have been excluded. He could not conceive there would have been the slightest objection to the articles of Archbishop Whately explaining what money was, what exchanges were, what coinage was, and what values were. He did not believe they contained a single statement of a controversial character. If Archbishop Whately's name stank so horribly in the nostrils of so many of the Commissioners in Ireland, if they objected to his name remaining longer in the Fifth Reading Book, they ought to have considered the interest of Ireland, and have engaged some other person who would have replaced these most excellent articles with others of a similar character dealing with matters which he thought it highly important that children should be made acquainted with. The articles dealing with wages and rich and poor he had no doubt were highly objectionable to certain persons in Ireland; and, therefore, he quite admitted there might be some reason for excluding them. For instance, in the article on wages there was a passage that came directly in conflict with the political views of one large class. Archbishop Whately, had condemned in plain terms any industrious farmer being prevented from taking a farm from which another had been put out for mismanagement or non-payment of rent. He quite admitted that was not a passage which a large proportion of the political Leaders of a certain class in Ireland would like to see in one of the reading books in the National schools. There was another passage in which this writer said—
      "Every man has a right, no doubt, to demand whatever wages he thinks fit, and to refuse to work for less; but it is most unjust and oppressive that he should prevent others from working for whatever wages they choose to accept."
      And further on, in a chapter on letting and hiring, appeared this, which applied in a most objectionable manner to views prevalent in Ireland—
      1336
      "Every man ought to be at liberty to sell, let, or use in the manner he thinks best his house or land, or anything that is his property."
      He frankly admitted that throughout these articles on the higher themes of political economy there were matters that he and others might find unobjectionable, but which would meet with a certain amount of natural objection on the part of a great number of people in Ireland. He did not object to their being excluded; but he objected to the articles dealing with and explaining what money was, and what value was, being excluded; but still more he objected to the Commissioners not thinking it necessary to replace them by articles of a similar character by some other writer, as these were matters in which the children were certainly capable of being instructed, and which ought to form part of the curriculum of every National school. The right hon. Gentleman, in an answer given to him (Mr. Macartney), attacked the articles on political economy, because, amongst other things, they contained the following:—
      "The effect of fixing a judicial rent would be to leave the farm idle on the landlord's hands."
      He admitted the objection would have been a good one if Archbishop Whately ever wrote those words, or if they were to be found in any portion of these articles on political economy. So far as the old Fifth Reading Book was concerned, Archbishop Whately never wrote or said anything of the sort. What he wrote was quite different—namely—
      "If you were to make a law for lowering rents so that the landlord should not be allowed to receive more than so much an acre for it, the only effect of that would be that the landlord would no longer let his land to the farmer, but take it into his own hands, and employ a bailiff to look after it for him."
      ["Hear, hear!"] He supposed the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), who cheered that, would not deny that if that took place and a rent was thus fixed by law, that in nine cases out of ten, if the landlord thought he could make more out of it, he would naturally farm it himself, and that was all that Archbishop Whately said. That passage was written long before there was any idea of the land legislation that had taken place; but, at all events, there should not be imputed to him any doctrine of political economy that he himself did not hold, and

      1337
      for which no fragment of evidence could be found in his writings. There was one other point in connection with these omissions on which he wished to comment. There were originally in the old Fifth Book eight articles on Scripture history; but, for some reason he was not able to understand, only three had been retained, and five had been omitted. They seemed all very much on the same score, and of the same character—
      "The journeying of the Israelites; Settlement in the Holy Land; The Hebrew Commonwealth; Government by Judges; History of the Israelites from the Establishment of the Monarchy until the Revolt of the Ten Tribes; From the Revolt of the Ten Tribes until the Captivity; From the Restoration of the Jews until the Birth of Christ; and Jewish Festivals and Ordinances."
      The journeying of the Israelites and the settlement in the Holy Land appeared to the gentleman who compiled the book to be unobjectionable; but, for some reason or other, he had found the articles on
      "the Hebrew Commonwealth; Government by Judges; the History of the Israelites, from the Establishment of the Monarchy until the Revolt of the Ten Tribes; From the Revolt of the Ten Tribes until the Captivity; and From the Restoration of the Jews until the Birth of Christ,"
      had been excluded; and he should like to know if there was anything contentious in that from a religious point of view? He was trying to find out on what basis the new book was produced by the National Commissioners, and he would like to ask for what reason—whether it was to instruct the children in fishery or to improve their knowledge of English—long extracts from the Report of the Inspectors of the Irish Sea Fisheries had been included? They were very valuable Reports; but he did not think anyone would be prepared to contend that the Report of an Inspector of Fisheries, or, for that matter, of any other Inspector, was the sort of thing to choose as a high standard of English, yet these extracts were copied into the book—full of facts and the names of fish which the children in Ireland never heard of. What he objected to about the book also was that it did not justify the expense which had been incurred in producing it, and that every objection that could be urged against the old book could be urged with ten times greater force against the present reading book. He could only believe
      1338
      that the book was brought out for the express purpose of excluding the articles on the British Constitution, the articles on political economy, and getting rid of the name of Archbishop Whately altogether. There had been several articles by distinguished Prelates of the Catholic Church; he had not one word to say against the particular extracts from their writings, except that the extract from Cardinal Wiseman seemed to be involved, and not a good example of English grammar, and he expected that the articles on electric lighting and "Philosophy of the Candle" were beyond the class of children for whom the book was intended. The new book did not show any of that elasticity which ought to be a great feature of educational effort in Ireland. For instance, as to the lessons on electric lighting, his opinion was that it might be possible for these lessons to be of use in Dublin and Belfast; but it was perfectly absurd to think that such subjects were likely to be useful, or that the lessons were likely to be taken to heart in the rural districts of Ireland, and equally absurd was it to imagine that extracts from the Sea Fisheries Reports would convey to the children of those districts any information of a useful character. He would content himself with these general observations to show that there was no reason for the production of this new reading book. He did not think it was produced on legitimate grounds, and he thought the Chief Secretary would be disposed to admit that on many grounds it was objectionable.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understands the position of this question. He speaks of what he calls the objectionable features of the book, and deals with the alterations that have been made as objectionable. He asks me to explain the revision of the book. Well, Sir, I have only to remind him of what I said in answer to a question put to me some time ago. It is not the case that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have introduced alterations into the reading book mainly with the object of displacing from it the name of Archbishop Whately. I would remind the hon. Member that the book was revised and re-arranged by a Committee consisting

      1339
      of four Protestants and two Catholics—all Commissioners.
      MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he could not accept that statement, because he had the highest authority for saying that the book was compiled before it came before the Committee at all.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I can quote the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee, which are before me, in support of my statement. I do not want to detain hon. Members, and, referring to the Minutes, I find that considerable discussion and criticism took place on the subject, and that the Committee agreed to the revision without any dissentient. When I stated, in answer to the question put to me, that the Committee were unanimous about the revised book I was technically quite correct—I spoke in accordance with the information supplied to me; but I may say that Dr. Fitzgerald wrote to me to say that, though he did not divide the Committee, and, therefore, in that sense the decision was unanimous, at the same time, as I understood, Dr. Fitzgerald did not entirely approve of the book. Well, Sir, I think it is clear that the book was revised and re-arranged by this Committee of the Commissioners without any idea of disparaging Archbishop Whately, or of pooh-poohing the British Constitution.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Who were they?
      MR. J. MORLEY: They were Sir Patrick Keenan, Dr. Newell, Mr. Morell, Dr. Fitzgerald, and others—a Committee of four Protestants, and, as I have said, two Roman Catholics. It is absurd to say that these changes have been made to pacify the Roman Catholics.
      MR. MACARTNEY: I never said so.
      MR. J. MORLEY: What are the objections to the book? I am not particularly concerned to defend it. I am bound to say that of all the school reading books for children which I have ever seen everyone of them is absurdly overdone—that is to say, they assume a nicety of understanding in the words which we know young people do not possess. But the old book, I must say, seems to me to be undoubtedly less simple than the new one. The hon. Member speaks of the question of electric lighting. He says, I think, that few, either masters or children, in rural districts
      1340
      would understand this question. And so also with regard to the Sea Fisheries Report, and the extract from it given in the book. Well, Sir, for my part, I would far rather give a child some passages from Fishery Reports to read than the precious article on the British Constitution which appears in the book I hold in my hand. I will just read one or two passages from it, and I would ask the Committee to consider whether they are suitable to children in the rural districts of the West of Ireland. This is what is expected to be of use to those children—I quote from Part Second of the article on "The British Constitution," and the references to the proceedings of the House of Commons—
      "Every Member is now supplied with a printed copy of the Bill, which he can study at leisure, and the Bill is understood to have been 'read' when the vote for reading it has passed. It is not usual for those who may be opposed to any measure to vote against the First Heading…."
      The Report of a Fishery Committee should surely be of more interest than this. It would be more solid, at any rate. Then the passage goes on to say that the matter may be discussed on the Second Reading. It says—
      "Each clause of the Bill is discussed at the Second Reading and put to the vote separately."
      Then, again—
      " If any Member has reason to believe that the Business of the House is being improperly hurried on, or brought forward, when the majority of its opponents are absent, he has the privilege of moving an Adjournment; and when a Division has taken place on that question, if there is a majority against adjourning, he or any other Member may soon after move 'That the House do now adjourn,' for, though the same Motion cannot be made twice, it is decided that since the word 'now' denotes a different time, that this is not the same Motion as the other. By persevering in such Motions any one Member may stop the proceedings of the House; but, of course, no one would resort to this extreme step unless strongly impressed with the necessity for it."
      Does the hon. Member think that it is not better to introduce the Fisheries Report rather than such stuff as that? Why, Sir, any Report of the Fisheries Inspectors would be better. I do not regard this book as at all ideal, and I agree with what I understand to be the view of Dr. Fitzgerald, that it would be better, on the whole, if we had in Ireland the same system which prevailed in England, by which the Board does not itself provide

      1341
      books, but allow competition, subject to their control and judgment, in the provision of reading books. The argument of the Commissioners is not a bad one as far as it goes—that is, that they are better able to provide the books at a cheaper rate than would otherwise be the case; but my own opinion is in favour of competition as in England. The hon. Member took this opportunity to attack the Commissioners of Education. It appears he has a very poor opinion of that Body.
      MR. MACARTNEY: Hear, hear!
      MR. J. MORLEY: Well, Sir, all I can say is that there is probably no body of gentlemen connected with Ireland who have had so enormously difficult a task to perform as these gentlemen. There is no question so burning, so abounding at every stop with passionate controversy, as the education question, and they have done their work with an amount of success and absence of friction, on the whole, which reflects the greatest credit on their tact and prudence. I regret that the hon. Member has taken this opportunity of saying anything adverse to a Body which does such useful work. Well, Sir, I am not going into the question whether it would not be better if there were an index to the book, nor am I going to defend Cardinal Wiseman's grammar. I think that some of the elementary principles of political economy, such as a definition of money, might be very useful, but I think it is clear that the lessons on political economy introduced by Archbishop Whately in the book are not suited for children. No one has a greater respect than I have for the services of Archbishop Whately to logic and political economy, but I hold that he did not say the last word on either. If Archbishop Whately were alive now he would be the last man to say that he desired that no further light should be thrown on these subjects. Mr. Mellor, I do not think the hon. Member has made out a case—he certainly has not made a serious case—on this question, and I do not think it is necessary for me to say more in reply to his remarks.
      SIR T. LEAsaid, he wished to draw attention to to the question of the Marl-borough Street Training College, to which education in Ireland owed so much.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      SIR T. LEAsaid, that the Commissioners, in their Report, stated that from 1883 to 1892 no fewer than 12,089 Queen's scholars had undergone courses of training varying from three mouths to two years at this College. That represented a great deal of work, and he regretted to see that the Government pandered to other Training Colleges in Ireland, which received grants at the expense of this Undenominational Training College. Here was a comparative statement of the grants made 10 years ago and those made now. In 1883 the amount granted to Marlborough Street College was £7,833. This year it was £9,421. The grant to St. Patrick's College 10 years ago was £1,644, but was now £8,097; the grant to another College, which in 1883 was £1,520, was now £5,900; the grant to the College of the Church of Ireland, which in 1883 was £1,104, was now £4,653, and another Catholic Training College had been established which received a grant last year for the first time of £1,536. Thus they saw that by far the largest proportion of the increased grants went to the Denominational Training Colleges instead of to the Undenominational Training College in Marlborough Street. Was there any wonder that necessary repairs could not be effected at Marlborough Street, and that the sanitary arrangements there were not up to date? He believed that if ever the youth of the country was to be trained to respect other people's opinions it could only be done by a mixed system of education, such as was given in the Marlborough Street College. There was a tendency for the mixed schools in Ireland to decrease. In 1883 the percentage of schools where there was a mixed attendance of Catholics and Protestants was 52·8. It had then fallen to 52·4; in 1887 it was 49·4, and now it had fallen to the lowest figure—namely, 45'1. Therefore, they saw a regular attack going on not only on the Undenominational Training College in Marlborough Street, but on the mixed school system in Ireland. Only 2·8 of the children were compelled to go into the mixed schools, and the tendency of the prevailing state of things was to drive

      1343
      the farmer and the farm labourer from districts where the mixed schools at present existed. He knew of a case in which a Presbyterian farmer had sent his two children to a mixed school. They were the only Protestant children there, and the Roman Catholic minister wrote to the agent of the landlord asking that they should be taken away.
      An hon. MEMBER: Name!
      SIR T. LEAsaid, he had not got the name with him, but the case was well known at the time, and was an example of what was going on in the South and West of Ireland. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether there had been established of late any new system with regard to religious examinations in schools? He was informed by teachers that religions examinations were conducted during the time allotted to secular education by persons sent round by the Roman Catholic Bishops. In one case that he had been told of, time was not allowed for the Protestant children to leave the school. It was a sort of surprise visit on the part of the Inspector. Manifestly, this was against the intention of the Education Act. He trusted that this sort of thing was a very rare occurrence, and that if it were done it was done without the knowledge of the Department. With regard to the method of selecting gentlemen for the Board of Education, he thought it could be greatly improved. When there was a vacancy it would be well to leave the Board to suggest names for the Government to choose from. He wished to know whether the teachers were satisfied at the increase of salaries they had obtained through the scheme of last year, and he also wished to learn why nothing had been done by the Treasury to provide pensions for the orphans and widows of teachers? A scheme had been proposed, and it was evidently a workable one, or it would not have been proposed by the Irish Office. But year after year went by, and the Treasury did not make a single step towards the settling of the question. Was there any chance of its being settled? The last question he wished to ask was as to school banks. Those who admired thrift were glad that steps had been taken to encourage children to save their coppers. Circulars
      1344
      had been sent out by the Education Department to the schools suggesting the establishment of this system of school banks. They did not gather from the Report whether any replies had been received, or whether any schools had already started this system. Perhaps the Chief Secretary would tell the Committee how the matter stood.
      MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that, with regard to the subject of books, he agreed with the Chief Secretary, and only wished the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to carry his own idea a bit further. He (Mr. Arnold-Forster) could not quite take the view of the hon. Member for South Antrim, who desired that the old form of National Board readers should be re-introduced. He would go further, and say that what he thought the Department required was that there should be opportunity given to dispense altogether with National Board readers, not on account of their being National Board readers, but because it was impossible to get the best kind of educational book constructed on the system on which the National Board readers were constructed. He had a personal interest in the production of school books; but he did not think that that disqualified him from saying a word on the matter. It was a mistake to suppose that the reason why books other than those prescribed by the National Board were not used in Ireland was that there was any prejudice against them on the part of the National Board, or any unwillingness on the part of the managers of schools to use them. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had absolutely laughed out of court the first edition of the National Board's Fifth Reading Book. What made the National Board's books-a monopoly was the fact that they were practically subsidised. Apart altogether from the contents, they were produced in such an inferior style that no publisher in the United Kingdom would offer them as things to be bought on their merits. They were, however, supplied at cost price, with the result that a premium of something like 30 or 40 per cent. was given to them. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) was sincere, as he was sure he was, in believing that a larger range of books was needed to choose from, he

      1345
      must make up his mind that the only way of meeting the need was to withdraw the privilege which Irish schools now possessed, of receiving hooks at cost price, and to allow the matter to be settled by the competition of the market. At present nearly the whole of the Irish schools were absolutely shut out from any participation in the advantages which were felt in every school in England and Scotland from the efforts that were being made by publishers to produce good school books.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for South Londonderry (Sir T. Lea) was certainly a very diligent sentinel in the cause of compulsory education. The hon. Baronet had inquired as to the results so far obtained. As the Act only came into force on the 1st January next year, he thought the hon. Baronet might have waited till next Session before putting his question. So far as he (Mr. Sexton) had heard, satisfactory results could hardly be anticipated. He congratulated the hon. Member on his remarks respecting the constitution of the National Board of Education. That Board, such as it was, was the result of the combined wisdom of successive English Administrations in Ireland. It was comprised of 20 gentlemen, of whom 10 were Catholics and 10 Protestants, and when a vacancy occurred the Lord Lieutenant filled it up. It was strange that so devoted an adherent of the Imperial Government as the hon. Baronet should have failed to approve of the constitution of a Board which had been the outcome of the working of the present system of Government in Ireland. As to the suggestion that Members of Parliament brought their influence to bear upon the Government in reference to appointments to the Board, it was to be supposed that the Members of the hon. Baronet's Party had used their influence with the Government in the past on the subject, and it was no compliment to them if their efforts had produced so bad a result. He (Mr. Sexton) could only say that no pressure had ever been brought to bear on the Government on the subject by the Members of the Nationalist Party, and no advice had ever been asked by any Government from the Members of that Party. He himself was of opinion that it
      1346
      would be well if the Representatives of Ireland were consulted on a matter which, like this, concerned so nearly the welfare of the country. The hon. Baronet had made a charge with regard to examinations in Catholic schools. He said he had heard from someone or other whom he did not name that in some schools an official, who he thought was an Inspector, came into school during the hours of secular instruction, and examined, or attempted to examine, the children in religious matters.
      SIR T. LEAsaid, his statement was that he had been informed by the teachers that Inspectors had been going round within the last three or four years with the object of examining children in religious knowledge.
      MR. SEXTONsubmitted that a charge of that kind should not be made in such a form. Nobody was entitled to enter a school during the hours of secular instruction for the purpose of interfering with such instruction, and it was impossible that such a thing could happen, because there was hung up on the walls of the national schools a time table which separated the secular from the religious instruction. A teacher who allowed the time table to be violated would submit himself to immediate dismissal. As to the mixed schools, there was not the slightest doubt that they had been continually decreasing in numbers for a quarter of a century or more without a break. The decrease was not due to Catholic action only. The unbroken course of experience in Ireland was that as soon as the children of one faith who were in a minority in any school became sufficiently numerous to enable their parents to establish a denominational school they did so, the mixed school being adverse to the genius and sentiment of the people of Ireland, Catholic as well as Protestant. This process had gone on especially in the Province, and even in the county, which the hon. Baronet represented. He did not know whether the hon. Baronet had intended to make an attack on the system of the Training Colleges in Ireland. It ought to be borne in mind by English Members that the whole system of Training Colleges in England was denominational. The hon. Baronet seemed to think that Training Colleges were getting more than fair

      1347
      play, because, while the official Colleges got £10,000 a year, the other four Colleges divided £27,000 between them. Had the hon. Baronet observed, however, that the official Colleges had an attendance last year of 200 students, while the other Colleges had an attendance of nearly 500 students? When the hon. Baronet attacked the system of Training Colleges, he attacked the policy of his own Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Jackson) must be aware that the lack of trained teachers had been one of the main defects, if not the chief defect, of the primary system of education in Ireland. Of 11,000 teachers, only 4,000 were trained, and the inefficiency of the system, so far as it was inefficient, was mainly due to this fact. The former Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour), when he wrote the letter in 1890 in which he declared that the Denominational Colleges should be placed on a level of all-round equality of treatment with the other Colleges, took a step as apt and wise as any that had been taken on the subject of education in our time. Anyone who reflected on the subject would see that, where 11,000 teachers were engaged in a laborious occupation, the waste must be at least £600 a year, so that it was necessary not to contract the system of Training Colleges, but rather to expand it, and to be more liberal rather than less liberal with public money. There was one point on which all-round equality of treatment had not been secured. In a letter to which he had just referred, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said that one of the points of inequality was that the Marlborough Street College had been not only built, but furnished and equipped, at the expense of the State; and the right hon. Gentleman urged that a grant should be made for the Church of Ireland to cover not only the cost of the building, but the cost of the furniture as well. Marlborough Street College was not only built, but furnished and equipped at the expense of the State; but in the instructions given by the valuation department there was no instruction to take account of the furnishing or equipment of the Denominational College. He would commend that point to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, because he was sure no Member of the
      1348
      Unionist Party would take exception to the fulfilment of the promise given in 1890. He desired to say a word about books. He seldom had the pleasure of agreeing with the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster). Not only did he agree with him that evening, but he thought, from the hon. Member's position elsewhere, he was entitled to speak with authority on the question. He (Mr. Sexton) did not think he ever opened duller books than the class books of the National Board in Ireland, or books less suited to the peculiar genius of the people of Ireland. A good deal of time was occupied upon that question; but he thought they could very well spare the time occupied by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Macartney) in criticising Cardinal Wiseman's grammar, and suggesting that the Committee of the Board of Education—two Presbyterians, two Protestants, and two Roman Catholics—entered into a conspiracy to expunge the wisdom of Archbishop Whately from the new Fifth Reading Book. He thought they were well rewarded by the observations of the Chief Secretary. He put his finger on the truth of the matter when he said the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the class books lay in the fact that they were compiled by officials who had no literary taste, and possibly no great educational skill. In England the supply of class books was thrown open to public competition. He thoroughly agreed with the Chief Secretary that the way to remedy the matter was to bring this monopoly to an end. Although the National Board was independent of the Government, yet he would suggest to the Chief Secretary that he should avail himself of the custom which had prevailed, and communicate with the Board, expressing the view that educational interests only would be benefited if they substituted a public supply of books for the monopoly, and invited the Commissioners to consider the question of placing the system upon a parity with the excellent system which prevailed in England.
      MR. JACKSON: There are one or two questions I desire to refer to; but before I do so I should like to say I agree with the hon. Member for North Kerry that it would be a great advantage to the Board of Education in Ireland, if it were

      1349
      possible, to secure a larger supply of trained teachers. I am not sure that his figures are quite right. I think he took rather a sanguine view, unless I read his figures wrongly. He says that, whereas the Training Colleges turned out 100 teachers a year, they now turn out 400—
      MR. SEXTON: I said the official College turned out 100.
      MR. JACKSON: I notice, by the Report of the Commissioners of Education, that of 472 teachers appointed last year only 170 of them were trained.
      MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that a good many of those who are trained in the Colleges are already teachers who go up for a short course, and they would not be included among the new teachers.
      MR. JACKSON: Quite so; but the number bears out the proportion. There are 11,000 teachers, and about 4,000 are trained—that is, about one-third; and the number of 170 trained out of 470 is somewhat in the same proportion. There is no doubt it is a very considerable difficulty; and certainly I, for one, should be very sorry to see any other step taken that would tend in any degree to diminish the number of trained teachers available for appointments in the schools in Ireland. I want to ask the Chief Secretary two or three questions. One is a question which, although it may seem to some of minor importance, is one in which I take a special interest, and which I conscientiously believe to be of great importance to Ireland in its material prosperity. It is as to the question of dairy instruction. When I was in Ireland I had the opportunity of visiting a good many of the so-called creameries or butter factories that were being established in Ireland. I had also the opportunity of visiting the agricultural school and farm at Glasnevin, and I took some interest in what was being done in the Munster Dairy School at Youghal. Everyone who has watched the statistics, and has seen the enormous growth of the import of Danish butter into this country, and subsequently the business that is growing up in the importing of butter from New Zealand and Australia, and I believe also from Canada, must recognise that, at all events, there is an enormous demand which has to be supplied. Now, I
      1350
      believe that there is no country in the world, as far as I am able to judge, which by reason of its grass and the class of its stock is more capable of producing good butter than Ireland; and I think, if I may venture to say so, that it is little short of a disgrace to Ireland that the enormous business which is within their power to carry on successfully has been so long neglected—and neglected, I think, for very insufficient reasons. I was so much impressed by my visit to these creameries that I was really very keen to do everything I could in order to provide the necessary instruction and training to enable these people to compete with other countries. I came to this conclusion—that, both from the economic point of view and the question of improving the standard quality of the butter, these creameries and butter factories are extremely valuable. I am sorry the hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. H. Plunkett) is not here, because he has taken not only a great personal and intelligent interest in this question, but has backed it both by his brains and money. I see by the Report of the National Education Commissioners that the Government have authorised—and arrangements have been made for—the employment of, I presume, a competent instructor who shall go about the country, and shall endeavour by practical lessons to teach the people what it is that is required, and to enable them to improve the quality of their supply and the method of their manufacture; and I shall be glad if the Chief Secretary can give us a little information beyond that contained in the Report of the National Education Commissioners. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly how the matter stands—whether such an instructor has been appointed, what work he has done, and what view the Chief Secretary takes generally of the possibilities of the future of this great industry? Another question I wanted to ask was with reference to the Education Act that was passed last year. The remarks of the hon. Member for North Kerry rather emphasised what was in my mind, and I confess to a feeling of extreme regret on hearing him give utterance to the expression of his opinion that, as regards the Compulsory Clauses of the Education Act, he looks forward with no great

      1351
      hope to their having any satisfactory result. [Mr. SEXTON: As matters now stand.] I do not, of course, know what the matters are to which the hon. Member refers; but the question, in my opinion, is one of such consequence to the people of Ireland that I confess I am amazed at an hon. Member who takes so much interest in everything that relates to Ireland speaking in this strain. I do not know what the difficulties are; but I venture to say the question is one which ought to be entirely apart from both religion and Party politics. The question of the education of the children of Ireland is one which certainly ought to be removed from the sphere of either Party politics or religious differences. The Committee are aware that what are called the Compulsory Clauses—but what I call the powers which provide that School Attendance Committees shall be provided in Ireland—are intended to come into operation on the 1st January, 1894. I do not think anyone who knows anything of Ireland, who has travelled in Ireland, or who has watched the course of the Reports published by the National Education Commissioners, can have the smallest hesitation or doubt in his mind that there is a very large proportion of the population of children of school age who at present will not attend or give average attendance in schools in Ireland. I venture to say that the last Report of the National Commissioners of Education, which shows that the average attendance had fallen from the previous year, is one which gives reason to many people for great anxiety as regards the future of the education of the children of -Ireland. For the year 1891 there had been a slight increase in the number of Children who attended school, and a slight increase in the percentage of the average attendance. In the year 1892, not with standing that during that year additional facilities and inducements were provided not only to the teachers, but to the parents of the children in Ireland to send their children to school, we see that the average attendance has fallen off. It has not fallen off very much; but, still, I confess I had been sanguine enough to hope that the result of that Act and of what was done by the late Government in the cause of education in Ireland in providing the additional sums of money which enabled the schools practically to
      1352
      be made free would have resulted in a large increase in the average attendance. That has not been so, and I venture to say to the Committee that anybody who walks through the streets of Dublin or Cork, or any other large towns or cities in Ireland, and notices the very large number of children that are to be seen the whole day long, must feel that these children would be very much better if they were brought into attendance at school. I would say that if Clause 3 of the Education Act of 1891 is to come into operation on January 1, 1894, it is now time that the Chief Secretary was in a position to give information as to how that power is going to be exercised, and in what spirit it is going to be received by those who are responsible for education in Ireland. The School Attendance Committees will have to be appointed. If the Local Authority, to whom is entrusted the duty in the first instance, fails in its duty, provision is made that the Board of Education are to take the matter in hand. I confess I attach enormous importance to the question of extending education to all the children in Ireland. I am convinced that the average attendance can be, and ought to be, raised by at least 10 per cent., and anyone who places an obstacle in the way of that desirable result, I think, can hardly pose as a friend of Ireland in any respect. I hope, therefore, the Chief Secretary will be able to give the Committee some information as to what he has done and what he proposes to do, and, if he can, that he will give us any information as to his anticipation of the spirit in which this Act is intended to be worked, and in which it will be received by those who are responsible for education in Ireland. I have only one other question to ask, but it is of some importance, and I hope the Chief Secretary may be able to give us some information upon it. Last year a very important question was raised as to the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund in Ireland. At that time the Treasury thought it right to recommend and Parliament to adopt the suggestion that a considerable sum should be applied in aid of teachers' pensions. It was then expected there had been some mistake made which had resulted during the past years in placing the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund in a position of

      1353
      some difficulty, and giving cause for anxiety. The Treasury made a promise that they would consider the question, and I think the Government are under the same obligation to the House to give information on this subject as soon as they are in a position to make up their mind as to what the exact position of the fund is according to their re-examination and very careful consideration of the question. I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to give the Committee some information as regards the real position of the Fund, and whether the Government propose to take any steps in order to place the Fund upon a satisfactory basis? More than 12 months have elapsed since this question was first raised in the House, and I think it would be a satisfaction to the very large number of persons who are interested in this Fund, and satisfactory to Members of the Committee, who are also interested in the financial position of the Fund, if the Chief Secretary is able to give us any additional information.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Jackson) had raised two of the questions that he had intended to ask some information about. He had intended to ask for information as to the formation of the School Attendance Committees, and also concerning the Teachers' Pension Fund. Both of these questions having been dealt with, it was not necessary to refer to them at any length. He was not now going to discuss the principle of Denominational Training Colleges. He did not believe in the wisdom of doing that. He and his friends fought that battle at the proper time, and they were badly beaten. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for North Kerry coalesced, and he (Mr. Russell) and his friends were utterly routed and defeated; and he was not going back to fight that question of principle. But they had a right to ask what the victory had cost? Denominational Training Colleges had been opened, handsomely endowed by the State, and he should like the Chief Secretary to tell them what denominationalism was costing the country. There was another matter referred to by the hon. Member for North Kerry. That hon. Member had made another claim to-night, which, however, he was bound to say he made
      1354
      at the time this question was before the House on the previous occasion, and that was as to furnishing the College. All he had got to say was that they need not make two bites at a cherry, and there was no use in their building a College, unless they were going to furnish it. So far as he was concerned, he had to say that the principle having been conceded, and the hon. Member for North Kerry having won all along the line, they ought not to stick at furnishing. But he did want to know—and he thought the country ought to know—what this step in denominationalism had actually cost in hard cash? He thought it would have run up to £80,000, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them some information on the point. The Denominational Colleges had been so well done for that he wanted the Chief Secretary to do a little for a College for which, after all, the National Board of Education was responsible. He meant the College attached to the National Board itself in Marlborough Street. They had built these Colleges for the denominationalists, and in what kind of a condition was the Undenominational College in Marlborough Street? He lately walked through that College, spending a couple of hours in it, and all he could say was that it was not creditable to the National Board of Education, and not creditable to the Government which allowed it. The Government had done a great deal for the denominationalists, and they ought to give some little attention to the oldest College, and the one which had done most for training teachers for the national system. The sanitary condition of the College was dangerous to health.
      MR. SEXTON: Then what are the Board of Works doing to let it go like that?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What they were always doing. In the presence of one of the Commissioners, the smoke test was applied to the drains, and it proved to demonstration that the place was in such an insanitary condition as to be dangerous to life and health. Yet here, in Talbot Street, were 100 young women brought up from the country parts of Ireland to breathe this atmosphere. Whilst they were endowing and building Denominational Colleges at a cost of £80,000, their own College was

      1355
      not in a fit state for human beings to live in. That was an abominable state of affairs, and one which ought to be rectified. The building was very unsuitable for its purpose. What was called the Ladies' College was an old house in Talbot Street, and what was called the Men's College was a still older house in North Great George Street. What was the arrangement? This was a mixed College, attended by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists. He was happy to say the denominationalists had not been able to break it up entirely. [Mr. SEXTON: We do not want to.] In the house where the men lived there would be a room where probably 20 young men slept. At very slight cost cubicles might be put up, and the bed space fairly enlarged. The beds would then be separated, and there would be some kind of privacy for those inhabiting the place. There was now nothing of the kind—the place was in an insanitary condition. The Commissioners did nothing for it, and did not seem to care whether the College was broken up or not. He knew that, so far as Training Colleges were concerned, it must come to denominationalism in the end; but so long as the College was maintained and the Commissioners were responsible for it they should keep it in a sanitary state. He hoped the Chief Secretary would see that attention was paid to this matter. He would like to know whether the Commissioners were in communication with the Local Authorities in the various towns with a view to the formation of the School Attendance Committees under the Compulsory Education Act, which would come into operation at the beginning of next year. They had not heard anything about the Christian Brothers. That was the first time the Irish Education Vote had been allowed to pass without some reference to the Christian Brothers.
      MR. SEXTON: I referred to them. I think I indicated plainly enough the probable result on compulsion of excluding them from the benefits of these grants.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he took in the remarks of the hon. Member for Kerry completely; but he was not quite sure that all the Committee understood
      1356
      them as fully as he did. [Laughter.] That was not a reflection on the Committee. It could not be expected that other Members would understand everything about the affairs of Ireland as well as the Irish Members did. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary how the question of the Christian Brothers stood? Had any advances been made to the Christian Brothers by the Board of Education since the Debate on the subject at the commencement of the Session, or did the Government intend to make any proposal? The matter was serious so far as compulsion was concerned, and he desired a rational settlement of the question. With regard to the question of appointing Commissioners, he thought the hon. Member for North Kerry was too severe on his hon. Friend the Member for South Derry. It was quite possible that the system of appointing members of the National Board of Education might have been very good in the past, and yet be capable of improvement. He thought the system of appointing members of the Board might be improved, at any rate, so far as the Episcopalians in the North of Ireland were concerned, for their representatives were all Dublin men. Therefore they did not get in those gentlemen, however able and impartial they might be, a reflection of the opinions of the Episcopalians of Ulster on these questions. As to the mixed schools, the percentage of those schools in Ulster was 60 per cent. The hon. Member for North Kerry had stated that the unmixed schools had increased five-fold within the last 30 years. One reason of the retrogression towards unmixed schools—for he considered it a retrograde movement—was that at the time of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church a large number of Church schools, which were naturally denominational, passed under the Board. But the real reason why the unmixed schools had increased so greatly in recent years was because the Board of Education had been prevailed upon by Episcopalian and Roman Catholic clerics to make grants to schools with the minimum attendance of 15, although those schools could not possibly give the same education that the larger schools gave. He thought that, on the whole, the Board had done their work—and it had been difficult work—fairly well. He did not desire to impede

      1357
      the Commissioners. He simply wanted information.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The discussion has ranged over a very wide space, and I do not propose to follow it in detail. The hon. Member for South Tyrone made a remark of a rather disparaging character on the deliberations of the Committee. It was a very significant remark in view of larger issues. He said that not a half-a-dozen Members of the Committee understood this question.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What I said was that in a mere matter of local concern like education, Members of the Committee could not be expected to know as much as the Irish Members.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member for South Tyrone now refers to the question of education as a local concern. If there is one subject that goes deeper down into the roots of Irish national life it is the question of education; and the hon. Member, who is a strenuous Unionist, says that this Committee is not competent to deal with the question, or to give the necessary attention to the matter. Of course, we knew that all the time; but it is rather interesting to have a strong Unionist like the hon. Member admit it. I will endeavour first to answer the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the Office of Chief Secretary with regard to the question of dairy instruction. An experienced Dairy Instructor is now employed. He began his work in April, and from that time has engaged in the inspection and organisation of creameries and dairy classes, and in giving practical instructions in all the arts connected with the manufacture of butter. Thirty-five creameries have been visited in different parts of Ireland, and a course of lectures has been delivered on butter and cheese-making, as well as on other branches of the industry. The Instructor works under the guidance of Mr. Caroll, the head of the Glasnevin School, and everything is being done in the manner the right hon. Gentleman himself would desire. The right hon. Gentleman raised a more important question when he asked what has been done in the matter of compulsory education. The Commissioners, in compliance with the Act of 1892, have communicated with the clerks of 118 Municipal towns and townships, asking
      1358
      what steps are being taken to comply with the Act. The great experiment of compulsory education is also to be tried in Ireland, and it was well to know how it was going to be received. The Corporate Bodies were a little tardy in making reply. To most of the bodies the Commissioners had to send two reminders, and even now 17 out of 118 have maintained a rather awkward silence, including Waterford, Kilkenny, Drogheda, Ballinasloe, and other places Of the 101 who have replied, 81 might be regarded as prepared to comply with the requirements of the Act. I do not say that that is perfectly satisfactory, but it is hopeful in such a novel experiment. In 12 cases the authorities declare hostility to the Act because of the non-participation of the Christian Brothers' Schools in the pecuniary advantages of the Act. The Committee, however, are aware that incase the Local Authority declines to exercise the powers conferred by the Act, the Commissioners exercise that power themselves. There is, however, one hitch likely to occur in the matter of the Attendance Committees. Some very important Prelates of the Catholic Church have decided against the nomination of priests, even though they are managers of schools, as members of Attendance Committees. They probably object to the spiritual influence of the clergy being exercised in antagonism to parents and heads of families in the matter of compulsory attendance of children at school. That, of course, is a matter for them to decide. I desire to answer fully the right hon. Gentleman's question on this important matter, and to point out that there may be difficulties in this question of the Attendance Committees. I do not think I can now enter into the history of the Teachers' Pension Fund. An inquiry has been held by experts at the Treasury into the position of this fund. The report as far as it has gone is apparently rather obscure and not too satisfactory; and the position of the fund is such that the Treasury desire a further opportunity of considering how the matter stands. Then the hon. Member for South Tyrone asked what has been the cost to the Government of providing funds for the Training Colleges. I have not the figures as to funds for Training Colleges, but I will take care that they are provided for the informa-

      1359
      tion of the hon. Member. The report from the medical officer as to the sanitary condition of Marlborough Street Training College is far from confirming the alarmist apprehensions of the hon. Member. The medical officer states that last winter and spring were the healthiest recorded during his long service. There had not been a single case of typhoid fever, and on the 9th of June the institution was in a very satisfactory condition in the matter of sanitation.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The smoke test applied to the drains showed otherwise, and there were Commissioners present on the occasion.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I have no information on the subject of the smoke test. I can only give the Report of the medical officer of the College; but I may say that I will be in Dublin very soon, and I will see with my own eyes the smoke test applied. I next turn to that most difficult question—the participation of the Christian Brothers in the public grants. I am asked how that matter stands. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South Tyrone saying—speaking, I presume, for the Presbyterians—that he will not object to a rational and reasonable proposal in this matter. That will shed a good deal of light on our path. Since the repulse of the proposal made by the Commissioners to the Christian Brothers last winter there has been a pause, and the anticipations of those concerned in the matter are not very sanguine as to any proposal which will reconcile the conflicting interests which come into play in this difficult and thorny matter. The hon. Member for South Tyrone who raised this question knows the position I have taken up on this question; but, at the same time, I am of opinion that any Government will be landed in considerable difficulties when compulsion comes into force next January, unless arrangements can be made by which the excellent Christian Brothers' Schools—for it is admitted on all sides that they are excellent—can be brought into line with the national system. I can say nothing positive at the present moment, but the subject is one which must engage my attention during the Vacation, and I shall be glad at some later period in the Session or next Session to give a more definite answer upon the subject.
      1360
      Another important question is the position and composition of the Board of National Education. I agree that the position of the Board is anomalous. Like other Boards in Ireland, it is semi-independent, though it owes a certain responsibility to, and is in certain connection and relation with, the Central Executive Government. These relations are unsatisfactory, but I will stand by what I have said as to the value of the Board, and what Ireland and the Government owes to them. The present, however, is not the moment to raise a question of this kind. It has been absorbed in a large question. But if the Commission is to go on and the system remain as it is, there must be greater regard paid than has been hitherto to the wishes of the different religious denominations in Ireland. The only other question, I think, is the question of the Teachers Widows' and Orphans' Fund. There is a scheme now under the consideration of the Treasury; negotiations are still going on between the Government and the Treasury, and I hope some satisfactory way out of the difficulty will be obtained.
      MR. SEXTON: There is the question of the book monopoly?
      MR. J. MORLEY: I have expressed my views on that matter in my reply to the Member for South Antrim. As my hon. Friend is aware, the power of the Government and the Chief Secretary over the Commission is obscure, ambiguous, and doubtful; but I will do all I can to make my views prevail.
      MR. WOLFFsaid, he did not intend to enter on the merits of the suggested compromise with the Christian Brothers; but he asked that the House should have the opportunity of discussing any scheme which the Commissioners might formulate in the matter. He understood that the Commissioners, in order to end the difficulty, wore inclined to alter the whole system of secular and undenominational education in Ireland which had been founded by Act of Parliament. He would not say whether it would be right or wrong to put the schools of the Christian Brothers on the same footing as the National Schools; but he thought the House should be allowed to express its opinion on any such proposal before it was carried into effect. If the right hon. Gentleman

      1361
      contemplated such change would he give the House an opportunity of discussing it?
      MR. J. MORLEYcould assure the hon. Member that he was fully alive to the point raised.
      SIR F. S. POWELLasked whether the representatives of the authorities of the cities of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork were favourable to the system of compulsory education, and would assist in carrying it out?
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, the National Board of Education had been secular and undenominational, but what it was at present he could not say. As far as he could judge it was fairly denominational, thoroughly protected by the Conscience Clause, and that was the character of the national system in Ireland at the present moment. He voted for the Presbyterians having every possible facility for their education, and the Catholics ought to be in the same position. The Chief Secretary, in answer to the Member for North Kerry, seemed to be very guarded in his declarations about the Christian Brothers. In February, or March, or April, the right hon. Gentleman gave a much less guarded answer. There had been a painful split in the Irish Party, but that did not extend to the Christian Brothers, and they were all anxious that this deserving body should be placed on a proper footing. No one had benefited education more than they. They had established a system of primary education which was so good that some people called the Christian Brothers' schools secondary schools. The Christian Brothers had no endowments, and very little private means, and they were supported by the subscriptions of the people of Ireland, among whom there was a general desire that the Christian Brothers should be included in the Government grants. Because they put up certain emblems in their schools they were precluded from coming under the Rules of the National Board and from any participation in the grants of education. He understood that in February or March, or perhaps it was April, the Chief Secre-
      1362
      tary gave a decided pledge that a sum for the Christian Brothers would be put on the Estimates for the present year. [Mr. J. MORLEY: No, no!] He was very sorry to hear that was to be softened down, and he hoped the Government would adhere to their clear and distinct promise. There was no question that the Christian Brothers gave an excellent education to the children, and if their claim was satisfied the Protestants would be in no worse position. The Christian Brothers did all they could not to tamper with the faith of Protestant children, and in any case where Protestant children attended their schools they would give a pledge that their faith would not be tampered with in any way. It was very hard upon the Catholic people that they should not only have to pay taxes for the National schools, but should also then have to pay for the Christian Brothers' schools, because the latter got no State assistance. He contended that the Christian Brothers were fully entitled to participate in the advantages of the Government grants, and they were willing to submit to any educational test. The hon. and gallant Gentleman repeated that, so far as his recollection served him, the Chief Secretary, on a. previous occasion, clearly and distinctly promised that on the Estimates for 1894 he would put down a grant for the Christian Brothers.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Baronet (Sir F. S. Powell) asks me whether the answers from the Local Authorities are from rural or urban districts. The hon. Baronet has forgotten the fact that the compulsion in the Act of 1892 only applies in areas under the control of Town Commissioners.
      SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, his question was especially directed to the three important cities of Dublin, Belfast, and Cork.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I have not got the figures here, but I will communicate with the hon. Baronet. In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan), I can only say that he certainly hardens and stiffens very much the answer I gave in February, or March, or April. I certainly never said that I in-

      1363
      tended in the Estimates for 1894 to put a Vote upon those Estimates for the Christian Brothers' schools. What I said was that I should be glad, and I felt it almost a stringent necessity, if some effort should be devised to bring the Christian Brothers' schools into the conditions in which they could participate in the grants made to schools. That was all I said, and by that I stand.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, if the Chief Secretary thought he had hardened and stiffened his answer, the right hon. Gentleman had certainly softened it, and left out that most important part, the date, which was a very serious point indeed.
      MR. SEXTON: I think after the grave declarations which the Chief Secretary has made in reference to the Municipal Authorities I cannot remain silent. He has told us that 17 of the Municipal Authorities have declined to send any reply, and that as many as 12 have made hostile declarations, and amongst these are some of the most important in the country. I do not think I ought to conceal from the Committee my conviction that unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to arrange with the National Board some mode of introducing the Christian Brothers into the primary system of education the Act will break down. Of course, in those towns where the Municipal Authorities refuse to act, although the Educational Commissioners can appoint a School Attendance Committee, and although the School Attendance Committee can appoint officers, and the Educational Commissioners can approve of the appointment and fix the salaries in default of the Local Authority, yet it is only the Local Authority who can pay the officers. The Educational Commissioners cannot levy a rate, nor collect it, nor apply a rate in payment of the officers, and, even where the Municipal Authority acts, if there be Catholic boys on the one side with only the Christian Brothers' school, and on the other side a school managed by Protestants, and if in a case where the Catholic boy is absent from school the father declines to send him to the Protestant School, and declines to send him to the Christain Brothers'
      1364
      school because he cannot pay for him, you having established free education, I say it is impossible for the Magistrates in any part of Ireland to punish the father or compel the child to go to school. I shall await with the keenest interest the result of the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to the advisability of devising some means of introducing these excellent primary schools into the system of the State, and if some mode is not devised we shall be obliged to take such action as we think necessary during the Winter Sittings of the House.
      Vote agreed to.
      4. £3,048, to complete the sum for Queen's College, Ireland.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he had intended to raise a question upon this Vote. He recognised, however, that the last Vote had occupied a great deal of time, and he should have some other opportunity of raising the question.
      MR. SEXTON: We also shall have something to say later on. All I will say now is that our silence is not to be taken for consent.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS III.
      5. £23,282, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses.
      SIR A. ROLLITdesired to call the attention of the Committee to one or two subjects under this head, and more particularly to the Railway Commission. That Commission consisted of three Commissioners—one a Judge and two other members—and a Registrar, and it was proposed to make a grant in respect of it of £7,000. The duties of such a body were very important and ought to be extremely useful to the community, because they dealt with such questions as undue preference as between Railway Companies and traders. It was a Court of Appeal in respect of questions of terminals and the like, and it was generally, or might be, a tribunal for the better regulation of questions of transport and travel. Such a tribunal was eminently needed for the purpose of dealing

      1365
      with all these important questions and others. He should ask the Committee whether they thought the Railway Commission fulfilled the demands made upon it? One test he should apply to its usefulness would be the extent to which it was resorted to. The sittings last year were 15 in number, so that the cost of the Railway Commission for each sitting was practically very nearly £500, in addition to which a Judge gave his time as a member of the Court. He thought that was not an adequate use of what might be a very useful tribunal. When they came to consider what the objections to it were, and why it was so little resorted to, he thought they should come to the conclusion it was because its procedure, as a sort of High Court, was extremely technical; inevitably, almost, great delays took place in dealing with questions which were brought under its consideration, and the tribunal itself was essentially far too costly a one. One objection to the Railway Commission was that according to the rule of the Common Law Courts the costs generally abided the event. These costs were readily incurred and paid by the rich Railway Companies with all their resources. These Companies had also at their command experts for preparing evidence and the like, which was utterly impossible to individual traders. On the other hand, he quite recognised that individual and small traders could not compete on equal terms, and naturally shrank from resorting to a tribunal which might involve them in having to bear an expenditure of possibly some hundreds and even some thousands of pounds. There was, indeed, one case brought before the Railway Rates Committee in which one trader did appear and conducted his case personally at small expense; bat that was an exceptional case, and it was not to be expected for a moment that this was a course which traders generally could take. The Commission had very considerable work which it might do. For his own part he should be disposed to say its jurisdiction might well be enlarged if, and when, reformed. He thought it would be desirable it should then have power not only over questions of undue preference, but also with regard to reasonable or unreasonable rates, and certainly it would seem to be desirable
      1366
      that when a solution had been attempted and failed, between a Railway Company on the one hand and a trader on the other—when that took place under Section 31 of the Act of 1888, it ought to be open to the Board of Trade itself to refer any proper case to the Railway Commission for the purpose of determining and bringing it to a proper conclusion. Under the Conciliation Clause of the Act, valuable as it had been in many respects, and admirably worked by the Railway Department, there was no power to enforce any decision at all, therefore power should be given either to the conciliatory body itself or to some other tribunal—say the reformed Railway Commission.—of enforcing a decision. In other words, in a proper case sanction should be given to the law which at present existed. He would mention that this tribunal did not follow what had become the ordinary rule with reference to sittings. The whole Court consisted of three members. The present system in the Common Law and Chancery Divisions was for single Judges to sit, and he would suggest that the members of this Court might sit singly, and that the Registrar of the Court, who was necessarily unoccupied a great deal of the year, might also give attention to minor cases and decide them, subject to the supervision, if necessary, of the Commission itself. He thought a new rule altogether might be introduced as to costs—say the Parliamentary rule which prevailed in their own Committee-rooms, under which, save in exceptional cases, each party bore his own costs. There was a power, in the last resort, where a case was frivolously brought forward or misconducted, in which costs could be enforced. He suggested that this rule should be adopted, and each party bear his own costs in the absence of a contrary decision by the Commission, and he believed even the Railway Companies themselves would not be averse to some alteration of the rule in that direction. He hoped at no distant date, whatever might be done with regard to railway rates themselves, that this tribunal would be reformed and made what it ought to be—a Court readily accessible, cheap, and adapted to the purpose in view. In other words, that it should become

      1367
      exactly what it was not, and should serve the wants of the traders and trade as well as the Railway Companies, and should be a Court to which access could be readily had at no great expense, and in which decisions on the points he had mentioned could be readily obtained. The next point to which he desired to direct attention was the Vote for the expenses of Extradition. He ventured to say the power of extradition—which at one time was viewed from a political standpoint and viewed adversely—was one which should be greatly extended, and so far from obstacles being placed in the way of the extradition of criminals, facilities should be given for that purpose. It was to the interest of any State to get rid of those who had committed offences against the laws of other countries, and certainly it was highly objectionable that people who had committed offences in this country should be able to escape to other places and there defy the law and create a sense of injustice and feeling against the administration of justice in this country. He did not wish to take a personal instance, but there was one most notable case in which most grievous wrong and injury had been inflicted on large bodies of the poorest people of this country, where homes had been desolated and where there had been most manifest plunder on the part of someone who had simply gone to another country, and was now practically defying the laws of our own State. He ventured to think that was a most undesirable state of affairs, and he should be glad if the Minister in charge would tell them exactly how it was—when the Argentine Republic offered to surrender that person why some reciprocal concessions were not made, and why every facility we could offer was not proffered, and proffered very strongly, in return for the extradition of one who had done so much harm in this country. He thought every possible facility in both directions should be given for the extradition of criminals. With regard to another element of this Vote—that with reference to the Wreck Commission—he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision had been come to, and, if so, carried out, as to the presence of owners at the examination of witnesses for the purpose of making their depositions at the Custom House in
      1368
      cases of wreck casualties? A strong point had been made for many years at Hull, that whereas many witnesses were examined at the Custom House with a view to the use of their testimony upon the Board of Trade Inquiry, that the owners of the vessels who under the present law might be made civilly liable to a very large amount, and even criminally, were excluded from the opportunity of putting questions to check such testimony when being given. His experience was that if a nautical witness had once made a statement, and that statement had been taken down in writing, it was a most difficult thing to displace that testimony in any possible way. It became crystallised whether it were accurate or not, and it was almost impossible to get any variation of that testimony afterwards. He thought opportunity should be given to those incriminated to take, at the earliest stages, all possible means of testing the reliability, truth and veracity of such statements. He hoped he should receive answers to the points he had raised.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESagreed with the hon. Member in his remarks as to these Commissions. With regard to the question of extradition, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member say that he wished to see extradition extended. To his mind nothing was more sacred than the right of asylum afforded in this country; it was a right which should be most jealously and sacredly guarded, and a person only given up under stress of the direst necessity. He observed that expenses had been incurred in arresting and delivering up foreign criminals here, whilst we had to pay expenses in regard to our criminals arrested in foreign countries. If we paid our expenses for the arrest of our criminals in foreign countries, foreign countries ought to pay their expenses in this country with regard to the arrest of their criminals. He found in the Votes that we paid an auditor of the Welsh Sheriffs' Accounts £180 a year. He did not find any other Sheriffs' Accounts were audited except Welsh Sheriffs. Did the Welsh Sheriffs alone require

      1369
      their accounts to be audited? This auditor was a pluralist of the worst kind. He not only had £180 a year as auditor of the Welsh Sheriffs' Accounts, but he held the position of Receiver of Crown Rents under the Office of Forests and Woods, his salary for which was £900 a year, and in addition he received £100 a year from the Vote for superannuation for compensation for the Office of Assistant Receiver of Hereditary Revenues. After spending a long and useful life in collecting these hereditary revenues, he was superannuated, and got £100 a year to keep him for the rest of his declining years, and then he was immediately appointed Receiver of Crown Rents at £900 a year, and then sent down to Wales to audit the Sheriffs' accounts, for which he received another £180 a year. He thus got £180 a year for one office, £900 for another, and then £100 a year because he was incapable of doing any work at all.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: That £900 a year has ceased.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is on the Votes.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It has ceased since the Estimates were printed.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then conscience was at last awakened. He next came to the Wreck Commission, which entailed an expenditure of £1,000 a year. This Commission was first appointed in 1876 to investigate wrecks and their causes. These wrecks had gone on for many hundred years without wanting any Commissioner or Commission for that purpose. This Commission was then appointed to inquire and issue a Report. It began to inquire in the year 1876, and went on inquiring; but the extraordinary thing about the Commission was that it had no effect at all on the wrecks. On the contrary, they rather increased with this Wreck Commission; and at last, in 1888, the Commissioner resigned, and since then the Commission had not acted at all.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: There is no Commissioner now.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Precisely. That was what he said. The Commissioner resigned, but the Commission, or rather the salary, remained. This Commission now was a mere wreck, a mere shell from which the kernel had departed. In the last year in which the Commissioner sat and exercised his function as a Commissioner there were 1,013 wrecks. The Commissioner ceased inquiring, and the wrecks began to fall. The following year they came down to 906, and in the last year they were only 771. It showed that whatever else the Commissioner did, he did not stop the wrecks; but, on the contrary, they had a tendency to be much larger under the régime of the Commission than they were now. The Commissioner, as he had said, had gone; but the rudimentary tail remained, and it consisted of one senior clerk at £600 a year, and a junior at £400 a year—a total of £1,000, with a large sum for travelling and other expenses. What were the duties of the chief clerk? He had duties when there was a Commissioner; but now there were no Commissioners he could not conceive what the duty of this gentleman could be, unless it was to transmit some claims or some remarks made by those who actually conducted inquiries into wrecks. These inquiries were still carried on—and much better than they were before—by Magistrates. These Magistrates got in fees £500 a year, Magistrates' Clerks and local Court keepers £600 a year; hire of Courts £135 a year—a total of £1,235. So that the two clerks who did nothing got £1,000, and the Magistrates who conducted all the inquiries got £1,235. If that was not abuse he did not know an abuse when he saw one. The Magistrates did the real work. In the year 1891-2 some 229 formal inquires were held. He was very glad these inquiries were held, as they should be, before properly-constituted Magistrates, acting in a proper judicial manner. But what he wanted to know was why this rudimentary tail of the Commission remained at £1,000 a year when there had been no

      1371
      Commissioner since 1888? When there was no Commissioner, why should they retain such remnants of the Commission as a senior and junior clerk? He contended that they had no work to perform, and their offices should be abolished.
      SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, with reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Islington (Sir A. Rollit) as to the Railway Inquiry Commission that the constitution of that Commission and its powers were discussed and determined so recently as some few years ago. With reference to the question of expenses, no doubt it was necessary there should be a permanent staff in connection with such an important body. As regarded the question of costs, he differed with the hon. and learned Member in saying that each of the parties should pay their costs. He was of opinion that the party found to be in error should, as heretofore, pay the costs. As regarded the question of extradition, he need not remind the hon. and learned Member or the Committee that extradition depended entirely on Treaties with foreign countries. He was informed by those who knew the circumstances that every step had been taken that it was possible to take to secure the extradition of the particular person to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The difficulty had arisen because of the fact that the Argentine Republic declined to ratify a Treaty which, if ratified, would have given this country the right to insist on the extradition of this particular person. That Treaty was entered into as far back as 1889, and the Government had pressed for its ratification by the Argentine Republic; but they had not been able to succeed. He was unable to satisfy the inquiry of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gibson Bowles) as to the auditor of the accounts of the Welsh Sheriffs, and he must refer him to someone else for information on that head. As regarded the Wreck Commission, he really though the criticism of the hon. Member was
      1372
      hardly just. When they remembered the services rendered to the shipping trade and the interests of commerce generally by the inquiries which had to be made into casualties at sea, he thought no one in that House who understood the necessities of that important branch of commerce in this country would for a moment object to the expenditure on this head. What had happened was this: The Wreck Commissioner had ceased to be a permanent establishment in this country, and what had been done under the powers of the Act of 1876 was that the Lord Chancellor had, under Section 29 of that Act, from time to time requisitioned the services of Stipendiary Magistrates to inquire into the circumstances under which casualties arose. When the hon. Member referred to the expenses of the establishment and of these inquiries, he hardly thought, looking to the number and character of these inquiries, that a total expenditure of £7,000 was a very extravagant item. With regard to the two clerks, these officers had to make all arrangements for the inquiries, to arrange the appointment of assessors, to notify all the parties concerned, and, in short, to keep the machine of inquiry going. He submitted, therefore, that there was little just ground for the criticism of the hon. Member.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would like to know whether any arrangement had been made for the Railway Commission carrying out the duties that devolved upon them in consequence of the passing of the Hours of Railway Servants Act? He asked what was the amount received in stamps or fees for business transacted before the Railway Commission?
      MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he did not think that any distinct comparison could be made between a suitor in an ordinary Court of Law and a person who, in his own interest to a certain extent, but to a larger extent in the interest of the public, raised the question of the propriety of certain rates charged to the public, and took the matter before the Commissioners. Such a man had a great deal to encounter, because he had to fight a great and powerful Corporation, and very frequently

      1373
      had to meet the very highest legal talent and fight at very considerable expense. It was hardly fair, therefore, to say that he should be punished by the payment of costs, which would fall upon the unsuccessful litigant in the ordinary course of things. He cordially agreed with all that had been said by the hon. Member for South Islington. There was a strong feeling on the part of the public that the Railway Commission should have increased powers conferred upon it, and its procedure altered and revised, so that it could deal not only with cases of preferential rates, but in many other cases of hardship and grievance which the general public suffered in railway matters. If the Commission were strengthened in this way it would be a very popular reform.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the fees received from the Railway Commission for work done were estimated at £250 for the year. He might say that under the Conveyance of Mails Act, which had been passed by the Post Office, it was proposed to give the Railway Commission considerable work in arbitrating on the points of difference between the Railway Companies and the Post Office Authorities.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he noticed in the Estimates an item for the repayment of Sheriffs' expenses incurred in providing lodgings for Judges on Circuit. In a good many counties—including his own County of Stafford—they provided lodgings for the Judges in the County Hall, and he was not aware they got anything back for it out of the Imperial Purse. It was rather hard on those counties which provided for the expenses of the Judges to have to contribute to those other counties where lodgings were found for the Judges at the public expense.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, wherever an old Assize was held a certain amount was allowed by the Treasury; but wherever a new Assize was established, such as in Manchester or Birmingham, no money was given for that purpose. Even in Stafford they had probably been in receipt of a certain amount of money.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he did not think so. He saw that expenses had been incurred in arresting criminals in the United States. So far as he could see, they had also to pay expenses supposing American criminals were arrested in the United Kingdom. Was there no reciprocal arrangement?
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTreplied, that there was a reciprocal arrangement. If the American Government caught a criminal for this country in the United States we had to pay the expenses, and, in the same way, they had to pay us the expenses incurred in the capture of an American criminal in this country.
      Vote agreed to.
      6. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £177,902, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
      MR. T. H. BOLTONinquired whether the Government were quite satisfied with the work done by the Official Referees? So far as he had any information, the Office was more or less a practical failure. The work would be better done by arbitrators selected by the parties; and he therefore wished to know whether, when a vacancy occurred, the Government would abolish the office altogether? He suggested that there might be a transfer of the present occupants to some other offices which it would not be infra dig. for them to accept, and by this means they could get rid of the appointments altogether. So much for the Referees. He now came to the case of the Clerk of the Crown Office in Chancery. In this case he would point out that the duties of the Office were nominal, and that it was absurd to supply this official with four Clerks at salaries ranging from £300 to £600 a year. He would suggest that an early opportunity should be taken to transfer the duties of the office to some other Department. He wished also to mention a matter connected with the Chief Clerks and the

      1375
      other Clerks of the Chancery Division, the Registrars and their Clerks, and the Taxing Masters and their Clerks. He believed that a proposal had been made that these offices should be amalgamated; but, speaking from experience, he thought the duties of each Department were separate and distinct, and under these circumstances it would be unwise to throw all the duties of these offices together merely with the result of again separating them and afterwards appointing other officers to discharge the duties. Generally, he might say that he doubted the wisdom of the suggested amalgamation, and he hoped the matter would be reconsidered.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, there was no foundation for the suggestion that an amalgamation of these offices was proposed.
      MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he was glad to have an assurance on the point, and to learn that the proposal had been abandoned. The next question to which he would refer was that of the Clerks of Assizes. The salaries of these gentlemen ranged from £300 to £1,000 a year. He would like to point out that their duties, for these large salaries, were of a very nominal character. In his opinion they were greatly overpaid. They were only employed for a few hours or so per day for about three months in the year. They were permanent officials, and drew the salaries he referred to. It was, no doubt, necessary that the Judges should have sufficient officials, but he did not see why they should have an unnecessary number. He did not think there was any waste of time in referring to such a matter, which, he hoped, would be looked into. Another item to which he would call attention on this Vote was the payment of District Probate Registrars. The sums paid to these officials were considerable, although their work was of a merely formal kind. The registries were badly distributed, many of them being in small towns which were not easily accessible, and their number might be reduced with advantage, the distribution to be made in a manner which
      1376
      would be more convenient. He hoped that, when possible, a rearrangement of the offices to which he had called attention would be effected. It was in the interests of efficiency and economy that this should be done. There were other items to which he would have wished to call attention, but he would not detain the Committee at that lates hour.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he would only interpose for a moment in order to refer to the appointment of a gentleman, who was not previously a member of the Civil Service, to the post of Deputy Assistant to the Paymaster General of the Supreme Court. This appointment was viewed with jealousy—very natural jealousy, he thought—by Civil servants who had entered the service of the State after passing a severe competitive examination, and who considered that they had a moral claim to positions which they regarded as the prizes of the profession, He would like it to be clearly understood that there was no personal question in this. He did not raise it on personal grounds. He understood the gentleman who had obtained the position was a capable, accomplished, and efficient officer. But that was not the question: the question was one of principle, and he really thought the Civil Service had a right to an explanation of such an appointment. He had no desire to recall the decision in this particular question; but he wanted to have it understood that, in all cases of the kind in future, the patronage would be kept within the Service itself. He hoped the Financial Secretary would be able to give him an assurance on that point.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It was a fact that the gentleman to whom the hon. Baronet referred was brought into the office from outside. If there was any blame in the matter it must fall upon the shoulders of the late Government, because the appointment was made before they went out of Office. He had not been able to ascertain why they had

      1377
      passed over persons in the office, but, no doubt, they had good reasons for doing so. He had himself a strong sympathy with Civil servants in regard to the right of promotion, and he would always be glad to recognise their claims; but in this case he could only repeat that there were very likely good reasons on the part of the late Government for making this appointment.
      MR. S. T. EVANSsaid, he would just for a moment direct attention to the appointment of Clerks of Assize and of the salaries paid to these gentlemen. His principal objection was on the score of patronage—the manner in which the patronage in the matter, which lay in the hands of the Judges, was distributed. He thought it was very unsatisfactory. The gentlemen appointed might be very admirable officials, but it was difficult to help noticing that there was something not entirely right in allowing Judges to appoint their own Registrars. It was remarkable, at all events, that on the North and South Wales Circuits the gentlemen who filled those posts bore the honoured names of Judges of the Supreme Court. The Clerk of Assize on the one circuit was Mr. Crompton, and on the other Mr. Coleridge, a son of the present Lord Chief Justice. It seemed to him that it was entirely wrong to allow Judges to appoint their sons Clerks of Assize—more especially when they were not members of the circuit at all. He would ask the Attorney General whether the time had not come for a change in the method of appointing these gentlemen, and whether, at least, a member of the Circuit ought not always to be appointed?
      MR. HANBURYsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with regard to these appointments. He would remind the Committee that out of five cases of extra remuneration mentioned by the Auditor General last year two were the sons of Judges. Mr. S. W. B. Coleridge, to whom the hon. Member had referred, got
      1378
      two guineas a day extra as an Acting Associate in the Royal Courts of Justice; his brother, Mr. G. J. D. Coleridge, who was Private Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice, also got two guineas a day as Acting Associate in the same Courts, and had since got an appointment of £1,400 a year. It was really time to protest against these appointments by Judges of their own relations. The hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Bolton) had referred to Official Referees. He thought the hon. Gentleman had attacked these officials somewhat unjustly. He found the advantage of the Official Referee in a case in which he was concerned, and he could testify to the remarkably able manner in which the duty imposed upon the official was discharged. It was agreed that each side should pay his own costs, and for that reason, and because he knew his case better than any solicitor or barrister could have known it, he fought it himself. Some thousands of pounds were at stake. Mr. Ridley did his work admirably, and only charged them 10s. an hour for Court fees. He (Mr. Hanbury) won his case for £10 on a hearing extending over some days. He, therefore, felt bound to defend the Official Referees; but they were the only people connected with the Courts that he could defend in any way. The cost of these Courts was enormous, and it was impossible from these Estimates to see whom they were paying. He ventured to say that there were no Votes in which there were so many stars and crosses and double crosses against the names as there were in this. There were no Estimates in which there were so many pecuniary allowances, and that meant that they were paying too much for the work done. These officials claimed to be under a certain status, and they were fighting their case very hard. The Lord Chancellor was trying to introduce something like order and regularity in his Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, but in his efforts he was resisted and fought by every one of the Judges. In the House of Lords the Bill was fought by the Master of the Rolls and every one who had patronage to lose. He (Mr. Hanbury) thought these things should be under one head, and he could not

      1379
      see why they should not be under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. He did not think the Bill to which he referred had yet passed the Second Reading in the House of Lords, but when it reached the House of Commons, he hoped that a great deal that had been put in in the Lords would be struck out. There were a great many pluralists in the Vote, and every one of the salaries was in excess of the ordinary maximum. On the first page there was this remark on several items, "to be reconsidered," "to be reduced," or "to be abolished," but those things did not happen. Looking at page 214 he found there was an "extra" Registrar appointed at £1,200 a year. There were only three last year, but this year there were four, yet it was stated in the Estimates that the next vacancy would not be filled up. Why was this fourth Registrar appointed if the next vacancy was not to be filled up? This gentleman, he was afraid, had very little legal knowledge, for prior to his appointment he was engaged in administering oaths at £350 a year. His present salary was £1,200 a year. There were "extra" charges also for "Associates." With regard to the Chancery Division Registrar's Office—which was an Office especially attacked by the late Mr. Jennings in 1888—reforms had been promised, but since 1888 the cost of the Office, instead of being reduced, had considerably increased. The cost was some £200 or £300 a year more than it was five years ago. In regard to the Taxing Master's Office, they were told that consolidation was under consideration, with a view to a reduction in the appointments; but the number of first class clerks in the Office was the same this year as last, and in the meantime one of the clerks had been transferred from the Taxing Master's Office to the Lunacy Department. Here, again, the Government had an opportunity of carrying out their pledges, but they had neglected to avail themselves of it. In three cases offices had become vacant, and they had been filled up, in spite of promises. Then, he objected to the allowances of £7 10s. a day to the Judges as "Circuit Expenses." He objected on principle. The Judges were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, so that they should be removed from
      1380
      criticism, and their action should not be subject to review on the Estimates. But this privilege the Judges themselves deliberately sacrificed. Drawing the large salaries they did, they came to the House of Commons and claimed this paltry sum of £7 10s. a day for expenses while on circuit. The sum was too much, and, moreover, it ought not to be charged on the Estimates. The Judges, by making the claim, put both themselves and the House of Commons in a false position. He trusted they would see a discontinuance of these allowances. With reference to the District Probate Registry, he believed there was a battle going on between the Lord Chancellor and the Judge responsible for the Registry—namely, the President of the Probate and Divorce Court. He had been told that if the Judge of the Probate Court would give up the patronage which he clung to very persistently it would be possible to save a good deal of heavy cost of this Registry. The work could be done by the County Court Judges or the District Registrars of the High Court. It was only right that attention should be called to these matters.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I must begin by saying that I very much agree and sympathise with the spirit and the details of what the hon. Member has said. We are engaged at the Treasury in a contest against these judicial charges; but, unfortunately, a great number of them are secured by Act of Parliament. Large as these salaries and expenses were, they practically cost nothing to the Exchequer. The hon. Member very properly referred to an attempt we made this year to put these charges on a better footing. That attempt was defeated. Unfortunately, it is not in the power of the Treasury in many cases to deal with these matters. But I would point out that, large as their expenses are, they practically cost nothing to the Exchequer. The salaries of the Judges are on the Consolidated Fund, and the whole of the rest of the charges are more than covered by the fees received. There is no reason why we should not endeavour to diminish these charges. I can assure the hon. Member that everything is

      1381
      being done to keep these judicial charges down. In that matter I have had some success, and I hope I shall have more. I trust we may now be allowed to take the Vote.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, these Estimates as they were framed afforded no means of ascertaining whether the charges to suitors were fair and reasonable or not. No doubt, in civil cases, charges should be made, but in criminal cases the parties should not be called upon to pay such large sums. There was nothing in the Estimates to show that the litigants did not really pay more than the cost of the law.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he was sorry the exigencies of time would not allow him to criticise these Votes as they ought to be criticised. The extravagance which took place in connection with these Votes was scandalous, and yet they saw that the increase this year was £2,200. This increase occurred, notwithstanding that they were every year promised, in marginal notes, that there would be no increase. He was not sure that the time was not coming when it would be necessary to discuss the Judges' salaries, and consider the allegations made as to their putting relatives in office. They could not do it on the Estimates, but there was another method which could be adopted. With regard to the Circuit allowances, he considered them altogether illegal. The Judges had no right to put these charges on the Estimates, their salaries being intended to cover everything. He could only conclude that the practice had been adopted for the purpose of favouring some individual. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he knew, had courage enough to look into these matters—and it required a Minister of courage to deal with them. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that the matter would not be lost sight of, and that, if necessary, he would propose legislation. There would be no difficulty in getting legislation passed. The right hon. Gentleman wanted money, and if he was not careful he would have to put another 1d. or 2d. on the Income Tax, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would not like that.
      MR. S. T. EVANSwished to know if it was not the practice on all Circuits, except the two Welsh Circuits, for Clerks of Assize to be appointed from amongst the members of the Circuit?
      SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, that these appointments were by Statute vested in the Judges. His impression was that it was not the practice to appoint members of the Circuit. With regard to the appointment of relatives, was it to be inferred from the questions asked that the persons who had been selected were not competent?
      MR. S. T. EVANS: As a matter of fact, one of them has never had a brief.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      7. £3,830, to complete the sum for Land Registry.
      8. £24,200, to complete the sum for County Courts.
      MR. S. T. EVANSsaid, that this was an important Vote, and he had one or two points to raise on it. In the first place, he thought the time had come when there ought to be a revision of the scale of costs and fees in County Courts paid by suitors. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had taken great interest in the matter, and would admit that the fees were too high. He (Mr. S. T. Evans) would be glad to have an assurance from the Government that the matter was receiving their attention. He had made suggestions on various occasions, one of which he would now repeat—namely, that when the scale of costs came to be revised there ought to be two scales laid down; one in respect of contentious business which was tried by the Judge, and another to apply to cases in which the County Court was used as a debt-collecting agency. At present, when the County Court was used as a debt-collecting agency, the defendant very often had to pay 30s. in the £1 instead of 20s., owing to the unreasonable piling up of costs, and it was this system that he wished to see done away with. In referring to Sub-head B, he was speaking

      1383
      for all Members from the Principality. There was in the Estimates an item of £20 for "Prosecutions for assaults on bailiffs, and other law expenses." He wished to know how much had been paid in respect of these "assaults" arising out of the Tithe Act of 1891. He had to complain that the costs of these prosecutions were paid for out of the public funds, the offences very often consisting merely of nudging a man as he was getting over a fence. It was too bad that these bailiffs should, of their free will, without check, be permitted to make complaint to the County Court, and to get their expenses and costs paid out of the public purse. He should like to hear that these prosecutions would not be paid for in this manner in future. There might be some cases where it was desirable, but in nine cases out of ten it was not. And the fact that it might be said that the tithe bailiffs were in "the execution of their duty" was no justification, for the same could very often be said of policemen who were assaulted, and yet the Treasury did not always consider it necessary to bear the cost of prosecuting. The fact was, the public money was being used in this way for the collection of tithe to sustain the parsons of the Established Church in Wales.
      MR. BEUNNERwished to call public attention to the scandalously large proportion of commitments to prison from the County Court of Middlesbrough. A friend of his was in Court a short time ago, and heard a specimen of the sort of evidence upon which the gentleman who sat there was induced to commit a prisoner. The Judge asked, "Have you any proof that this man is able to pay the debt?" The answer was, "I saw him at work last week"; whereupon the defendant was committed for 28 days.
      MR. H. H. FOWLER: With reference to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Glamorgan (Mr. S. T. Evans), of course the County Courts are practically self-supporting as far as these Estimates are concerned. I quite agree that the fees are enormous, and that the cost of the County Courts is enormous. I have maintained for years
      1384
      that the establishment needs very large reductions, as there are many County Court Judges who might do double or treble the work they do. I can, however, give the Committee the assurance that the Lord Chancellor is looking into the question. As to the sum for prosecutions for assaults on bailiffs, the amount seems to be fixed. I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions is never allowed to interfere in these cases except where the County Court Judge takes the initiative.
      MR. S. T. EVANS: Did the County Court Judge in the case to which I refer take the initiative?
      MR. A. C. MORTONpointed out that there was a loss on the County Courts of £200,000 per annum, and said that in the City of London, where the Corporation managed its own Court and paid high salaries to everybody connected with it, they made a large profit. His opinion was that the County Courts generally would be much better managed if they were placed under the control of the County Councils and Municipal Authorities.
      Vote agreed to.
      9. £3,498, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
      MR. HAYES FISHERsaid, that very great inconvenience was caused to tradesmen and others in West London owing to the undermanning of the Police Courts. He wished to know whether the consideration which he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) had given to the question of appointing two new Police Magistrates in London had had any practical result.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: Whenever London does whatever every other large town does, and pays its own Magistrates, I have no doubt more will be appointed. Though we have great difficulty in getting rid of the abuse which already exists, we are certainly not going to extend that abuse. I gave an undertaking early in the Session that we would communicate with the London County

      1385
      Council on this subject. The Treasury has addressed a letter to the County Council, and I hope that no long time will expire before this matter is put upon the footing upon which it ought to be placed. It has been discussed over and over again in this House, and I have always taken the line that London, the richest town in the United Kingdom, should not have paid out of the pockets of the taxpayers that which every other town pays for itself.
      MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, he had intended to raise the point with regard to which the right hon. Gentleman had just made such a satisfactory statement. He thought it was desirable to point out on another subject that the imposition by Magistrates of fines rather than of imprisonment was not only a wholesome thing in itself, but had this desirable effect—that when the account came to be made up, instead of there being an additional charge for the cost of imprisonment, there was an additional sum in relief of the expenses.
      Vote agreed to.
      10. £35,385, to complete the sum for Police, England and Wales.
      MR. E. H. BAYLEYsaid, there was a strong feeling in the Metropolitan Police Force on the subject of a supply of summer clothing for the Police. Some time ago the Home Secretary told him that he had consulted the Chief Commissioner and the Surgeon General on the subject, and they had informed him they did not think any change was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said the climate was variable, and the obvious answer was that the clothing ought to vary. The truth was that the high officials who thought summer clothing was unnecessary for the men went about themselves in the middle of the summer dressed in the most light and airy garments. If they had, like their men, to stand for hours at a stretch in a broiling sun, with heavy tunics buttoned up to the chin and wearing heavy helmets, a change would be brought about at once. The climate of
      1386
      London was not more variable than that of the Provincial towns, where light tunics were supplied to the Police during the summer months.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am sure that nobody is more solicitous for the welfare of the Police than the present Commissioner, and I was rather sorry to hear my hon. Friend suggest that he showed any want of care for his men. I will undertake to recall the matter to his notice again, and to see whether it is desirable that anything should be done.
      Vote agreed to.
      11. £352,637, to complete the sum for Prisons, England and the Colonies.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid he must refer for a moment or two to a matter in which the interests of his constituents were concerned. It related to the grievances of the warders of convict prisons. In the first place, their hours were very long. While the members of the Metropolitan Police Force were on duty only eight hours a day, or, including the time occupied in reaching their beats, not more than nine hours, the warders of convict prisons were on duty from 10 to 10½ hours, deducting the time allowed for rest and meals, while they had 8½ hours of night duty. This was the state of things with regard to all prison warders. The case of Borstal was very exceptional. The Borstal Prison was very badly constructed, and this largely affected the number of men who had to be on duty at one time. Ten men had to be employed at Borstal for patrol duty for every three employed in other convict prisons, and patrol duty had to be performed in addition to the long hours of ordinary work. An additional hardship at Borstal was that the men were not accommodated in the prison, or in every case near the prison, and in some instances they had to go as much as a mile to reach their own homes. An enormous number of hours had to be worked at the time when they changed night duty for day duty or day duty for

      1387
      night duty. Deducting the periods of rest allowed, he estimated that they worked 13½ hours on these occasions, during which time they had to keep close supervision over the prisoners. The only request he had to make to the Home Secretary was that, in view of these very long hours, the men should have a little more relief in the matter of holidays. When a man was on night duty he had no half-holiday at all on a Saturday. The night watchman at Borstal seemed to be a very much overworked individual, and he was off duty only every other Sunday. He worked as many as 11 hours every night, with perhaps an hour off a night. When a warder was on night duty it was too hard that he should be deprived of his usual weekly half-holiday. He thought there was a case for inquiry. These men were not properly treated; and he hoped the Home Secretary would be prepared to state that the case was one that he would not overlook.
      MR. LUTTRELLsaid, he had had special opportunities of knowing the grievances that existed amongst these men, and he thought it incumbent upon him to make their views known to the Committee and to the Home Secretary before the passing of this Vote. They might be right or they might be wrong with reference to their attitude; but he had examined carefully into these grievances, and he had come to the conclusion that these men had a just and equitable claim for the amelioration of their condition. In his criticism on these matters he wished to say that he did so in no hostile spirit. It was only fair, in his opinion, that if grievances existed they should be brought to light; it was fair to both the Government and to those who suffered that the matter should be brought to the notice of the House. Whether rightly or wrongly, grievances did exist, and on a careful consideration, as he had said, he was of opinion there was, at least, claim for consideration. He would first deal with the case of the storekeepers and clerks. Their case was
      1388
      that there was unfair classification, and that the prospects held out to them had not been fulfilled. They entered a special examination on nomination and by payment of a fee of £3. But it was understood and authoritatively stated by the Circular which gave them notice of the examination that those who paid a fee of £3 would be entitled to a salary of £400; and, though they entered on these conditions, they were now in an inferior position to those who entered at the ordinary examinations. It was impossible for any of them to have more than £326 a year, and the great bulk of them could never obtain more than £200 a year. This he considered to be very unfair to these men. Then as to the question of classification. When these men entered there were three grades, which had been increased to six in 1880, and reduced to five at a later period. It now stood at five. There were first-class storekeepers, second-class storekeepers; first-class clerks, acting as storekeepers; first-class clerks, second-class clerks. But, although there were five different classes, there were only two sorts of works; and his contention was that similar work, entailing similar responsibilities, should have a similar treatment, and that there should be an amalgamation of those classes. He wished to press upon the Home Secretary the desirability of having a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into these grievances—a Committee before which the men would be enabled to give their views, and the report of which could be made public, so that they might have a chance of enforcing a remedy for the grievances that were complained of. He next wished to say a few words regarding the question of the school-matrons. These officials had become redundant on account of the diminution of the number of prisoners at which he was sure they all rejoiced, the school-masters were, in his opinion, in a very unsatisfactory position. They were attached as clerks, and were ignorant of their classification from day to day, and did not know their prospects. Before becoming shoolmasters they passed two years at a training college, and received certificates. Surely these men could not

      1389
      be said to be justly treated under the system that prevailed? It had been suggested that it should be transferred to some other Department. Well, if this were done it would be well to transfer them to some other Department where there were not the difficulties that existed in the present state of affairs. For his own part, he would suggest the Education Department. In this Department there was no likelihood of stagnation, and it was the Education Department which was in the proud position of being mainly responsible for the decrease of prisoners, and in these circumstances he thought it would be well that it should compensate its victims. Now he came to the subject which came under the technical head of "inconvenience money." It was a question that affected Prince-town solely. This was paid on account of the remote situation, and it was to all intents and purposes part of Wales, in these cases. The men asked that this amount should be added to their salary when calculating the retiring allowance. As the retiring allowance was based upon salary, the whole salary should be included. They had a precedent for this, and, therefore, they were not asking anything new. In London such money was paid in connection with the convict prison—it was on account of inconvenience, high rents; and in their case he was bound to say that the salary had this money added to it in the calculation of the retiring allowances. It appeared to him to be only right that what was granted in London should be granted at Princetown, and that the inconvenience pay should be added to the salary when calculating the retiring allowance. There were two subjects affecting prison officials generally which he wished to bring before the Committee. Those were the hours of work and the retaining allowance of warders. The warders were not receiving the same advantages as the London police in this matter. The noble Lord had spoken of the hours of labour. On that question he (Mr. Luttrell) could hardly expect that his views would meet with agreement on both sides of the House, but he was sure there were a great many who would agree with him when he said that as far as possible the Government should not employ these men for more than eight
      1390
      hours. The Government, in fact, should set a good example to private employers. What are the hours now at the convict prisons? How did they compare with the London police? The police work for eight hours a day for six-and-a-half days per week; the warders for 10½ hours for six-and-a-quarter days per week. And yet the work at the prisons was fully as arduous, as anxious, and responsible as that of the police; and everything, to his mind, pointed to the necessity of regarding these men as entitled to be on a footing with the police. He did not wish to make any invidious comparison, but he thought, from what he said, there was an example which should be followed. But it was clear that though the hours of labour were more the conditions of pay as relating to retiring allowances were less favourable to the officials than to the London police. The police joined at 21, and after 26 years they might voluntarily leave with a pension of two-thirds of their pay—that was to say at the age of 47 he might leave, and enjoy two-thirds of his salary as a pension. But the warder might not have that until he was 60 years of age, and then the retirement was on only 36–60ths of the pay. A warder did not get two-thirds until he was 64. He said that they should have treated these warders in another manner. They should, in his opinion, be allowed to leave after 26 years' service, with a pension of two-thirds of their pay. Then there was, in case of the death, the question of the widow or next-of-kin. In his opinion the treatment in these cases should be equal to that given to a policeman's widow or next-of-kin in the event of death. It might be said that all these grievances were owing to the diminution of what might be called prisoners; but that ought to be an additional reason why this should be remedied. For what did the diminution mean. It meant a great saving to the expenditure of the Treasury. This very Vote showed a saving of £2,000 over last year; not long ago there was a decrease of over £40,000. Therefore, they could afford to be generous in this matter. He thought it would be conceded that they were in a position to deal generously with those who were the victims of general improvement. On these grounds

      1391
      he commended the case for favourable consideration.
      MR. HAYES FISHERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the treatment to which prisoners on remand were subjected in Holloway Gaol. He hoped that in future these prisoners, who might for all he knew to the contrary be quite innocent, would be given the benefit of as humane regulations as could be sanctioned. He was anxious, however, to dissociate himself from the attacks which had recently been made in certain portions of the Press on the Governor and officials of the prison.
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid, some of his constituents were interested in the question raised by the hon. Member, and he would strongly suggest that the subject should be investigated by a Committee.
      THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,)said, the Home Secretary would investigate the statements made by the hon. Member for Fulham, and would consult the Prison Commissioners, and take any steps that might be thought necessary in the matter. He could assure the noble Lord the Member for Rochester that, with regard to the grievances of the Borstal Prison warders, there was every disposition to meet the convenience of the men where it was possible. Several changes had already been made with that object. First of all, night duty was to be taken after the Sunday off, so as to remove the complaint that when on Sunday night duty the warders were entitled to a day off, clashing with the Sunday off to which they were ordinarily entitled. In the second place, one of the three halls which constitute Borstal Prison was closed, and that would have the effect of lightening the patrol duty. Thirdly, arrangements had been made with the nurses to relieve the necessity of patrol duty so far as the infirmary was concerned. Fourthly, with regard to the question of wages, the weekly payments to the men had been increased, and practically they would receive almost the full
      1392
      amount of their wages each week; but if any inconvenience to the men on this score continued to be felt, the matter would be further inquired into. Then, with regard to the time table, and the question of a longer period of night duty to avoid the long transitional hours, any representations of the officers to the Department would be carefully considered with a view to the convenience of the officers. But the noble Lord must be aware that in changes of this kind it was necessary to know exactly the feeling of the men themselves, as it was clearly impossible to know from his statement whether he was representing the views of a portion of the officers or of all. With regard to the various points brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for the Tavistock Division, clearly, if his views were adopted, they would involve the alteration of the pay and pensions of the Civil servants—certainly of all classes of prison officers. It must be remembered that the positions and claims of prison officers were fully considered in 1890 by Lord de Ramsey's Committee, and it was not possible, after so brief an interval, to re-open the inquiry. With regard to the prison clerks, his right hon. Friend had fully considered the question, and had received several weeks ago a deputation of the clerks, who had stated in full detail their views and their claims. In view of the improvement in the pay and pensions of second-class clerks in 1891, it was not found possible to make any further improvement in their position. Undoubtedly, there was a prospect of a serious block in promotion; but, as a matter of fact, only one second-class clerk at the present time had reached the maximum of his scale, and it was not a principle of the Public Service that when an officer reached the maximum of his class he should expect to obtain immediate promotion as a matter of course. With regard to second-class schoolmasters of convict prisons, he admitted that there was a serious block, and the matter had for some time been receiving close attention. His right hon. Friend was now in communication with the Treasury, with the object of lessening the block and improving the position of the schoolmasters. He could not admit the contention of his hon. Friend with regard to Princetown warders. It was quite true

      1393
      that an increased allowance had been granted at one time to the warders of some of the London Convict Prisons in consideration of the greater cost of living in London, and that increased allowance was reckoned in calculating the pensions. There were no such prisons now; and, although that might be said to be a precedent, it was not a desirable one, and it was well to take the opportunity of putting it aside. It was quite true that a special allowance had been made to the Princetown warders, because of the remote and desolate position of the prison at the time. Since then a railway had been made, and the conditions were different; but, in any case, that special allowance ought not to reckon towards pension. It had not been given to increase the profits of the post, but as a solatium to equalise the conditions of service. If it were to reckon to pension, an inequality would be set up, as the conditions in respect to which extra payment was allowed would cease with the termination of the service. He was afraid that he could hold out no expectation that the views of his hon. Friend in that particular could be met.
      Vote agreed to.
      12. £130,000, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
      VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he would like to know whether the time had not come for the proper transfer of the Scotch Industrial Schools?
      ADMIRAL FIELDwas understood to ask a question with regard to Training Ships Industrial Schools.
      MR. ASQUITHsaid, so far as the noble Lord's question was concerned, it was desirable to have uniformity of administration.
      Vote agreed to.
      13. £22,604, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
      Agreed to.
      14. £59,891, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland.
      MR. PAULcalled attention to the claims of the clerks of the Commissary Office, Edinburgh, to be placed on the permanent establishment of the Civil Service, just as the clerks in the Commissary Offices in Dublin and London
      1394
      In Edinburgh, quite lately, the clerks of three other offices had been put on the footing of Civil servants, and their hours increased from six to seven in consequence of the Report of the Ridley Commission. The number of cases the Commissary clerks had to deal with last year exceeded 1,200; the value of the property affected, £4,000,000; and the fees paid, £3,500. Their salaries had not been increased since 1877, and whereas in Dublin 14 clerks, who did practically the same work, received £6,000 in salary; in Edinburgh 11 clerks received only £2,000, although the fees brought to the Treasury exceeded £1,500. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland would be able to promise that some inquiry would be held into the condition of the clerks with a view to its improvement.
      VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he desired to support his hon. Friend and colleague in pressing the case of these clerks upon the favourable attention of the Government. The corresponding clerks in Dublin and London were in the Civil Service, and there was no reason why the Edinburgh clerks should not be placed on the same footing. The objection raised by the Treasury was that the work of those men was of a purely clerical kind, which could be supplied as occasion demanded from the outside market. But that was not the view of the men. They contended that to carry on the tradition of the work required skill and experience. The men were treated by the Treasury as Civil servants, in the matter of fixing their salaries and regulating their hours of work, but they did not get the privilege of Civil servants. The men had made out a clear case for a Departmental inquiry, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would order such an inquiry.
      MR. BURNSsaid, he had been informed that the subordinate clerks and messengers in this Department were in the habit of leaving work before their proper time and acting as waiters in Edinburgh to the disadvantage both of the Service and of the waiters of the town. He thought the Government should give to these men the alternative of becoming professional waiters or remaining in the Service.
      SIR G. TREVELYAN: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that men in the Public Service should not be allowed

      1395
      to take other work outside except during hours on which the Public Service have no claim. Strict Rules have been laid down by the Treasury, and I shall see that in this case the Regulations on the subject are strictly enforced. With regard to the Commissary clerks, the Treasury has laid down the rule that in Offices of a legal or semi-legal character the staff is to be recruited from the outside market, in order that claims to pension should not be needlessly set up. I shall, however, communicate with the Treasury as to the relative positions of the clerks in London and Dublin.
      Vote agreed to.
      15. £21,655, to complete the sum for Register House, Edinburgh.
      VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he desired to call attention to the case of the engrossing clerks of the Sasine Office, who claimed to be included in the Civil Service, a course which they believed had been recommended by a Committee which sat to consider the case. The position of these clerks was likely to be more perilous in the future than in the past, because by the Land Register (Scotland) Bill which had been introduced this Session, but withdrawn, provision was made to extinguish the clerks altogether; and as many of them had served the Department for years, and were led to believe that they would be included in the Civil Service, the case was an exceptionally hard one. He hoped, therefore, that their claim would be favourably considered by the Government.
      SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the claim had been met by giving them a gratuity on their retirement, which they had not before, and they had likewise an advantage in this respect: that from time to time promotions were- made on the list of the Established clerks where they had served either for two years as engrossing clerks or two years in the Conveyancing Office. The engrossing clerks were entitled to deduct any time they had served in the Office.
      Vote agreed to.
      16. £4,955, to complete the sum for the Crofters' Commission.
      MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the First Commissioner received his salary as Sheriff as well as the salary of £1,200 mentioned in this Vote; and also, whether he received a
      1396
      salary for being on another Commission on Deer Forests? He further wanted to know how the work of the Crofters' Commission had progressed.
      SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the Sheriff received a salary as Chairman of the Crofters' Commission in addition to his Sheriffs work. But when they added up these two salaries and compared them with the larger salaries paid on the Irish Land Commission, and when they considered the work was very severe, they would agree, he thought, that that gentleman was certainly not overpaid. He had taken the extra work of the Highland Commission without insisting upon any increase of pay. When the business was over, the circumstances would be considered. The work of the Crofters' Commission had gone on very steadily. About 18,000 or 19,000 cases had been settled and disposed of since it began. At the beginning of this year there were 1,451 to be disposed of, and of those 664 had been completed, so that only 787 cases now remained to be dealt with.
      Vote agreed to.
      17. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £56,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."
      MR. W. WHITELAWasked the right hon. Gentleman to grant him a Committee to inquire into important matters connected with this Vote. A Departmental Committee would be absolutely useless. It would be no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to tell him that these grievances were inquired into by a Departmental Committee for Scotland years ago. What he asked for was a Select Committee in the next Session of Parliament. The case, which he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would be able to resist, was with regard to the extraordinary extravagance and maladministration of prison affairs in Scotland. He had called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the way in which prisons in Scotland were overcrowded in defiance of the Act of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman had received information from the Prison Commis-

      1397
      sioners, which was, to say the least, most extraordinary. The result had been to show that the prisons were not overcrowded, generally speaking, and only upon rare occasions, but his information was that the prisons were continually overcrowded. But his figures were only from the 31st March, 1891, to the 31st March, 1892. The Report gave the number of prisoners in prisons upon the first Tuesday in every month during the year. In Aberdeen Prison during this year there was overcrowding during six of the months. The average number of prisoners during those mouths was 88, and there was only accommodation for 79; on one day there were 105 prisoners for only 79 cells. A similar state of matters existed with regard to Ayr, but the worst case of all was that of Dundee. In Dundee Prison during 12 months, from April, 1891, to March, 1892, he found that there was considerable overcrowding. The average number of prisoners, taking them upon the first Tuesdays of the month, was 116, and there were only 107 cells, and there were 146 prisoners on one day, which was the largest number at any one time. He could give other instances of persistent overcrowding in Scotch prisons, which was owing to want of administration. With regard to the question of extravagance of the Scotch Prisons Commissioners, it was something extraordinary. The average number of prisoners in England and Wales during the year was 13,196, and he found the prison staff in England cost £584,837, which would amount to about £44 per prisoner. In Scotland the average number of prisoners was 2,552, and the prison staff cost £91,800, or only £36 per prisoner. But when he came to the administration—the head office work—he found the exact opposite state of affairs. The results in England, of administration only, proved that each prison cost about two guineas a year; but in Scotland the administration cost very nearly three guineas per head, so that it was a guinea a head dearer than the administration in England. With regard to the staff of Scotch prisons, the English prison staff was 3,000 for the 13,000 odd prisoners, and the corresponding staff in Scotland was only 338. These figures proved that whilst the staff in Scotch prisons were simply starved in numbers and wages, the administration was grossly extravagant in numbers and salaries.
      1398
      There was, he believed, a considerable unanimity amongst the Scotch Members in the demand he was making. With regard to prison clerks in Scotland, their position had been slightly improved lately, but he could not see why they should not receive as high a salary as the English clerks. It might be said that the English prison clerks passed a higher examination, but the Scotch clerks were willing to undergo the same examination and to be put on all-fours in every respect with the English clerks; and if they could not pass the examination, they would not put forward a claim for higher salary. With regard to the warders, two who joined the service in 1861 had converted their gas allowance into a sum of £3 a year, which they received until promotion in 1882, when, without the slightest prior intimation to them, their gas allowance was stopped. In the year 1885 another warder, who joined the prison service somewhat later than the other two, but under precisely the same conditions, was also promoted, but he still retained his gas allowance. Why was there this difference of treatment? ["Divide!"] Three other warders who entered the prison service were put on a different scale in 1874, which gave them a higher salary. They were, as they understood, entitled to a gas allowance, but the Scotch Office maintained that they were told that on coming under the new arrangement this allowance was to cease. ["Divide!"] He begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
      The Chairman being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
      MR. WHITELAW (resuming)said, these warders were not told they were to receive the gas allowance until 1880. With regard to two other cases, a number of warders, according to the terms of their engagement, received free quarters in the prison at Perth till the year 1886. For some reason they had never been able to discover why these free quarters were taken away from the men. But after an agitation, extending over six years, the free quarters were again conceded, and the rents were repaid to those men who had paid them for six years, with two exceptions. Two of these men had never received repay-

      1399
      ment of the rents they had paid, and he wanted to know why they had not been treated in precisely the same way as the others? He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £2,200.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £54,600, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. W. Whitelaw.)
      MR. HOZIERdrew attention to the fact that medical officers and chaplains in Scotch prisons were remunerated at a much lower rate than doctors and chaplains in English prisons.
      SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, a Departmental Committee was granted by the late Government, which recommended a substantial increase to the warders of prisons and to most of the clerks. That increase had been given. He could not dream of granting a Committee on such absurd and trivial grounds as had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth. With regard to prison chaplains, several English prisons contained a much larger number of inmates than the Scotch prisons did.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [14th September] reported, and agreed to.—[See page 1156.]
  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 292.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION BILL [Lords].—(No. 270.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  SALE OF GOODS BILL [Lords].—(No. 441.)
  Order for Third Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill re-committed in respect of a new Clause in lieu of Clause 22, of Clause 63, and Schedule; considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments; as amended considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  PISTOLS BILL.—(No. 425.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed on Consideration, as amended, read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  POLICE (METROPOLIS).
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Commissioners for 1892 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1891–2.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1892, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, namely:—

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £286,904 18s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £324,957 19s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £38,053 1s. 4d.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £165,583 19s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £64,581 15s. 7d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £101,002 4s. 4d.;

  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  304,235

  18

  3

  Total Deficits

  367,185

  1

  3

  2. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid, in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficit on other Grants for Navy Services.
  3. Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
  [For Tabulated Statement See next page.]

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1891–92. Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wages, &c. of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard and Royal Marines

  …

  38,938

  4

  8

  63,963

  6

  3

  2

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  8,043

  2

  1

  …

  42,904

  6

  6

  3

  Medical Establishments and Services

  6,875

  0

  1

  …

  728

  3

  11

  4

  Martial Law

  …

  1,871

  9

  0

  …

  15

  10

  11

  5

  Educational Services

  …

  4,385

  4

  3

  …

  798

  4

  3

  6

  Scientific Services

  …

  3,051

  8

  1

  470

  19

  7

  7

  Royal Naval Reserves

  7,656

  18

  9

  …

  …

  33

  6

  5

  8

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

  Sec. 1

  Personnel

  16,339

  16

  7

  …

  5,040

  18

  5

  Sec. 2

  Matériel

  196,966

  9

  3

  …

  …

  18,873

  4

  11

  Sec. 3

  Contract Work

  …

  186,616

  11

  7

  20,237

  9

  0

  9

  Naval Armaments

  …

  41,159

  13

  3

  …

  38,365

  19

  6

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  …

  39,137

  6

  6

  …

  6,456

  12

  1

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  38,268

  16

  9

  …

  1,462

  18

  0

  12

  Admiralty Office

  …

  2,421

  13

  9

  …

  38

  17

  6

  13

  Half-Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

  …

  6,657

  12

  2

  7,389

  18

  6

  14

  Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

  9,030

  12

  5

  …

  12,954

  19

  8

  15

  Civil Pensions and Gratuities

  …

  718

  16

  3

  93

  0

  1

  16

  Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

  22

  0

  0

  …

  10,338

  0

  0

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  3,702

  2

  3

  286,904

  18

  2

  324,957

  19

  6

  165,583

  19

  11

  64,581

  15

  7

  Net Surplus,

  £38,053

  1

  4

  Net Deficit,

  £101,002

  4

  4

  Net Deficit, £62,949 3 0

  £860

  12

  4,

  net sum recovered from the Naval Defence Account, under 52 Vic, c. 8, s. 3 (2).

  £62,088

  10

  8,

  Voted in 1892–93, Sess. Paper, No. 114, of 1893.

  4. That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1892, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, namely:—

  (a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £71,758 12s. 1d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the Estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £81,979 9s. 10d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £10,220 17s. 9d.;

  (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £5,434 4s. 7d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £99,220 1s. 1d.,

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote,

  Army Services, 1891–92.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £.

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, &c, of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

  19,336

  11

  0

  …

  …

  13,270

  13

  2

  2

  Medical Establishments: Pay, &c

  …

  9,835

  13

  11

  392

  8

  6

  3

  Militia: Pay and Allowances

  …

  1,661

  9

  1

  …

  2,161

  9

  8

  4

  Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances

  …

  1,380

  18

  1

  1

  3

  4

  6

  Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

  …

  4,984

  15

  2

  20

  17

  4

  6

  Transport and Remounts

  32,779

  12

  10

  …

  …

  4,233

  12

  5

  7

  Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  9,702

  19

  6

  …

  …

  4,214

  3

  8

  8

  Clothing Establishments, and Services

  …

  162

  18

  5

  …

  20,857

  1

  5

  9

  Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

  3,295

  2

  2

  …

  …

  50,767

  12

  3

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Superintending Establishment

  …

  28,884

  4

  10

  …

  3,461

  19

  4

  11

  Military Educational Establishments: Pay and Miscellaneous Charges

  …

  3,270

  1

  3

  2,585

  9

  8

  12

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  …

  29,977

  14

  4

  270

  1

  2

  13

  War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

  …

  400

  0

  6

  36

  10

  8

  14

  Non-effective Charges for Officers, &c

  …

  1,029

  0

  2

  853

  16

  0

  15

  Non-effective Charges for Men, &c

  5,863

  18

  10

  …

  1,273

  17

  11

  16

  Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

  …

  392

  14

  1

  …

  253

  9

  2

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned

  780

  7

  9

  71,758

  12

  1

  81,979

  9

  10

  5,434

  4

  7

  99,220

  1

  1

  Net Surplus,

  £10,220

  17

  9

  Net Surplus,

  £93,785

  16

  6

  Sum to be surrendered to the Exchequer, £104,006 14 3

  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £93,785 16s. 6d.;
  (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, namely:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  152,025

  12

  10

  Total Deficits

  …

  48,018

  18

  7

  5. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated appropriations in aid, in respect of the same Services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  6. Resolved, That the application of such sums be sanctioned.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Three o'clock.