Sitting of 9 August 1894

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) (RIVER LEE, &c.) BILL (by Order}.

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)said, he had to move the Amendments standing in his name. They were the result of a very careful examination which had been given to the subject by representatives of the conflicting interests concerned, who on Tuesday last met at the Board of Trade. The Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament to whom the Bill was referred did not accept the proposals of the Board of Trade, and inserted a table of tolls that continued the toll-taking powers possessed by the Navigation. After a great deal of discussion between the representatives of the opposing interests, a compromise, embodied in the Amendments on the Paper, was arrived at. This compromise represented, he thought, the best that could be done under the circumstances; and as the assent of all parties had been obtained, he trusted the Amendments might be accepted by the House without further question.
    Amendments proposed,
    Page 14, after line 5, insert—
    (Fraction of a mile.)
    "(ii) For a fraction of the first mile the trustees may charge as for a mile, and for a fraction of a mile after the first mile the trustees may charge according to the number of quarters of a mile in that fraction, and a fraction of a quarter of a mile may be charged for as a quarter of a mile."
    Page 14. line 6, leave out "(ii.)," and insert "(iii.)."
    Page 14, line 11, leave out "(iii.)," and insert "(iv.)."
    Page 14, leave out Table A, Part 1, and insert—

    TABLE A.
    Part 1.—Maximum Tolls and Wharfage Charges.
    Scale 1.—Applicable to Merchandise conveyed on any part of the River Weaver (including the Weston Canal), except merchandise conveyed on the Weston Canal and not passing to or from the River Weaver.

    In respect of Merchandise comprised in the under-mentioned Classes.

    Maximum Tolls.

    Maximum Wharfage Charges.

    For the first 10 miles, or any part of such Distance.

    For the remainder of the Distance.

    Per ton per mile.

    Per ton per mile.

    Per ton.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    A

    0·45

    0·25

    1·50

    A

    B

    0·70

    0·35

    1·50

    B

    (except salt).

    (except salt).

    C

    0·85

    0·50

    3

    C

    1

    3

    1

    2

    4

    2

    3

    4

    3

    4

    4

    4

    5

    4

    5

    The maximum toll for white salt shall be ten pence, and for rock salt five pence, per ton for the whole or any part of the distance on the canal, and the maximum wharfage charges for salt shall be one penny halfpenny per ton.
    Page 15, leave out the whole of the page, and insert,—
    Scale 2.—Applicable to Merchandise conveyed on the Weston Canal and not passing to or from the River Weaver.

    In respect of Merchandise comprised in the under-mentioned Classes.

    Maximum Tolls.

    Maximum Wharfage Charges.

    For the whole Distance or any part thereof.

    Per ton.

    Per ton.

    d.

    d.

    A

    2·00

    1·50

    A

    B

    B

    (except salt).

    (except salt).

    For salt.

    6·00

    —

    For salt.

    C

    2·00

    3

    C

    1

    3

    1

    2

    4

    2

    3

    4

    3

    4

    4

    4

    5

    4

    5

    Provided that notwithstanding anything in Scale 1, the maximum toll for chertstone, clay (china, blue, black, and ball), china, stone, flints, and felspar, to be used as potters' raw materials, shall in no case exceed eight pence per ton.
    Provided that notwithstanding anything in Scale 2, the maximum toll for brick, cinders, sandstone, and other stone or lime conveyed on the Weston Canal, and not passing to or from the River Weaver, shall not exceed one halfpenny per ton, nor that for coal so conveyed one penny per ton.
    Provided also that, notwithstanding anything in Table A, the tolls and charges payable on any merchandise conveyed in a boat between the works of the same owner on the canal, and not passing through a lock, shall not exceed for the whole distance five pence per ton in the case of rock salt, and sixpence per ton in the case of all other merchandise.
    Provided also that, notwithstanding anything in this Schedule, no tolls and charges shall be payable in respect of any empty bags, barrels, or cases conveyed in a boat on the canal for the purpose of being filled at the works of any trader or bye-trader with merchandise on which tolls are subsequently paid."—(Mr. Bryce.)
    Amendments agreed to.
    MR. BRUNNERsaid, he had to move the following Proviso:—
    "Provided always, that the tolls from time to time actually charged shall not exceed such amount as may, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be sufficient to provide for the reasonable expenses of adequately maintaining the navigation in the interests of the traders thereon."
    He did not intend to press the Amendment provided he could get from the President of the Board of Trade an expression of sympathy with its object. As the House was aware, the land in the valley of the Weaver was subject to subsidences, and the small property owners had suffered great hardships. The trade of the Valley had been taxed to an enormous extent for the benefit of the County of Chester, the county having, in fact, received from the surplus funds of the Navigation no less than £1,000,000. Appeal after appeal had been made to the trustees for some compensation to the small property owners, but those appeals had always been met with a very decided refusal. He now asked that when the Weaver Trustees came to Parliament next year, as they were bound to do under an Instruction of the House of Commons embodied in an Act of last year, the President of the Board of Trade would take into his full consideration the various Reports that had been made by his Department on the constitution and management of the Weaver Navigation. The first Report, he found, was issued in 1872, and signed by Sir Thomas Fairer. The Board of Trade informed Parliament at that time that the constitution of the trustees was very peculiar; that their Acts left them at liberty either to expend their surplus income on new works or not; that they were not bound to have a surplus, but that if they had a surplus it must go to the County of Chester; that the Trust had been from the beginning a Public Trust; and that the tax was one of the same character as local charges on shipping, which had in so many eases been condemned by Parliament. The last sentence of the Report was as follows:—
    "Under these circumstances it seems to deserve consideration whether the practice pursued by Parliament in similar cases should not be pursued in this case, and whether an endeavour should not be made to effect some arrangement by which, without too hastiiy depriving Cheshire of an income which it has so long en-

    433
    joyed, the trade may ultimately be freed from this anomalous arid ever-increasing burden."
    He thought that if an arrangement carrying out this suggestion were made next Session it could not be said that Cheshire had been too hastily deprived of its income. The House might know that in 1866 a cattle plague rate was imposed on Cheshire. The Cheshire landowners of that date asked that this rate should be made a national one, but Parliament decided that inasmuch as Cheshire was in receipt of the surplus funds of the Weaver Navigation, Cheshire should pay the rate itself. The subsiding district of Cheshire had been paying this rate in common with the rest of the county, and in addition this tax had been got out of the very bowels of this unfortunate district. The cattle plague rate came to an end in 1896, and it seemed to him that if the surplus funds of the Weaver Navigation, under authority and command of Parliament, were thereupon used for the benefit of the trade, and not for the benefit of the county, no ratepayer in Cheshire would feel the burden of any result from the change. Parliament would therefore, to his mind, have an additional reason for the action which he hoped would be taken, and be begged that at any rate the President of the Hoard of Trade would give him a sympathetic answer. He moved the Proviso.
    Amendment proposed, in page 49, line 23, at the end of the Schedule, to add the words—
    "Provided always, that the tolls from time to time actually charged shall not exceed such amount as may, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be sufficient to provide for the reasonable expenses of adequately maintaining the navigation in the interests-of the traders thereon."—(Mr. Brunner.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he opposed the Amendment not only as a trustee of the River Weaver, but as representing all the different parties who assembled at the Conference at the Board of Trade on Tuesday last, and who entered into what he understood was an honourable compromise, which should be faithfully maintained. There were a number of conflicting interests represented there, including
    434
    the Weaver Trustees, traders on the river, the County Council, and the Board of Trade. They had a very exhaustive discussion, and certain suggestions made by the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade were accepted by everyone who was present, including the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner). The hon. Member in moving the Amendment did not speak for the traders of the districts, who were perfectly in accord with him and others in saying that the arrangement come to in an honourable and amicable way on Tuesday ought not to be upset at the present moment. He had a letter from the President of the Salt Union authorising him to say that he was no party to this attempt to upset that arrangement. As to the extracts which the hon. Gentleman had read, and the well-known animus which he bore towards the Trustees of the River Weaver, he might say that this was not an occasion when any notice should be taken of this matter. The whole question would come up next year of the reconstruction of the Trust, and it would then be perfectly competent for the hon. Member to move any Amendment he thought fit. He understood that the hon. Member, if he could get a sympathetic answer from the President of the Board of Trade, would not press his Amendment to a Division. But if the hon. Member got an unsympathetic answer, and if he were assured of a majority in the House, he wondered if the hon. Member would then press his Amendment.
    MR. BRUNNER: I certainly should not.
    MR. TOLLEMACHEthought that in that case they had been brought there under somewhat false pretences. The hon. Gentleman had appealed for a sympathetic answer. He would also make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, and would urge upon him that the friendly arrangement come to at his Department was quite sufficient for all practical purposes. The hon. Member sought to prejudice the position of one of the parties to this discussion by getting some answer from the President of the Board of Trade which might be used against them when the whole question came on for discussion. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point: that the whole knotty question was

    435
    to be considered next year, and it would be rather inexpedient to put one of the parties in an unfavourable position by any statement which he was asked to make.
    MR. BRYCEthought there was some little misunderstanding between the parties in regard to this matter. The parties concerned met at the Board of Trade Office on Tuesday, and after a full discussion, which lasted for three hours, entered into a compromise which was embodied in his Amendments. It was part of that compromise that the question now raised should not be raised. [Mr. BRUNNER: No, no.] He was sure his hon. Friend, who was as anxious to abide by an honourable arrangement as any Member of the House could possibly be, would not seek to elicit any statement from him (Mr. Bryce) if he thought it was inconsistent with that arrangement, but the view of the Board of Trade officials who took part in the conference was that all that should take place in the House was to be embodied in the Amendments he had moved, and that lie should express no opinion on the question raised by his hon. Friend, which was no doubt a question of considerable gravity and importance. Under these circumstances, he was not able to give his hon. Friend either a sympathetic or an unsympathetic answer. He could not enter into the points which he had raised, and which were very fit for discussion in the House or in the Committee to whom the Bill to be brought in next year would be referred. All he could say was that when the Bill was introduced next year it would probably be the duty of the Board of Trade—it would certainly be in accordance with the usual practice—to report on the Bill as regarded the application of the dues and tolls received by the Weaver Navigation, and the surplus of which now went to the county. And although he could not undertake at this stage to say what the nature of that Report would be, he thought he might safely say that it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to include in it references to the Reports made in 1893 and 1872. The House would therefore, when the Bill came before it, be in possession of the views of the Board on Trade on the subject. In these circumstances, he appealed to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
    MR. BRUNNER,in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, said the compromise which was come to last Tuesday did not come in the first place from representatives of the Board of Trade, but from him, on behalf of his firm. He was very glad to hear from the hon. Member opposite and the President of the Board of Trade that the question would come up next year. That had not been clear to him before, and he was quite satisfied now that he knew the question of the destination of the surplus would come up.
    MR. TOLLEMACHE: What I said was that when the question comes up it will be open to the hon. Member to raise any point as to the distribution of the surplus. I am not to be understood as expressing any opinion on the matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  QUESTIONS.

    THE WESTMEATH REGISTRY.
    MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that it has been decided by the Lord Chief Baron, in a decision at the King's County Assizes at Tullamore some years ago, that contracts for the printing of the Parliamentary Registries should be entered into at Presentment Sessions and precisely in the same way as other Grand Jury contracts; whether he is aware that the Clerk of the Peace of the County of Westmeath has ignored the law on this matter and taken tenders privately in his own office for the registry printing for Westmeath; and whether in view of the complaints made in the County for Meath of a partizan printer tampering with the list of voters sent to him to be printed, he will direct the Clerk of the Peace for Westmeath to comply with the law in future contracts for the printing of the Westmeath Registry?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Clerk of the Peace of Westmeath informs me he is not aware of any such decision of the Lord

    437
    Chief Baron as is referred to in the first paragraph. At the Spring Assizes of 1886 the Grand Jury passed a resolution to the effect that the printing of the Parliamentary Voters' Lists should be advertised by the Clerk of the Peace, tenders called for, and the lowest tender accepted. In conformity with this resolution the Clerk of the Peace has since advertised for tenders in all the local newspapers of every shade of politics, and has accepted the lowest tender, the result being that he has seldom had the same printer for two successive years. He has not taken tenders privately in his office for the printing for the county.

    ST. EDWARD'S NATIONAL SCHOOL, ROMFORD.
    SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been directed to the case of St. Edward's National School, Romford; whether, although in the year 1891 the infant school was enlarged to double its former capacity and otherwise improved, in obedience to the request of the Education Department, further structural alterations in the schools are now insisted upon; whether it is intended to insist on the immediate execution of these alterations in an existing school; and whether it is further intended to insist on the extension of the playground, which is situate in a lane off the main road, and is surrounded on all sides but one by house property?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): It is the case that the infants' school here was enlarged in 1891. Her Majesty's Inspector had reported in the previous year that the noisiness and general inferiority of the premises of the whole school rendered satisfactory organisation difficult, and involved an excessive strain on the teachers. He again commented strongly on the unsatisfactory character of the premises for the older children, both boys and girls, in 1891, 1892, and 1893; and the managers were warned by the Department last February that certain alterations must be carried out during this year, or the grant might be endangered. I do not find that any requirement whatever has been made as to the playground.
    SIR F. S. POWELL: When does the year terminate?
    MR. ACLAND: I cannot say, but I will inquire.

    ULVERSTON NATIONAL SCHOOL.
    SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President, of the Committee of Council on Education whether he intends to insist on the immediate construction, at a time of severe depression of the local trade, of a new building for the infant school at the national school at Ulverston, Lancashire, where the school has obtained the highest grant for the last four years?
    MR. ACLAND: Her Majesty's Inspector reported last January that the hall used as an infants' school was quite unsuited for its purpose, besides having no proper class-room or cloak-room, and added that the managers were quite prepared to acquiesce in its condemnation. The managers were informed that the annual grant to the infants' school, after that due on 31st December next, would be conditional on satisfactory progress being made towards providing suitable premises. Plans have now been submitted and approved for a new infants' school, and the hon. Baronet will observe that the managers have still nearly a year and a-half before them in which to make satisfactory progress towards the building. I do not think that there is unreasonable pressure in this case.

    RIFLE RANGES FOR METROPOLITAN VOLUNTEERS.
    COLONEL H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many ranges there are within a reasonable distance of the Metropolis certificated for the compulsory class firing of the 30,000 Volunteer troops in London; and if shooting at an uncertificated range is practically forbidden, as in the case of the Staines range, whereby the expenditure of £32,000 by patriotic individuals, with the encouragement of his predecessor, has been rendered useless and unremunerative?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): There are 14 ranges within a reasonable distance of the Metropolis used by London Volunteer

    439
    corps. Ranges are not certified for class-firing specially, but with reference to their safety for the purposes for which they are required. When a range is declared to be unsafe the use of it is practically forbidden. I have no knowledge of the amount of the expenditure incurred by the private company to which the Staines Range belongs.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Staines Range was established under the direct encouragement of his predecessor?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe the War Office would encourage almost any range being established, but that does not relieve us of any responsibility for what may happen hereafter.

    WORKMEN'S RAILWAY TICKETS.
    MR. DODD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade can furnish, if asked for, a Return showing the extent to which the practice of imposing ns a condition upon tickets, issued by Railway Companies at cheap rates to workmen, the term that the Company shall be under no liability if the workmen travelling with such tickets are injured or killed on the journey by the negligence of the Railway Company, exists or has during the last year existed, or furnish any information to that effect or in regard to such practice; and if he has made any inquiries upon that subject?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): The Board of Trade some weeks ago communicated with some of the leading Railway Companies on this subject, and as soon as replies have been received from all of these Companies the correspondence shall be presented to Parliament.

    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY SIGNALMEN.
    MR. DODD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has now been the result of the action of the Board of Trade in regard to the hours of labour at certain signal boxes complained of upon the London to Ipswich line of the Great Eastern Railway Company; and whether the Board will be able before Parliament rises to present its Report upon the working of the recent Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Act?
    MR. BRYCE: The Railway Company have not further reduced the hours of the signalmen in question, and the Board of Trade have still under their consideration the expediency of taking proceedings against the Company before the Railway and Canal Commissioners. The Board are, however, investigating other complaints against this Company in regard to their signalmen, porters, ticket collectors, shunters, and platelayers on certain sections of the Hue, and, as at present advised, the Board are of opinion that all these cases should finally be dealt with at the same time. A year has only just elapsed since the Act came into force, but a Report is being prepared and will be presented as soon as possible.

    POSTAL CARD REFORM.
    MR. PAUL): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can arrange for the supply of postal cards to which halfpenny stamps may be affixed as desired by men of business with a large correspondence?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I am glad to be able to state that I have made arrangements under which private cards with a halfpenny stamp affixed will be accepted as postcards for inland postage. The necessary Regulation on the subject will be issued almost immediately. It is not intended that the Post Office should supply such unstamped cards.

    VOLUNTEER CAPITATION GRANT.
    SIR H. FLETCHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to recommend that the War Office Authorities should pay to Commanding Officers of Volunteer corps 25 per cent, of the Capitation Grant as soon as possible after the end of each financial year?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir. I have carefully inquired into the matter, and regret to say I find I cannot adopt the course suggested in the question.

    FLOODS NEAR LOUGH KEY.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that 600 acres of land are flooded in the neighbourhood of

    441
    Lough Key, owing to the high level at which the Knockvicar Lough is kept at the outlet of the lake into the Shannon; whether this flooding could he prevented by constructing a regulating sluice at Knockvicar, as is in use on other portions of the Shannon and its tributaries; and whether he will recommend that the Board of Works take steps to have such a sluice erected at Knockvicar Lough?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): Further inquiry since my reply of the 26th ultimo to my hon. Friend's previous question has brought to light no report of flooding round Lough Key, and I am therefore unable to add to what I stated in my previous answer.

    THE CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been drawn to the letter published by Mr. George L. Tottenham, D.L., J.P., Glenade, County Leitrim, in the Irish Times and Daily Independent, of Tuesday last, in which he makes a number of charges against their administration of the funds under their control; that on the exposed portion of the Atlantic coast, where tree planting experiments have been generally failures, a sum of £4,023 has been spent on 290 acres of bog, at a cost of £14 per acre, the estimate being £4 10s. per acre; that £6,533 was spent on local inquiries and inspections, which Mr. Tottenham alleges could be done for £300 at the outside; that £400 was granted for a co-operative creamery outside the scheduled congested area; and whether he will order an inquiry into Mr. Tottenham's charges, and state at the same time the reason why the Congested Districts Board, while making these expenditures, neglected to extend their operations to the congested districts in Roscommon, a county specially entitled to the benefit of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, and to the congested districts of Leitrim, which county is specially entitled to the benefits of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund and the Sea Coast Fisheries Fund?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The letter referred to in my hon. Friend's question will be brought before the Congested Districts Board at their next meeting. Under
    442
    these circumstances, it is not considered desirable at present to offer any criticisms on some of the statements in the letter.

    LIGHTS ON THE CYPRUS COAST.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Report on Cyprus recently issued (page 49) by District Commissioner at Famagusta relative to the Lights on the Island, in which the Commissioner states that an additional light is sorely needed at Cape Andrea, the northernmost point in the island, and he hoped before long ships will be provided with this means of protection from this exposed and dangerous spot; and whether any steps have been taken to supply the deficiency complained of?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): My attention has been called to the paragraph. The question is one of expense; but I may state that if and when money is available for building another light, other places would have to be considered as well as Cape Andrea.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: Does the hon. Gentleman mean other places in Cyprus or in the British Empire?
    MR. S. BUXTON: Other places in the island. At present, however, no money is available.
    ADMIRAL FIELD: The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the Report, or he would have known that it only emphasises the necessity of a lighthouse at this particular point.

    THE POSTMASTERSHIP OF STONEY- FORD, KILKENNY.
    MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to remove the present postmaster, Mr. Robert Giltrap, of Stoney-ford, County Kilkenny, who recently purchased the business premises of the late postmaster, where the post-office has been carried on for years; whether he has, during the four months he has held the position of postmaster, given entire satisfaction to the Government officials and to those residing in the district; why no

    443
    cause has been assigned for the proposed removal of Mr. Giltrap and substitution of Mr. Byrne; whether Mr. Byrne has any knowledge of the business of a postmaster, either in the post or telegraphic departments; and is he aware that Mr. Giltrap is a Protestant and Mr. Byrne a Roman Catholic?
    MR. A. MORLEY: I will answer this question. Mr. Robert Giltrap purchased the premises of the late sub-postmaster of Stoneyford, County Kilkenny, and his wife was permitted to act as sub-postmistress pending the appointment of a successor. During this period—a period of about four months—the duties appear to have been discharged in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Giltrap has not been removed as implied in the question, because he was never appointed. Both he and Mr. Byrne were candidates for the situation, and I appointed Mr. Byrne. Neither of them, so far as is known, possessed any previous knowledge of Post Office duties, either postal or telegraphic. Of the religious opinions of the two candidates I am totally ignorant.

    IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD OFFICIALS.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that of those officials of the Local Government Board, Ireland, appointed otherwise than by competitive examination, 21 are Protestants and only seven Roman Catholics; and (2) what is the proportion of Protestants to Catholics in the population of Ireland?
    MR. J. MORLEY: (1) The Local Government Board have no official knowledge of the religious denominations to which members of their staff belong; but, as far as they are aware, the statement in the first paragraph is correct. (2) According to the Report of the Census of 1891 Roman Catholics then constituted 75.4 per cent, of the population of Ireland.

    EJECTMENTS IN IRELAND.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total number of ejectments in Ireland from the passing of The Land Act, 1881, to the
    444
    passing of The Laud Act, 1887, and the total number since that date, to the present time?
    MR. J. MORLEY: There were 24,400 evictions from October 1, 1881, to September 30, 1887, and 8,975 evictions from October 1, 1887, to June 30, 1894.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Notices of evictions?
    MR. J. MORLEY: No; evictions. The Eviction Returns are prepared quarterly, and it would be a matter of much difficulty to give the exact figures for periods which include broken quarters. The periods mentioned by me, however, approximate closely to those indicated in the question.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Do the figures 8,975 include services by registered letter, or do they only refer to actual dispossession by the Magistrates?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I take it the word "evicted" does not include service by registered letter.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On the Second Reading of the Evicted Tenants Bill the right hon. Gentleman gave the number as 7,000 or 8,000.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Whatever number I gave I have no doubt was correct.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Under the Evicted Tenants Bill 3,900 evictions are to be dealt with. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what has become of the difference between that number and the total of 32,000 evicted between 1887 and 1894? If not, will he give a Return showing what has become of them, and the number still to be dealt with?
    MR. J. MORLEY: It would be impossible to trace the fortunes of every evicted Irish tenant. A great many have been reinstated, and others may be accounted for in different ways. In many instances the evicted tenants have disposed of the interest in their holdings, and some 2,000 have gone into other callings. I will inquire if it is possible to give the Return asked for.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: But even if the evictions were formal, the tenancies in all cases were equally broken?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid that that is so.
    MR. BARTLEY: Is there anything to prevent this large

    445
    number claiming under the Evicted Tenants Bill?
    MR. J. MORLEY: That depends on the circumstances of each particular case.
    MR. BARTLEY: Then there is nothing to prevent 26,000 or 27,000 more tenants claiming compensation under the Bill?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think not; but each case will have to be determined upon its merits.

    SALES OF LANDED ESTATES IN IRELAND.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the total value of the land sold in Ireland, to date, in the Lauded Estate Court and the Encumbered Estates Court?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The total value of land sold in Ireland in the Landed Estates Court and Encumbered Estates Court from November, 1849, to July 30, 1894, is, I am informed, £56,119,192.

    KILBRIDE RIFLE RANGE.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War do the Government intend to establish a range for the new rifle at Kilbride, County Dublin; are they in treaty with Mr. Fletcher Moore, J.P., for the manor of Kilbride; and what is the present state of the negotiations?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is in contemplation to establish a rifle range at Kilbride. Negotiations were entered into with Mr. Fletcher Moore for the acquisition of laud for the purpose, but no agreement has been arrived at.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As this question is one which affects the owners of surrounding property, and as the late Government were good enough to recede from their intention to establish a rifle range in the neighbourhood of Sutton, will an opportunity be given to the inhabitants—both landlords and tenants—in the surrounding area to make representations before a final determination is arrived at by the War Department?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think anyone having property within the zone of danger would be precluded from entering a protest.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: "Protest" is rather a short word. I want them to have an opportunity of making representations to the War Office before a final decision is arrived at.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will see if it is possible.
    MR. CLANCY: Will a public inquiry be held in this case?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think so.
    MR. CLANCY: There have been public inquiries in similar cases; why not in this?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no use in having an inquiry until we have discovered if the landlord of the property will sell.

    THROUGH RAILWAY RATES.
    MR. CLANCY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Commissioners have power to compel Companies to give a through rate; and whether they will make the North Eastern Company comply with the law in this respect?
    MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Member will refer to Section 25 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, he will find that the Commissioners have power to compel Railway Companies to give through rates if the terms of that section are complied with. I have no doubt that the Commissioners would give due attention to any complaint brought before them in terms of the section and do justice in the premises.

    RAILWAY CONSIGNMENT NOTES.
    MR. CLANCY: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Commissioners can prevent the Railway Companies issuing consignment notes which contract them out of all liability for delay, damage, or destruction; and whether he will inquire into those points with reference to Irish railways?
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware that the Railway Commissioners have any jurisdiction in this matter. The question of the reasonableness of conditions is one for the ordinary Courts of Law, and

    447
    they are fully competent to deal with any ease in which this point arises. I do not, therefore, see, as at present advised, that an inquiry by the Board of Trade would serve any useful purpose.

    ALLEGED OUTRAGE ON BRITISH INDIANS IN MADAGASCAR.
    MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would cause inquiry to be made as to an alleged unprovoked attack by M. Suberbie, a French holder of a concession from the Government of Madagascar, upon British Indian subjects, the result of which was the seizure of their persons, trading canoe, and property, including 200 ounces of gold dust; and whether M. Suberbie's men fired on the British Indians when in their canoe, with the British flag flying?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Acting Consul reports that he is in communication with the French Resident General respecting the statement of a British Indian, made in November last, that his canoe had been stopped, and that he had been detained and searched for gold dust by Hova Authorities at M. Suberbie's instigation. The declaration of the British Indian makes no mention of firing upon the canoe, and states that no gold dust was found, and the canoe and property were restored with the exception of one box containing a small sum of money which was missing. We are waiting to receive the explanation from the French Resident General.
    MR. NAOROJI: That answer refers to an entirely different case. Will the hon. Baronet further inquire?
    SIR E. GREY: If the hon. Member can give me any information I will inquire into it.

    PHŒNIX PARK CONSTABULARY DEPÔT.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, of the seven depôt officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary residing in the Phœnix Park—namely, the Commandant, the Adjutant, and five District Inspectors, only one (a District Inspector) is au Irishman and a Catholic, all the others being Englishmen and Protestants; and whether these seven
    448
    form the disciplinary officers of the depôt?
    MR. J. MORLEY: There are 12 officers permanently stationed at the Constabulary depot; of these, I am told, eight are Protestants and four Roman Catholics, six are Englishmen and six Irishmen. All these officers are disciplinary officers in their several departments.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask whether these interrogatories are likely to advance the cause of Home Rule in Ireland?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: They are likely to get fair play for the Catholics, at any rate.

    PIGEON HOUSE FORT, DUBLIN.
    MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any agreement has been entered into with the Corporation of Dublin for the purchase of the Pigeon House Fort, or whether any negotiations in relation thereto are pending; and whether there is any statutory power authorising the application of the rates for such a purpose?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No agreement has been entered into with the Corporation of Dublin for the purchase of Pigeon House Fort, but negotiations on the subject are being carried on. I am unable to answer the second question, which seems rather to be a question for the Corporation and the ratepayers.
    MR. ROSS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the Corporation of Dublin in trying to secure possession of Pigeon House Fort is to enable them to carry out a most extensive scheme of drainage which the residents of Dublin strongly object to?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My information is that the Corporation are promoting an elaborate scheme of drainage, which, so far as I can judge, deserves the support of the inhabitants, if I may be allowed to express an opinion, and I am disposed to give all the assistance in my power.
    MR. ROSS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his Legal Advisers as to whether there is power to apply the rates in this particular way?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is not my affair; it is the affair of the Corporation.

    THE NILE RESERVOIRS.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Warrington, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any communication to this House, before the close of the Session, on the subject of Nile reservoirs; and whether the proposal to make a reservoir dam at Philæ has been approved by Her Majesty's Government?
    SIR E. GREY: The question of the Nile reservoirs, which is one of great difficulty, is still under the consideration of the Egyptian Government, and no decision is likely to be arrived at for a considerable time. Her Majesty's Government have forwarded for consideration the various representations which have been made to them upon the subject, but have not themselves expressed any opinion on the several proposals.

    SALES OF CHARITY LANDS IN ESSEX.
    MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether he is aware that at Hatfield Peverel, Essex, and at Walton-on-the-Naze, Essex, meetings of the inhabitants have been held protesting against proposed sales of charity lands in those places; whether the Charity Commissioners will withhold their consent to such sales, at any rate, until after the new Local Government Act comes into operation; and if the Commissioners will consider the propriety of refusing as a rule their consent to sales of charity lands pending the coming into operation of that Act, and pending the consideration by this House of the Report of the recent Committee upon the Charity Commission and of the suggestions therein?
    THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON,): At Walton-on-the-Naze the sanction of the Charity Commissioners to the proposed sale of charity lands has already been suspended until the Local Government Act, 1894, comes into operation. In the case of Hatfield Peverel, Essex, notice of the
    450
    proposed sale of charity lands is still running. The Commissioners have resolved that, pending the appointment of new Trustees, by or in pursuance of the Local Government Act, 1894, no sale of land of a charity be authorised by the Board in a rural parish, except in a case of special urgency in the interest of the charity.

    THE BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
    MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what number or amount of debentures or Debenture Stock have been issued by the British South Africa Company, and on what terms and under what powers they have been issued; whether there is any limit to the amount which may be issued by the Company; and whether all or any of the debentures or Debenture Stock would have priority over the charge purported to be given by the Company over the revenues of their territory by the contract with the Bechuanaland Railway Company?
    MR. S. BUXTON: The British South Africa Company has power, under its Charter, to issue debentures to the extent of one-half of its share capital. Under that power it has created £750,000 Six per cent. Debentures, of which about £650,000 have been issued up to date. None of these debentures have priority over the railway subsidy charge given by the Company over certain of the sources of revenue of their territory under the Bechuanaland Railway Contract.
    MR. KNOX: Were the debentures issued at par?
    MR. S. BUXTON: That I cannot say.

    THE BECHUANALAND RAILWAY CONTRACT.
    MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any Treasury Minute has been made approving of the terms of the contract relating to the Bechuanaland Railway which has been laid before the House; and whether the House will have an opportunty of discussing this question before the Minute is made?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury Minute has been prepared, and I am today laying a copy on the Table. The

    451
    contract, however, will not be binding until 30 days after the 3rd August, the day on which it was presented to Parliament.

    DONEGAL VOTERS' LIST.
    MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the lists of Parliamentary voters were not posted outside the police barrack at Carrick, County Donegal, this year, as has been the invariable practice every year since The Franchise Act, 1885, came into operation; is it the duty of the Constabulary to have these lists hung outside the barrack; and, if so, who is responsible for the neglect; and did the Clerk of the Peace give instructions this year to the Constabulary to have the lists posted outside the barracks for 14 days from the 21st of July, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.; and, if so, why were his instructions disregarded?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the police that the Clerk of the Peace gave instructions that the lists should be posted at the barrack for the prescribed time and during the prescribed hours, and that the sergeant to whom these instructions were sent did not understand them as meaning that the lists should be posted outside the barrack. He states indeed, that owing to the wind and rain the lists could not be posted outside. I shall make further inquiry in the matter.

    KILLUCAN MEDICAL OFFICER.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Westmeath, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he state the grounds on which the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland continue to withhold their sanction to a loan for the erection of a dispensary and residence for the medical officer at Killucan, in the County of Westmeath, the Local Government Board for Ireland having already signified their approval of the undertaking; and whether, as this proposed loan has been now over 12 months under the consideration of the Commissioners of Works, a decision will soon be arrived at?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that the first application from the
    452
    Guardians was received on the 14th of September, 1893, and the Board of Works replied on the 18th of September asking for the deposit of the lease, plans, &c.; but, though several reminders were sent to the Guardians, the proper documents were not received till the 25th May last. The plans, being found defective, were returned on the 18th of June, and the corrected specification was received on the 3rd instant, and is now being examined. The approval of the Local Government Board will be required for the altered plan before the loan can be sanctioned.

    THE IRISH LANGUAGE IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Galway and other towns in the West of Ireland shop assistants are required to know Irish as well as English owing to many of the customers speaking Irish only; and whether, in view of this fact, an arrangement could be made to enable children in these districts to receive instruction through the medium of their native tongue during a certain period of each school day?
    MR. J. MORLEY: In every national school in Ireland the following Regulation of the Commissioners is suspended for the guidance of managers and teachers:—
    "If there are Irish-speaking pupils in a school, the teacher, if acquainted with the Irish language, should, whenever practicable, employ the vernacular as an aid to the elucidation and acquisition of the English language."
    In order to encourage teachers to instruct their pupils in Irish the result fee allowed by the Commissioners for a pass therein as an extra branch to pupils of the 5th class and above is 10s., or double the fee allowed for French.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether national school teachers in districts in the West of Ireland are required to possess any knowledge themselves of the Irish language?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not know that it is required, but I understand that it is considered to be a desirable qualification.

    RESULT FEES IK IRISH NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that result fees are not allowed to Irish National School teachers in respect to pupils under the fifth class; and whether he will advise the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to consider the desirability of extending the system of result fees to all classes?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The assertion in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question is not according to the fact, as result fees are paid for pupils in all classes, whether above or below fifth class.

    LABOURERS' COTTAGES AT EMLY.
    MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when will the Local Government Board send an arbitrator to value the proposed sites for labourers' cottages in the parish of Emly, County Tipperary?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board inform me that it would be premature to apply to the Commissioners of Public Works to appoint an arbitrator to value the plots of land until after the issue of a Provisional Order confirming the scheme of the Guardians. The Report of the Inspector on the scheme was received by the Board last week, and is now under consideration.

    BOOKMAKERS AT IRISH CYCLING RACES.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the restrictions on cycling in the Phœnix Park, if the presence of bookmakers is a nuisance at these races, and the cause of their being stopped; why do not the police remove the offenders and put down betting; whether a depution of the Irish Cyclists' Association have assured the Board of Works that their Rules forbid betting, and that they severely punished offenders for such an infraction of their Rules; if so, why are their members to be deprived of a privilege because of the action of lawbreakers whom the police can cope with; and under what Statute are their sports to be curtailed?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: As already stated, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend's question of the 24th ultimo, no restrictions have been placed on ordinary cycling. The decision of the Board of Works not to give permission for races after this season was due to representations from the Commissioner of Police not only as regard the betting nuisance, but also as regards the danger to persons using the Park for ordinary purposes. The Irish Cyclists' Association have done their best to cooperate with the Board of Works in discouraging betting, but they appear to have been quite unsuccessful. I understand that the police will deal with any infraction of the law that occurs.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it intended to stop all cycling in the Park?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Board of Works do not intend to stop all cycling, but only racing.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Is there any power to arrest the law breakers?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, I believe there is such a power under the Dublin Police Act.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state under what Statute the Board of Works proposes to exercise these powers?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am told that if the police should be required to bring a case into Court the Acts under which it might be brought are the Dublin Police Act, the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and the Carriage Act. That is the only information given to me, and I cannot say whether it is correct.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: They have no powers except under these Acts?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I believe not.

    LOANS TO IRISH TENANTS.
    MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether John Meara, tenant farmer, of Derrahinny, near Portumna, County Galway, on applying last March to the Board of Works for a loan of £60 for the improvement of his holding, was required by the Board to forward a receipt showing payment of his rent to November last, and thereupon paid the rent to that date and transmitted the receipt to the Board; whether the Board then called upon him to pay the rent up to May last,

    455
    a date subsequent to the time of his application, and to send them the receipt; whether, notwithstanding au explanation by the tenant that the rent had already been paid up to the latest customory period, and that the half-year owing represented the hanging-gale, the Board have declined to make the loan on the ground that the security of the tenant's interest in the land has been endangered by "dilatory observance" of the condition as to payment of rent; whether the Treasury approve of refusing a loan where the rent had been paid up to the latest customary period; and whether the Board will reconsider the case?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that Mr. John Meara's Memorial for a loan of £60 was received on the 26th of April, 1894. It appeared therefrom that rent had been paid only to November, 1892, and it was represented that a hanging-gale was allowed on the estate on which he is a tenant. As, however, Mr. Meara is a judicial tenant he was not legally entitled to any concession of this nature. On receipt of the Memorial the applicant was asked to forward a receipt for the November, 1893, gale of rent, that being, at the time, the latest period to which rent should be paid. Before this requirement was complied with the Board of Works learned from the landlord that the rent to 1st November, 1892, had not been paid till Mr. Meara had been served with ejectments, and just before his time as caretaker expired, and also that the May gale should have been paid when due, thus showing that the rent had not been paid to the latest customary period. As the Board of Works' security for a Land Law Loan is the tenant's interest in his holding it is apparent that anything that would weaken that security should enter largely into the consideration of the question whether a loan should be made. Here the tenant's rent is in arrear for 1½ years, and, in consequence, it is open to his landlord to institute proceedings for ejectment and termination of the tenant's interest.
    MAJOR RASCH: Would an Essex tenant have any chance of borrowing £60 if he did not pay his rent?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not suppose he would.

    CRIME IN GALWAY.
    MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Judge Andrews, when addressing the Grand Jury for the County of Galway, said the bills to go before them were only four of an unimportant character, and that, by the County Inspector's Report, there was no increase in the reported cases for this compared with the corresponding period last year, still there were men under police protection in the eastern division of the county, that most of those were on the Clanricarde Estate, and those under partial police protection were also on the same estate, and were it not for those cases there would be very little to complain of; whether he will state what is the annual cost for police protection on the Clanricarde Estate; and what were Mr. Tener's, agent to Lord Clanricarde, qualifications to be a member of the Grand Jury addressed by Judge Andrews?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The statements in the first paragraph of the question are substantially correct. In regard, however, to the matter of special police protection in the East Riding of the county, the Judge observed that about one-half of the number of persons receiving such protection were on the Clanricarde Estate. The Judge's remarks were as follows:—
    "There are 15 persons in the East Hiding under constant police protection; nine of these are on the Clanricarde Estate. There are 27 other persons afforded police protection, of whom It are on the Clanricarde Estate, making 42 altogether, involving the necessity of employing no fewer than 92 members of the Constabulary."
    The cost of police protection on the Clanricarde Estate last year was £2,098. With regard to the last part of the question, I presume that Mr. Tener was summoned to represent the property over which he acts as agent. My hon. Friend knows that the Executive Government have no voice or control in the matter of choosing the members of the Grand Jury. The Sheriff is at liberty to choose whomsoever he likes, provided there is one representative from each barony.
    MR. KNOX: Is there any power under the Regulations of the Irish police to charge the expense for special police protection on the person protected in the same way as is done in England?
    MR. J. MORLEY: If my hon. Friend will put that question down I will inquire.
    MR. SEXTON: Is the charge of £2,098 a year on this one Irish estate a continuing annual charge on the Imperial Exchequer?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Of course, a moiety of this £2,098 for Police protection last year came out of sums voted by Parliament.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will Her Majesty's Government in their next Finance Rill consider the possibility of placing a special tax on the persons requiring protection?
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Will the Government also consider the expediency of putting a tax on those who cause the disturbance and expenditure?
    MR. ROSS: Having regard to the threats uttered in this House during the past few days, will the Chief Secretary give an assurance that he will not relax this police protection?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think, Sir, that the hon. and learned Member must know that that is a perfectly superfluous and idle question.
    MR. ROSS: I cannot agree that it is superfluous. May I ask whether the £2,098 represents the ordinary pay of these policemen engaged in special protection, or whether it is extra expenditure?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that the special cost of this special protection last year was £2,098?
    MR. ROSS: Was it the ordinary pay of the police so engaged, or was it in addition to their ordinary pay?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure. I am informed that this special protection is an element of the charge.
    MR. ROSS: Will the right hon Gentleman ascertain?
    [No answer was returned.]

    RESIDENCE OF RESIDENT MAGIS TRATES AT PORTUMNA.
    MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary 'to the Lord Lieu-
    458
    tenant of Ireland whether Colonel Long-bourne, Resident Magistrate, has applied to the Government to allow him to reside at Portumna instead of Loughrea, where his predecessors up to the present have resided: and whether, in view of the feeling in the district and of Colonel Longbourne's association with the agent to Lord Clanricarde, he will be allowed to reside in the immediate vicinity of Portumna Castle?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Colonel Long-bourne, Resident Magistrate, received permission to reside at Portumna instead of Loughrea, because no suitable house was available at the latter place, while there was one to be had at Portumna. Portumna was formerly the headquarters of a Resident Magistrate, and Colonel Longbourne's immediate predecessor resided about six miles from Loughrea.
    MR. T. W.RUSSELL: Is the reason why a house cannot be obtained for a Resident Magistrate to be found in the fact that Lord Clanricarde refuses to put the house in repair?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I have heard something of the kind; I cannot say if it is true.

    IRISH AGRICULTURAL CLASS BOOKS.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, in the latest edition of their agricultural class-book, deliberately advertise imported agricultural machinery to the disadvantage of the article made in Ireland; and if this statement is true will he recommend the Commissioners of National Education to give a fair field to Irish manufacturers?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The particular book referred to in the question contains a variety of illustrations of agricultural implements named after their inventors or manufacturers, but with no intention of advertising the implements. In the next edition, should another edition come into use, all this will so far as practicable be corrected. The book referred to obtains little or no circulation in the National Schools, less than 400 copies having been sold last year. The book, which is practically the agricultural text-book of the National' Schools, and prescribed in the Commissioners' pro-

    459
    gramme for the instruction of the pupils, is that designated "Introduction to Practical Farming," of which about 22,000 were sold last year. This book is in no respect open to the charge conveyed in the first part of the question.

    WEXFORD GRAND JURY.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the appointment as a Grand Juror of Wexford of Mr. J. J. Percival, junior, who lives in lodgings and pays no county rates, was valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 31 of the Grand Jury Act of 1836, which provides that the Sheriff shall place first on the panel for each barony or half barony the name of some person having in such barony or half barony freehold lands of the yearly value of £50 and upwards, or leasehold laud of the value of £100 over and above the amount of rent payable thereout?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the gentleman named in the question was not on the Grand Jury. This statement, I take it, applies to the last Assizes. When at Wexford he resides with his sisters, who are rated occupiers, and he himself owns freehold property of the value of more than £50 yearly, on which he pays county cess.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY SIGNAL MEN.
    MR. CHAINING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the resolutions, passed by the Leeds Central Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, protesting against the action of the Great Northern Railway Company in altering the hours of signalmen, in the boxes at Beeston Station and other places on their lines, from eight to 10 hours; and whether he has taken, or will take steps, under the Railway Hours Bill, 1893, to check the action of the Company in thus increasing the hours of labour? I wish, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has not been specially called to the boxes at Barkstone, and to the two boxes at Stevenage; and whether it is not a fact that those boxes and many others on the main line which are now raised to 10 hours have been eight-hour
    460
    boxes for periods ranging from 21 to seven years, and whether the work at all of them has not enormously increased?
    MR. BRYCE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question as to particular boxes without notice. The number of these boxes is very large. My attention has been called to these resolutions, and the Great Northern Railway Company have been asked for a statement of the duties performed by the signalmen. The Board have no authority under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, to prevent the Company increasing the hours of their men, but if it is represented to them that the hours when increased are unreasonable they will use the powers given them by the Act with a view to a reduction if it is found to be necessary.
    MR. CHANNING: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to all the boxes on the line, or to this particular box only?
    MR. BRYCE: To the particular box, in the first instance. The latter part of the answer is, of course, general. We shall act on any representations which may be made to us.
    MR. CHANNING: Have not the Board of Trade power otherwise than by representation to take action in these matters?
    MR. BRYCE: The view the Board of Trade have taken is that their duty is, first of all, to call upon the Company to submit revised schedules, and if the schedules submitted are not in accordance with the views of the Board of Trade the matter is referred to the Railway Commissioners.

    THE MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill will be issued?
    MR. BRYCE: I understand that the Report to which the hon. Member refers will be issued very shortly. It is, I believe, not usual to issue Reports on Revision and Consolidation Bills until the Committee is over, when they are issued with the Minutes of Proceedings. But the matter is one rather for the authorities of the House than for me.

    ST. LAWRENCE SCHOOL, WALTHAM.
    MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Waltham St. Lawrence, Sherlock Street, School, by which a deduction of £6 8s. 4d., or of one-ninth of the total grant to the school, has been made because one of the teachers was only provisionally recognised under Article 68 of the Code; whether he is aware that the Inspector, in his Report on the infant class taught by this teacher, stated that the reading is pretty good, arithmetic good on the whole, and recitation nicely said; and whether, under these circumstances, he will re-consider the withdrawal of the grant to a small agricultural village school?
    MR. ACLAND: The teacher in question was not recognised at all under Article 68, as Her Majesty's Inspector was unable to approve her. A deduction was accordingly made from the grant for insufficiency of staff, according to the universal practice of the Department, under Article 108 of the Code. Her Majesty's Inspector also stated in his Report that the object lessons were very poorly given, and the other occupations of the infants so treated as to have little educational value.
    MR. BARTLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same teacher was successful in another place, and received the Inspector's approval? Does he know that this is a very small place: that by accident the additional teacher was not returned, and that a heavy loss falls upon the school, which seems to be very hard upon it?
    MR. ACLAND: I did not know that the teacher had been employed and approved elsewhere. I did know an additional teacher was missed out. If any facts are laid before me I will consider them.

    COMMANDEERING IN THE TRANSVAAL.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of the Transvaal have given up the claim to commandeer British residents in the Transvaal for food and supplies?
    MR. S. BUXTON: As regards the levying of contributions in money or goods, British subjects are now in the same position as all other residents in the Transvaal. Like burghers of the Republic and other foreign subjects they are alike liable to the ordinary war contribution, but to that only.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether it is a fact that the British subjects recently commandeered and imprisoned were turned adrift by the Boer authorities in the open trek 200 miles from their homes?
    MR. S. BUXTON: I have no information to that effect.

    CHARITABLE REQUESTS IN IRELAND.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any law obliging the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland to invest the moneys of the charities they control in Consols, which pay only 2¾per cent. interest, thereby materially limiting the income of the charities concerned; if there be such a law, have the Commissioners invariably acted upon it; if there be no such law, why do they keep these moneys locked up in Consols, and to the detriment of the charities prevent investments in approved securities bearing a larger interest; and is there any means by which the Commissioners may be induced to allow sale of Consols and investments in other securities which are legally open to investment by Trustees, and which bear greater interest?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Secretary to the Commissioners that in all cases where application has been made to them to change the investment of charity funds in the hands of the Board, standing in Government Stock, they have been of opinion that the interests of the charities concerned have been best served by retaining the corpus of the funds in Government Stock, save in one instance, where under special circumstances the Commissioners were authorised by a scheme of the Court of Chancery to alter the investment. As the Commissioners have adjourned their sittings during the legal recess, I regret it has not been found practicable to ob-

    463
    tain a more detailed reply to my hon. Friend's inquiries.
    MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to representing to the Commissioners the wisdom in the interests of the charities of investing in Consols and other specified securities?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I think that is a very proper matter to call their attention to, and I will do so.

    BARRY LINKS.
    CAPTAIN HOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has come to the knowledge of the War Department that much of the ground acquired by the Government at Barry Links for the encampment of military forces (Regular and Reserve) is rendered practically inaccessible from the nearest railway stations, owing to the fact that the Government, while owning the land bounded on the north by the railway and on the south by the sea, have not acquired any right of access to that land from the north side of the railway; whether early steps will be taken to remedy the very great inconvenience caused by this state of matters; and whether it is the intention of the War Department to make roads suitable for the passage of wheeled traffic, to connect the various camping grounds on the Links; and, if so, when this will be done?
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The War Department has no information that Barry Links are inaccessible as described, and no inconvenience has been reported. Roads for communication on the War Department land have been made to meet military requirements, and further roads would, no doubt, be made should they be found necessary.
    CAPTAIN HOPE: If I give the right hon. Gentleman information as to the considerable inconvenience caused, will he make inquiries? As a fact, one brigade, although only a mile from the railway station, had to send its baggage four miles round in order to get it on the rails.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I shall be happy to receive such information. There may be accidental circumstances of that kind which possibly the Military Authorities did not think it worth while to communicate to the War Office.

    SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT DIRECTORY.
    MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the new issue of the Directory of the Science and Art Department was distributed through the post to the local secretaries of science and art classes throughout the country on Saturday last, thus entailing the delivery by postmen on Sunday of a large number of parcels each weighing over two pounds; and whether, seeing the desirability of preventing as much as possible all unnecessary Sunday labour, he will give instructions which will prevent Departmental Papers having to be delivered in future on that day?
    MR. ACLAND: Much the larger portion of these Reports were sent out on Friday. Owing to an insufficiency of the supply from the Queen's Printers, some were not sent out till Saturday. An endeavour is always made to avoid sending heavy posts on Saturdays.

    SPORTING TELEGRAMS FOR NEWS PAPERS.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Deptford, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is within the discretion of the Postmaster General to register newspapers for the receipt of telegrams at specially cheap rates, such telegrams being for publication; does the Post Office accept at such rates telegrams concerning the starting prices of racehorses, in order that bets may be made; is a list of newspapers, registered for that purpose, kept at the General Post Office; and is The Birmingham Racing News and Sporting Item amongst the publications so favoured?
    MR. A. MORLEY: It is within the discretion of the Postmaster General to register newspapers for the receipt of telegrams at the Press rates. Such telegrams must consist exclusively of news for immediate publication in the newspapers to which they are addressed, and telegrams containing particulars respecting the starting prices of racehorses would be accepted at the Press rates if intended for publication in a registered newspaper. The answer to the two last

    465
    paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the paper mentioned in the question, the information telegraphed relates entirely to the starting prices of horses; has the Postmaster General any discretion in granting these special rates for telegrams; and, seeing that in the case of the newspaper referred to some time elapsed between the application being made and granted, is it right to assume inquiry was made into the matter?
    MR. A. MORLEY: I am not aware of the facts, but will make inquiry. The special rate is granted under an Act of Parliament.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not a fact that the Post Office put a construction of their own on the Act of Parliament?
    MR. A. MORLEY: No. They must be guided by the Act of Parliament.

    THE TREATMENT OF FISHER LADS.
    MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the allegations of cruelty to apprentices said to be committed on some of the Grimsby fishing smacks, and to the fact that some of the lads are reported to prefer seven to 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour, to going to sea in the smack in which they are apprenticed; whether, if there is reason to fear the charges of cruelty well founded, he could suggest any means of preventing the same, or enabling lads to avoid such apprenticeship when unfit for sea service or ill-treated; and whether it would be possible to have some system of licensing masters to have apprentices, and some local supervision over the master and apprentices?
    MR. BRYCE: My attention has been called to the statements which have been made with respect to the working of the fishing apprentice system at Grimsby. The Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, jointly, have instituted an inquiry into the whole system, and I expect to receive in a day or two the Report of the two Inspectors who have conducted the inquiry. Until I have considered it I shall not be in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause the inquiry to be extended so as to include the case of pauper apprentices who ought under the law to be looked after by the relieving officers? Also, will it include children on coast-wise colliers?
    MR. BRYCE: The present inquiry has been completed, and I think it will be found that the Report deals with the case of pauper apprentices sent on fishing smacks. It does not go beyond that.
    MR. NUSSEY: Will the Report be laid on the Table?
    MR. BRYCE: I presume so. I have not yet received it, and cannot say whether any part of it is confidential.

    SPECIAL ALLOWANCES FOR IRISH TELEGRAPHISTS.
    MR. SWEETMAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General will he explain why a smaller allowance is given for special duty to telegraphists during the present Naval Manœuvres than was given some years ago; whether he is aware that 12 Post Office clerks received an allowance at the rate of 12s. a day for a fortnight several summers ago; whether a telegraphist sent from a country station in Ireland is given an even smaller allowance than is given to a Dublin telegraphist for similar work; whether a smaller allowance is given in Ireland than in England; and, if so, on what grounds; whether telegraphists after five years' service are only paid 22s. a week, and whether a reduction of allowance for special duty has the same effect as the reduction of the year's salary; whether it is the practice of the Post Office to pay as low wages and to give as small an extra allowance for special duty as competition will enable it, or to pay a living wage; and whether he will give orders that during the present Naval Manœuvres the same allowance for extra duty shall be given telegraph clerks as is given during Military Manœuvres and race meetings?
    MR. A. MORLEY: No alteration has been made in the allowance given to telegraphists for special duty. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no case in which 12 Post Office clerks have received an allowance of 12s. a day for a fortnight when specially em-

    467
    ployed on work in connection with the Naval Manœuvres. No distinction is made in the matter of allowances between telegraphists drawn from a country office and those drawn from the Metropolitan Office in Ireland. The subsistence allowances in Ireland are on the same scale as in England. These subsistence allowances have no bearing upon the amount of their wages. The hon. Member must form his own conclusions as to Post Office wages. Full details are given in the Estimates. The allowances arranged for the present Naval Manœuvres appear to be adequate, and I do not propose that they should be increased. The circumstances at Naval Manœuvres differ from those which obtain at race meetings, where the cost of living and sleeping accommodation was abnormally high. At Military Manœuvres the allowances vary according to the circumstances. Every case is carefully considered, and if any case is brought to my notice in which it is considered the allowance is insufficient it will be fully inquired into.

    NAVAL MARKSMEN AND THEIR PAY.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what means are taken, and at what intervals of time, for ascertaining that captains of guns and captains of turrets in the Navy retain their efficiency as marksmen; whether captains of guns and captains of turrets are paid 2d. a day extra each, and whether they are all paid alike, or whether any extra pay is given for greater efficiency in marksmanship; whether, considering the cost of each round fired, varying from £12 in the 6-inch quick-firing gun to £164 in the 16.25-inch gun, and the vital importance to the fighting power of the ship of taking every possible means of increasing the average proportion of hits from one in ten to one in three or one in five, consideration will be given to the adoption of some method whereby increased pay may be given to captains of guns and captains of turrets for increased efficiency in marksmanship; and whether, especially, some increase of pay (coupled with increased tests of the maintenance of efficiency) will be given to captains of turrets on whose marksmanship the safety and fighting power of the ship in action so largely depend?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WOKTH, Lancashire, Clitberœ): Captains of guns and turrets fire a certain, number of rounds at intervals during each quarter. In addition, every opportunity is taken of practising these men at aiming drills. Their efficiency or otherwise is ascertained from these practices. The extra pay which a captain of turret, a captain of turret gun, and a captain of gun receive in addition to other gunnery or torpedo allowances is specified at pp. 916–7 of the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions (1893), and prizes are given for good shooting. The accuracy of the statements of fact in paragraph 3 of the hon. Member's question is not admitted. The arrangements already in force are considered to sufficiently secure the maintenance of efficiency.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me accurately the cost of each shot? Is it accurate to say that it varies from £12 in the 6in. quick-firing gun to £164 in the 16.25in.gun? Does he deny that? I would also ask whether all the men are paid alike, and whether increased pay might not be given for increased efficiency?
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No, Sir; a difference is not made according to efficiency of the men. I cannot admit the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statement as to the cost of each shot. He is not very far wrong, but there would be a great deal more to be said on the subject.

    PRIVATE MOORINGS IN PUBLIC ROADSTEADS.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the practice of laying down private moorings in public roadsteads and anchorages and of leaving them there; and if the fact that in many instances the buoys marking these moorings are so large as to be a danger to small craft; whether he is aware of the great inconvenience and danger thereby caused to vessels anchoring in such roadsteads in consequence of the risk thereby created of their anchors becoming foul of the moorings laid and left there; and whether the Board of Trade have any power or authority to interfere to prevent

    469
    such a monopoly of portions of public roadsteads by private individuals; and, if so, how and under what conditions that power is exercised; and, if not, whether they will consider the propriety of issuing notices to mariners, or of taking such other steps as may be necessary to put an end to a practice dangerous to shipping?
    MR. BRYCE: The Board of Trade have received no complaints regarding private moorings in public roadsteads; but if the hon. Member will let me know to what harbour or roadstead he refers, and will send me particulars, I will communicate with the Harbour Authority having jurisdiction. The circumstances of roadsteads, and the legal powers of the Board of Trade as respects roadsteads, vary in different places, and it is therefore impossible for me to give an answer which shall be at once general and correct to the third paragraph of the question.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: My question refers to places where there is no Local Authority. Is not the Board of Trade competent to deal with these cases?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not find any reference to those cases in the question. If the hon. Member can call our attention to any particular cases, we will do what we can.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that a dozen new moorings have been laid down this year in the roadstead of Cowes? Will he pay attention to that matter? There is no Local Authority there.
    MR. BEYCE: I am sorry to say I have not been to Cowes this summer; but I am quite willing to take it from the hon. Gentleman that that is so, and I will make inquiries.

    DISEASE IN CANADIAN CATTLE.
    SIR H. MAXWELL: In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is yet in a position to lay upon the Table the Report of the Special Commission which was appointed to inquire into the landing from Canada of animals affected with disease; how many weeks have elapsed since the conclusion of that inquiry; and will he afford to hon. Members the opportunity of seeing the Report before
    470
    proceeding with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,: The inquiry to which my right hon. Friend refers did not take the form of an inquiry by a Special Commission, and consequently there will be no Report in the ordinary acceptation of the term. I propose, however, to lay on the Table, as I have already stated, a reasoned Minute analysing the evidence which I have received and setting forth the conclusions at which I have arrived. The viva voce examination of witnesses was concluded on the 10th ultimo; but since that date it has been necessary to scrutinise very carefully the various references cited by some of the experts examined, and the subject is so full of technical and scientific detail that some delay in the presentation of the further Papers promised has been unavoidable, but I hope it may not be long before they are available. The Bill to which my right hon. Friend refers is a Consolidation Bill pure and simple, and has been critically examined from that point of view by the Joint Committee of the two Houses. It does not appear to me that the Papers promised as to the Canadian question would be of any assistance to the House in determining whether or not the business of consolidation has been accurately performed, and I should hope that the right hon. Gentleman would, as in other cases, be willing to accept the assurance of the Joint Committee on that point.

    CLYDE LIGHTHOUSE TRUSTEES.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade by what authority and under what conditions the Clyde Lighthouse Trustees deposit river dredgings in Loch Long; when such authority, if it exists, expires; and whether and when the Board of Trade will take the necessary steps to prevent the continuance of this practice?
    MR. BRYCE: I have been advised that the Clyde Lighthouses Act, 1880, empowers the Trustees to deposit in Loch Long or other contiguous lochs, without the consent of the Board of Trade, the dredgings from the works authorised by that Act. By the Clyde

    471
    Lighthouses Act, 1890, the time for the completion of the works authorised by the Act of 1880 was extended to the 6th of August, 1895; when that time arrives the Board of Trade will have considered what course can be best adopted to prevent further deposit in Loch Long. I may add that many complaints have been received on the subject, and it engages my anxious attention.

    WORKHOUSE IRREGULARITIES IN IRELAND.
    MR. MAINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have yet received written explanations from the masters of the following workhouses—namely, Car-rickmacross, Castleblaney, Larne, Bally-mena, and Newtownards relative to the abuses and discrepancies which existed in them; and, if so, what precautions have been adopted to prevent a repetition of them; and whether the Local Government Board will in future instruct all their Inspectors, when they visit the Unions in their districts, to see that the number of paupers in the house corresponds with the number in the books?
    MR. J. MORLEY: (1) The masters of the workhouses named in this question have submitted their explanations to the Local Government Board. They allege that the discrepancies were entirely the result of an oversight. The Board have reprimanded these officers, and have called their auditor's attention to the matter, in order that the cost of maintenance entered in the workhouse books in respect of the paupers who have left the house may be surcharged to the workhouse masters. (2) The Board believe that it is the practice on the part of some of the Inspectors to count the paupers in the workhouses, and they have intimated to all of them, in view of what has transpired in the district in question, that it is desirable that this should periodically be done.

    IRISH SHERIFFS.
    MR. MAINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sheriffs were appointed in Irish counties before Circuits or Assizes were established in
    472
    Ireland, and that the late Sir John Perrot (Lord Deputy of Queen Elizabeth) and his successors appointed Sheriffs for the Ulster counties, though the first Assize in Ulster was held in the reign of King James I.; whether it is the fact that Sheriffs for the Irish counties were so appointed by the Lord Lieutenant without nomination of the Judges till about the year 1826; also that it was found by the Report of the Commissions to inquire into the office of Sheriffs (for Ireland), published in 1826, that the nomination of persons by the Judges for the office of Sheriff in Ireland is a mere practice of the Judges of Assize; whether he is aware that in 1837 the then Lord Lieutenant, Lord Mulgrave (during the Under Secretaryship of Thomas Drummond) each year appointed Sheriffs who were not nominated by the Judges or the acting Sheriffs, and that the legality of such appointments was judicially decided and upheld by Mr. Justice Burton, at the Assizes for the County of Monaghan, in the mouth of March, 1837; and whether he will consider the advisability of reverting to this practice?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member has put to me a large number of questions, to answer which would require considerable investigation into Irish history. I may say this, however: that I am quite aware of the great importance of the subject, and that I have had inquiries made, but necessarily of a very cursory kind, since the question was put upon the Paper. So far as the last paragraph bears on the action taken during the Under Scretaryship of Thomas Drummond, it is, so far as I can ascertain, perfectly true. The question, however, is a very serious constitutional one, as all learned gentlemen in this House are fully aware. But what I promise the hon. gentleman is that I will look into it very carefully and very promptly to see how the law really lies, and what are the powers of the Lord Lieutenant in this matter.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether there was not some difficulty in getting gentlemen to undertake this office? Was it not going begging?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Not exactly going-begging. But gentlemen proposed for it beg very hard to be relieved.
    MR. MACNEILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman,

    473
    when instituting inquiries on this subject, would refer to the very valuable Report published upon this subject by the late Mr. David Lynch, who was afterwards Judge of the Encumbered Estates Court in Ireland, which dealt very fully with the whole question?
    MR. CARSON: Will the right lion. Gentleman promise, pending the settlement of this question, not to prosecute any gentlemen who may refuse to undertake such an office?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Oh, no, Sir. Law and order must be maintained.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' RETURNS.
    MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Registrar of Friendly Societies, of Abingdon Street, Westminster, has received the balance sheet and Returns (under the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1876) of the Railway Employes and General Mutual Legal Aid Society, of 266, Gray's Inn Road; whether he is aware that a Mr. Glew has constituted himself secretary and treasurer of this Society, and sent in as yet no Return since the formation of the said Society; that the President of this Society, Mr. E. J. Walker, is dead, and that notwithstanding this fact his name still appears as President upon the circulars of this Society; whether any meeting of members has ever been held; whether any minutes of the Society have ever been kept or produced; whether a Mr. Sayer is Trustee; if so, can he state who appointed him, and whether he has a banking account in the name of the Society; where are the registered offices; and will he cause inquiry to be made into the facts of this case, and if it should prove to be a bogus Friendly Society, by means of which several watermen and lightermen and other poor operatives have been taken in, he will institute further proceedings to prevent the possibility of further harm being done?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Registrar of Friendly Societies has not received the annual Return (under the Trade Union Acts of 1871 and 1876) of the Railway Employes and General Mutual Legal Aid Society, of 266, Gray's Inn Road, but proceedings to enforce the Return have been commenced. The name of Mr. J. Glew appears on the Rules of the Trade Union as Secretary and Treasurer. The Trade
    474
    Union was registered in August, 1891. It is correct that Mr. Glew has sent in as yet no Return since the formation of the Trade Union. The Registrar has no knowledge of the other circumstances stated, nor has he any authority to require minutes of meetings to be produced; but every member or person having an interest in the funds has the right to inspect them at all reasonable times. On the registry of the Trade Union the name of Mr. John Sayer was returned as its Trustee. The authority for the statement that he was so is that of the seven members who signed the Rules. The Registrar has no knowledge whether Mr. Sayer has a banking account in the name of the Trade Union. The registered office is 266, Gray's Inn Road. The Registrar has no authority under the Trade Union Acts to make inquiry into the facts of the case or to institute any proceedings other than those for enforcing the Return. The Society is not a Friendly Society of any kind, but is a Trade Union for certain defined objects. I think that my hon. Friend has done a public service in calling attention to the question.
    MR. MACDONA: I thank the right lion. Gentleman for his answer. Is he aware that Mr. Glew offers to give tramway men, for the sum of Is. a year, the best legal advice possible in all cases? Is it not within his province to warn the members of Friendly Societies against these things? Will he, in order to prevent the working classes being swindled in this manner, have the answer that he has just given made public?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The answer will be sent up to the Press Gallery, and no doubt the newspapers will take notice of it.

    THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is intended to proceed this Session with legislation on the general lines of the Report of the University of London Commission?
    MR. ACLAND: The matter has been under very careful consideration for some time, and the Government are really anxious to proceed with the matter. But

    475
    I am afraid it is too late now to do anything this Session.

    ROYAL VICTORIA YARD, DEPTFORD.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Deptford, I beg to ask the Civil'Lord of the Admiralty whether six permanent day coopers employed in the Royal Victoria Yard, Deptford, have had their wages reduced from 30s. to 26s. a week; and whether these men's pensions will be calculated on a higher rate than their present weekly pay?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): There are no permanent day coopers at Deptford. Any cooper who is qualified, and wishes it, has his turn at piece-work. It is incorrect to say that the wages have been reduced. The rate of 30s., or 5s. a day, was paid for some time in consequence of a mistake in an Admiralty letter. When the mistake was discovered, the proper rate of 4s. 4d. a day was resumed. The nominal rate of 30s. a week was fixed by the Treasury for the purpose of calculating the pensions of men who, being employed on piece-work, earn on an average 30s. a week or more. It does not apply to men who are not employed on piece-work at all, as the rule is that pension cannot be calculated at a higher rate than actual pay.

    LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE.
    MR. ROSS: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he say how many cases remain still undisposed of within the Lough Erne drainage area in which applications have been made by landowners to have increased rents placed upon tenants in respect of alleged drainage benefits to their holdings; what was the estimated annual amount of such benefit in the cases already disposed of by the Board of Works Commissioners; and what was the actual annual increased rent imposed?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that no applications in this case remain undisposed of. The increased value of the lands, as estimated by the Board of Works at the inquiry after the completion of the works, is £1,503 5s. 3d.,
    476
    and this is the amount that the tenants pay by way of increased rent.

    BOMBAY AND ADEN MAIL OFFICERS.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, during the first quarter of 1894, the assistant mail officers, employed in the Sea Post Office between Bombay and Aden, worked on an average over 12 hours a day; and that, out of 53 days of such employment, they, during 26 days, worked over 16 hours a day, and, in four cases, over 20 hours a day; and whether, considering the effect of such hours on health in a tropical climate, he will cause inquiry to be made into the grievance complained of?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,: The information at the India Office does not come down to so late a date as the first quarter of 1894. In a Report relating to 1893, it is stated that the staff is fixed so as to give each sorter about eight hours' work a day during a run of five days. In exceptional cases of very fast runs, they may with a heavy mail have to work for 10 hours a day. In order to get through the work early in the voyage, they sometimes—especially if the weather is favourable—work longer; but, if so, it is by their own choice. The arrangements are such that, out of every 21 days, every sorter gets at least 10 days' rest ashore, besides an additional week at Bombay after every three trips, I will, however, inquire whether, as a matter of fact, the sorters have been allowed voluntarily to work for the hours mentioned in the question, which would appear to be excessive.

    EAST BERGHOLT CHARITY LANDS.
    MR. EVERETT: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whetherthe Commissioners have given their sanction to the proposed sale of Charity Land at East Bergholt, Suffolk, which sale is opposed by many of the inhabitants?
    MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The Commissioners have not given their sanction to the proposed sale. They are now in communication with the parties interested, and hope that a settlement

    477
    may be thereby arrived at which will meet the views of the labourers and be conducive also to the interests of the charity. I may also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to Question No. 24 to-day.

    STATE GRANTS TO NONCONFORMISTS.
    MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the amount of the grants made by the State to Nonconformist Bodies since the reign of Queen Anne up to the present date?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I would refer the hon. Member to the Return No. 650 of 1845, giving information on this subject for the period of 1800 to 1844, and to the Paper No. 420 of 1893 in continuation of the former. I am afraid that I could not justify the heavy expenses and enormous labour which would be involved by a historical research carried back beyond 1800.

    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAIL WAY SIGNALMEN.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the result of communications with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company has been that the Company has undertaken to reduce the hours of their signal boxes from 12 to 10; whether he is aware that several signal boxes on the main line between Brighouse and Normanton, at which the hours are reduced to 10, were previously closed on Sundays, but that now since the change of hours the signalmen at these boxes are compelled to relieve other boxes which are always open on Sundays, and to work a spell of 12 hours at such boxes; whether there are still a large number of busy boxes which have not been dealt with by the Company; and whether he will take further steps to make the Company comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the Railway Hours Act, and complete the scheme of reduction of hours at the signal boxes not as yet dealt with?
    MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; in consequence of the action of the Board of Trade the Railway Company have undertaken to reduce all the 12-hour boxes on the Brighouse and Normauton section of
    478
    their line to 10 hours, and two 10-hour cabins have been brought down to eight hours. If representations in terms of the Act as to the insufficiency of rest on Sunday are made to the Board of Trade the Board will certainly take action upon them. There are busy boxes on other sections of this railway in regard to which complaints have been received, and the Board are using the powers of the Act of 1893 in the manner which it contemplates.

    THE TREATMENT OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether lie can now tell the House what is to be the form of his promised inquiry into the conditions under which pauper children are educated in barrack or associated schools?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SIIAW-LEFEVRE,: When a few days ago I promised an inquiry into the workhouse schools I stated my preference for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. I have, however, found it impossible to deal with the subject in this manner this Session, and the question as regards Loudon is one which it is not desirable to postpone until next Session. For the same reason it is not expedient to appoint a large Commission, with the result, probably, of a protracted investigation lasting over two or three years. The Government, therefore, consider that the inquiry will be best conducted by a Committee of some five or seven persons, nominated by the Government, but not consisting of officers of the Department. The inquiry will be directed to the case of London, where the large workhouse schools chiefly exist, and where there is very great difficulty at the present time in providing for the increasing number of children. I will only add that this form of inquiry will be satisfactory to the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, who introduced the deputation to me. I hope in a few days to be able to give the names of the persons who will form the Committee.
    MR. DODD: Will the Government appoint a lady on the Committee?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The advisability of doing so is receiving our consideration.

    JABEZ BALFOUR.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: Can the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs give the House any information as to the extradition of Jabez Balfour?
    SIR E. GREY: No, Sir; we are still waiting for the decision of the Federal Judge at Salta.

    THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
    MR. TOMLINSON: What will be the course of business after the Scotch Local Government Bill has been disposed of?
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I suppose there is no intention of taking the Report of the Equalisation of Rates Bill to-morrow. My right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, having been told by the President of the Local Government Board that it would not be taken till Monday, has made arrangements which will render it very inconvenient, if not impossible, for him to attend to-morrow.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: What passed on the termination of the Committee was that I stated that the Report stage would not probably be taken till Monday. Two hours later I stated that I had made inquiries, and found that it would be convenient both for the Government and the House to take it tomorrow night.
    MR. BARTLEY: Is it not a fact that certain alterations of clauses and Amendments have been put down which we shall not have an opportunity of seeing till to-morrow night?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I have made arrangements so that they will be in the hands of Members immediately.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: As my right hon. Friend, on the faith of the statement of the President of the Local Government Board, paired until Monday, I do protest against taking the Report to-morrow.
    MR. HOZIER: If the Scotch Bill is not completed to-night, will it be the first Order to-morrow?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, but we hope it will be finished to-day. It will be followed to-morrow by the Committee on the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill.
    480
    With regard to the Equalisation of Rates Bill, if there is any feeling on the Opposition side that it should not be taken tomorrow it will be postponed until Monday.
    MR. WEIR: Cannot the Crofters Bill be taken after the Scotch Local Government Bill?
    MR. J MORLEY: That question can only have justice done to it by the Leader of the House himself.
    MR. S. SMITH: When is it proposed to take the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The discussion on the Eight Hours (Mines) Bill will follow on the Equalisation of Rates Bill.

    GREAT WESTERN AND MIDLAND COM PANIES BILL.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: Will the President of the Board of Trade state what action the Board of Trade took in the Committee proceedings on this Bill?
    MR. BRYCE: I will state now what I had intended to state in the House if this matter had been raised, as I expected it would be, on the consideration of the Bill last Tuesday. I may say that I was present at the time of Private Business then for that purpose, but understood from the proceedings then, and from the absence of any notice in the Paper, that nothing further was to be said on the subject. I was, in fact, yesterday within the precincts of the House presiding over a Royal Commission. The action of the Board of Trade was impeded by the fact that all Petitions against the Bill, so far as rates are concerned, were withdrawn, and consequently the Board of Trade had, strictly speaking, no ground for making any representation to the Committee. By the courtesy of the Committee, however, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade was called before them and made a statement with regard to the question of rates. It appears that considerable concessions had been made by the Companies, not only as regards through but as regards local rates, and although it is possible that some of these concessions do not fully satisfy every one of the traders interested, the withdrawal of all Petitions against the Bill left the Board of Trade no power to press their views more strongly on the attention of the Committee. The persons who will be most

    481
    affected by the fact that higher maxima obtain on the Severn and Wye Railway than on the Midland Railway will be principally consignors of coal for shipment, and I did not understand that it was on their behalf that the lion. Member for Islington addressed the House; but as I have stated, it was only by the courtesy of the Committee that the Board of Trade, in the absence of any Petition against the Bill, was able to take the action which they did.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Assuming that the Standing Orders with regard to Private Bills do not permit the Board of Trade to be represented before Committees in support of its own Reports, will the right lion. Gentleman consider the advisability of so altering the Standing Orders as to enable this to be done?
    MR. BRYCE: That is a very difficult question, and I can only say at present that it is receiving careful consideration. I think there would be no objection on the part of the Board of Trade to place its views before a Committee on Private Bills, but I do not think the Board should appear in conflict with either the opponents or supporters of a Bill. I should very much deprecate that, and indeed I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman intends that. Subject to that, I think it is desirable that the Board of Trade should have every opportunity of being represented.
    MR. TOMLINSONasked if it was not the duty of the Board of Trade to lay before the Committee instances in which the rates and charges proposed to be allowed in a Bill under their consideration deviated from the limits of the Provisional Order Acts previously sanctioned?
    MR. BRYCE: That is exactly what was done in this case. The Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade called attention to the fact that the maximum rates charged in the Bill were higher than the general maxima.

    MOTION.
      CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.

        MOTION' FOR LEAVE.
        MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to move for leave to introduce a short Bill affecting the Congested Districts Board, and
        482
        approved by the Leader of the Opposition, who is a member of the Board. Its provisions are very simple, and I can explain them, I think, in one minute. The Congested Districts Board is empowered to purchase laud with a view to sale to the tenants afterwards. The tenant approaches the Land Commissioners in the ordinary way, and the Land Commissioners make an advance. In the case of an ordinary landlord the Land Commission requires, as the House knows, a guarantee and deposit to the extent of one-fifth of the purchase money. In this Bill we propose, in the case of purchasers by the Congested Districts Board, that in advances made by that Board the retention of the guarantee deposit shall not be required, the Board guaranteeing the payment of the one-fifth in case there should be a default. Then, as to another point. In an ordinary case of sale and purchase the tenant buys at a rate which satisfies what is called the claims of the Tenants Insurance Fund. We propose that in that case, too, the Bill shall guarantee an amount equal to the guarantee deposit, and that the purchaser's insurance money shall not be more than 4 per cent. The cases so dealt with, so far as purchases are effected by the Congested Districts Board, will not be very numerous. They are of a peculiar character, and these provisions are essential for the carrying out of these powers of the Board. One other clause in the Bill makes provision for the appointment by the Board of certain of its own officers. I think that is the whole scope for the proposal.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to the Congested Districts Board for Ireland."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
        MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he did not offer any opposition to the Bill, but he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he was right in concluding that the Board proposed to guarantee out of its own income?
        MR. J. MORLEY: That is so.
        MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then that seriously imperils what, after all, is a very small income for the purposes of the Board.
        MR. BARTLEY: Does this Bill either directly or in-

        483
        directly affect the taxpayer of England?"
        MR. J. MORLEY: Not unless the Congested Districts Board over-spends itself in regard to its income, and is unable to carry out its own guarantees.
        MR. HARTLEY: Then the "predominant partner" would come in?
        MR. J. MORLEY: Yes.
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. Morley and Mr. A. J. Balfour.
        Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 353.]

    ORDER OF THE DAY.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. —(No. 337.)

        CONSIDERATION. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
        Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [8th August] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended.
        And which Amendment was, in page 2, line 3, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "five" —(Mr. Parker Smith.)
        Question again proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill.
        Debate resumed.
        MR. COCHRANEsaid, he desired to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Parker Smith) at the previous Sitting to introduce two unpaid members to the Scotch Local Government Board in addition to the three official members. To put himself right with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, he would say that he did not intend to move the Amendment which stood in his name, but he certainly considered it desirable that some further discussion should take place as to the composition of the Board. The Amendment—which, as he said, he did not intend to move—was not designed with any hostility to the medical or legal members of the Board, but was rather aimed at the too professional character, if he might so say, of the Board—at the fact that the administrative powers would be confined entirely to the hands of the medical and legal officers. Some thought
        484
        that the Amendment would make the Board too large. He himself had held that opinion in Committee; still, he did not see how it would be possible to arrive at the desirable result that the Board should not be of too professional a character, except by the adoption of some such Amendment. He thought it most desirable that all parties should be satisfied with the Board; indeed, that was necessary if the new development was to work well. He did not think it possible to arrive at that general satisfaction by simply gratifying two classes. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that amongst the "professional classes" in Scotland there was immense satisfaction with the composition of the Board. But these "professional classes" were simply the medical and legal classes. He (Mr. Cochrane) had discussed the subject with members of these two professions, and he did not think they cared much about it one way or the other—indeed, throughout the whole of Scotland there was a feeling of indifference in regard to the Bill. He certainly thought, however, that they should add to the Board some element which would appeal more to the ordinary business feeling of the persons who in the past had been in the habit of managing local government in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan) had told them upstairs that one of the chief advantages was that "members were to give their whole time to the Board." But when they examined the composition of the Board he did not think that that was borne out at all. The Secretary for Scotland was not going to give the whole of his time to the Board. It could not be expected. The Under Secretary had a great many other things to do, and could not be expected to give all his time to the duties. The same might be said of the Solicitor General for Scotland, and when they came to the three administrative members of the Board—the vice-chairman, the medical officer, and the legal officer— they found that only two of them were expected to give their whole time to the Board. The legal officer was surely to give what was described by the right hon. Gentleman as "sufficient time"; therefore, only one-third, or two members, of the Board would give their whole or "sufficient" time. What, then, became of the argument of the right hon. Gen-

        485
        tleman in opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member last night? The right lion. Gentleman then said—
        "Able and continuous service was not likely to be rendered by men who were not salaried and not bound to give their whole time to the performance of the duties with which they were entrusted. Their influence also would be less than that of salaried officials."
        The Solicitor General was to get no extra pay for sitting on the Board neither was the Secretary for Scotland, nor the Under Secretary. So that if the argument used yesterday, in opposing the Amendment, was at all valid, it applied to only two-thirds of the members of the Board. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them some idea as to how much time the legal member was to give to the work, and what was to be his position? And was it not essential that the legal officer should also give the whole of his time to the service of the Board? To his mind, all the members of the Administrative Board should be placed on the same footing. Then he would ask why it should only be the legal and the medical classes that were represented on the Board? Was there no professional teaching in Scotland? Was not education one of the most important matters that could be dealt with? Were not the School Boards to be placed under Parish Councils; therefore, why should not there be some element connected with education on the Board? Why should not those who would have to bring' up future generations be in any degree represented on the Board? He thought their duties were quite as germane to the Bill as those of medical and legal gentlemen. He was afraid that the legal element was too strong to hope to eliminate it from the Board now. The legal element had a great many friends on the Front Benches. He deplored the fact that in Scotland so much business was in the hands of lawyers. He did not say that their work was not efficiently performed. Four-fifths of the laud in Scotland was managed by lawyers, and he knew that the Scotch landlords in consequeuce acquired a good deal of unpopularity. He greatly feared that the same thing would happen with the Scotch Local Government Board. With a leaven of the legal element upon it he was afraid the Board would take, he would not say
        486
        a narrow, but, at any rate, a professional view of matters which arose. Then, again, he considered that the salary of the legal member was insufficient to attract the best talent. A legal practitioner who had been in practice seven years was expected to give up the whole of his time for £1,000 a year; and surely for this they would not get the best man. What a private individual would do if he wished to have a legal point cleared up would be to go to a lawyer in actual practice and in touch with the Courts. But the opinion of a man who had been shelved after seven years' practice would not be of the same value as that of a man selling his legal knowledge in the open market. He did not think that in this matter the Government were doing the best they could to get legal advice for the Board. The Legal Officers of the Crown would always be available; and it would have been sufficient, he thought, to depend upon them. As to the medical officer, he should have preferred him to have been a salaried official who would have visited the localities when necessary and have made inquiries and submitted Reports. As it was, he would go down to the localities and make inquiries and investigations, and report and decide upon his own Report. It was obvious that sanitary science was not an exact science, and that as to the causes of fevers, diphtheria, and other diseases, and the best means of prevention, doctors were likely often to disagree. Ho had had experience of this in his own district of Kilwinning. Diseases were not attributable to the same causes in the country districts as in towns. Then there were duties to be discharged by the Board for which the professional members were not specially qualified. They had under Section 9 of the Act to approve of, and in certain cases fix, the numbers of Parish Councillors, a duty which required practical knowledge of the work. Under Section 31 powers were given to appoint committees to manage churchyards and charities, and to sanction schemes. These were all powers requiring local knowledge. Under Section 37 power was given to approve of auditor and "prescribe a scale of remuneration" Sections 24 and 25 dealt largely with laud, and provided for consent as to letting for more than; one year, or sale or exchange, and

        487
        the determination of what was "suitable laud for public purposes" He submitted that to make the Board practical and useful some other element than the two professional classes he had referred to should be infused into it. If there was one thing more necessary than another in Scotland it was that those managing public departments should have the confidence of the whole people, and that, he submitted, could not be the case with the Local Government Board as it was now proposed.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 2, line 8, leave out "shall," and insert "is"
        Line 8, leave out "be."
        Line 11, leave out "who."
        Line 12, leave out "and who," and insert "Such third appointed member."
        MR. MAXWELL MR. MAXWELL (Dumfriesshire) moved, in page 3, line 13, after "such,' to insert "auditors."
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.)rose to Order. He said this Amendment would involve the appointment of officers to be "paid out of moneys provided by Parliament," and therefore could not be moved by a private Member.
        MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Amendment was clearly out of Order.
        MR. MAXWELLsaid, that being so, he would move to leave out "medical officers," in order to insert "auditors" in their place. That would not involve any additional cost to the taxpayer. He had raised this question in the Committee upstairs, and the view that official auditors should be appointed in place of auditors accountable to no one but themselves received considerable support.
        MR. SPEAKERruled that the Amendment was out of Order. The hon. Gentleman moved to omit "medical officers," in. order to insert "auditors," which he had already ruled out of Order.
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
        Page 3, line 13, leave out "assistant."
        On Motion of Mr. PARKER SMITH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 3, line 38, after "parishes," insert "not including any part of the area of a police burgh."
        Line 39, after "Council," insert—
        "(c) In the case of parishes wholly within a police burgh by the Burgh Commissoners."
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
        Page 4, line 1, leave out the second "and," and insert "or"
        CAPTAIN HOPEsaid, he wished to move to amend Clause 9, which dealt with the constitution of Parish Councils, by substituting the following sub-section for Sub-section 2 of the clause:—
        "For the purposes of the first election of Parish Councils, the various authorities named in the preceding sub-section shall, before fixing the number and proportion of the Parish Councillors, consult with the Parochial Boards, and with such other Local Authorities as may appear to be concerned, in each parish. And, as regards any subsequent alterations of numbers or proportion of Parish Councillors, no change shall be made without consultation with the Parish Councils and such other Local Authorities as may appear to the Board to be concerned. In any case of difference of opinion among Local Authorities, the decision of the Board shall be final."
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, this was exhaustively provided for in a clause at the end. It was be more appropriate to raise the question on that clause.
        CAPTAIN HOPEsaid, that part of the Amendment related to subsequent alterations of the constitution of Parish Councils. His object in moving the Amendment was to draw attention to the fact there was no provision in the Bill that, in the first election of these new Parish Councils, those who were now actively engaged in the administration of parish affairs should be consulted by the authorities who fixed the number and proportion of the Parish Councillors. The new Boards were to be appointed by the County Councils and the Town Councils, no doubt under the supervision of the Local Government Board, but it seemed to him only reasonable that those who were at the present time in active management of the affairs of the parish should be consulted, at any rate, and have some voice in the fixing of the number and proportion of Parish Councillors. The first part of

        489
        the Amendment applied only to the first election, the second part to subsequent alterations of numbers or proportion of Parish Councillors. He submitted that those were now actually engaged in the administration of parish affairs were entitled to be consulted in these matters. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very fond of speaking slightingly of Parochial Boards in Scotland. They were not ideal representative bodies, but still they had admittedly done the work which had been given to them well and to the advantage of the community. They were, therefore, in a position to know what the actual difficulties and necessities of the parish than the County Councils or Town Councils or Burgh Commissioners would be without guidance of any kind. By the Bill they were establishing Parish Councils and instructing the County Councils and other authorities to fix the number of the Parish Councillors, and giving those authorities power to alter the constitution of the Parish Councils from time to time. He submitted that his proposal was a reasonable one, and one which the Government should accept as it stood.
        Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 5, leave out Sub-section (2), of Clause 9, and insert the words,—
        "(2) For the purposes of the first election of Parish Councils, the various authorities named in the preceding sub-section shall, before fixing the number and proportion of the Parish Councillors, consult with the Parochial Boards, and with such other Local Authorities as may appear to be concerned, in each parish. And, as regards any subsequent alterations of numbers or proportion of Parish Councillors, no change shall be made without consultation with the Parish Councils and such other Local Authorities as may appear to the Board to be concerned. In any case of difference of opinion among Local Authorities, the decision of the Board shall be final."—(Captain Hope.)
        Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2), of Clause 9, stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that, so far as the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired to leave out Sub-section (2) there, the Government were with him; but they were not prepared to accept the sub-section he proposed in its place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed that the authorities named in the preceding sub-section should have a statutory warning to consult the Parochial Boards
        490
        as to fixing the number of Parish Councillors and so forth. The Government took it for granted that these Boards would be consulted, seeing that they were representative authorities cognisant of the circumstances of each district. The matter was one of common sense, and to include points of this kind in the provisions would necessitate the passage of a Bill twice the ordinary length. He did not propose to refer to the English Act with regard to any positive enactment. Scotch Representatives knew best what they wanted for their own country. But it was a difficult matter when it was a question of whether England would trust the common sense of the authorities whom they made responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Act. No corresponding Amendment was inserted in the English Act, and he thought it was quite unnecessary to insert the Amendment here.
        SIR C. PEARSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have some fear that if the existing bodies were consulted some objection would be raised by his supporters or some animadversion would be made upon the Bill. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain his reference to the English Act. He should like to know what Local Bodies existed in England that were analogous to the Parochial Boards of Scotland? How could the English Act have referred to the possible consultation of Local Bodies which did not exist until after the Act came into operation? The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have said nothing to countervail the reasons which had been given for the Amendment.
        MR. RENSHAWsaid, that although it might be a matter of common sense that this duty should be discharged by County Councils, it was desirable to secure uniformity of action on the part of County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman said the County Councils would obviously consult the Parochial Boards. It might be said it was obvious that the number of members of the Parish Councils should be fixed after consultation with the Parochial Boards, and yet it was provided by Subsection 2 that the number should be fixed after consultation with the Parochial

        491
        Boards. He hoped that the Government would reconsider their decision on the point.
        MR. PARKER SMITHpointed out that some of the largest County Councils strongly objected to have anything to do with this matter, and thought it ought not to be left in their hands at all, but ought to be left to the decision of the Parochial Boards. That being so, he certainly thought the Amendment ought to be adopted—at any rate, as far as the first arrangement of wards and the first election of members were concerned. No doubt as regarded future changes the Parish Councils could quite take care of themselves. If the Government were willing to accept the Amendment as far as the first arrangements were concerned, he would advise his hon. and gallant Friend to be satisfied with that.
        DR. MACGREGORsaid, it appeared to him that the object of the Amendment was to continue the influence of the older Boards upon the new ones, and, as the older Boards were chiefly Conservative, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.
        MR. COCHRANEasked whether the Government were willing to accept the Amendment as far as the first election was concerned?
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Government did not think it necessary to do so, because they believed that the County Councils, in carrying out the duties imposed upon them, would consult all available sources of information, knowledge, and experience.
        Question put, and negatived.
        Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
        The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 140.—(Division List, No. 215.)
        MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved, in page 4, line 12, after "Councillors," to insert "and the proportion for the landward and burghal parts respectively." He said that in Committee he had called attention to this subject, and had quoted certain cases to which he again wished to draw attention. In the parish of Dunblane the total population consisted
        492
        of 3,300, of whom 2,200 were in the burgh and 1,100 were in the landward part of the parish, whilst in the burgh the property was valued at £9,381 and in the landward part the valuation was £52,100. In Kilmarnock the burghal population was 900 and the landward population 1,900, the valuation of the burghal portion being £6,000, and of the landward portion £19,000. Supposing Dunblane to have a Parish Council: six of the members, on the basis of population, would go the burgh and three to the landward part. That would be unfair. This, in respect of the duties devolving on the landward committee, would be redressed by Amendments made on the Bill, but that did not apply in the case of the administration of the matters which devolved on the Parish Council as such—that was to say, matters of administration in respect of the Poor Law.
        Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 12, after the word "Councillors," to insert the words "and the proportion for the landward and burghal parts respectively."—(Mr. Renshatw.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that the hon. Member had taken so much interest in the Bill, and done so much to amend it, that the Government were anxious to meet his wishes, and they would be prepared to accept the first part of his proposal, but not the last part, as expressed in a later Amendment—
        "And in the case of parishes, partly burghal and partly landward, the value of property therein."
        The hon. Gentleman had argued on the last part, and on that part the Government had taken a very decided line indeed. In the Debates in the Committee all the special circumstances of a parish in the fixing of the number of Councillors were considered to come under the head, "Circumstances of the parish." To give a larger number of representatives to a particular part of a parish on account of the value being higher was, in the opinion of the Government, inconsistent with the true principles of representation. The reason that one part of a district was poorer and another richer was very often that the pauperism of the richer part was concentrated in the poorer part. The

        493
        proposal of the hon. Member was contrary to the tendency of legislation for a long while past. It would be a retrograde step in any way to distinguish between the richer and poorer parts of the same district.
        Sift C. PEARSONsaid, he regretted that the Secretary for Scotland only accepted the proposal partially, because the first Amendment did not go nearly so far as the second Amendment was intended to go. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had rather exaggerated the effect of the Amendment when he said it was contrary to the spirit of legislation. It would be so to a large extent if this were an injunction to fix proportional representation in the case of the landward and burghal parts of a parish upon valuation alone; but they all knew that the distribution of money, combined with a view of population and other matters, had been accepted by Parliament as a just mode of apportioning other burdens or benefits. The Government themselves, in this clause, did not confine themselves to what, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was the only true principle— population only. If the Secretary for Scotland could assure them that under the words "special wants and circumstances of the parish "there was intended to be included anything approaching the spirit of the Amendment, that might go some length to satisfy them.
        DR. CLARKsaid, he thought that the Amendment would be a very bad one, and was glad that the Government were going to oppose it. He knew something about Dunblane, and if it were a question of area he could have understood something being said. But it seemed to him an absurd tiling that, merely because a few people would go to one quarter and build villas there, they should have additional representation.
        MR. RENSHAWsaid, he only spoke to the two Amendments to save time, but he moved the first one at this stage.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        On Motion of Mr. CALDWELL, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
        Page 4, line 14, to leave out the words "according to the last published Census for the time being."
        Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 16, after the word "divided," to insert the words—
        494
        "And in the case of parishes partly burghal and partly landward the value of property therein."—(Mr. Ranshaw.)
        Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
        The House divided:— Ayes 62; Noes 142.—(Division List, No. 216.)
        MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL moved to amend Clause 10 by omitting the following proviso: —
        "Provided that exemption from or failure to make payment of the special rate authorised by this Act, where such rate is due and payable by persons so registered, shall be a disqualification from voting at an election of a Parish Council unless such rate is paid during the period of one year subsequent to service of the demand note requiring payment of the same."
        He said, that this proviso was not iii the original Bill, and it was inserted in the Grand Committee at the instance of hon. Members opposite. The Government on this matter had the support of hon. Members opposite, but they had not a single supporter from the Liberal Benches with the exception of official Scottish Members. According to the Bill, there was to be a special parish rate established for the first time, and that special rate would be put on the notice of the Poor Law assessment, and would be collected along with the poor rate. As the law now stood, no man could be put on the County Council Register unless he had paid his poor rate on or before the 20th of June. As the special rate was put on the same assessment notice, and was levied and collected with the poor rate, it was obvious that no man could possibly be on the Register for the Parish Council unless he paid his poor rates on or before the 20th of June. It was plain, therefore, that this proviso was quite unnecessary. It was a piece of nonsense to say—
        "Unless such rate is paid during the period of one year subsequent to service of the demand note requiring payment of the same."
        The giving of a year's grace for the payment of the special rate had no possible meaning whatever, because a man who had not paid his poor rate and his special rate by the 20th of June would not be on the Register at all. This pretended year of grace, therefore, had no meaning whatever, and he could not conceive how such a stupid proviso could be put into the Bill by the Government. Had they not disqualification enough already? The Government were putting this in quite unnecessarily, because even if this were left out there would still

        495
        remain the disqualification if the special rate were not paid on the 20th June. They had gone out of their way to emphasise a new disqualification, and put it on the Statute Book, although they had always complained of the opposite Party introducing these disqualifications for non-payment of rates. They would find that this matter would be taken advantage of by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and by no one more than by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman's presence in the House just now had reference to this particular matter, and the right hon. Gentleman would make a strong point of the fact that the Government themselves in a Parochial Bill such as this had been compelled to establish a new disqualification as regarded voting. Again, look at another effect. Suppose they passed another Registration Bill to-morrow, and they took away the disqualification from the Parochial Board election for the non-payment of poor rate every man in a landward portion of a parish would be disqualified because he had not paid his special rate, whereas he could not pay his special rate without paying the poor rate, they both being included in the same demand note. They would be bound to pay their poor rate in the landward parishes, and also the special rate, whereas in the burghs they would have no disqualification with regard to the poor rate. The result, again, would be that the Government would find, in passing a Registration Bill, they would require a proviso which would eliminate these people in a landward portion of a county from disqualification in regard to the poor rate; it would require a special provision to do this, and the passing of such a clause would take up a good deal of time, as it would meet with strenuous opposition from the other side. He begged to move the Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 22, to leave out from the word "register," to the end of sub-section (1), of Clause 10.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
        Question proposed, "That the words Provided that exemption from or failure to make payment' stand part of the Bill."
        SIR D. MACFARLANEhoped his hon. Friend would not be offended if he said he thought he had discovered a Parliamentary mare's nest.
        496
        The hon. Member said that people would be disqualified for non-payment of their special rate. That was not so. A man would go to the poor rate collector, and would say, "There is my poor rate and the other rates due on the 20th of June. I claim to be put on the Register, and this Bill gives me 12 months' credit for this rate." He would not be disqualified for the non-payment of the special rate until 12 months had expired.
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment was a little inaccurate in one point. He stated that the Government were not supported on this question by any Members of the Liberal Party who were not in Office. As a matter of fact, they were supported by six. However, it was not his desire to bring these questions before the House. He might say on this Amendment that it was the general intention of the Government to support the Bill as it came out of the Standing Committee. The Amendments which he himself had put down where entirely promises which he had made in Committee, with the general approval, or at any rate no expressed opposition, and Amendments, especially in the earlier portion of the Bill, which were consequential on the decisions come to on the later part of the Bill by the Committee. But with regard to the substantial questions, the intention of the Government was, whether the objection was taken from their own Benches or from the Benches opposite, to support the Bill as it left the Grand Committee; and he thought those who were present at the discussions in the Grand Committee would admit that this was a point upon which the Government were bound to support the Bill as it stood. He thought his hon. Friend had exaggerated the practical importance of this question. At the first election of Parish Councillors this question of the special rate would not occur at all. No special rate could be struck except by the Parish Council which was in existence. With regard to the subsequent elections, in order to be qualified to be on the Parish Council a man must have paid his poor rate. His hon. Friend talked of importing a new disqualification. His own speech showed how very small this new disqualification would be. The special rate was not included in the poor rate, but it was on the same paper, and it certainly was in the

        497
        highest degree unlikely that a man would pay his poor rate, which would amount to some shillings, and postpone paying the special rate which would amount probably to so many pence. If he did so, and did not pay that special rate within the year, in that case he could he disqualified. That was how the matter stood. He did not strongly argue whether this raised a great principle or not. He was hound to say he did not think it did. He thought they took the general current of the law as they found it, and at present the payment of rates was required as a qualification. He did not think that it hampered them in the least with regard to future legislation. He differed rather on the question of principle from I lie Committee, hut, he did not argue it on principle now. As he had said, they took legislation as they found it. The Government supported this clause in the Grand Committee, and they most certainly should support it now.
        DR. CLARKhoped his hon. Friend would not go to a Division on this matter, because ho thought they might he able to practically amend the clause. He himself had given notice of an Amendment to place the whole of the three rates in the same position, and to give 12 months' grace for the whole of the three, which would lie a most, beneficial change of the law. This was a matter which very seriously affected the fishing population of Scotland. They did pay their rates, hut not until after the 20th of June. In the town of Wick out of 3,000 ratepayers less than 1,000 paid before the 20th June, and about 2,000 paid in the beginning of September, when they came home from the fishing. These 2,000 men who had not paid their rates were disqualified and could not vote, so that the burgh of Wick lost every year two-thirds of the Parliamentary electors because they could not pay on the 20th June. He thought the Government should carry the principle further and give these fishermen until September to pay the local, the county, and the poor rates. Although he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as a general rule that they should support the decision of the Committee he would point out that this was a decision where the Scotch Members were overwhelmed. There was a majority of the Scotch Members in favour of placing the
        498
        whole three rates in the one position, but i the minority of Scotch Members, aided by the English Members, outvoted the Scotch majority. If his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment he (Dr. Clark) would move his Amendment to place the special, the poor, and the consolidated rates in the same position.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)did not know whether this would be the proper time to say anything on the Amendment which the hon. Member for Caithness intended to propose. The hon. Member's Amendment involved a substantial alteration of the Registration Law. It inferred an alteration of the Registration Acts as they bore on the question of disqualification at present. The proposal was not only to take up matters outside the Bill, but to deal with Parliametary registration and County Council registration, and, of course, it would be for Mr. Speaker to say whether such Amendments could be moved looking to the rulings which he had already given with regard to the proposed introduction of matters which were outside the scope of the Bill.
        MR. HOZIEHdesired to say that his Amendment in the Grand Committee was carried by 46 to 28, and there were only 10 English Members who voted; therefore, there was a decided majority of Scottish Members in favour of this provision.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        DR. CLARK DR. CLARK moved, after the word "payment," to insert the words "Poor rate, local rate, or." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to place the three rates in the same position, and to give a longer time than the 20th of June. As far as the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire was concerned, it was carried in the Grand Committee by a majority of Scotch Members, but the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen to apply the same principle to the other two rates was lost by the minority of the Scotch Members and English Members who were whipped up for that special occasion.
        MR. BUCHANANsaid, this was a similar Amendment to the one he moved in the Grand Committee, the object being to make the clause generally consistent, so that the extension of time with regard to the non-payment of rates should apply to the whole of the rates under this Bill, and not to one only.
        MR. SPEAKER: This is a Bill to re-cast the local government, and I do not think it is competent under such Bill to alter the existing law dealing with the subject of local elections and registration. I think the hon. Gentleman would be out of Order in attempting to deal with the Registration Law.
        MR. CALDWELL: May I submit that it really does not alter the Registration Law itself?
        MR. SPEAKER: It expressly does so, on the showing of the hon. Gentleman himself. It is, therefore, out of Order.
        MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved to insert, at the end of the first sub-section of Clause 10, an Amendment to the effect that it should be the duty of the clerk of the Parish Council, one week before the time fixed for the nomination of candidates for any election of Parish Councillors, to prepare a list of parish electors who had failed to make payment of the rates within the specified period, and to transmit a copy of that list forthwith to the Returning Officer, and any votes tendered by any elector named in such list should at any such election be disallowed, unless the elector instantly verified his right to vote by the production of a receipt duly signed and dated within the specified period. He said that some assessors thought difficulties would arise as to who was to decide the question involved in the clause unless such an Amendment were inserted. It would be exceedingly inconvenient to have the question discussed in the polling booth, and therefore the Returning Officer ought to have ample notice of the manner in which his duty should be discharged.
        Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 27, at end, insert—
        "It shall be the duty of the parish clerk, on the expiry of one year from the date on which the demand note was issued, to prepare a list of those persons on the roll who have failed to make payment of the special rate within the specified period, and he shall supply a copy of such list to the Presiding Officer, who shall delete such names from the roll of parish electors, and shall disallow the vote tendered by such persons unless the voter instantly verified his right to vote by the production of a receipt duly signed and dated within the said period of one year."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Government would accept the Amendment, as a person was
        500
        by the Bill not disqualified from being upon the Register through non-payment of the special rate, but was simply disqualified from voting. It was very desirable that the Returning Officer should have information on which he could act.
        DR. CLARKexpressed the opinion that the word "instantly" would make it impossible to work the clause. A person might not have the receipt for payment in his pocket, and he could not, therefore, produce it instantly to verify it. He should suggest that "instantly" be omitted.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that "instantly verified" was a familiar legal phrase.
        MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move the omission of the word "instantly?"
        DR. CLARK: Yes.
        Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
        SIR C. PEARSON SIR C. PEARSON moved, after the word "verified," to insert the words "prior to the close of the poll."
        Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
        Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
        MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH moved, in page 4, line 29, leave out from "more," to end of sub-section. He said, if the Amendment were accepted the sub-section would simply read—
        "Each parish elector may at any poll for the election of a Parish Council give one vote and no more."
        The Bill proposed to have the foreign system of scrutin de liste, and to allow an elector to give a vote for any number of candidates. That system had been strongly objected to in this country, and had been done away with wherever it had existed. Some precaution was necessary to prevent the opinion of the majority having all the representation on the Council, and the opinion of the minority having none at all. While political questions would not enter into these elections there might be burning questions, such as the management of parish charities, rights of way, and leasing land for allotments, on which it would be mischievous if the minority had no representation. The danger was partly provided against in the Bill by an option being given of dividing a parish into wards. But as that power was

        501
        merely optional he had put down an Amendment to provide that it should be compulsory for a parish to be divided into wards containing not more than three members, which was, perhaps, the most practical way of doing it. That was the most graceful way of doing it. He had not proposed any scheme by this Amendment. Of course, the principle was plain, and if everybody was given a single vote it would be a more satisfactory development that they should be able to transfer that vote from one candidate to another. That could easily be provided for by a subsequent Amendment; but lie felt that this question as to how the elections were to be carried on in the Parish Councils was so important that it was at any rate necessary to bring it before the House.
        Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 29, to leave out from the word "more," to the end of Sub-section (2), of Clause 10.—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that ho would hardly like to enter upon so large a question as the representation of minorities under the eye of his right hon. Friend below the Gangway, and he must fall back upon the statement that he had voted on every possible occasion against the principle contended for. He would not support this principle of compulsory plumping, the principle imposed in Birmingham and Glasgow, under the system of representation between the Reform Bill of I860 and the Reform Bill of 1885. He did not suppose there was any Member in the House at present who had not made up his mind on the question. The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway had made statements in reference to the question of principle. Upon that principle they had all by this time decided one way or another, and were quite prepared to say whether or not they wished to have it introduced into the Scotch Parish Councils. His own opinion was as strongly against it there as elsewhere, and ho thought he should best consult the wishes of the Committee by merely saying that the Government would support the Bill as it stood.
        COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that the representation of minorities was rather a large
        502
        question to start at this period of the Session. He did not think in the circumstances, and seeing the condition of the House, that, having already expressed his sentiments on the question, he need express them again on the present occasion, although lie must confess he was much astonished at what he had heard, especially when his right hon. Friend, in defending his position, gave as a satisfactory reason for the ground he took that ho had himself always voted the other way. However, he would not enter further, as he had said, upon so important a question at this period of the Session.
        MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he did not propose to divide on this Amendment, because subsequent Amendments dealt with the point.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew, W.) moved to omit the words after "not," down to "be," in line 36. The question was in reference to the date 1st January, 1895, and the provision in Section 57 rendered it unnecessary to insert a date in this place.
        Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 35, to leave out from the word "not," to the word "be," in line 36.—(Mr. Renshaw.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved to leave out the words "after the 1st day of January, 1895," in relation to the date when the Registers should be made up, and after which any woman should not be disqualified by marriage from being registered on a County Council, Municipal, or Parish Council Register.
        Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "after the 1st day of January, 1895."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that in the event of the Bill becoming law by the 1st of September, there would be sufficient time for making up the Registers so as to include the newly-enfranchised voters. If that was to be done it was of course desirable it should not be delayed till the 1st of January. He

        503
        thought the wishes of hon. Members would be best consulted by saying that the words in question would be taken out elsewhere.
        MR. PARKER SMITHurged that there could be no harm in taking them out now. By putting it off to the future, expense and trouble might be incurred, whereas if the words were taken out now no alteration of the roll would be required.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said that, looking at the great number of persons concerned in being placed upon the Registers, it would be better not to draw a line now unless it were shown to be necessary.
        MR. CALDWELLpointed out that, the roll would be made up for November, and that there was no reason why women should be disqualified from voting for the Parish Councils. They would not be put upon the first roll, because that would have to be made up in time for November, but they could be upon the second roll. That appeared to be the simple reason for the Amendment—that women should be put upon the roll, and he thought the Government would do well to accept.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, if it was desired by the House, the Government would consent to omit the words.
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. HOZIER*MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.) moved to substitute the word "qualification" for "property," which he considered a disfranchising expression, in respect to the proviso in Clause 11,
        "that a husband and wife shall not both be registered in respect of the same property."
        The word he objected to was a disfranchising expression, because a property might comprise and confer several qualifications, and if that word were left in here, it would only be the owner who would be qualified to vote, without any regard to minor qualifications. He would venture again to ask the right hon. Gentleman the question he put to him in Grand Committee: If the word "property" were to be left in, what was to become of a man who happened to marry his landlady, and whether the unfortunate occupier of the house would not be disfranchised immediately? The Government ought to give the Amendment their favourable consideration.
        Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 39, to leave out the word "property," and insert the word "qualification."—(Mr. Hozier.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'property' stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that there never was the slightest doubt about the intention of the Government, which from first to last was that there should be only one vote for one property, and that the wife, as owner, and the husband, as tenant, should not have two votes. It was not necessary to emphasise the point with reference to this Amendment. Persons who came up to London were sometimes cautioned against taking advice without examining it very carefully. The intention of the Government was expressed quite clearly in Committee, and he wished to make it clear now: they had no wish to allow a double vote in respect of the same property in the case of a husband and wife any more than in the case of any two other persons. The Government conceived that that intention was secured by the words in the Bill, and for this reason it was desirable to retain them.
        MR. COCHRANEcould see no ground why the Secretary for Scotland should have run away from an Amendment which he himself put down in Committee, nor why he should now oppose the Amendment. His own Amendment on the same subject in Committee he had withdrawn, under the belief that the Government would stick to their own Amendment; but the Secretary for Scotland, having moved it in a most eloquent speech, suddenly dropped it without any apparent reason. Some remark was interjected, and immediately upon that the right hon. Gentleman turned round and said he was acting after having consulted with one of the cleverest assessors in Scotland, whose opinion had been taken. It was stated that the Amendment had been suggested to the Government by a gentleman well-qualified as an assessor, so that it had not been hastily prepared. But, having withdrawn his own Amendment on the same point, the Government let theirs go. This clause enacted that a woman should not be disqualified by marriage; but the insertion of the word "property" did disqualify her in certain circumstances. It was never contemplated that marriage

        505
        should be a disqualification. He hoped the Government would re-consider their determination and would accept the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend opposite.
        MR. W. M'LARENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given a very singular reason for opposing this Amendment; he objected to two persons voting for the same property. But the Secretary for Scotland must be aware that there were hundreds and thousands of cases in which two persons voted for the same property. It was simply in the case of husband and wife that this ridiculous distinction was to be maintained. Where they were respectively owner and occupier it seemed ridiculous that this restriction should be imposed; and as the clause provided that marriage should not be a disqualification, it ought to be carried out to the logical conclusion. In cases of bonâ fide ownership and occupation by husband and wife they should each have the benefit of their separate qualifications. He thought the Government would do well to agree to the wishes expressed on both sides of the House and accept the Amendment.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 71.—(Division List, No. 217.)
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 5, line 10, leave out "burgh," and insert "municipal."
        Line 12, after "burgh," insert "or police burgh."
        Line 15, after "wards," insert "(1)." Line 17, after "wards," insert—
        "and (2) if and where a landward parish or a part of any parish is co-extensive with a police burgh or part thereof, and is divided into parish wards."
        Line 29, leave out from "registered," to end of Sub-section, and insert "duly qualified."
        Line 33, leave out from the beginning to the first "the," in line 34.
        Line 34, after "assessors," insert "or other persons."
        MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved, in page 6, line 11, to leave out "county" and insert "sheriff." He had raised this point in Committee, which was that the roll of
        506
        electors ought not to pass into the possession of the county clerk, but ought to remain in the possession of the sheriff clerk, as the proper party to distribute the rolls was the sheriff clerk, and not the county clerk. Ho had since been confirmed in the opinion by inquiries he had made on the subject from various official sources. The county clerk of the County Councils had informed him that "county clerk" must have been inserted in the Bill by mistake, as there was no provision in it for the handing over of the Register to the county clerk for distribution. Under the present law, with regard to the Parliamentary roll and the county roll, it was the sheriff clerk that had the duty of delivering copies thereof, or parts thereof, lo any person applying for same on payment of a fee.
        Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 11, to leave out the word "county" and insert the word "sheriff."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'county' stand part of the Bill."
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) said, the scheme of Parish Councils which the Government proposed to bring into operation was that the Parish Councils should form part of a hierarchy of county government extending from the county as a whole downwards to the parish. That being so, it seemed to the Government that the person with whom the Parish Councils would naturally be brought into relations would be the county clerk, who, as clerk to the County Council, would have the duty of putting into motion the machinery for the elections, and that, therefore, he would have possession of the roll for administrative purposes. However, since the Amendment had been moved in Committee, the Government had made inquiries of Local Authorities with a view the ascertaining the most convenient course; and if they came to be satisfied that the course suggested in the Amendment was a proper one, they would have the Amendment made in another place.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN the following Amendment was agreed to:—
        Page 6, line 14, after "burgh," insert "or police burgh."
        On Motion of Mr. RENSHAW, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
        Page 6, line 16, after "shall," insert "subject to revision in Section 10."
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
        Page 6, line 24, at end, insert—
        "(3) A County Council Electoral Division (exclusive of any police burgh or part of. a police burgh comprised therein) so far as within a parish shall be a parish ward, or shall be divided into two or more parish wards of the parish."
        MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH moved, in page 6, line 25, to leave out from "Council," to "from," in line 30, and insert "shall." As the Bill stood it was optional for the County Council, looking to the circumstances of the parish, to decide whether it should be divided into wards or not. Upon the principle which he had explained a short time ago, and which he would not go into again, it ought to be compulsory that the parish should be divided into wards in all cases; and that those wards should return either three, two, or one Parish Councillors, but that in no case should there be more than three returned for any ward.
        Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 25, to leave out from the word "Council," to the word "from," in line 30, and insert the word "shall."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
        Question proposed, "That the words down to the word 'may,' in line 30, stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the Government desired that the County Council should not be hampered in any respect in the arrangement of the wards of parishes. The Bill said that if the County Council were "satisfied after due local inquiry," they might decide that there should be five Parish Councillors for each parish, or divide the parish into wards, returning one, two, or three Parish Councillors. The Government were prepared to leave the matter to a strong Local Authority like the County Council, who, however, were not to act until they had consulted local opinion.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. HOZIER*MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.) moved, in page 6, line 30, after "may" insert "with the approval of the Board." What he wanted was that instead of the County Council being entrusted abso-
        508
        lutely with the duty of dividing a parish into wards, it should discharge that duty "with the approval of the Board." He knew that some of the supporters of the Government agreed with him on this point.
        Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 30, after the word "may," to insert the words "with the approval of the Board." —(Mr. Hozier.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that if the words "with the approval of the Board" meant anything, they meant approval given after full cognizance of the facts. That meant that a local inquiry must be made in every parish in Scotland. The Bill would place on the Board many grave duties, and to throw on the Board the absolute necessity of local inquiries in parishes about which the Board, as a Board, could have little local knowledge, was a proposition he could not ask the House to entertain.
        Question put, and negatived.
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the followiug Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 6, line 32, after "divided," insert "subject to the provisions of this section."
        Line 33, leave out from "expedient," to "and," in line 35.
        Line 36, after the second "and," insert "shall thereafter by order."
        Page 7, line 5, after "and," insert "shall thereafter by order."
        MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved to omit the words "second and subsequent" from Clause 14 in order to raise the question as to whether or not it was desirable to have an election earlier than in the autumn of 1895, when the next election of County Councils takes place. He admitted fully the manner in which the Government bad recognised the impossibility of holding the first election of Parish Councils this year, but he would still say that to hold it in the spring of next year meant very hurried preparation, an imperfect roll, and great expense. He had been at pains to inquire what that expense would be. In Lanarkshire he found that the additional expense of an election in the spring for Parish Councils only would amount to £2,322.

        509
        The county clerk of Midlothian, to whom he had written, had told him that the cost of the election in the County of Midlothian, the now Register, list of women voters, &c., would amount to;£870. That was for the county, apart from the Royal and Parliamentary burghs therein. The population of that county, excluding the Royal and Parliamentary burghs and police burghs, was about87,000. Taking the whole population of Scotland at 4,000,000, they could arrive by a simple arithmetical sum at the probable additional cost of these elections for the whole of Scotland. The calculation showed that it would cost not less than £40,000, in addition to the expense of the autumn election of County Councils. Was it desirable to put the country to the trouble and the turmoil of an additional election, and to the expenditure of £40,000 of local funds, in order to bring six months earlier into existence Parish Councils, which must come into existence in the autumn? On these grounds he moved his Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 31, to leave out the words "second and subsequent."—{Mr. Renshaw.)
        Question proposed, "That the words 4 second and subsequent' stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he did not think the roll would be more imperfect in the spring than at the autumn election. His hon. Friend had told them that certain people who, he was ready to admit, were competent authorities, had informed him that the election would be expensive; but these officers were county officials, not belonging to the class of people this Bill was enfranchising, and it was not from such officials that the Government were going to take their idea as to when Parish Councils wore to come into existence. The Government reluctantly, but for very good reasons of an administrative character, had consented to defer the elections from autumn this year until April next year, but they could not let the prospect of the election go on receding any further from the eyes of the residents in the parishes of Scotland.
        MR. MAXWELLsaid, they were as desirous as the right hon. Gentleman that Parish Councils should be established in Scotland, but the question was whether it was desirable that Scotland should pay
        510
        between £30,000 and £40,000 in order that they should be created eight months earlier than if the first election took place in the autumn of 1895. He thought Scotland would accept the blessing of Parish Councils more gladly if she had not to pay this extra £30,000 or £40,000 for it. The Secretary for Scotland had thrown some doubt on the figures given by the Member for Renfrewshire; but the authorities to whom that hon. Gentleman had gone were the most reliable that could be found on the question, and he would ask if the Government themselves had taken the trouble to inquire and ascertain what the additional cost would be? In two counties in which he was interested estimates had been made, and they bore out very nearly the figures given by the Member for Renfrewshire. He thought the Parish Councils would be recognised as great blessings in Scotland if they could be obtained without such a large expenditure of money.
        SIR C. PEARSONsaid, the Secretary for Scotland seemed entirely to have misconceived the point of the Member for Renfrewshire in writing to those authorities. He did so not to ask their opinion as to the propriety of bringing this Bill into operation earlier or later, but to ascertain the probable cost of what he might call the bye-election in the spring of 1895. The gentlemen consulted were the most competent authorities in Scotland to express an opinion on that question. The Secretary for Scotland was challenged in Committee to say whether the Government had formed any estimate of the cost of their new proposal. That was some weeks ago, and the Government had had ample time to consult authorities on the subject. If they had done so, they would probably have gone to the same sort of authorities whom his hon. Friend had consulted. He would ask, therefore, whether the Government were in a position to challenge the grave and serious statement made by his hon. Friend that the spring elections would cost the country between £40,000 and £50,000? If the Government had no better figures to supply them with, the question arose whether it was worth while for six months more of the existence of the Parish Council to incur this heavy expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman might believe him that no one on the Opposition side of the House any more

        511
        than on the Ministerial side had the smallest desire to delay the Bill coming into operation. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this promised election receding from the eyes of the people of Scotland. But why did it recede? Because, he ventured to say, the Government were convinced that they had proposed an impossibility in the Bill as originally brought in. Whether or not it was worth while to spend £40,000 or £50,000 to bring Parish Councils into operation six months earlier was a matter as to whether the people of Scotland should make up their minds. As he had said in Committee the question was one really of administration, the responsibility for which must rest on the Government. Members of the Opposition had done no more than their duty in raising and laying before the country this question.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was rather surprising to hear such an attack upon and objection to the April election. It was decided upon with the unanimous assent of the Committee. The Government had believed, and still believed, that it would have been perfectly possible to have the first election this autumn. Others doubted it, and a suggestion was made by the Member for Bute (Mr. Graham Murray) and assented to by the Government to hold the election next spring. The Bill was recast to meet that change, and they could not now turn it all upside down. He could not say that the Government had got reliable figures, because it was impossible to do so; but they knew the kind and quality of the work to be done, and they believed the cost would not be serious, as the difference was not that of the whole cost of an additional election, but of the cost of having it in the spring instead of six months later.
        MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Lord Advocate rather led the House to understand that it was a concession to the wishes and desires of the Opposition that the election had been put off to next spring. That was not the case. It was a concession to certain practical and insurmountable difficulties which they had pressed on the attention of the Government. Both sides were animated by the desire to see the Bill brought into operation as soon as it was practically possible to do so, and the only question was— how soon? and what was the expense
        512
        incident to one particular plan or the other. His hon. Friend (Mr. Renshaw) had come to the conclusion, basing his opinion on competent authorities, that the Government plan would cost over £30,000; and was it worth while for six months' additional enjoyment of the blessings of Parish Councils to put the country to that cost? However, it was for the Government to decide, and he would advise his hon. Friend to leave the whole responsibility to them, and not divide the House upon his Amendment. If he did his hon. Friends opposite might go to Scotland and attempt to make out that the hon. Member (Mr. Renshaw) had wished to put off as long as possible the time when the parochial elections in Scotland should take place. He did not think his hon. Friend should run that risk, and he (Mr. Balfour) did not mean to run it if the Government would not accept the Amendment.
        MR CALDWELLsaid, it had apparently been overlooked by the other side that, according to the way in which the Bill had been framed in the Standing Committee, it would be competent for the Municipal Authorities in Scotland in making up the new Registers in November to make them up with the new Register. The Town Councils could make up the roll in November, which would do for the Parish Council Register. That would obviate the necessity of spending at least half the £40,000.
        MR. HOZIERsaid, that hon. Members opposite seemed to have an idea that the Opposition had gained this as a concession. As a matter of fact, it was the City of Glasgow which obtained the postponement. It was because the City Authorities protested so strongly against the autumn election that exceptional arrangements were proposed for Glasgow, which in turn were resisted with such vehemence by both sides on the Committee that the whole thing had to he abandoned.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to insert, after "burgbal,"
        "or for a parish or part of a parish co-extensive with a police burgh or part of a police burgh."
        He put this forward because he was puzzled by the clause. He had thought

        513
        the Government had forgotten their pledges and did not intend to deal with police burghs, and to put elections there on the same footing as elections in other places. Ho had discovered that they had fulfilled their pledge, but had hidden away the provision they had introduced. They had not given the subject a section of its own, but had hidden it away at the end of another section. He was sensitive for the honour of the police burghs, hence this Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 35, after the word "burghal," to insert the words
        "or for a parish or part of a parish co-extensive with a police burgh or part of a police burgh."—{Mr. Parker Smith.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was sure the hon. Member would not think that the Government meant any disrespect to this important subject. They, however, thought the Amendment unnecessary, because it was covered by a provision which dealt with the very case. The last six lines of the clause to which he referred covered the case.
        MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, those lines did substantially cover the Amendment; therefore, he would not press the proposal.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        On Motion of Sir G. TKEVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
        Rage 8, line 39, leave out "ninety-five," and insert "ninety-eight."
        MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, the effect of the next Amendment he wished to move would be to leave the County Council election out of the clause. As the clause stood, it dealt with certain Amendments of procedure both in regard to Parish Council elections and County Council elections. It was passed at a time when they were expecting and hoping to deal with a large number of questions concerning County Councils. Subsequently, pressure of time obliged them to leave out all those provisions dealing with the various Amendments of the Act of 1889, which many of them thought some of the most important parts of the Bill. Part of this clause was the only survival of those
        514
        Amendments. They had been promised as definitely as possible in the future a Bill dealing with these matters in regard to County Councils. He had not the slightest objection to any provisions bearing on County Councils contained in any of these clauses. He did not think the provisions urgent, though they were in the right direction. They would be in place in a new Bill, but they were out of place here, being no part of a measure which proposed to deal with the constitution and election of Parish Councils. They should be left out of the Bill, and held over until they came to consider the question of the County Councils next year.
        Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 42, to leave out the words "in a county of County Councillors and." — (Mr. Parker Smith.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it was quite true that mention was here made of County Councils, and the reason for that was obvious. In this Bill the method of procedure for the election of Parish Councils was assimilated to that for the election of County Councils. The elections would be on the same day and according to the same methods. If it were for no other purpose than that of giving necessary guidance as to the method of carrying out Parish Council elections, County Council elections should be here mentioned.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        On Motion of Mr. PARKER SMITH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 10, line 9, leave out from "election," to "every," in line 10.
        Line 27, leave out "county electoral division or."
        On Motion of Sir G. TKEVELYAN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
        Page 10, line 28, at end, add—
        "And provided also that such notices shall take effect in the order in which they are delivered."
        MR. W.M'LARENsaid, that on Clause 19 he wished to move an Amendment to enable the electors to elect any person to a Parish Council who was either a parochial elec-

        515
        tor or who for 12 months immediately preceding had resided within the parish or within three miles thereof. His attention was to restore the Bill to the form in which it was originally introduced by the Government; therefore, he was sure the Government could not meet the Amendment with any objection to it on its merits. It was undoubtedly their deliberate judgment that this provision should stand in the Bill; moreover, its adoption would make the Bill in harmony with the English Local Government Act. Though he desired to support the findings of the Grand Committee he must point out that the alteration from the original proposal was carried at a meeting at which less than one-third of the Members of the Grand Committee were present. When, in conjunction with that fact, they remembered that the original proposal found a place in the English Act he did not think it unreasonable to raise the matter again on the Report stage to see if the judgment of the House would not rather confirm the view taken of the matter in the English Bill than that taken in the Grand Committee. In the consideration of the English Bill this matter was debated at great length, and it was decided that the greatest freedom of choice should be given to the parish electors. That was in harmony with later practice, and on that ground especially he urged the Amendment. Speaking as a Scotsman, he thought it was rather hard that trust in the people in England should be carried so far, but that in Scotland they were not going to trust the Scottish people to the same extent as they did the English people. It was to be remembered that where they limited the right of election of parochial electors they would be excluding a large number of ratepayers who might not yet have arrived at the stage of being electors, because the qualification for the electorate was governed by the Registration Act, and it might be two and a-half years after a man had gone to live in a parish before he became a parochial elector. The Bill itself did not limit the right of election to ratepayers, and a person who was disqualified for voting for the nonpayment of the special rate might be perfectly qualified to be elected a member of the Parish Council. There was not the faintest chance that the parochial electors would ever elect a pauper to represent them, or any person who was un-
        516
        desirable, and Parliament was doing much the sounder thing and acting much more in harmony with Liberal principles and the general tendency of their legislation if it gave freedom of choice all round. He was only urging, too, that should be done for Parish Councils which was done for School Boards. Both men and women had been elected for School Boards who were not themselves electors, and no grievance had been felt in that matter. He thought that as the Parish Councils were to take over the work of the Parochial Boards it was wise to give a very wide choice, and especially in view of the desirableness of having women as members of the wards.
        Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 19, after the word "electors," to insert the words—
        "or persons who have, during the 12 months next preceding the election, resided in the parish, or within three miles thereof, am I who are of lawful age, and not subject to any legal incapacity."—(Mr. W. M'Laren.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he was not able to pick and choose in this matter, although, of course, it was quite another thing for other Members. He considered himself bound by the decision of the Grand Committee. The position was this—36 hon. Members voted in the Standing Committee, which was a large attendance for a Grand Committee, and upon a Division there voted 27 to 9. If they came to Scotch Members—and he thought under the circumstances he might make some analysis of the voting—they found that there were 23 Scotch Members on one side and eight on the other. Therefore they might analyse the numbers as they liked, but would not find a majority of the Party on the side of the Amendment of the hon. Member. He agreed with a great deal of what the hon. Member had said, and thought the proposal was a good one for England, and a very necessary one. But his hon. Friend had ignored the differences between the position of England and of Scotland. In England small parishes of under 500 population were to be counted by the thousand, and it was a very difficult matter to obtain competent persons to represent them. Then, again, there were a considerable number below 300 and 200 population, while in Scotland, in the

        517
        County of Midlothian, there were only three parishes below 500; in Elgin, out of 19 parishes, only one was under 500, and in the great County of Inverness, with 32 parishes, there was only one under 500. He thought the difference in the position of affairs as between England and Scotland was sufficient to justify hon. Members in taking a strong view on this subject. Although there were a number of Members absent from the Committee upon the occasion when the decision was arrived at, he believed that had they all been present the voting would have been proportionately the same.
        MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)said, lie agreed with the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and if he went into the Lobby he should certainly support him. Of course he quite understood the principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland acted. He had necessarily to support the decision of the Grand Committee, but while that decision might bind the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, it did not bind private Members. He objected altogether to these qualifications. There was no qualification for membership of the House of Commons, and he did not see why there should be any qualification for membership of a Parish Council. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was a step in the right direction, and if he would divide upon it ho would go into the Lobby with him.
        MR. LUTTRELLsaid, he should support the Amendment. The Secretary for Scotland, in opposing the Amendment, had stated that the parishes in Scotland being so much larger than the parishes in England, it was not possible to make a comparison, and that it was not necessary in Scotland to have an extension to three miles outside the parish. In some respects that was true, for there would be a wider choice in the larger parishes; but he would point out to his right hon. Friend that the principal arguments used for the three-mile extension in England were that there would often be people Jiving just outside the parish who would have interests in the parish, and it was to include these that the three-mile extension was made. The larger the parish the larger would be the fringe of the parish, and consequently in these large Scotch parishes there would be more people with interests in the parish living just outside it. As
        518
        the Bill now stood, it differed from the English Act in another respect—not only was there to be no extension to three miles, but the Councillors would only be chosen from the electorate. In England both the parishes and the districts were to be allowed to choose from the electorate and from residents of 12 months. Though on account of size the Scotch and English parishes did not bear exact comparison, no one could contend that the parishes of Scotland were larger than the districts of England. And if it be right that the districts of England should choose from residents, surely the Scotch parishes might. He was in favour of allowing the people to choose whom they pleased without restrictions, and it was because this Amendment went in that direction that he gave it his support. He would suggest, however, that if the Government could not accept the three-mile extension, they would allow people to choose from the residents of the parish as well as from the electorate.
        SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid, the difficulty was that if members were elected who lived three miles away it was very unlikely that they would regularly attend the meeting of the Council. They had had experience of that kind in reference to the School Boards. He proposed to support the Mover of the Amendment if he would leave out the words relating to the three mile limit.
        MR. W. M'LARENsaid, he would accept that Amendment to his Amendment.
        Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "or within three miles thereof."
        Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
        The House divided:—Ayes 37: Noes 99.—(Division List, No. 218.)
        MR. MAXWELL MR. MAXWELL moved, in page 11, line 24, at end, insert—
        "Provided that a casual vacancy in a Parish Council and a vacancy in the office of Chairman shall not be filled unless notice, specifying that such vacancy is to be considered, has been issued to each Councillor at least seven days before the meeting."
        The hon. Member said, his Amendment was one which dealt with the filling up of casual vacancies on Parish Councils. The first part of the clause dealt generally with the matter of notice, time, and place of meetings of the Parish.

        519
        Councils. He agreed this was a matter which should be left in the hands of the Parish Councils, and that their hands should not be in any way tied. But a case might arise when it might be necessary for a Parish Council meeting to be suddenly summoned, and while he did not think it desirable that any hard or fast line should be laid down, he thought it well that in the case of the election of Chairman and the filling up of a casual vacancy some notice should be given.
        Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 24, at end, insert—
        "Provided that a casual vacancy in a Parish Council and a vacancy in the office of chairman shall not be filled unless notice, specifying that such vacancy is to be considered, has been issued to each Councillor at least seven days before the meeting."—(Mr. Maxwell.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        Question put, and agreed to.
        CAPTAIN HOPE*CAPTAIN HOPE moved, in page 11, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "shall." He said that, on examining this clause, he thought that some difficulty might arise unless the word "shall" was substituted for "may." He ventured to submit for the consideration of the Government that the word "may" in the position in which it appeared would give rise to a great deal, not only of difficulty, but of friction. The Inspector of the poor of a parish might place the Parish Council in a very awkward position if it was left to him to say whether he would or would not act as clerk. He believed the intention to be that the Inspector should act, and at all events the clause would be the clearer if "shall" were substituted for "may."
        Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 26, to leave out the word "may," and insert the word "shall."—(Captain Hope.)
        Question put, and agreed to.
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN the following Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 11, line 27, leave out from "appointed," to "any," in line 28.
        Line 34, at beginning, insert "Subject to the provisions of this Act."
        Line 34, after "Council," insert "or in any office to which the Parish Council appoint a representative from their own number."
        MR. HOZIER MR. HOZIER moved, in page 11, line 40, after "number," insert "to be chairman during the tenure in office of the Council." He said, that in the Grand Committee upon the Bill the Division on this matter was so close that the Chairman had to give his casting vote. They must remember this had been the rule hitherto: that the Chairman of the Parochial Board was the representative on the district committee, and in a similar manner he had no doubt the Chairman of the Parish Council would, in all probability, be chosen as the representative on the district committee of the Parish Council, and, that being so, he thought it was desirable the Amendment should be adopted. If office was to be held only for one year, he thought that a knowledge of the duties would hardly be acquired before the term of office expired.
        Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 40, after the word "number," to insert the words "to be chairman during the tenure in office of the Council."—(Mr. Hozier.)
        Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
        MR. RENSHAWsaid, he hoped that, in view of the closeness of the Division that took place in the Committee upstairs, the Government would reconsider this matter. He attached very great importance to the proposal made by his hon. Friend, and gave it priority of position. When the matter was under discussion upstairs, he ventured to point out that in the case of School Boards the chairman was appointed for three years, and the principle had worked excellently, and no objection had ever been made to it. The result had been to secure, in the first place, the services of the best man on the School Board as its chairman, and, in the second place, to secure a continuity of policy during their tenure of office. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be unfortunate to expose the Chairman of the Parish Council to the possibility of annual change. It was argued upstairs that if a man was a good chairman he was sure to be reappointed. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member said "Hear, hear!" and no doubt that would generally be the case, but not always. Very often a chairman had, in pursuance of a particular policy

        521
        to be decided upon and carried out, to look ahead a bit, and in the line he took in connection with questions of local administration he would be hampered if he felt that a particular vote he gave might be made the instrument for turning him out of office. He could not see that there was anything to be gained by making the occupancy of the office so short. He imagined that the Council would only meet about once a month, and it would take some considerable time for the chairman to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the duties. He hoped the Government would reconsider the question. Ho felt more strongly about this, because the subsequent Amendment was in connection with the representative of the Parish Council upon the district committee; and as the probability was that the chairman would be appointed as the representative, he thought it most desirable they should continue him in office for the three years.
        DR. MACGREGORsaid, that if the chairman was a popular man he would be re-elected; and if he was unpopular, then the Council should have the power of removing him.
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that was their case in a nutshell. Very great inconveniences occurred on Local Government Boards, and even more important Boards, from differences of opinion between the chairman and the members. Anyone who had been connected with local administration had never known, he thought, of an instance in which a man who was really trusted, and was an effective head of the body, had not been re-elected for the position, and where the re-election was not regarded as a service done to the body rather than a service done to the individual. He had not the slightest doubt that a good chairman would always be re-elected.
        SIR H. MAXWELLsaid, he did not often find himself at variance with his hon. Friend behind him; but on this occasion he thought the Secretary for Scotland was the more Conservative of the two, and he certainly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, who proposed to continue the same order of things that prevailed on Parochial Boards where the appointment was an annual one.
        Question put, and negatived.
        MR. HOZIERsaid, he did not propose to move the omission of the whole
        522
        of Sub-section 6, but he wished to move the omission of the latter part of it—namely, the words—
        "If an equal number of votes is given for two or more persons the Parish Council shall determine by lot which of these persons shall be chairman."
        He could not help thinking there was a good deal too much of Ladas about this; therefore for that reason he moved to omit the latter part, from "If an equal number" down to "chairman." He would add that in the English Act, with regard to Parish Councils, there was no arrangement of this sort, and he could not see why this arrangement should be made with regard to Scotland.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that in this particular case there was no other mode available, as there was no one to give a casting vote; therefore, he thought the simplest way was to adopt the method proposed in the sub-section.
        MR. HOZIER: It is not in the English Act.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): No; that Act leaves the case unprovided for.
        MAJOR DARWINasked if the right hon. Gentleman could not adopt the other plan that was brought forward—that was, that in case there had been a poll the candidate who obtained the largest number of votes at the poll should be the one selected as chairman. Election by lot was very objectionable if it could be avoided.
        MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I think the Secretary for Scotland has an Amendment before this one—in line 9.
        On Motion of Sir G. TREVELYAN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 12, line 9, leave out "ninety-four," and insert "ninety-five."
        Page 12, line 10, leave out "all the Parish Councillors are elected," and insert "the first Tuesday of the month of December."
        Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 11, to leave out from the word "reelection," to the end of Sub-section (6) of Clause 19.—(Mr. Hozier.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        MAJOR DARWINsaid, he only wished to say that the omission of the words would not meet the case.
        MR. CALDWELLsaid, he would like to point out there was a difficulty here, because the elections took place by parish wards; and, as one might be elected in one ward and one in another, it would be difficult to determine the number of votes.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, it appeared to him that the method suggested might be a fit one, but he did not think it would cover all possible cases. If, however, the House would be good enough to leave it in their hands, they would endeavour to introduce in another place some alternative that would cover all the cases.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, his Amendment had reference to Sub-section 7, which ran as follows:—
        "The representative from a Parish Council on a district committee of a County Council, or on the County Council, where a county is not divided into districts, shall be appointed annually at the statutory meeting of the Parish Council from among their own number."
        "Or on the County Council where a county is not divided into districts" was a very clumsy phrase, and all through the Bill, wherever the district committee was mentioned, they found themselves encumbered with this extremely large and clumsy phrase. In dealing with the case of some of the small counties that were not divided into districts he thought it would be extremely awkward to have this large phrase, and that the difficulty could be met by leaving out the phrase and putting in the Definition Clause, at the end, a definition that stood in his name at the end of the Paper—namely,
        "The expression 'district committee of a County Council' shall include a County Council sitting as a district committee in cases where a county is not divided into districts."
        His Amendment would have the effect of removing a most cumbrous phrase and putting it into the Definition Clause; therefore, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
        Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 15, to leave out the words "or on the County Council, where a county is not divided into districts."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
        Question proposed, "That the words 'or on the County Council' stand part of the Bill."
        MR. RENSHAWsaid, there was one additional point he should like to urge in support of the view of the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Parker Smith). By the insertion here of the phrase "or on the County Council where a county is not divided into districts "—at this place it might be considered to convey more than was intended; that was to say, it might be held to imply that under certain circumstances those appointed were appointed on the County Council for other purposes than those of a district committee. He thought the Amendment made it perfectly clear what the position really was, and conveyed precisely and exactly what the Government ought to provide for.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the hon. Member only applied the definition to one particular case, and as a similar expression occurred throughout the Bill he was afraid it would require a good deal of alteration of the Bill. This, also, had to be kept in view, that sometimes persons in reading a Bill did not look at the Interpretation Clause; they liked to have it "writ large," so that it might speak for itself. As the Bill at present stood, he was afraid the acceptance of the Amendment would not meet the case; but they would consider whether, without sacrificing clearness, the Amendment could be accepted. The other point mentioned by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Renshaw) should be looked into with the object of seeing what amount of change would be required in other parts of the Bill.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        MR. RENSHAWsaid, the Amendment he had to propose was to omit the word "annually," for the purpose of inserting subsequently, after "at the," the word "first" before "statutory." The decision of the Committee upon this point was very dubious, because 19 voted one way and 19 voted the other; so that as there was an equality, very pronounced, against the scheme proposed in the Bill, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now, in recognition of that fact, be prepared to accept the Amendment. This was a matter of great importance, and the duties of the office would never be properly performed unless there was

        525
        continuity of office. The duties of the district committee had reference to public health and the administration of the roads of the district. They would have, perhaps, in the district 15 County Councillors who were members of the district committee by virtue of the fact that they were County Councillors. Say they had seven parishes in the district, they would have seven representatives added to the 15 County Councillors to form the district committee. They would have the responsible charge of administering all matters connected with the roads and the public health of the district, and there could not be the slightest doubt in the mind of anyone who had taken part in the operation of these district committees that those men who had been longest at it were the best-informed upon the intricate questions that came before them for settlement. He was perfectly certain about this: that if they wanted to do justice to the representatives of the Parish Councils, they must give them a longer tenure of office than one year. The members of these district committees were in office for three years, and therefore they would handicap the Parish Council representatives if they appointed them only for one year. He supposed he would be met with the statement that was made with regard to the appointment of the Chairman of the Parish Council, that if the representative was doing his duty he would be returned over and over again by the Parish Council. To that he would reply that, in the first place, the Parish Council would have no special cognisance of what was being done in the district committee; the meetings were not always published in the Press, and therefore what was done would not be circulated outside the limits of the committee itself; and, in the second place, though a man might be a most efficient administrator, and be doing his work well, he might be put on one side at the end of the year for another gentleman on the principle of fair play all round. That, he considered, would be an injury to the Parish Council. He therefore hoped the Government, having regard to the equal division on the question upstairs, would accept the Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 16, to leave out the word "annually."—(Mr. Renskaw.)
        Question proposed, "That the word 'annually' stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that undoubtedly it would be a great disadvantage if a good man was turned out to make room for an indifferent man; but what was more likely to happen was that a man might be chosen for some personal quality he possessed, but who might be a most inefficient representative, in which case the parish would be saddled with a person for three years who ought not to be their representative. On the other hand, when a Public Body got hold of a man who really did their work that man might continue to do their work as long as he wished. Under the circumstances of the equal division upstairs, he was able to take his own view, and that was in favour of annual elections.
        MR. MAXWELLsaid, he was very much disappointed at the statement of the Secretary for Scotland, because everyone acquainted with, the working of district committees in Scotland knew perfectly well it was greatly to the advantage of the locality that the public representatives should be appointed to these district committees for three years. In some districts the Parish Council representatives would form half the district committee, so that they might have half that body going out of office at the end of every year. He would point out that a great part of the work was discharged by sub-committees, and if half of them were to be turned off these committees every year how were they to perform their work satisfactorily and efficiently? This, he could assure the House, was a very important matter, and it would tend to confuse the work of these district committees if the representatives were to be changed from year to year, and it must interfere with the continuity of the work.
        DR. MACGREGORsaid, it appeared to him that the arguments used in favour of this Amendment were on all-fours with those used in the other case that had been disposed of, and that the House would be stultifying itself if it did not now decide in exactly the same way in which it decided before.
        MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that as so much stress had been laid upon the close Division in the Committee, he would like to say he hoped the Government would

        527
        adhere to the position they had taken up. He was rather surprised that hon. Friends of his should look upon the point as they did, as he thought they rather mistook the principle of the case. The members who represented Parish Councils on the County Council were much more in the position of delegates than were the ordinary members of County Councils. They were chosen not so much for general fitness for the administration of local government as for representing the views of their parishes on particular points. Accordingly, it was but just that the Parish Council should annually have an opportunity of sending to the County Council such men as they thought would represent the views of the Parish Council at the time.
        CAPTAIN HOPEsaid, he must entirely repudiate the idea that the members who represented Parochial Boards on the district committees were any more delegates than were the ordinary members of County Councils. Speaking from practical experience, he could only say that in cases in which the representatives of the Parochial Boards on the district committee over which he had the honour of presiding were constantly changed those representatives attended least and took the least interest in the work of the committee. In the majority of cases, however, Parochial Boards elected their representatives for the whole period of the existence of the district committee, and this, he thought, showed that they believed this to be the most reasonable and advantageous way of appointing their members. The case dealt with by the Amendment was stronger than that of the Parochial Board representatives on the district committee. The Parish Council would hold office for the same period as the district committee and the County Council, and it was therefore reasonable to ask that the representatives of the Parish Council should be appointed for the whole period of the joint existence of that Council and of the district committee. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.
        MR. ANSTRUTHERsaid, he had accepted the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan), and was willing, as far as he was able, to concur in it—that the Government would at this stage of the Bill adhere to the decisions
        528
        of the Committee, and especially to those decisions which were unanimously arrived at.
        SIR G. TREVELYAN (interposing): I think my hon. Friend misunderstood what I said. I was speaking about the Amendments I myself brought forward, and my recollection of what I said is that, generally speaking, those Amendments were brought forward in order to fulfil the promises which had been accepted, if not unanimously, without any considerable objection.
        MR. ANSTRUTHERsaid, he was referring to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the admission of the words "second and subsequent." If the unanimity of the Committee had given a special title to the right hon. Gentleman to appeal to the House to support the Committee's decision on that point, the right hon. Gentleman had very slender ground for refusing the present Amendment when it had been rejected merely by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Grand Committee- He firmly believed that the Amendment, if adopted, would conduce to administrative efficiency, and he was supported in that view by the fact that several Members who habitually supported the Government had voted against them on this question in the Grand Committee.
        MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, ho thought the most cogent argument used in favour of the Amendment was to be found in the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark(Mr. D. Crawford). He had been more than surprised to hear the theory of delegation supported by that hon. Member, as there was no theory which he thought was more destructive of proper representative work than that.
        MR. D. CRAWFORD (interposing)remarked that the representatives of the Parish Councils on the district committees would be delegates, as they were not elected by the ratepayers, but appointed by the Parish Council.
        MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, he did not admit that they were delegates. He had been surprised to hear the hon. Member support the theory of delegation, as the whole of his Parliamentary career had been a worthy testimony in favour of the opposite theory. There was nothing more to be deprecated than the setting up of friction between different popularly-elected bodies, and yet, if

        529
        Parliament were to allow the Parish Council's representative to be changed annually in order that the Parish Council might send to the County Council a person not to represent the views he formed from a practical experience of the working of the district committee, but simply to represent the views put into him by the Parish Council, that would be nothing more nor less than giving the Parish Council an indirect control of the work of the district committee. The testimony of those who had been practically engaged in administrative work had been all one way, and, as far as the theoretical result was concerned, lie thought it would be very often fruitful of friction and dissension. Even in the past friction between district committees and County Councils had not been absolutely unknown, and ho thought that any provision which at all made likely a repetition of that state of things in the future was a bad one. Under these circumstances, he should certainly support the Amendment.
        Question put.
        The House divided: — Ayes 106; Noes 37.—(Division List, No. 219.)
        MR. RENSHAW MR. RENSHAW moved, in page 12, to add at the end of line 18—
        "Provided always, that, in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, he shall be appointed by the landward committee from among their own number."
        He said the landlord representatives on the district committee were elected not to represent the interests of the Parish Council, but to represent the interests of the landward part of the parish. In the ease of a parish partly landward and partly burghal the people within the burgh did not contribute to the cost of maintaining the roads in the county or to the public health rates, and it was only those represented by the landward committee who did contribute to them. It was only fair to ask that those who were appointed by the Parish Council to give votes which might decide the expenditure on the formation and maintenance of roads and the manner in which the public health laws should be carried into effect should be those who had the responsibility of paying the rates for maintaining the roads and carrying out the Public Health Act.
        Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 18, after the word "number," to insert the words—
        530
        "Provided always, that, in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, he shall be appointed by the landward committee from among their own number."—(Mr. Renshaw.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the Amendment was not necessary. By the Act of 1889 it was provided that in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, the representative must be a ratepayer, and he would, therefore, have county interests. It appeared to the Government that this was a sufficient safeguard of the interests which it was desired to represent.
        MS. HOZIERremarked that there wore a good many people connected with parish and county government who, as the Lord Advocate had said, liked to have things "writ large," and who might make terrible mistakes if they had to refer from one Act to another. It would therefore be well to assent to the Amendment.
        MR. MAXWELLsaid, that, now that a division had been formed between the members representing the landward part of a place and the members representing the burgh, it was only right that the landward committee should have the appointment of their representatives on the district committee. The Parish Council might in certain cases not altogether represent the landward part. It was desirable that the matter should be made quite clear in the Bill.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, the effect of the Local Government Act of 1889 was to limit the representation to county ratepayers, and, that being so, the object of the Amendment was very much met.
        SIR C. PEARSONthought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not apprehended the exact bearing of the Act of 1889. The only distinction that was drawn in 1889 was between the burghs on the one hand, and the county on the other, and it was considered expedient to enact that care should be taken that it should be a county ratepayer who was appointed a representative. In the present Bill, they were subdividing the Parish Councils. The landward part of it was the only part of the parish and of the Parish Council which

        531
        was directly interested by way of having to pay money in the shape of Public Health rates, the Roads Management Acts, and so on. In a parish in the County of Renfrew, the population of the burghal portion was over 34,000, and the landward population 7,907. That parish was united for Poor Law purposes, for the purposes of this Act, and all purposes; but the only part of the parish which had a direct interest in the roads, and in the Public Health administration of the parish as a whole, was the landward part of it with a population of 7,907. He submitted that it was not fair, or justified by any reference to the existing Local Government Act of 1889, that the selection of the persons who were to have the administration of road matters, and matters relating to Public Health, should be left not to those who alone were interested in these matters in the parish—that was the landward population—and that the landward population should be absolutely swamped by the 35,000 population, who had nothing in the world to do with it in the way of management or ratepaying. That was a simple fact which the Lord Advocate had failed to appreciate in the remarks he he had made. This was by no means a solitary instance, and he hoped the Government would reconsider what he trusted he might term the provisional decision they had already announced, and accept the Amendment which had been moved.
        DR. MACGREGOEthought they might very well trust the Local Bodies in this matter.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 112.—(Division List, No. 220.)
        MR. COCHRANE MR. COCHRANE moved, in page 12, line 38, after Sub-section (d.), insert—
        "In any contract with the Council for the supply from land, of which he is owner or occupier, of stone, gravel, or other materials for making or repairing highways or bridges, or in the transport of materials for the repair of roads or bridges in his own immediate neighbourhood; or."
        He pointed out that a similar clause to this appeared in the Roads and Bridges Scotland Act, it being enacted that a road trustee should not be disqualified by reason of having any interest in the land from which stone, gravel, or other materials were supplied. Under the County
        532
        Councils Act of 1889 road trustees were abolished, and, at the same time, this provision against disqualification was not re-enacted in the Scotch County Council Bill. The same thing happened in the case of the English County Councils Act, but in 1891 there was an amending Act for the English County Councils in which this sub-section was re-enacted. It was Sub-section 5, c. 63, of the Act of 1891, and it enacted that no person should be disqualified, if elected a member of the County Council, by reason of having any share or interest in any land from which materials were supplied for the repair of highway roads, and so on. In England a man was not disqualified under the County Councils Act, but in Scotland he was. In England, under the Parish Councils Bill, a man was not disqualified from being a Parish Councillor on account of supplying metal for the repair of roads and bridges, and so on. He instanced cases which had occurred where men who had previously supplied road metal had to discontinue doing so, so as not to disqualify themselves from a seat in the County Councils, the consequence being that the material had to be obtained at a much greater distance from the locality, and also at a much greater cost. If the Government would give any support to this proposal of his he would be glad to introduce a small Bill to amend the law relating to County Councils in the same respect. He begged to move the Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 38, after Sub-section (d), insert—
        "In any contract with the Council for the supply from land, of which he is owner or occupier, of stone, gravel, or other materials for making or repairing highways or bridges, or in the transport of materials for the repair of roads or bridges in his own immediate neighbourhood; or."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
        Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
        SIR J. FERGUSSONobserved that a much stronger case for introducing this provision existed in the case of a Parish Council than in the case of a County Council.
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that the analogies from England in the matter of County and Parish Councils appeared to be analogies which held here. If this-question was introduced into a County

        533
        Council Bill, which he hoped to see before they were many years older, the Government would not resist it.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        On Motion of Sir G. THE VELVAN the following Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 13, line 10, leave out "eleventh day of December," and insert "fifteenth day of May."
        Line 11, leave out, "ninety-four," and insert "ninety-five."
        Line 20, leave out "constituted as at the passing of this Act."
        Line 21, after "thereof and," insert "a Parish Council."
        Line 23, leave out "thereof," and insert "of a Parochial Board."
        Line 37, after "committee," insert "of the Parish Council."
        Page 14, line 7, after "purpose," insert "and for the purpose of The Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887."
        Line 8, before "may," insert "which."
        Line 10, leave out "without," and insert "outwith."
        MAJOR DARWIN MAJOR DARWIN moved, in page 14, line 20, to leave out from the word "increased," to the word "Council," inclusive, in line 21, and insert the words—
        "(or, if the election takes place by wards, the members elected for each ward as a separate body) shall appoint to the Parish Council from their number according to rules to be framed by the Board."
        He said, his Amendment was designed to meet two certain points. They were dealing with a case where the landward part had to be increased because the number of Parish Councillors was very small. Take the case of a landward part with three wards each returning one Parish Councillor and one additional member of the landward committee. Suppose also—which he hoped would not be the case—that the elections took place upon Party lines,it might well happen that two wards would return Conservatives and one Liberals. These six men, four Conservatives and two Liberals, might proceed to appoint three Parish Councillors. What he wanted to know from the Secretary for Scotland was whether, as the Bill stood, it gave these six men power to appoint three Conservatives, because, if so, he thought that would
        534
        mean that the division of the parish into wards for the purpose of the election of Parish Councils was absolutely futile. He proposed, therefore, in order to secure minority representation, that the representatives should be elected to the Parish Council by the members of each ward. He also proposed that they should be elected according to Rules framed by the Board. He begged to move the Amendment.
        Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 20, to leave out from the word "increased," to the word "Council," inclusive, in line 21, and insert the words—
        "or, if the election takes place by wards, the members elected for each ward as a separate body) shall appoint to the parish Council from their number according to rules to be framed by the Board."—(Major Darwin.)
        Question proposed, "That the words 'shall appoint' stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TBEVELYANsaid, the Bill laid down a system under which there would be a sufficient landward committee to form a respectable minority, and to that part of the enactment he did not imagine the hon. and gallant Gentleman took exception. Now they came to the duty of this landward committee. They had to send probably only one representative—at the outside two or three—to the Parish Councils, and these representatives were to be chosen by the entire body. He thought this was a case of de minimis non curat. He was not afraid of a majority of Conservatives sending three Conservatives to the Parish Councils, and he was not afraid of a Liberal majority taking the same course. The representatives would be sent merely for the purpose of Poor Law administration. It was not such a very inviting or acceptable office that any great partisan feeling would be exercised. He thought the election of one or two, or at the outside three, members of a Parish Council might he very safely left to the higher body, which in all only consisted of five or six members.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        On Motion of Sir G. TKEVELYAN', the following Amendments were agreed to:—
        Page 14, line 21, after "appoint," insert "from their own number."
        Page 14, line 22, after "Act," insert—

        535
        "And shall fill any casual vacancy occurring in the number of such Parish Councillors or in the landward committee."
        Page 14, line 25, to leave out from "Council," to end of sub-section, and insert—
        "The provisions of sub-sections two, three, five, and six of section nineteen of this Act shall apply to a landward committee with the substitution of the expression 'landward committee' for 'parish council' occurring therein.'"
        Line 33, leave out "clause," and insert "section."
        Line 34, after "of," insert "not fewer than."
        Line 35, leave out "the," and insert "such."
        Line 35, leave out "thereof."
        Line 36, leave out "in addition to any powers conferred or transferred by other parts of this Act."
        MR. PARKER SMITH MR. PARKER SMITH moved to strike out, in Clause 24, the words "or other public purposes," and to insert instead the words,
        "and for any purposes connected with parish business or with the powers or duties of the Parish Council.
        He explained that the Amendment had reference to the powers given to Parish Councils to provide buildings for parish and general local purposes. He urged that while the Councils should have perfectly full and free powers in this respect they should not go further, and therefore he proposed to substitute the words in the English Act for what he considered the somewhat vague words, "or other public purposes," now in the clause. Those words exactly defined the powers which Parish Councils should have. Nobody wished, of course, that they should have power to acquire buildings for a vast number of general public purposes which might be entirely outside their functions.
        Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 40, to leave out the words "or other public purposes," and insert the words—
        "and for any purposes connected with parish business or with the powers or duties of the Parish Council."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the clause as it stood gave the Council all necessary latitude to erect buildings for general
        536
        purposes conducive to the advantage of the parish. He certainly would be unwilling that any Parish Council should have power to acquire buildings except for strictly parish purposes. The question was fully discussed by the Committee, who concluded that the words referred to in the clause were sufficient for the purpose in view, and they would provide a guarantee against any dangerous excess.
        MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted that while it would not be right to follow the English Act word for word, yet in cases where the circumstances of the two countries were alike, surely the same wording might be used in both measures. In this particular regard there was no distinction whatever to be drawn between Scotland and England as to providing buildings for parish purposes.
        MR. CALDWELLsaid, that Scotch parishes were larger than parishes in England.
        MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, if that was so their larger area afforded greater reason against spending large sums upon central buildings from which, in the very nature of the case, people distant 20, 30, 40, or even 50 miles could derive but little benefit. The right hon. Gentleman had, in defending the wording of the Bill as it stood, told the House that the Parish Councils would be the best judge of their own wants, and that they were restrained from recklessly disposing of their funds by the fact that they could not levy beyond a 6d. rate. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot that they might borrow beyond that limit, and that a Parish Council while in power during a few months might mortgage their future funds for many years, and indulge in building speculations altogether beyond good policy, and their requirements. Surely that was a result which the House ought not to promote, and should provide against. The point in question as to the powers of Parish Councils with regard to expenditure in the erection of public buildings was fully examined into and discussed in the progress of the English Act, and he thought it would be well in this case to follow the precedent furnished in that measure.
        THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, that the words adopted had satisfied the Scotch Grand (Committee, who knew the require-

        537
        meats of Scotch life. They heard a good deal about the use of parish rooms during the Debates on the English Act, but he was sorry to say that they had no parish rooms in Scotland. He feared there might be a risk of its being held that buildings erected for a specified purpose must not be used for any other purpose, and he thought it was for the Parish Council rather than for Parliament to say for what purposes buildings should be acquired.
        MR. GRAHAM MURRAYprotested against the construction put on the Amendment by the Lord Advocate. As a much humbler member of the Scottish Bar Ire would venture to say he thought the suggested construction perfectly fantastic. There was a conspicuous experience to the contrary in the daily life of Scotland, for political meetings were upon many occasions held in schoolrooms. The words selected by the Government wore conspicuous for their vagueness. Who was to say what "other purposes" were? It was for Parliament to lay down for what purposes public money was to be spent, and that having been effectively done in the English Act surely the Government was not going now to throw darkness upon the scene by putting in these words.
        MAJOR DARWINsaid, that, in moving a similar Amendment in Committee, he had asked for definite instances to be cited on the other side, and had challenged the hon. Member to state any single purpose referred to in the clause which would not be covered by those words. No one ever supposed that a parish would be justified in expending money on illegitimate objects which would not be covered by the language used. The reason given by the Lord Advocate was one of the most curious he had ever heard. If there wore any real objection to this Amendment he hoped that some hon. Member would cite a definite instance in support of the contention that any real harm would come from the introduction of these words.
        MR. CALDWELL,in opposing the Amendment, said the clause would not confer upon the land committee of the Parish Councils powers to erect buildings for the purposes of speculation, or to expend money for any purposes not for the benefit of the people.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 49.—(Division List, No. 221.)
        SIR C. PEARSON SIR C. PEARSON moved the omission of Sub-section (c) of Clause 24—namely,
        "To provide or acquire land for the erection of workmen's dwellings."
        He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland would make in this case an exception from the rule he had laid down, that he would adhere to the Bill as it left the Committee. This power was not in the Bill as proposed by the Government. This sub-section was not part of the original Bill, but was introduced after a discussion originated by the Member for Elginshire. The Secretary for Scotland treated the Amendment of the hon. Member as one of the most important Amendments that had been tabled against the Bill, and he said that if it were added to the Bill the Bill would be lost. The hon. Member for Elgin was a little hard on the right hon. Gentleman, for in a subsequent speech ho accused the right hon. Gentleman of having treated the subject with a most unjustifiable levity. On the Division the Amendment was opposed by all the Members of the Government present, but, nevertheless, it was carried. On these grounds he appealed to the light hon. Gentleman to stand by his original proposition and reject the Amendment. The sub-section was a strange incongruity, and was utterly out of place in this Bill. It was quite out of place to confer powers of this kind when no machinery for carrying them out was provided in the clause. At present this sub-section stood a mere abortion, incapable of being carried out. The Parish Council was to provide or acquire land for the erection of working men's dwellings. He did not mean to detract from the importance of improving the housing of the working classes, whether in town or country; and he did not think that anyone would say that the matter had not been sufficiently attended to by the last Conservative Government. His objection to the proposal was that though the Parish Council had power to provide or acquire land for workmen's dwellings, they were given no power to erect workmen's dwellings; and all the Parish Council could do, having acquired the laud, was to treat indirectly with some

        539
        speculative builder for the erection of the dwellings. He, therefore, hoped the Government would strike this inoperative provision out of the Bill.
        Amendment proposed, in page 15, line 3, to leave out paragraph (c), of Subsection (1), of Clause 24. — (Sir C. Pearson.)
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
        SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, it was quite true that the provision which the right hon. Gentleman wanted to omit was not in the Bill originally, and that it was inserted in Committee against his wishes. But what was the use of sending this Bill to the Grand Committee, largely composed of Scottish Members, if they intended to leave the Bill in exactly the same state as it was when it went before the Committee? That argument might be exactly applied to Committees of the House. The indubitable intention was that the Bill should be considered and amended by those best acquainted with the circumstances. It was perfectly ridiculous that in a measure of this kind a Minister should have his own way in regard to all the clauses. He might say that he was decidedly in favour of giving Local Bodies the power, under due restriction, of obtaining land when it could not be obtained by free contract. But he asked hon. Members not to put the Amendment in this Bill, not because he objected to the proposal in principle, but because the clause contained a good deal which was very important, and if it was put in the Bill the clause would be overweighted. His advice was not taken on the matter; but he was bound to say that it was the one single exception in which attention was not paid to the expostulations of the gentleman, coming from his mouth. He had advised a number of Amendments to be withdrawn, and this was the first of them in which his advice bad been disregarded. But his advice was carried out in regard to many others which followed. The sub-section having been introduced into the Bill in Committee, he advised that the House should now accept it. He did not see why an exception to the rule he had laid down should be made in this particular case, and why the Government should say—
        540
        "This and this alone is the Amendment which in principle we are going to leave out of the Bill." The power that was given by the Amendment was not very large, because it was confined within the limits of the 6d. rate; but if the principle was asserted, only in very extreme cases it would be perfectly possible, even within this limit for the Parish Council, to purchase a portion of land, and afterwards sell it for the purpose of erecting workmen's dwellings. At any rate, it would be inducement to those people, who for reasons every one must deplore, refused to sell land for this purpose, to act somewhat more reasonably than they would do otherwise.
        MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, it was curious to see how the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland alternately remembered and forgot the English Bill, according as it suited the view of the Government at the moment. He opposed this in Grand Committee upstairs, where the proportions of the Government were much more in their favour than in the House, and allowed himself to be beaten, and now ho refused to use his power in the House which he would have if he exercised his authority in a proper way in order to remedy his defeat. It reminded him of another historical person, who "whispering she would ne'er consent, consented." But he entirely repudiated the right hon. Gentleman's own version of his own speech upstairs. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman warned the Committee that the insertion of this sub-section would mean the wrecking of the Bill; but he did not in any way couple that with a warning that other innovations might be made. The whole brunt of his argument was that the clause would be perfectly unworkable, and that they would need proper and complete machinery to deal with that laud if it were so acquired. Even a few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman spoke of restrictions, but there were none in the Bill. Then, showing probably his desire to conciliate the Member for Elgin and Nairn on the limit of the 6d. rate, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the Parish Council would be able to take land under this section, and, buildings having been erected, could sell it again and buy more with the 6d. rate. Now, that was what he pointed out at the time

        541
        in Committee, that they are giving power to any small Parish Council to sell the whole of the land in that parish. If there were a proper proposal, and instances to show it was necessary for providing land for workmen's houses where they might reasonably want it, this House would willingly consider it, but not on such vague assertions of people being unwilling to part with their laud. There were circumstances in which such power was abused. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt represented Glasgow, but perhaps he had been near enough to Edinburgh to hear of Tynecastle. Did the right hon. Gentleman know why workmen's dwellings were erected there? If not, ho had better study that very interesting chapter of history. All kinds of abuse would be possible if there were no restrictions on a sub-section like that now under consideration. The Secretary for Scotland had given no good ground for suddenly executing this volte face against his own declarations in Committee, and allowing the sub-section to remain in the Bill.
        MR. PAULsaid, that the Government were observing the rule they had laid down of adhering to the Bill substantially as it left the Committee, and when the Secretary for Scotland enunciated that course of action he was cheered by the Leader of the Opposition. On a former Amendment, when it was sought by a follower of the Government to introduce something that was in the English Act, the Government refused the Amendment, and gentlemen opposite voted against making the Bill like the English Act. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for that much more nobler animal—the gander. He thought they had a right to expect that the House would adhere to the proposal deliberately carried against the Government in the Committee upstairs.
        MR. SEYMOUR KEAYsaid, that hon. Members opposite had studiously avoided making any reflection on the character of the sub-section. Since the Amendment was passed in Committee, although weeks had elapsed, he thought they could not point to a single Scottish newspaper—although the Liberal Party in this House had very strong and extreme opponents in Scotland—which had had a word to say against this Amendment. Although the Government might
        542
        be twitted about not putting the subsection in the Bill originally, yet the fact that the whole press of Scotland had been united since then, either in dumb silence or strong approval, was surely a sufficient justification for the Secretary for Scotland now adhering to the subsection. It was said, too, that there was not a full meeting of the Committee on the occasion the Amendment was carried. But at all events every Liberal Member present, without one single exception, voted for the Amendment, and that was something to say. If there had been an absolutely full meeting of the Committee the probability was that the majority in favour of the Amendment would have been greater. This provision was necessary, because it was notorious that land could not be got for workmen's dwellings on any terms in the rural districts of Scotland, and because it was the fixed policy of many landlords to depopulate the rural districts. The hon. and learned Member had not said a word against the principle of the sub-section, for he knew as well as The Scotsman newspaper did that nothing could possibly he said in refutation of this enormous public question, which would interest every parish in three-fourths of the area of Scotland.
        MR. A. J. BALFOURthought it rather hard on the Government that the hon. Gentleman should have been allowed to say that not a single Liberal Member had the courage to vote against the Amendment in the Committee. There were seven Members of the Government on the Committee, all of whom voted against the Amendment, and he should have thought that those gentlemen had some right to be described as Liberal Members. But though he did not wish to quote against the Government their own speeches in Committee, he must say a word against the two kinds of arguments to which they had been listening on this subject. The Government thought it was a sufficient argument to urge against the Amendment that a definite decision was come to upstairs, and when it suited their purpose they supplemented that by saying that a similar course was taken on the English Bill. But then a Member for one of the Divisions of Edinburgh got up and complained of the course taken by the Government, and called

        543
        attention to the fact that early in the evening an Amendment, the object of which was to bring the Bill in a certain respect into conformity with the English Bill, had been rejected. The principle which ought to regulate the House in the consideration of this Bill as compared with the English Bill was very simple. It was that wherever the circumstances of Scotland were parallel to the circumstances of England, the English Bill should form a very strong precedent. If the circumstances of Scotland and England were different, there was no precedent for their conduct, and they might, with an easy conscience, depart from the precedents set by themselves, even though they were only six months old. He might remind the hon. Member (Mr. Paul) that distance from a parish, which should give a qualification to a man in the peculiar circumstances of Scotland with regard to the size of parishes, was a relevant circumstance which might operate.
        MR. PAUL: The limit was omitted from the Amendment.
        MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that in that case the arguments of the hon. Gentleman fell to the ground, because he thought the hon. Gentleman was basing his argument on the ground that they were departing from the English Bill. Apparently he wished to depart from it himself. Was there anything in the nature of the case which made it more necessary to enable Scottish Parish Councils to enter into building speculations with regard to labourers' cottages than the parallel case of England? The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had been good enough to suggest that the Scotch owners of land were occupied in depopulating the rural districts by refusing to repair cottages. That would be an admirable argument if the Amendment sought to give the Parish Councils power to repair. If the laud-lords were occupied in the benevolent undertaking of turning out the people on whom they depended for the cultivation of their land, the House ought to begin by giving the Parish Councils power to repair the cottages.
        MR. CALDWELLsaid, they could not repair other people's property.
        MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, they could not unless they had the power.
        544
        He thought, however, they might put aside as an invention the argument of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seymour Keay). The Government had told them that they might make this power what they liked, but no serious abuse could follow, because there was this precious 6d. limit. But he would point out that the result of their 6d. limit, in conjunction with these illimitable powers, was that the whole money might have been spent upon objects upon which no money should have been spent at all. If they put it in the power of a Parish Council elected in a particular year under accidental circumstances of local pressure to spend not merely the 6d. rate for the year for which it held office, but to mortgage the rates in the future, it was perfectly clear that they would not increase the powers of Parish Councils, but gravely curtail and limit them, and that, in his judgment, was one of the most powerful arguments which ought to induce the House to refuse to give such a liberty to individual Parish Councils. They were told that one of the vital necessities of Scotland was that there should be a great extension of building accommodation for the labouring classes. If those powers were really required—a point upon which he had received no fact to confirm the statements of the hon. Gentleman — they ought to begin by conferring them on the great Burgh Councils. To begin with the landward parishes was too ludicrous an inversion of the equities and expediency of the case to commend itself to any body of reasonable men. It was absurd to give these powers first to small districts which, compared with large centres of population like Manchester, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, with large working-class populations, one could not help describing as twopenny-halfpenny parishes. And when they introduced powers of this kind, which could not be carried out because no machinery was provided, they did not give a substantial increase of power to those bodies which they created, and they made the Bill ridiculous. He earnestly hoped the Government would revert to their better sentiments which they defended in the Committee, and would follow the parallel, set by this House and their own colleagues when they were dealing with the Bill relating to England and Wales.
        MR. D. CRAWFORDsaid, be hoped it would be noted in Scotland that the Leader of the Opposition had contended that a very great boon was to be conferred upon "twopenny parishes" in Scotland that were quite undeserving of such consideration.
        MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought that when a comparison was made in certain cases between the landward parishes and the great Municipalities like Glasgow and Edinburgh in point of population, wealth, and experience, the colloquial expression "twopenny-halfpenny parishes" was not inappropriate.
        MR. D. CRAWFORDsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman with his usual courage adhered to the expression. He (Mr. Crawford) did not agree that the large towns were more entitled than the rural districts to good houses for the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know, and, he thought must know, that in practice and by the letter of the law as it stood at present, the urban population had facilities under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts which were wholly inoperative in rural districts. As to the right hon. Gentleman's observations on the maxim of the Secretary of Scotland as to dealing with the English Local Government Act, the right hon. Gentleman accepted an Amendment by the Member for North Ayrshire, although it was contrary to the decision of the Committee, upon the ground that it was a provision of the English Act. It could not be maintained that the particular power proposed to be given to the Parish Councils was either different in kind or less necessary than those other powers which the clause conferred upon them. Objection had not been raised to those other powers conferred upon County Councils, such, for example, as their power to provide recreation grounds and the like. He maintained that no one could deny that a good house was of far more importance to a working man than providing him with amusements. The right hon. Gentleman said that those powers would be used in a reckless way by these "twopenny parishes." He did not agree with him, and pointed out that before a parish could use them it would be necessary to submit the proposal to the County Council. He was glad the Secretary for Scotland had taken the magnanimous line of up-
        546
        holding the decision of the Committee, which was arrived at contrary to his own advice. He was quite certain it was the right decision, and that it would be approved by the country.
        Question put.
        The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 46.—(Division List, No. 222.)
        CAPTAIN HOPE*CAPTAIN HOPE moved, in page 15, line 29, leave out from "Act," to end of sub-section. Ho said he offered no apology for bringing this matter before the House. The decision arrived at by the Committee upstairs could not be expected to prevent another discussion arising in that House. The words he wished to see left out of the sub-section were words which brought into the duties of the Parish Councils certain duties which had been conferred upon the County Councils of Scotland by the Local Government Act of 1889. The provisions of this sub-section gave the Parish Councils powers, such as the power of appeal against the action of the District Council, which under the Local Government Act of 1889 was invested in a certain number of householders or ratepayers. This he did not object to, but when it came to investing Parish Councils with the same powers as were conferred upon a County Council, it was time to give careful consideration to what they were doing. The right hon. Gentleman opposite told them that evening that it was the desire of the Government to frame a consecutive sys tem of government, starting with the County Council—
        It being Midnight, Further Proceeding stood adjourned.
        Further Proceeding to be resumed Tomorrow.

      PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [Lords.].—(No. 342.)

        COMMITTEE.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Clause 1.
        SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he should like to know whether there was any Report from the Committee on Statute Law Revision with regard to this Bill?
        MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the Bill had been before the Committee, but they had not reported.
        SIR J. RIGBYsaid, there was no special Report on this Bill.
        MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he wanted to introduce some words including the intoxication of children—
        MR. TOMLINSON: This is a consolidation Bill, and I shall oppose any alteration.
        MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had no objection to the opposition of the hon. Gentleman—
        MR. TOMLINSON: I object.
        Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

      COAL MINES (CHECK WEIGHER) BILL [Lords].—(No. 340.)

        SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
        Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [2nd August].
        MR. ASQUTTHsaid, this Bill had passed the Lords, and he hoped the objection might be withdrawn.
        Further Objection being taken, Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

      QUARRIES BILL [Lords].—(No. 341.)

        SECOND READING.
        Order for Second Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
        MR. HOZIERsaid, he would like to know whether these quarries would come under the inspection of the late Postmaster of Cleator Moor?
        MR. ASQUITHsaid, the quarries would come under the inspection of the Inspectors of Metalliferous Mines, because, although they were above ground, they were really mines.
        MR. HOZIERsaid, the Home Secretary had not answered his question.
        MR. ASQUITHsaid, the quarries would be inspected by the persons who had been appointed Inspectors of Metalliferous Mines.
        MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he objected to an important Bill of this kind being taken without notice. It was provided that there were to be special Rules framed for giving effect to the measure, and he did not think the Bill was one that ought to be passed without the House having been given an oppor-
        548
        tunity of properly considering whether these Rules ought not to be inserted in the Bill.
        MR. ASQUITHsaid, he thought he could give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he wanted.
        MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Bill could be taken at an hour when the House would have time to discuss it?
        MR. ASQUITHsaid, yes, certainly; but that rested with the hon. Gentleman himself.
        SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, there were a good many chalk pits or quarries in his county which would be brought under the operation of this Act, and it might be necessary to see how they would be affected.
        MR. ASQUITHsaid, if the right hon. Baronet would put down any Amendment or make any suggestion he would bear it in mind.
        Motion agreed to.
        Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

        HOUSE OF COMMONS (VACATING OF SEATS).
        Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
        PRIZE COURTS BILL [Lords].—(No. 311.)
        As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

        IRISH EDUCATION BILL.—(No. 247.)
        Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
        Bill withdrawn.

        HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (BORROWING POWERS) BILL.—(No. 336.)
        Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

      LAND TENURE (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 7.)
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
      House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.