Sitting of 23 August 1894

QUESTIONS.

  THE MALA REAL PORTUGUEZA COMPANY.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is
  346
  the case that the Mala Real Portugueza Company, which became bankrupt about a year ago, while it has been settling local claims on the bankrupt estate, refuses to pay the sum of several hundreds of pounds due to the staff of British engineers employed on the steamers of the Company both before the failure and since; and whether Her Majesty's Government can do anything to help these engineers to recover the sum due to them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (.Sir E. GREY,: The Report just received from Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon is substantially in accordance with the facts stated in the question. The Minister has been endeavouring to get the claim settled, and will continue to do so.

SEIZURE OF FRAUDULENTLY MARKED CHISELS AT LEITH.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the recent seizure at Leith of 6,000 German chisels, falsely marked with English wording and as Sheffield made, was under the 16th section of The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and duly reported to the Board of Trade, to whom the duty of prosecuting under it has been expressly confided by Parliament; why no proceedings were instituted, and if it is too late to repair the omission; if the Customs Authorities at all ports will be directed to search very strictly all consignments from and to the same parties for similar contraband; and if, in directing the sale for £25 on Government account of a large line of contraband foreign edge-tools, he considered the effect on the operatives in Sheffield, the placing among whom of such an order would have set £112 10s. into industrial circulation?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,: The seizure by the Customs at Leith was not reported to the Board of Trade. Section 16 of the Act referred to assigns the duty of dealing with imported goods to the Commissioners of Customs only. Seizure was the appropriate penalty, and it was applied; no other proceedings were possible in the

347
present case. The directions given by the Board of Customs as to search were effective in this case, and I know of no reason why their officers should be directed to be more vigilant. With regard to the last paragraph of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I must point out that foreign-made goods are not prohibited from being sold in this country on account of their origin unless they are illegally marked. Illegal marks are always removed prior to the sale of seized goods. The Board of Trade did not direct the sale of these chisels; they were sold by order of the Commissioners of Customs.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: As the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act, will he communicate with the Board of Customs and arrange that any future seizures of a similar nature shall at once be notified to the Board of Trade?
MR. CREMER: What became of the chisels?
MR. BRYCE: They were seized and sold by the Inspectors of Customs in the market. The administration of the Merchandise Marks Act is only in the hands of the Board of Trade in so far as statutory provisions put it in their hands.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Is it not a fact that prosecutions for offences under the Act have been specially intrusted to the Board of Trade? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the importer of these fraudulent goods?
MR. CREMER: Is it the case that these chisels were sold in the English and Scotch markets; and are they being re-sold to British workmen with the brand of Sheffield manufacture upon them; are not the chisels so branded at the present time being purchased and used by British workmen under the false impression that these are British-made goods; and is the Merchandise Marks Act capable of being interpreted so as to permit such a state of things?
MR. BRYCE: It is the duty of the Customs Authorities before selling goods so seized to remove the marks; and I understand that as a matter of course that provision of the Statute was complied with in this case. It is true that the prosecution of offences under the Act has
348
been intrusted to the Board of Trade, but, in the present case, there could not have been any prosecution.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I will call attention to this matter on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.
In reply to Mr. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe),
MR. BRYCEsaid, the object of the Merchandise Marks Act was to prevent the use of words which were calculated to give a false indication of the origin of articles so branded. These chisels which were seized were marked "Warranted cast steel," whereas they were of German manufacture, and such words were not properly applicable to them, hence they were seized.

SHIPS' PROVISIONS.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: In the absence of the lion. Member for Middlesbrough, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total number of vessels that have sailed from the United Kingdom under "The Merchant Shipping (Inspection of Provisions) Act, 1892"; how many of such vessels' provisions have been inspected; the number of ships' provisions that satisfied the requirements of the Inspectors; and the number of ships whose provisions were rejected during that period?
MR. BRYCE: During the first year of the working of the Act to which my hon. Friend refers—namely, from the 10th of July, 1893, to the 9th of July, 1894—the total number of vessels that sailed from the United Kingdom under the Act was 2,491. Provisions were inspected for or on board of 2,395 vessels. Provisions were passed by the Inspectors for or on board of 1,477 vessels, and rejections occurred for or on board of 918 vessels. It is right to add that the rejection of even one package for or on board a ship is counted as a rejection. A total of 780,814 packages were inspected, and of these 8,642 packages were rejected, a proportion of a little over 1 per cent.

CATHOLICS IN THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

349
of Ireland if he can state what percentage of the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary force are Catholics, and what percentage of the non-commissioned officers of the same force are Catholics?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,: From a Return of the religions of head and other constables in the Constabulary on January 1 last (which is the latest information available), I find that the proportion of constables serving on that date who were Roman Catholics was 73·4 per cent.; of acting sergeants, 74·8 per cent.; of sergeants, 7O·9 per cent.; and of head constables, 65 per cent. The proportion of Catholics in all these ranks to the total number serving on the date mentioned was 72·8 per cent.

EXCISE SUMMONSES IN IRELAND.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police in Ireland serve Excise summonses; and whether there is any reason why such summonses should not be served in Ireland by the police as they are in England?
MR. J. MORLEY: The police in Ireland serve Inland Revenue summonses only in cases where they themselves prosecute, and in cases under the Gun Licence Act when specially requested to do so by the Supervisor of Inland Revenue. The Inspector General is not aware what summonses are served by the police in England, lint seeing that the duties of the Royal Irish Constabulary are already so varied and multitudinous he considers it would not be possible to arrange that the latter shall serve summonses except in cases where they are the prosecutors. I shall, however, consult him further in this matter.

PARLIAMENTARY EXPENDITURE ON COMMISSIONS AND RETURNS.
MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would give a Return of the costs of Commissions, Committees, and Parliamentary Returns which have been paid from sources other than the British Exchequer?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,: I am afraid that the Treasury has no means of preparing such a Return. If,
350
as is possible, my hon. Friend refers to expenditure upon Commissions, &c., defrayed by the Government of India, I can only suggest that perhaps the Secretary of State for India could give him the information required.

COMMITTALS FOR TRIAL AT WEST HAM.
MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in a case heard on the 11th of August, at the West Ham Borough Petty Sessions, the Borough Justices (contrary to their past practice of committing to the first Court having jurisdiction) committed a prisoner for trial at the Quarter Sessions to be held on the 19th of October, and refused to commit him for trial at the Central: Criminal Court on the 11th of September, thereby causing delay and (unless bail be obtained) inflicting a period of nearly six weeks' imprisonment on a possibly innocent person; and whether the Lord Chancellor will inquire into the matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,: The solicitor for the prosecution asked that the case might be sent to the Central Criminal Court on the 11th of September, but the prisoner's solicitor said that if the prisoner was allowed bail he preferred a committal to the Borough Sessions on the 19th of October. Under these circumstances, the Justices made the committal referred to. They allowed bail, and the necessary recognisances having been entered into, the prisoner was immediately released from custody.

BALTIMORE FISHING INDUSTRY.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations have reached him that the want of a suitable pier at Baltimore is a great impediment to the fishing industry; whether an engineer from the Congested Districts Board recently visited Baltimore and reported as to its necessity; and whether immediate steps will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to have it erected?
MR. J. MORLEY: The application for the construction of a pier at Balti-

351
more will be considered by the Congested Districts Board at their meeting to-morrow.

CASTLETOWN BEREHAVEN HARBOUR.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take action to compel the owner to remove the ice hulk in Castletown Berehaven Harbour, which is an obstruction to the fishing industry?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have no power to compel the owner to remove this ice hulk; but I am in communication with the Grand Jury for the County of Cork on the subject, as I am not quite certain whether they have not some power in the matter.

H. M. S."NORTHAMPTON."
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in accordance with promise, the Northampton will be sent to Bantry Bay?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,: There has been no intention of sending the Northampton to Bantry Bay. But she is visiting three Irish ports in the course of the present cruise.

INQUIRY INTO INDIAN FINANCIAL EXPENDITURE.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the promised Committee of Inquiry into Indian Financial Expenditure will be empowered to recommend increases or reductions in expenditure, particular and general; and whether, if so, the reasonableness of or necessity for any particular payment will be a question for the Committee?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,: I think it better to defer the definition of the extent of the proposed reference until I submit the Motion for the appointment of the proposed Committee to the House. But I apprehend that any Committee of Inquiry into expenditure would be empowered to recommend increases or reductions.

EXCHANGE COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whe-
352
ther he has received any proposals from the Government of India for revising the Rules relating to Exchange Compensation Allowance; whether he will consider the propriety of making a distinction, as regards the rate of compensation, between officials who joined the Service some time ago, when exchange was high, and those who joined recently when exchange was low; whether, if compensation is continued, he will extend the benefits to all, of whatever race, who have to make family remittances to England; and whether he will discontinue compensation except on amounts so remitted?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: No proposals have been received from the Government of India for revising the Rules relating to Exchange Compensation Allowance. That allowance is based on the principle that, in the case of officers who have a European domicile, one-half of their salary up to a certain limit shall be paid at the rate of 18 pence per rupee. The Government of India do not propose to make a distinction between the officers according to the date when they joined the Service. The Government has no longer anything to do with family remittances to England, which are a purely private affair of the officers. Consequently, compensation cannot be given to officers who have not a European domicile, merely because they make family remittances; nor can it be discontinued because such remittances are not made.

MILITARY EXPENDITURE IN INDIA.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the recent Return entitled "East India (Military Expenditure)," and dated India Office, 8th June, 1894, whether it is to Vie inferred from the form of the Return that Rx.6,073,500 of expenditure incurred in Burma, and classed in the Return among exceptional payments, has, in spite of its exceptional character, been distributed under the ordinary headings of Army Services in the Indian Accounts during the last eight years; whether, if the exceptional payments given in the Return for the last eight years (except those relating to Burma throughout and Mobilisation in 1889–90) are included under the head Miscellaneous Services, he will explain

353
how it happens that in 1891–2 the exceptional payments (excluding those on account of Burma) exceeded the Miscellaneous Services by Rx.62,709, being Rx.959,059 against Rx.896,386, put down for Miscellaneous Services; whether it may be inferred that in 1891–2 there was no other expenditure under the head of Miscellaneous Services except that classed in the Return as exceptional, but that Rx.62,709 of exceptional expenditure was distributed among the various ordinary headings of Army Services in the Indian Accounts; whether the amount expended on Miscellaneous Services during the eight years 1876–7 to 1883–4, both inclusive, when there were no exceptional payments, was, on the average, Rx.416,037, and in 1886–7, the only other year when there were no exceptional payments, Rx.620,706; whether during the five years 1884–5 to 1892–3, both inclusive, the average expenditure under Miscellaneous Services, after deducting all exceptional payments included under that head, was only Rx. 114,002; and whether he can explain this fall of 75 per cent. in the charges under ordinary Miscellaneous Services on any other grounds than that a large portion of the exceptional payments have, as in the case of Burma, been distributed among the ordinary headings of Army Services in the Indian Accounts?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: (1.) The extra charges for Upper Burma during the last eight years are included in the ordinary heads of Army Effective Services. They have only been included among exceptional payments in the Return in order to assist in showing how the increase of expenditure has arisen. (2.) In 1891–2 the charges for Upper Burma and Mobilisation are distributed among the several heads to which they appertain. The remainder of the exceptional payments, so far as appears in the Accounts, is included in Miscellaneous Services. (3.) The exceptional expenditure shown in 1891–2 is that mentioned in the Financial Statement. Without reference to India, it cannot be said whether there was other exceptional expenditure in that year. (4.) The expenditure recorded under the head of Miscellaneous Services averaged Rx.416,037 from 1876–7 to 1883–4,and was Rx.620,706 in 1886–7. (5.) There is some mistake in the question; the average expenditure
354
under Miscellaneous Services, after deducting the exceptional payments, appears to be Rx.72,053 for the five years ending 1892–3, and Rx.297,055 for the nine years from 1884–5 to 1892–3. (6.) It is not known how far the payments included in Miscellaneous Services from 1875–6 to 1883–4 included such exceptional payments as are specified in the later years. Probably they were distributed among the various heads, and not compiled separately.

STATIONERY CONTRACTS.
MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Committee which is to be appointed to inquire into the stationery contracts will include the binding as well as the printing contracts?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: This matter shall receive careful consideration in settling the terms of Reference to the Committee when appointed; but I am not able to give a pledge upon the subject at present.

MARKET PRODUCE TRAFFIC ON THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY.
MR. HUGH HOARE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the communication from Littleport under date of 27th March, coming from farmers occupying 78,000 acres and served by the Great Eastern Railway, any further steps can be taken by the Board of Trade to ensure a proper supply of trucks to customers of the Railway Company, as is the practice of other railways, and so to obviate the serious loss and delay thus caused to the farmers and traders of the neighbourhood?
MR. BRYCE: The Board of Trade have no statutory power to order a Railway Company to supply trucks for their customers. I have, however, been in friendly communication with the Great Eastern Railway Company on the subject, and I understand that the Directors have ordered a large number of additional trucks to be supplied annually.
MR. A. C. MORTON: If the right hon. Gentleman has no statutory power will he not use his influence to induce the Company to sur-

355
mount difficulties which greatly interfere with traders and with the agricultural interest?
MR. BRYCE: That is exactly what I have done, with the happy result I have announced.

TRADE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE COLONIES.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown at the instance of the Ottawa Conference that while the Colonies and Dependencies of the Empire are absolutely free to make any preferential commercial arrangements between themselves, the Mother Country is debarred by a clause in the Treaties with Belgium and the Zollverein from accepting any proposals made by the Colonies for the preferential purchase of the products of Great Britain and Ireland, the Prime Minister and the Government will during the Recess consider the best means of relieving the United Kingdom from such trading disability within the British Empire?
MR. BRYCE: In reply to the question of my hon. Friend, which ought to have been addressed to the Leader of the House rather than to myself, I can only say that the subject he raises cannot be duly considered by the Government until they have received the full Report of the proceedings of the recent Ottawa Conference.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible for the trade of the country, undertake that the matter shall be brought before the Government after the Recess?
MR. BRYCE: It is obvious that the proceedings of the Conference will come before the Government; but the hon. Member ought to have put this question to the Leader of the House.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: He is not here.

INDIAN COAL MINES.
MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received any Report from the Inspector appointed for the purpose relating to the employment of women in coal mines in India; and, if
356
not, can he give any information as to when it may be expected?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Report to which the hon. Member refers has not been received, but it may be expected shortly.
MR. PROVAND: Will it be printed and distributed during the Recess, or can it only be moved when the House resumes next Session?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am afraid it cannot be done during the Recess, but I will inquire.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD INSPECTORS.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what are the requirements of the Board for the appointment of Inspectors of the Local Government Board; what are the technical qualifications required; whether their duties include reporting on the nursing of the sick poor in infirmaries, and the management of the hospital wards; how far they can be considered responsible for not having reported on the condition of things officially admitted to have existed at Oldham, Bath, and other provincial workhouse infirmaries which are now known to be wholly unprovided with trained nurses for the attendance on the sick and aged people at night; and whether he is cognisant of the Reports on this subject on 12 provincial workhouses and infirmaries, in The British Medical Journal, all of them described in detail as disclosing cruel and shocking defects in the treatment of the sick poor?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAWLEFEVRE,: No Rules have been laid down as to the qualifications for the office of General Inspector of the Local Government Board. During the last 20 years the officers appointed have almost without exception held office as Assistant Inspectors, and have thus obtained experience in the inspection of workhouses and the other duties which devolve on an Inspector. There are also two Medical Inspectors, one of whom acts in the Provinces, and is associated with the Inspector of the district in special inspections where the advice and assistance of a medical man is deemed desirable. It is the duty of the Inspectors when they visit the sick wards of a workhouse to inquire as to their arrange-

357
ments, ascertain from the inmates whether they have any complaints, and report to the Board the result of the inspection, and especially any matters which they consider require a communication to the Guardians from the Board. They themselves deal with many other matters by direct communication with the Guardians. I have read with great regret the reports which have appeared in the journal referred to, and they are receiving my very careful attention. I have instructed the Inspector to deal with them in connection with his visits to the workhouses, and when it appears to be required a joint visit will be made by a Medical Inspector. I am aware that there are many Unions in which the Guardians still rely to a much greater extent than is desirable on the assistance given to the nurses by pauper wardsmen and wardswomen, and the subject is one that is constantly being brought under the attention of Boards of Guardians. In several of the cases mentioned the nursing arrangements have been the subject of communications either by the Board or their Inspectors. Although much remains to be done, I am glad to be able to state that there has been of late years a considerable increase in the number of nurses, and this, to a large extent, has been secured by the influence of the Board and their Inspectors. The importance of the questions affecting the care and comfort of the sick is fully realised by me, and I will give the whole subject my very careful consideration during the Recess.
MR. A. C. MORTON: As the right hon. Gentleman says the Inspectors are so well qualified, how is it it took them so long to discover the cruelties practised at the Brentwood Schools?
MR. SHAWLEFEVRE: It is very difficult, indeed, for the Inspectors to discover cases of that kind unless complaint is made to them, and in such a case the children would be likely to be so terrorized that they would be afraid to make a complaint.
MR. A. C. MORTON: Do the Inspectors take any opportunity of seeing the children themselves?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: Yes, they do.
MR. HUGH HOARE: Do the Inspectors ever see the children after they leave the schools?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: That has been done in some cases, but even then it is not always possible to ascertain the facts. For instance, one of the children from this school became a servant in the household of the Inspector, and neither informed him or her fellow-servants of the treatment which children in the school had been subjected to.

OBSTRUCTING THE POLICE AT CLERKENWELL.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement in The Weekly Dispatch for 19th August of two Post Office officials who appealed to some police not to abuse a prisoner whom they were conveying to the lock-up; whether on going to Clerkenwell Police Station to lodge a complaint against the police they were charged with attempting to rescue the prisoner; whether on this charge coming before the Magistrate one of the accused was dismissed and the other bound over to keep the peace for three months; and whether he will cause a thorough investigation to be made into all the circumstances of the case?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has made inquiry into this matter, and is informed that the two persons to whom the question refers had interfered with the police in the execution of their duty when they were engaged with a drunken prisoner. Their prisoner was so violent that it required four constables to take him to the police station, and, after getting there, he drew a knife and threatened to stab one of the officers. The two persons in question, one of whom is named C. J. Strudwick, followed with a large crowd to the police station, and the constables, after lodging their prisoners inside the station, went out and arrested them. A third person, a woman, who had stoned the police on their way to the station, was arrested at the same time. The Magistrates discharged one person, named Samuel, but convicted the woman, and also convicted Strudwick, whom he bound over in the sum of £5 to keep the peace for three months. The Magistrate remarked that he could not

359
overlook the fact that Strudwick seized hold of the constable while he was struggling with the prisoner, and advised him not to interfere with the police in the execution of their duty.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: Is it not the fact that Strudwick and his colleague went into the station to complain of the conduct of the police and were there arrested?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: That is not my information.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly inquire into that?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Yes, I will.

NON-OBSEBVANCE OF CATHOLIC HOLIDAYS IN THE ARMY.
MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, on 14th August, it appeared in District Orders that Divine Service for all Catholic soldiers in the Curragh Camp would be held on the l5th August (one of the chief Catholic holidays of obligation); that, nevertheless, the Regimental Authorities of the Royal Irish Fusiliers (largely a Catholic corps) cancelled the Order, and paraded the men twice on that day, once at 6.45 a.m. and again at 11 a.m., to prevent their attending Divine Service?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,(who replied) said: It appears from the District Order of the 14th instant that voluntary services for Roman Catholics would take place at the Curragh on the 15th of August. The officer commanding the Royal Irish Fusiliers states that facilities for attending such services were given to the men under his command.

INDIAN DUTIES ON SHEFFIELD GOODS.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if, having regard to the statement in the official Labour Gazett for August that 50 per cent. of the spring-knife cutters at Sheffield, and 80 per cent. of the steel and table fork makers are only partially employed, and to the long continuance of this depression, he will suggest to the Indian Government the remission of the 5 per
360
cent. Import Duty imposed upon hardware and cutlery by The Indian Tariff Act, 1894, and point out that they may obtain a large revenue by an extra and differential duty upon the goods imported from foreign countries outside he British Empire, the value of which amounts to Rx.26,000,000 annually, and s constantly increasing?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am not able to suggest to the Government of India the remission of the duty of 5 per cent, imposed by the new Tariff Act on hardware and cutlery; and I do not agree in the opinion that a large revenue can be obtained by a differential duty on goods imported from foreign countries.

THE CASE OF BHAI JASMAIR SINGH.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to His Excellency the Governor General of India in Council's Despatch, dated 27th February, 1889, forwarding to the Secretary of State for India the Memorial of Bhai Jasmair Singh, of Kythal and Arnowli, in which it is stated that it was against the Orders contained in Despatch, No. 12, Political, dated 28th March, 1849, in Paragraphs 9–11, of which the honourable Court of Directors expressed their approval of the Orders passed by the Government of India in this case, and against the refusal of the Government to re-consider them that the Memorialist was appealing; and will he explain why, during a long period passed in appealing to the various authorities in India, the Memorialist was never informed of the existence of this Despatch of the honourable Court of Directors?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have seen the letter from the Government of India of 27th February, 1889, and the correspondence on the subject which passed between the India Office and gentlemen interested in the claimant at the beginning of this year. I am unwilling to speak positively about the details of what took place in 1849. It appears, however, that the Despatch of the Court of Directors of the 28th March, 1849, was not a decision on an appeal from the claimant which would necessarily be communicated to him, but a confirmation of Orders passed in 1847 by the Government of India, and communicated to the

361
parties interested, and acted on in that year. These Orders were valid from the date of their issue, and there was apparently no reason why the parties interested should have been informed of the correspondence with the Home Government.

POLICE ON IRISH RAILWAY PLATFORMS.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Railway Companies in Ireland pay any contribution to the cost of the police in respect of the constables patrolling railway platforms; and (2) whether there is any reason why Irish Railway Companies should not pay for their own police, as do the English Railway Companies?
MR. J. MORLEY: (1) The Railway Companies in Ireland do not pay any contribution in respect of the duty referred to, as the police merely attend at railway stations in discharge of their ordinary duty, and not at the instance of the Companies. (2) When, however, an Irish Railway Company requisitions police on special occasions, such as, for instance, a race meeting, the Company is required to pay at the rate of £76 13s. per annum for each man so employed, together with travelling expenses and subsistence allowance.
MR. A. O'CONNORasked why it was that the police patrolled the platforms and the premises of the Company, and did not confine themselves to the public road?
MR. J. MORLEY: I suppose the police were walking about on the platform in the same way as they would on the road. There are obvious reasons why in certain cases the police should attend the trains, but I must admit that it is rather overdone.
MR. SEXTON: Is there any reason in Ireland any more than in England why policemen should be called upon to do duty in this way at railway stations?
MR. J. MORLEY: There can be no possible reason. I have said that it is overdone, and I will inquire into the matter.
MR. STOREY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the country districts policemen attend trains for the purpose of having a little gossip?
[No answer was given.]

THE HARROW DRAINAGE SCHEME.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the serious losses which the riparian occupiers along the Barrow have sustained again this year from the floods; and whether it is in contemplation to issue in November next the necessary Notices for a Bill next Session for the drainage of the river basin similar to that introduced by the late Government?
MR. J. MORLEY: The necessary steps for the introduction of a Bill dealing with this matter were taken by the late Government, as no doubt my hon. Friend recollects, in two successive Sessions of Parliament, but owing to the opposition the measure met with in the House of Commons it was not proceeded with. If I am satisfied that the riparian owners are unanimous in their desire for the re-introduction of the Bill, and that it will meet with no substantial opposition, I will carefully consider the desirability of taking the necessary steps to introduce it.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why the Barrow scheme did not pass was that the late Chief Secretary insisted on the Bann scheme having precedence over it?
MR. J. MORLEY: My recollection as to the schemes for the Bann and Barrow are rather vague, and I cannot answer that question.

MR. DONALD MACRAE AND THE DEER FORESTS COMMISSION.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, at the sitting of the Deer Forests Commission, held at Knoydart, Inverness-shire, on the 5th of July last, the crofters were unrepresented by their agent, Mr. Donald Macrae, owing to the refusal of Commissioner Gordon to allow him a passage from Tarbert to Knoydart by the steamer Marmion, chartered for the work of the Commission; whether it is proposed to give the crofters of Knoydart an opportunity, through their agent, Mr. Donald Macrae, of stating their case; whether he is aware that it was impossible for Mr. Macrae to reach Knoydart by the

363
ordinary means of communication; and whether, in future, travelling facilities will be given on board any steamer chartered at the public cost for the use of the Deer Forests Commission to Mr. Donald Macrae whilst he is engaged in the capacity of agent for the crofters and acting for them on any public inquiry in connection with the work of the Commission?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,: The Commission were always willing to give Mr. D. Macrae a passage when they were going from point to point, and only refused on the occasion referred to because they were not going direct to Knoydart, but had to call at various Islands on the way. Mr. Macrae, however, could have reached Knoydart by the ordinary means of communication, as indeed the agent to the landlord did. The Highland and Islands Commission have no longer a steamer at their disposal.

INSTRUCTION IN THE IRISH LANGUAGE.
MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for East Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Professor of Irish is at present engaged at Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin; and, if not, what facilities are afforded to National school teachers in Ireland of acquiring such a knowledge of the Irish language as will enable them to impart instruction in English to children in Irish-speaking districts through the medium of their native tongue; and whether, in view of the admitted necessity for this knowledge, he will recommend the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to appoint a Professor of Irish at this Training College should no such Professorship now exist there?
MR. J. MORLEY: There is no Professor of Irish in Marlborough Street Training College, nor is there any Professor of Irish employed in any of the denominational Training Colleges. The Commissioners annually examine teachers for certificates to teach Irish, and they supply text-books at cost price for the use of classes learning Irish. Irish is also a subject which teachers may select in their examinations for promotion in
364
the first class. At the annual examination of the teachers for the current year 29 teachers presented themselves for examination in Irish. Further, for proficiency of pupils in Irish the Commissioners grant a fee of 10s. per pass for each of the three years in which a pupil may be presented for examination in the subject. In 1893 there were 50 schools in which Irish was taught, and 903 pupils were presented in these schools for examination for results fees. The question of appointing a Professor to teach Irish at the Marlborough Street Training College was referred by the Commissioners to the Professors of the College for their opinion some years ago, and their unanimous reply was that Irish could not possibly be introduced into the curriculum of the College, except by the exclusion of some other subject of certainly more pressing importance.
MR. SEXTONinquired whether, in view of the importance of this subject to the teachers, the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision?
MR. J. MORLEY: I quite understand this subject being interesting to gentlemen from Ireland, and I will ascertain a little more precisely whether there are any good arguments against the establishment of an Irish Chair.

RESULT FEES FOR IRISH.
MR. SEXTON: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for East Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that result fees for Irish are not allowed to National school teachers in Ireland in respect to pupils under the fifth class; and whether, in view of the importance in Irish-speaking districts of employing the vernacular in the junior classes as a means of teaching English, and of the fact that the majority of pupils leave school before reaching the fifth class, he will advise the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to consider the desirability of extending the system of result fees in Irish to all classes?
MR. J. MORLEY: Results fees for Irish are not paid for pupils lower than the fifth class. The Commissioners have informed me that the existing arrangement limiting the award of results fees for proficiency in the Irish language to pupils in the fifth and sixth classes was

365
only determined after mature consideration, and that at present they see no sufficient reason for altering the arrangement.
MR. SEXTON: As most of the children in Ireland leave school before the fifth class is reached, does it not appear that the exclusion of Irish deprives them of the opportunity of being taught English through the vernacular in districts where Irish is the only language spoken?
MR. J. MORLEY: I think that is an argument for consideration.

RELATIVES ON THE MAGISTERIAL BENCH.
MR. W. ABRAHAM: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it a fact that Mr. Arthur Hall, Athenry, County Galway, is about being appointed a Magistrate for the County Galway; if he is aware that Mr. Hall's brother and brother-in-law are both Magistrates for the small Petty Sessions district of Athenry; and will the Lord Chancellor's attention be called to these matters before Mr. Hall's appointment is confirmed?
MR. J. MORLEY: When a gentleman is recommended for appointment to the Commission of the Peace it is the practice of the Lord Chancellor to ascertain whether he has any near relative already in the Commission, and the appointment is only made on the condition that the gentleman shall not sit at Petty Sessions on the same occasion with such relative. My hon. Friend may rest assured that in considering whether the appointment to which he refers should be made due regard will be had to these conditions, and to all the circumstances of the case.

ADMIRALTY TOWN ESTABLISHMENT.
MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, when the Committee on the Accountant General's Department have formulated their Report, steps will at once be taken to determine the normal clerical establishments of the remaining 11 departments constituting the Admiralty town establishment?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTLEWORTH,: Yes, Sir; the normal clerical establishments of the Admiralty generally will be determined.

SECOND DIVISION CLERKS IN THE ADMIRALTY.
MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with reference to his assurance that in connection with the general settlement of the staff every regard will be shown to the interests of the Second Division Clerks, he will reconsider all the recommendations which have been made by Heads of Departments, and have not been acted upon, since the issue of the Order in Council of the 21st of March, 1890, for the promotion of Second Division Clerks to the Higher Division, to staff posts, and to the upper grade of the Second Division?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am informed that no specific recommendations remain unanswered. The general question of the creation of staff appointments awaits the Report of the Committee which has been considering the normal clerical establishment of the Accountant General's Department. In the meantime, appointments from the Second Division have been made whenever this has appeared to be desirable in the interests of the Service.

PROSECUTIONS FOR DISCHARGING FIREARMS IN THE STREETS.
MR. KENNEDY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Carlow, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 8th of June last a gamekeeper named Rutledge, in the employment of Mr. R. P. Beresford, J.P., County Carlow, was detected by Sergeant Burke, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, discharging firearms in the street of Fenagh; that, notwithstanding that Sergeant Burke took Rutledge's address in presence of the bystanders, no further proceedings were taken to prosecute him at the local Petty Sessions; can he state by what authority was the prosecution dropped; and will he take steps to revive it?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the gamekeeper on the occasion

367
referred to was in the act of crossing the public road (not street) from one field to another when he discharged the gun at some magpies. He stated he was not aware he had infringed the law, and expressed regret at the occurrence. Under the circumstances, the District Inspector did not consider it desirable to institute a prosecution.
MR. KENNEDYasked if the man had been a poor peasant and not Mr. Beresford's gamekeeper would he not have been summoned?
MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say that. The gamekeeper was duly licensed to carry a gun, and was stated to be perfectly sober at the time. The District Inspector, in my judgment, if I am rightly informed of the facts, used a wise discretion.

THE ROYAL VICTORIA VICTUALLING YARD, DEPTFORD.
MR. MACDONALD: On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to an advertisement in The Kentish Mercury of 17th August for a competent shoemaker to assist in examining the boots and shoes sent to the stores at the Royal Victoria Victualling Yard, Deptford, at a weekly wage of 23s.; whether the wage of a journeyman shoemaker in London is over 30s. per week; whether the two examiners already employed are paid 30s. weekly; and whether he will instruct the superintendent to pay the Trades Union rate of wages to the person who receives the new appointment?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have seen the advertisement in question, which called for the services of a person competent to assist the shoemaker. The wages of the shoemakers at Deptford are 22s. 6d. to 30s. a week. The man to be entered will be a labourer, who will receive labourer's pay of 20s. a week, and when assisting the shoemaker in opening up boots for examination will receive an additional 6d. a day.
MR. MACDONALD: I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the notice posted at the Deptford Victualling Yard stopping all leave of absence which does not carry a corresponding loss of pay includes the one
368
hour per quarter hitherto granted to the workmen; and whether it applies to the officials as well as the skilled workmen, and labourers?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The notice posted at the Deptford Victualling Yard is the same as that posted at all the yards—namely, that absence of workmen from the Yard, either with or without leave, is to be considered as time lost. This notice is incidental to the modifications consequent on the introduction of the 48 hours' week, which does not apply to the officials of the Yard.

CARDINAL LOGUE AND THE MIGRATION COMPANY.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a letter published by His Eminence Cardinal Logue respecting the Irish Land and Migration Company and the dealings of the Government therewith, especially as to the free gift of £50,000 by the State; and will any explanation be called for from any person concerned, or is it intended to take any notice of or call for any reply to the statements of His Eminence?
MR. J. MORLEY: My attention was, of course, directed to the correspondence to which my hon. Friend refers, which has excited a good deal of interest. I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject, and I think that a correspondence is now in progress between the Treasury and the Land Commission.
MR. SEXTON: So little is known about this matter, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the Land Commission, after receiving £43,000 as mortgagees, applied to the Vice Chancellor; whether the Vice Chancellor appointed a liquidator; whether the liquidator is receiving the rents and annuities of the tenants in discharge of the advance from the State, and whether the Land Commission are proceeding for the principal or for arrears of interest?
MR. J. MORLEY: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in his account of this transaction in its present circumstances.

369
The Vice Chancellor appointed a liquidator at the instance of the Land Commission, and I understand that there is a possibility, in respect of the unpaid portion of the shares, that the members of the association may be called upon to pay the full measure of liability; but I am not able to say whether the Commission are proceeding to recover arrears, or otherwise.
MR. SEXTON: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will think it right to point out to the Land Commission the inexpediency of levying calls upon the shareholders in respect to the whole principal.
MR. J. MORLEY: As my hon. Friend knows, this is really not an Irish Office matter. I will wait to see the effect of the communications between the Treasury and the Land Commission before deciding what course to take. It probably will be not far from that indicated by my hon. Friend.

CHINA AND JAPAN.
SIR R. TEMPLE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the continuance of the existing war between China and Japan, British merchant vessels are liable, in common with other neutrals, to the exercise by any man-of-war of either belligerent of the right of search, in order to ascertain the nationality of the vessel as professed by its flags, and also to ascertain whether any part of its cargo is contraband of war; whether this right of search is exercisable in the case of China by duly commissioned Chinese privateers, China not having acceded to the Declaration of Paris of 1856, but not by Japanese privateers, Japan having acceded to that Declaration; whether, China having retained and Japan having renounced, by the Declaration of Paris, the exercise of the right to capture enemy's goods in neutral vessels, Her Majesty's Government propose to issue any notice to shipowners and shipmasters warning them that, though not liable to capture by Japanese men-of-war or privateers when carrying Chinese goods, enemy's property, they are nevertheless liable to capture either by Chinese men-of-war or by Chinese privateers when carrying Japanese goods, enemy's property; and
370
whether Her Majesty's Government propose to give to British shipowners and shipmasters any intimation or guidance as to whether coal is contraband of war, and whether they are prohibited from supplying either belligerent with coal under risk of capture and confiscation by the other belligerent?
SIR E. GREY: It is impossible to answer this question without departing from the course which has hitherto been followed by all British Governments in the course of former wars. In time of war commercial transactions must be conducted on the responsibility of those interested in them, who can obtain legal advice on questions of International Law, and Her Majesty's Government consider that it would not be for the public interest to attempt to lay down rules with reference to cases which have not yet occurred.

POSTCARDS.
MAJOR JONES: On behalf of the hon. Member for Montgomery, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state the date on which the Regulations authorising the transmission at the halfpenny rate of communications written on cards other than postcards, but having a halfpenny stamp affixed, will come into operation?
MR. A. MORLEY: It is hoped that the Regulations will come into force on the 1st September, if the necessary legal formalities can be completed in time.

JOURNEYMEN BAKERS' HOURS OF LABOUR.
MR. BARROW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an inquest held at Bermondsey Town Hall, on Tuesday 21st, on the body of Henry Bortsh, a baker, who was reported to have worked 21 hours in a bakehouse; and whether he will take the necessary steps to prevent men from being employed such a number of hours in succession?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State's attention has been called to a newspaper report of this sad case. We feel that it is a deplorable thing that anyone should work for such excessive hours, but the law at present imposes no limits upon the labour which adult men may undertake.
MR. JOHN BURNS: Is the Under Secretary for the Home Department aware that, in spite of the efforts of various Trades Unions to reduce the number of hours worked in one day, very little has been effected in the baking trade? Is it not desirable, too, that underground bakehouses should be abolished altogether?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I think we all agree with my hon. Friend as to that.

FRANCHISE LAWS IN NATAL.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received a Petition from Indian-British subjects in the Colony of Natal, protesting against the Franchise Law Amendment Bill, just passed in the Natal Parliament; whether the effect of that Bill is to exclude Indians from the franchise; whether it is the fact, as alleged in the Debate, that the Asiatic communities have never exercised the privilege of the franchise; and whether the Secretary of State will disallow the Bill, on the ground that it is retrograde in character and based upon race disqualification?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,: (1) Such a Petition has been received, and it is understood that it is to be followed by another. (2.) The effect is as stated by the hon. Member, except in the case of Indians already properly on the voters' rolls. (3.) As regards 3, we have no information. (4.) The Act has only just come under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and I cannot, therefore, make any statement on the subject at present.
DR. CLARK: Is it the case that the Indian population in Natal is equal in number to the European population?
MR. S. BUXTON: I believe it is nearly the same, but I cannot say offhand.

MERIALL'S CHARITY, SWANSCOMBE.
MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether he can inform the House what steps are being taken to ensure the payment of the rent-
372
charge on the Meriall's Charity Estate, at Swanscombe, in Kent; whether, failing such payment, the Charity Commissioners intend to take action under The Charitable Trusts (Recovery) Act, 1891; and Whether the Charity Commission will present a Report upon this case to the House?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. The Charity Commissioners are of opinion that no steps can now be effectually taken under The Charitable Trusts (Recovery) Act, 1891, or otherwise, for the recovery of the rent-charge in this case. The case does not materially differ from others in which the property of charities has been lost in consequence of the omission to take action within the period fixed by the Statute of Limitations, and it does not, therefore, seem to be necessary to adopt the course of making a special Report upon it.
MR. HOWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the person who holds this money was himself a trustee of the charity?
SIR J. T. HIBBERTreplied that he knew nothing of the details. For them the hon. Member should apply to the Charity Commissioners.
MR. HOWELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would lay the Papers before the Public Prosecutor?
SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that would be considered.

MESSENGERS' HOLIDAYS.
MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether established messengers who have been in the Service more than five years receive for holidays only 16 working days; and, if so, whether they are entitled by the Treasury Minute of 17th February, 1894, to 18 working days, exclusive of public holidays?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury Minute expressed the opinion that the holiday of established messengers with more than five years' service should be limited to 18 working days, exclusive of public holidays. Within this limit the Treasury has not issued instructions to Heads of Departments prescribing the exact amount of leave to be allowed.

EXPRESS LETTERS.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the privilege of posting express letters in letter-boxes in Piccadilly and elsewhere in London will be brought into operation; and whether a special stamp will be required?
MR. A. MORLEY: Express letters, which are intended for transmission in the first instance by the ordinary post, may be posted in any letter-box in Piccadilly, or elsewhere, as the hon. Member will find on consulting' the Post Office Guide or Post Office Hand-Book. This has always been the rule. The letters must be properly marked for express delivery, as required by the Rules, but no special stamp is required.
MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in the Post Office Guide, page 229, it was distinctly laid down that
"every express letter for inland delivery must be handed in over the counter. In no case must it be posted in a letter-box"?
MR. A. MORLEY: All express letters can be posted in a pillar-box.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: There is a paragraph in the Annual Report of the Department that a letter for Buenos Ayres may be posted in a letter-box in Piccadilly, and will be sent by the first service to that country. Is that so? Why not give the Metropolis the same advantages as Buenos Ayres?
MR. A. MORLEY: I do not think there is anything inconsistent between that statement and the Regulation in the Postal Guide. If a letter is intended for transmission in the first instance by the ordinary post it may be posted anywhere.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that an express letter may be posted in any pillar-box in Piccadilly for any part of London or for Manchester to be delivered by express messenger?
MR. A. MORLEY: Yes.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Postmasters deny that?
[No answer was given.]

THE NEW ESTATE DUTY.
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury
374
whether his attention has been called to Clause 7 of the "Affidavit or Affirmation for Inland Revenue, Form B 1, Estate Duty," under The Finance Act, 1894, which states as follows:—
"(7) The deceased was (or was not) possessed of or entitled to property as a trustee and not beneficially. The short particulars of such property, and of the disposition, and the names and addresses of the surviving trustees (if any), and of the beneficiaries are shown in the statement hereto annexed and marked";
and if he will state under what clause of the Finance Act an executor is required to give this information?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Section 8 (Sub-section 14) of the Finance Act, 1894, directs that all affidavits, accounts, &c., used for the purpose of the Act
"shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed."
By Section 22, Sub-section 1 (0), the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by the Commissioners. The information is asked for as much in the interests of the public as for the protection of the Revenue. It will enable the Commissioners to warn representatives of any claim which may arise under the death, and so prevent such claim being subsequently sprung upon them.
MR. BARTLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this requirement will involve an enormous amount of trouble and expense?
SIR J. T. HIBBERTadmitted that in some cases it might be difficult to give all the information asked for. The subject was an intricate and difficult one. If the hon. Member would send him his views upon it in writing he would gladly give them full consideration.
MR. BARTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to withdraw a clause so complicated until the matter can be thoroughly considered? Otherwise a number of awkward questions may arise within the next six months.
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am afraid I cannot undertake to withdraw anything without full consideration.

THE BRITISH EAST AFRICA COMPANY.
MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of his statement a short time ago to the effect that the delay in settling terms of compensation with the British East Africa Company has been due to

375
the difference between the Government and the Company as to what the amount should be, he will state what terms have been proposed by Her Majesty's Government and declined by the Company; whether the Government gave any opinion on the terms offered by the Company on 23rd June, 1893, and withdrawn 8th May, 1894; and, if no opinion has been expressed by Government on this proposal, then on what proposal has the difference of opinion arisen which has been alleged by him in the House; and whether Government have any proposals to make to the Company, and by whom the amount of compensation is to be finally determined?
SIR E. GREY: No definite offer has been made to the Company, because it is understood from their proposals that their views and those of Her Majesty's Government differ too widely as to the value of their interest in the chartered territory. As far as Her Majesty's Government and the Sultan of Zanzibar are concerned, there is no reason why negotiations with regard to the sale of the concession should not proceed at once. If the terms of a settlement cannot be arranged between the Government and the Company it will become necessary to consider what is the present position of the Company with reference to its Charter and the duties which that Charter involved.
MR. A. C. MORTON: May I ask whether the hon. Member will tell the House the amount which the Company claim as compensation?
SIR E. GREY: I believe that the amount in the first offer was £300,000, but I am speaking from memory.
MR. LAWRENCE: Have the Government ever intimated to the Company that they thought that demand excessive?
SIR E. GREY: I understood that the Company were certainly aware that the Government were not prepared to accept that offer. That the Government thought the demand too large was clear from the fact that they did not accept it.
SIR W. LAWSON: Will the Under Secretary give an undertaking that, before any money is paid as compensation, the matter will be brought before the House?
MR. STOREY: Are we quite to understand that if the Government pay any money, they will get an adequate return for it to the benefit of the public.
MR. A. C. MORTON: Have the Company any legal or moral claim against the Government?
SIR E. GREY: According to constitutional practice, business of this kind between the Government and a Company must be transacted on the responsibility of the Government itself?
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Is it not a fact that the Company have done a great deal to advance the political and commercial interests of this country in East Africa?
MR. STOREY: I understood my hon. Friend to say that any decision as to the payment of money to the Company must be taken on the responsibility of the Government. I suppose that the decision of the Government will require ratification by this House before the money is actually paid?
SIR E. GREY: The House, of course, can either approve or disapprove of any action taken by the Government; but I cannot give an undertaking that the Government will consult the House before taking a decision on their own responsibility.
MR. A. C. MORTON: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question whether the Company have any legal or moral claim against the Government.
MR. TOMLINSON: Is it true that two learned gentlemen, Members of this House, have advised the Company that they have a claim against the Sultan of Zanzibar, and is that claim affected by any action taken by the Government?
MR. CREMER: What is the nature of the claim that has been made?
SIR E. GREY: In answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, I have to say that there is a dispute between the Government and the Company at the present moment. That they have some claim is evident, because they have a valuable commercial concession from the Sultan of Zanzibar. They have some claim on that account. In reply to the question whether the matter will ultimately come before the House, I may remind hon. Members that, if the Government made any payment to the Company, they must afterwards ask the House for a Vote in respect of such payment. I cannot promise that the

377
Government will consult the House beforehand.
MR. STOREY: That is a point on which I desire to press the hon. Baronet. I wish to ask whether, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the strong feeling in some quarters of the House of Commons against any payment of money to the Company, my hon. Friend will follow the precedent which has been set in some cases and enter into a conditional agreement only with the Company, that agreement to be subject to ratification by the House?
MR. CREMER: The hon. Baronet has not told me the exact nature of the claim which the Company has against the Government. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that, because the Sultan of Zanzibar had granted certain concessions to the Company, they have a claim against the Government. I must say—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is only entitled to ask a question.
SIR E. GREY: No, I do not think I said that. What I intended to convey was that, the Sultan of Zanzibar having given a concession to the Company, they must have a claim if that concession is taken away. That claim, of course, would be against the Sultan of Zanzibar. The Company still hold two posts in the chartered territory, where they have certain stores, &c., just as they had in Uganda. Therefore, the question of their interests in the chartered territory is not denied; but the extent and amount of that interest is just the question in dispute. In answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, I must say that, however strong a feeling there may be in this House with regard to the claim of the East Africa Company, it is clear that it is a divided feeling, and I think there are no peculiar circumstances in this case which would justify the Government in doing anything except taking a decision on its own initiative and responsibility.
SIR C. W. DILKE: Will the Government in negotiating with the Company take into consideration any compensation which the former may undertake to pay to the French and German Roman Catholic missionaries in respect of the events in
378
Uganda in Captain Lugard's time, and will they deduct the amount so paid from any compensation claimed by the Company?
SIR E. GREY: This question is of a hypothetical character, the question of the claims of the missionaries not having yet been settled. I cannot, therefore, give any definite answer.

DERELICT IN THE NORTH SEA.
MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, on the 18th instant, the schooner Ruth, from Malmo, was reported to have been seen waterlogged as a floating derelict about 60 miles west of the Naze, in the track of passenger steamers and timber ships in the North Sea, sailing from Norway, Sweden, Russia, and Germany to England, America, and other parts, to the great risk and danger of those vessels travelling in the usual trade route of the North Sea; if this be so, whether he will inform the Trinity Board of the fact, and instruct them to search for this dangerous floating derelict with a view to its immediate destruction, so as to prevent any further possible disaster of a like sort in this much-frequented part of the North Sea?
MR. BRYCE: This derelict reported by a sailing vessel arriving at Buckie on the 18th instant was sighted on fire some days previously in the position stated, which is about 40 miles from the coast of Norway. I am advised that it is not expedient to instruct the Trinity House to detach one of their tenders from their important lighthouse duties for the purpose of searching for and endeavouring to destroy a derelict which was more than 200 miles from the British coast about a week ago and so near to the coast of a neighbouring Power.
MR. MACDONA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the Surrey Commercial Docks there is an immense number of vessels and steamers which constantly ply between this country and Norway, Sweden, and the Baltic. As this derelict will constitute a grave danger to them and to the lives of the seamen, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Government to attend to the matter?
MR. BRYCE: I am well aware there is a large trade between this country and Norway; but, as this vessel was last seen within 20 miles of the Norwegian coast, in all probability it has gone ashore now, and more harm would be likely to result from taking a Trinity House tender from her duties to search for it than by leaving the matter as it stands.
MR. TOMLINSON: If, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to imply, the duty of destroying this derelict rests with Norway cannot he negotiate with Foreign Governments for an International arrangement?
MR. BRYCE: What I said was that in all probability the vessel had floated ashore by this time. Negotiations are in progress on the general question.
MR. MACDONA: Have not the American Government been in the habit of destroying English derelicts near their coasts, and ought not a large Mercantile Power like England to show the same solicitude for the common safety?
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Is there any proof that the vessel has gone ashore?
MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Member for Central Sheffield had listened to my answer he would have heard that the vessel was last sighted on the 18th instant, and was then some distance from the shore. It is quite true the American Government have destroyed derelicts when able to do so. But the point is that we have not a vessel at our disposal.
MR. MACDONA: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply to the Admiralty for a vessel?
[No answer was given.]

IRISH WHISKY PERMITS.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all Excise officers in Ireland are supplied with hydrometers, and whether they hare always available means or receive directions to test the accuracy of spirit dealers' hydrometers, or the accuracy of the permits which spirit dealers issue to customers, or the strength of the whisky sent out under these permits?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT(who replied) said: All Excise officers in Ireland are not supplied with hydrometers, but only those who have to use them in the performance of their duties. The Depart-
380
ment has no power to test the accuracy of spirit dealers' hydrometers. The correctness of the permits (or, more accurately, certificates) referred to is always capable of being checked. A spirit-dealer is liable to a penalty of £100 for every incorrect certificate he sends to a customer.
MR. A. O'CONNORwished to know what system of checking these certificates was employed, or whether there was any check at all?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: All the certificates, I presume, are examined.
SIR W. LAWSON: Is there any special officer to test the strength of the whisky?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot say that.

IRISH BEER BARRELS.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the barrels used by brewers in Ireland contain only 32 gallons as against 36 contained by barrels used in England, and whether he will take care that this difference shall be kept in view in any Returns made of the quantities of beer sent from Ireland for consumption in Great Britain; and if he can say what are the respective capacities of the English and the Irish hogshead?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT(who replied) said: I am aware that the barrels used by brewers in Ireland contain 32 gallons, while those used in England contain 36 gallons. The difference has always been kept in view in connection with the Returns referred to. The English hogshead contains 54 gallons; the Irish hogshead 48.

THE LIBERATOR BUILDING SOCIETY.
MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to statements repeatedly published, that the Official Receiver of the Liberator Building Society has borrowed large sums of money at the rate of 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. bonus from the Debenture Corporation to complete the various buildings which were commenced by the Liberator and other Societies which formed the Balfour group; if he can state whether builders were publicly invited to tender for the completion of the works, or whether the works are being

381
practically executed by men who were on the staff of the convict Hobbs; and, if so, who is supervising and controlling them; whether the Official Receiver made any effort to borrow money at a less rate of interest from the Public Works Loan Commissioners or any other source; and whether, considering that the fearful ruin which has resulted from the failure of the Liberator has made it a national disaster, he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee at the opening of next Session for the purpose of inquiring into the past connection of the Debenture Corporation and the Balfour Group of Companies; and, further, from what source funds have been supplied to Jabez Spencer Balfour for the last two years by means of which he has up till now been able to evade justice?
MR. BRYCE: I will answer this question. It is true that the Official Receiver of the Liberator Building Society and other Companies of the so-called Balfour Group has, with the approval of the Committee of Inspection and the sanction of the Court, borrowed large sums of money from the Debenture Corporation at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum. The further bonus has relation not to the amount borrowed, but to the amount ultimately distributed. Progress Reports containing particulars of these transactions have been sent to the creditors and contributories concerned. The Official Receiver reports that work undertaken since the commencement of the liquidation has been tendered for by selected firms, and the lowest tenders have been accepted. Certain work which was already in progress before the liquidation has been completed by the staff of J. W. Hobbs & Co. under the direction of the Official Receiver and the Special Manager. Applications for advances were unsuccessfully made to several financial and other institutions, but the Official Receiver and Committees were of opinion that the speculative nature of the undertakings in hand and their unfinished character would not justify an application to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The matters in question do not seem to be such has could properly be referred to a Select Committee, or that any useful purpose would be served by doing so. I have no knowledge of the matter ad-
382
verted to in the last three lines of the question.

PATENTS.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to act upon the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Patents Agents Bill, and make new Rules with regard to the control of the Register and for the carrying out of the provisions of the Acts of 1883 and 1888 as regards fees, and in such cases, when the new Rules are likely to be promulgated?
MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; I have as at present advised no intention of altering the Rules, because I am of opinion that the various questions relating to the profession of patents, designs, and trade marks agents should be dealt with comprehensively by Parliament. This would appear to have been the view of the Select Committee, who reported a Bill with Amendments, and until it is seen whether legislation is likely to be passed it seems better not to disturb the position by an alteration of the Rules.

NORTH TYRONE REGISTER.
LORD F. HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the following facts in connection with the registration of the Parliamentary Division of North Tyrone: that there were 27 appeals by the Nationalist Party from the decisions of the Revising Barrister; that out of these 27 cases, 22 were not only dismissed, but that the Court in dismissing them animadverted strongly on the impropriety of the appeal; that almost all the cases so dismissed were appeals brought in the name of Mr. John Torish, and were dismissed by the Court without argument; that Mr. John Torish is a man of no means, against whom costs cannot be obtained; that the majority of those against whom the appeals were made were Unionist farmers and labourers of small means, who were put to considerable cost in employing solicitors and counsel to preserve their rights to the franchise, which were thus frivolously assailed; and whether he can suggest any action to prevent bonâ fide claims being contested by appeals which the

383
Lord Chief Baron observed were drawn in the teeth of the Act of Parliament?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that more than 27 appeals were lodged by Mr. Torish, representing the Nationalist Party, from the decision of the Revising Barrister for North Tyrone. There has not been time to ascertain the precise number of these which were dismissed, but it appears from the Press reports that some of them were dismissed, and also that some observations were made by the members of the Bench, not, as I am advised, on the impropriety of the appeals, but on the form in which the cases were reserved by the Revising Barrister. The Law Officers have no information enabling them to say if they were dismissed without argument, though it appears that some of the cases were fully argued by the hon. and learned Member for Derry. I have no information as to the means of Mr. Torish, or what were the circumstances of the respondents. An appeal from the decision of the Revising Barrister is regulated by Statute, and the Government has no power to interfere with either the Revising Barrister or the Court of Appeal in their administration of the law.
LORD F. HAMILTON: May I ask whether it was contemplated by the Act that electors should be penalised by having their claims frivolously contested?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am not answerable for the contemplations of Parliament, and I am not prepared to say or admit that those were frivolous claims, without entering into the merits, nor is it part of my duty to inquire into the matter.
LORD F. HAMILTON: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the remarks of the Chief Baron in The Freeman's Journal of the 15th November, 1893, on those very cases?
MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir. I do not remember those remarks; but, in any case, I hope the noble Lord will perceive that it would be most improper for the Executive Government to inquire into such matters.
MR. SEXTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say from the information supplied to him that the animadversions referred to were directed by the Court to the Revising Barrister and not to the appellant? I would also
384
ask did not the Unionist Party appeal, and were not some of their appeals dismissed?
MR. J. MORLEY: It is quite true that the fault found, whatever it was, was not as to the appeal, but as to the form in which these appeals was reserved by the Revising Barrister. As to the Unionist appeals, I really do not know what action was taken.

POLICE PROTECTION IN IRELAND.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will endeavour to apply in Ireland the practice of Police Authorities in England, by which persons requiring special police protection for their property have to make payments for the service of the policemen; and whether he will state what is the usual arrangement for the board and lodging of constabulary protecting evicted farms who lodge with the new tenant?
MR. J. MORLEY: The personal protection of the Constabulary in Ireland is, as a rule, given without charge to the person protected. The person, however, is expected to provide the police with lodging, bedding, and fuel. The question of protection and charge has often been raised, and if it were possible it would, for obvious reasons, be desirable to insist on payment; but, as the protection is mainly given in relation to the disturbed condition of the locality, it has been found inexpedient, as a rule, to require payment as a condition of protection.
MR. KNOX: The last paragraph of the question has not been answered.
MR. J. MORLEY: As a rule, new tenants, where they have personal protection, provide nothing but the shelter of a roof.

THE CAVAN CONSTABULARY.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since the County Inspector of Constabulary in Cavan resumed duty, after an absence of nearly 12 months, due to illness, frequent complaints have been made as to his treatment of the men on inspections, and as to the partisan organisation of the Force; and when this officer's turn of office will expire?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General informs me that no complaints have reached him as regards the treatment of the police in the County Cavan since the resumption of duty by the County Inspector after an absence, on sick leave, of six months. Nor has any such complaint been made to the County Inspector. He has not attained the age at which compulsory retirement can be effected, and will not do so, I am informed, for some years to come.

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY'S DEBENTURES.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether all the debentures issued by the British South Africa Company were issued at par; and, if they were issued at a discount, at what discount were they issued?
MR. S. BUXTON: We have no knowledge of the terms on which the debentures have been issued, as, under the Charter, the Government have nothing to do with the matter.

BELFAST TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that telegraph messengers attached to the Belfast Office are fined at the rate of 1s. an hour as punishment for late attendance; that they are messengers paid according to the number of messages delivered each week; and that their average pay is about 6s. weekly; and whether he will reduce the fine to a sum corresponding to the earnings of the boys?
MR. A. MORLEY: The hon. Member appears to have been somewhat misinformed. The fines for telegraph messengers at Belfast for late attendance are at the rate of 8d. an hour, and not 1s. These boys' last quarter were at the rate of 8s. a week, and they rarely fall below 7s. The fines, however, appear to be heavier than at other offices, and I will consider whether they cannot be reduced.

THIRD-CLASS CARRIAGES ON IRISH MAIL TRAINS.
MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in arranging for future contracts for the conveyance of mails between Dublin and Belfast, provision will be made for the convey-
386
ance of third-class passengers by limited mail trains?
MR. A. MORLEY: There is no clause in any existing contract with a Railway Company compelling them to convey third-class passengers by mail trains, and I cannot think that it is the duty of the Post Office to introduce a clause of such a character into a contract for the conveyance of mails.

PORTRUSH LETTER DELIVERY.
MR. J. O'CONNOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that letters arriving at the Post Office, Portrush, at 8.45 a.m. are not delivered till two and a-half hours afterwards to houses only two minutes' distance from the post office; if there are only two postmen employed for delivery in this town; and if he will see that additional men are employed during the season, so that the delivery may be more rapid, to give time for replies being sent by the mail leaving at 12.5?
MR. A. MORLEY: I find that, owing in a great measure to late arrival of the mails, the morning delivery of letters at Portrush, which should be commenced at 9.25 a.m., is often commenced somewhat later; but it is, nevertheless, completed, as a rule, throughout the town in time for replies being sent by the outgoing mail. The question of giving further assistance during the summer season, when the pressure is greatest, is already under consideration.

THE CASE OF THE "KOWSHING."
MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Press to-day, on the authority of the Japanese Legation, that the Maritime Court at Shanghai had pronounced in favour of the Japanese in the case of the Kowshing, and that the action of the captain of the Japanese ship is held to be justified; and whether Admiral Fremantle has advised the British Government that no claim should be raised against Japan in respect to the Kowshing or any property on board?
SIR E. GREY: Since I have seen the paragraph I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty

387
whether he knows of any information received through the Admiralty from Admiral Fremantle, and I am in a position to say that, as far as we are concerned, no official information has been received.

THE MOVEABLE DWELLINGS BILL.
SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the statement in the Memorandum prefixed to the Moveable Dwellings Bill, circulated on the 21st of August, that moveable dwellings are at present not reached by the Sanitary Laws, is well founded, regard being had to Section 9 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1885?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: It is not quite accurate to say that moveable dwellings are not reached by the Sanitary Laws. As I think my hon. Friend will see from the Memorandum which I sent him yesterday on this subject, these dwellings are subject to the nuisance provisions of the Public Health Act, but no doubt the facility with which they can be moved from place to place does make it difficult to enforce the provisions.

CUSTOMS STATISTICAL DEPARTMENT.
MR. MACDONALD: On behalf of the hon. Member for North West Ham, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is contemplated to balance the increased expenditure entailed by the recent creation of superior appointments in the Customs Statistical Department, by delegating a portion of the keeping of Customs warehousing accounts to outdoor officers, and the checking thereof to second-class examining officers; and whether such contemplated change would amount to a nullifying of those provisions of Treasury Minute, 24th March, 1891, that deal with the prospect of second-class examining officers and outdoor officers?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No such change as is suggested is or has been in contemplation by the Board of Customs.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 6) (River Lee, &c.) Bill.
Amendments to—
Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords] without Amendment.
Land Acts (Ireland),—That they do request that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships a Copy of the Report, &c., of the Select Committee appointed by this House in the present Session of Parliament on Land Acts (Ireland).
Lords Message considered:—Printed Copy to be communicated.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. J. MORLEY: It has been represented to me that it will be a great convenience to Members if the House meets at noon to-morrow. I beg, therefore, to move "That the House do meet To-morrow at Twelve of the clock."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do meet To-morrow at Twelve of the clock."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he desired to raise two points connected with the administration of the Board of Trade. The first was in reference to the delay in presenting the Report called for at his instance from the Embassy at Berlin, dealing with the manufacture in German prisons of goods for the English market. The Report, he understood, had been received at the Foreign Office some time since, and the delay in presenting it had hindered the efforts that were being made to restrict the importation of these goods. That importation had been condemned by the Trades Council of London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Huddersfield, and Leeds, and the public were entitled to

    389
    know the difficulties that might stand in the way of its restriction. In connection with this matter he had also to complain that the right hon. Gentleman had not sent for the Commissioner of a trade journal called the Hardwareman, who had made inquiries in Germany on the subject, and who was prepared to give the result of his personal experience. He was sure this gentleman could have put the right hon. Gentleman in possession of more accurate information than the Ambassador at Berlin. At any rate, they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make public the Report which the Ambassador had made. The other point to which he wished to call attention was in reference to the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. That Act had been productive of a great deal of good, and had stopped to a large extent the importation of foreign goods bearing British marks. In accordance with the recommendation of a Committee, which, in 1890, inquired into the working of the Act, Parliament had placed the duty of instituting prosecutions in the hands of the Board of Trade, and his complaint was of the lax way in which the duty bad been carried out. The specific case to which he desired to draw attention was in reference to the recent importation at Leith of 6,000 chisels made in Germany and bearing a Sheffield mark, thus purporting to have been made by the most expert edge-tool artizans in the world. The chisels were seized by the Customs Authorities and sold by auction at very much below their value. This, he held, inflicted serious injury on Sheffield and Birmingham. It supplied the Edinburgh market for some time to come, and it led to the purchasers there being furnished with badly-made articles. His contention was that the Customs Authorities ought to have communicated with the Board of Trade, and that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have inquired whether a prosecution lay against the importer. He asked that the importer's name should be disclosed, believing that its publication would have a deterrent effect. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to be zealous and vigorous in this matter in the interests of British trade, and to endeavour by putting the law in operation to prevent such cases as this occurring in future.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, with reference to the name he had had no notice, and was unable to give it.
    COLONEL HOWAED VINCENTsaid, he had sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman asking for the name.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had received no letter to that effect.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, the Correspondence Department of the Board of Trade must be as defective as its Executive Department. He had sent the right hon. Gentleman a letter from one of the leading firms connected with this trade, in which the writer showed clearly how much the edge-tool industry in Sheffield was affected by the action taken by the Board of Customs. In sending the right hon. Gentleman that letter he had pointed out that the public mention of the name of the importer would in all probability have a deterrent effect. It was perfectly impossible to suppose that these importers did not know perfectly well how these articles were marked. In all probability they gave the order that the goods should be marked in this manner, and it was, therefore, the bounden duty of the right hon. Gentleman to take vigorous action in the matter. He could not too strongly impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of devoting his attention to those matters, and of doing what he could to revive that depression which had existed unfortunately for the last two years in almost every branch of home industry. When they found no less than 26 Trade Societies reporting at the present time that trade was bad, when they found that exports of British and Irish produce were £26,500,000 less in the first two months of this year than in the corresponding period of 1890 lie held it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to pay attention to the wishes and the aspirations of the artizan population in these matters, and to do nothing whatever which could possibly injuriously affect them. The artizan population had a strong feeling that the importation of German convict labour injured them in a very serious manner. He was anxious to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say as to why the Report from the Berlin Embassy had not been presented to Parliament, and why, at any rate, the right, hon. Gentleman had not responded to his wish that

    391
    he should see it. The right hon. Gentleman knew his deep interest in the matter, and yet the document had been kept back from him. It had been put away in the pigeon holes of the Foreign Office, probably labelled" not to be presented until Parliament rises." Then if it was too late to inquire into the importation of these chisels at Leith, he at any rate urged the right hon. Gentleman to come to a better understanding with the Board of Customs on the question. The Board of Customs, he believed, was well administered, and its officials were capable of carrying out their duties, but the right hon. Gentleman should not sit quietly by while these articles were being fraudulently imported, but should make vigorous exertions to restrain this traffic in the future. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to do what he could to promote the interests of British trade by bringing the penalty of the law, and the greater penalty of publicity, to bear against those who imported articles fraudulently marked in defiance of Acts of Parliament, and to the detriment of the free labour of this country.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,said, his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had, if he would allow him to say so, wasted a great deal of indignation upon an exceedingly simple matter. He had repeatedly told his hon. Friend that the only reason why the Report obtained from Berlin was not presented was because it was thought better to present it along with Reports from other countries for which the Government had asked. That was a matter of every-day occurrence. It had been the invariable practice, when they had a number of Reports on the same subject, to present them together.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, the importation of these prison-made goods was mainly, if not entirely, from Germany.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, Prussia was not the only part of the German Empire. Reports were being received from the other German States, as well as from France, and the Report would be much more valuable if they were all published together. He had no reason to believe that he could have obtained any additional information from the Commissioner of the Hardwareman, even if he
    392
    had seen him, and besides, it would have been entirely irregular for him to have had communications of that kind. When a Department wished to have information as to what passed in foreign countries, the proper channel of information was Her Majesty's Representatives there. To pass by those Representatives and go to a private individual would be at variance with the best traditions of the Diplomatic Service. In regard to the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act, he had, since the hon. Gentleman spoke, caused inquiries to be made, and found that a letter had been received at the Board of Trade from the hon. Member, but he was not aware that it contained any request for the names of the consignees. In any case they could not have been given, because the Board of Trade did not know them, and there was not time to communicate with the Commissioners of Customs. He had not the latest statistics of prosecutions with him, but he had seen them recently, and there had been a considerable number. In the particular case referred to his information did not bear out the statement of the hon. Member that the word "Sheffield" was on the goods. The Commissioners informed him that they seized them because they bore the words "Warranted cast steel," implying that they had been made in England. The hon. Member asked why the Board of Trade did not put the law in force, but he did not seem to realise what the provisions of the Act were. The Act enabled the Board to institute prosecutions whether the goods were exposed or offered for sale, or whether they were in possession of the person. These goods were neither exposed nor offered for sale, nor were they in possession of the consignee; therefore, the Board of Trade could not institute a prosecution. The action of the Commissioners of Customs was, as far as he could ascertain, in strict conformity with the law. He had no authority to say to them how they were to dispose of seized goods. He hoped he would always be vigilant in carrying out any duties with which the Legislature had entrusted him. If, in these cases under the Merchandise Marks Act, the Cutlers' Company of Sheffield, a very influential body, had made application for a prosecution, that application

    393
    would have been very carefully considered by the Board of Trade, but he did not gather that they had done so, and he believed the reason why these applications were not more frequent was that British manufacturers wore of opinion that prosecutions often did more harm than good by calling attention to the foreign articles. He expressed no opinion as to whether that was right or wrong, but it was a view which was largely held. While the Department and the Government would be anxious to give the House all possible information, he could not assent to the view that the importation of convict-made goods did any serious injury at present to British trade even in particular instances. The amount of foreign prison-made goods imported was infinitesimal compared with the quantity of goods produced in this country; but they had promised to get all the information they could, and that information would be presented at the earliest possible moment.
    MR. A. C. MORTONwas very sorry to say that on this occasion Supply had been probably worse scamped and rushed through more hastily than in any period during his time, and, of course, that was an additional reason why they should be particular at this stage. As far as they on that side of the House were concerned, they put off a number of matters, both in Committee and on Report, at the special request of the Ministers, and therefore right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Beach had no right to complain if hon. Members took the opportunity of mentioning any of these matters to-day. He could not say that the Army and Navy Votes had not been discussed, but with regard to the Civil Service there had been practically no discussion at all. It was well to bear in mind that the expenditure under the Civil Service covered almost every question connected with the social and trade life of this country, and therefore they could, if they had time, have raised many important questions in which the people were interested. They had been deprived of the opportunities for properly considering the matters. There were two ways of discussing the Estimates—one on the policy of the expenditure itself, and the other with regard to the economy. He had endeavoured to make some observation
    394
    on the economy of the expenditure from time to time, but during this Session he had hardly had a single opportunity of asking the Committee to consider the policy of the expenditure at all. He had always held that at least 10 per cent, of their money was wasted. He thought they might have more efficiency with at least £10,000,000 less spent on the Estimates during the year, and he should be glad if the Government would allow him an opportunity of considering all these Estimates from the economical point of view. He could not complain that Ministers were not present to answer any questions he might be allowed to put, notwithstanding it was at their request he did not raise them in Committee of Supply. He should like to have received some answer from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War about the case of Surgeon Major Fox. He noticed in the papers that somebody was accused of endeavouring to get this officer out of the way in the same manner as an attempt was made to get rid of Surgeon Major Briggs. Of course, he did not know whether this statement was true or not, but it was his duty to ask the Secretary for War whether it was true or not. The charge was a serious one, and ought to be answered as speedily as possible. He should be out of Order if he were to attempt to consider the question of the House of Lords with regard to their policy, but with regard to the expenses of the House of Lords he desired to say a word or two. He gathered from the Estimates that the other Chamber cost the people of this country over £105,000. There were other sums which were directly placed on the Consolidated Fund, but in the Estimates there was this sum of over £105,000. They were told that the House of Lords paid its own way. That could not be correct, because although he made a mistake in stating the amount of fees received, he found from the corrected Estimate that the amount this year was about £21,000; therefore, how any newspaper or anybody else could make it out that the Lords paid their way he did not know. But even if they did take fees these fees came from the people, and, therefore, they had only got to look at the expenditure. What he said himself, without regard to any policy at all, was that this

    395
    was more than it was worth, and the people of this country ought not to be called upon to spend such a large sum for practically doing the work over again. He might add to that the expense the people were put to in getting through what was practically a second Committee doing the same work over again, and on purely financial grounds he should personally like to see some alteration. They had been told during the last week that it was not right for them to consider the question from the financial point of view, and that if they had a grievance they ought not to attempt to punish the officials in another place because they objected to anything else. Undoubtedly they did not want to punish any officials whatever, and he had no doubt that if any charge were made these officials would be properly pensioned off. But what they said was that it was the regular, ordinary, Parliamentary, and constitutional way of raising objection to anything they desired to object to by refusing Supplies. If he remembered rightly, this House was brought into existence for the purpose of providing Supplies, and only providing them if they approved of the objects. Therefore, if they objected to the way in which the Supplies were spent, their proper policy was to refuse the Supplies, and so get rid of what they objected to. If the Government could find any other way out of the difficulty, that was their business and not his, and whether it was Government or other expenditure that he objected to be should take the constitutional course of objecting to Supply. He desired to ask one or two questions of the Home Secretary, who, unfortunately for the people of this country, was in charge of the Metropolitan Police. He was personally desirous that the police should be handed over to the London County Council or some other Municipal Body as soon as possible; but in the meantime the Home Secretary was responsible for the conduct of their business, and he wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, why he refused to have the police stations in London properly assessed? Speaking with some authority in the matter, he declared they were only assessed at one-half the proper amount, and he should like the Home Secretary to compel his officers to act fairly in to these matters. Another
    396
    question as to which he should have liked some answer from the right hon. Gentleman was as to the fees that were charged to Justices of the Peace on their appointment. The Home Secretary recently sent out a Circular in which he suggested that two guineas should be charged each Magistrate on his being sworn in. He objected very strongly to that charge. At the present moment, so far as England and Scotland were concerned, no Justice of the Peace on his appointment could be legally charged anything beyond 2s. or 3s. He knew they had been charged three, four, and even up to 10 guineas; but that was not a legal charge, and those who had refused to pay had been made Magistrates all the same. Within the last few months the Home Secretary had sent out a Circular in which he practically said to the Benchers that they should fix a fee of two guineas. He objected to their friends being fined two guineas by their own Home Secretary; he objected to a penalty being put upon them because they happened to be appointed upon the nomination of the Radical Party as Radicals. He was very sorry the Home Secretary was not present to answer him. There were one or two other matters to which he should like to direct attention. He wanted to get some assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that he would move a little faster in putting pressure upon the Railway Companies to afford greater facilities to workpeople living in the suburbs of London. He threw on the Minister the responsibility for the fact that some of the Companies were not doing what they ought to do. All that was asked was that passengers with workmen's tickets should be allowed to travel as late as 8 o'clock in the morning. Some of the Companies, including the Great Northern, had made this concession; why were not the Great Eastern and other Companies compelled to do it? The Board of Trade, he was afraid, was too much under the influence of Railway Companies and vested interests. He wanted to know why the Board of Trade gave him notice that, as an administrative act, they would oppose his Return Tickets Bill?
    MR. BRYCE: When did that happen?
    MR. A. C. MORTONreplied, some four or five months ago. He did not ask the Board of Trade their opinion,

    397
    but they sent him this notice. Of course, he did not desire to make his right hon. Friend personally responsible; he was only treating the Board as a Board. As he had said, he did receive notice that the Board of Trade would oppose his Bill, and he wanted to know why? because the Board of Trade ought to assist him rather than oppose him. Notwithstanding the opposition of the Board of Trade, he had succeeded in getting his tramways clause imposed upon all the London Companies except one, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would take care that it was inserted in all the Provisional Orders he had to do with. He thanked the House generally for what they had done, and also the House of Lords, for on this question he found the House of Lords more liberal than the Board of Trade. He thanked Parliament for having assisted him in passing this tramways clause, and preventing Companies imposing additional fares on Sundays and holidays on the workpeople of this country. He wished to address one or two questions to the Foreign Office, and he wished particularly to complain of the grant of £20,000 a year to what was called the British Bechuanaland Railway. Some months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a distinct promise that, before the Government were committed to this, Parliament should have an opportunity of considering the matter. They were then requested not to delay the holidays by discussing the matter in Committee of Supply; and in these circumstances he asked that the matter might be put off till next Session. As a matter of fact, the Minute relating to this matter was only laid on the Table on the 9th of August, and it was a farce, therefore, to contend that there had been a proper opportunity of considering and discussing the matter. They had not had an opportunity of considering the matter, and were not going to have. He supposed his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would say that something must be done or could be done on the responsibility of the Government. That was an old Tory idea, and not a Radical idea. They wanted, before the Government were committed on these matters, to have an opportunity of discussing them, and they had a perfect right to insist upon this. He hoped the
    398
    time would arrive when an independent Committee from both sides of the House would consider these questions before the Government wore allowed to commit themselves and the country. He believed as long ago as 1880 the right hon. Member for Midlothian said that the time would probably come when such an arrangement would have to be made. He did not admit the right of the Government to commit them at all, unless they had got their previous consent. He could not admit that right except in a case of emergency, and this was not one. A Radical Government would find that the Radicals of this country would not allow their money to be squandered on Public Companies and Company promoting in foreign lands. He hoped his hon. Friend would agree to postpone this matter, and he did not think he could do otherwise, as the hon. Gentleman must admit that the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been acted upon. He further trusted the Government would not commit the country to any further expenditure in Uganda during the Recess. In this case they had been told that nothing would be done without the sanction of the House, but as a matter of fact there had been no opportunity of discussing the large sum now voted. Unfortunately, some Members of the Cabinet were in favour of a Jingo policy, and so we incurred a large expenditure abroad while refusing to spend money for the improvement of trade and agriculture at home. The Radical Party would have nothing whatever to do with a Jingo policy. They had had too much of it during the present Session. The Government had too often thrown over their own supporters and depended upon the Opposition for their existence, and he warned them that the Radical Party would not put up with this. He hoped they would have an assurance that the Government would not commit them in regard to this railway or as regarded compensation to the Company. The Company had no claim to compensation, for having speculated they must, take their chance, and if they had squandered their money they must not look to the ratepayers of this country to make it good for them. He did not see the Postmaster General present, and he should have liked to address one or two questions to the right hon. Gentleman. Complaints

    399
    had been made that the Postmaster General objected to combination among the men. He had heard that the War Office also objected to combination. He could not understand that at all. He considered, of course, that the workers in those great Government Departments ought not to be allowed to abuse the right of combination; but when the Government admitted the right of workmen outside the Service to combine, he could not see why they should refuse to allow men inside the Service to combine, He would, therefore, like to know from the Postmaster General why he had refused to allow postmen to combine for the purpose of securing what they thought; were their rights? With regard to the Brentford Schools' cruelty cases, he desired to say that many hon. Members were desirous of discussing that matter, but could not do so until they got the Report of the special Inspector. He was not sure whether that Report had been issued yet; but on account of the way Supply had been rushed through they had not had an opportunity of discussing the question, and of seeing that the poor boys of those schools were protected from cruelty, whether from nurses or anyone else, in the future. The question of the Christian Brothers might be considered a purely Irish question; but as he happened to be—as a member of the Corporation of London—part owner of the City of Londonderry and the City of Coleraine, he considered it his duty to look into this question of the Christian Brothers. Therefore, he had done what had been done by few Members—he had gone over the schools of the Christian Brothers in Londonderry, within the last fortnight, saw their emblems or pictures, and could not possibly understand why those emblems should be advanced against giving the Brothers the assistance they ought to have from the State. It was said the Roman Catholics were ignorant and were improperly influenced by their priests; but if that were so, the responsibility rested on the Government until they provided adequate means for the education of the children. It might be said that education had been made compulsory in Ireland. But it was nonsense to talk of compulsory education in a country where there was not sufficient schools, and where the Government would not assist
    400
    those who were willing to provide the schools. Speaking, therefore, with some knowledge of the matter, he trusted the Government would before long do all that was necessary to complete the system of primary education in Ireland, whereby every child in Ireland would be afforded the facilities for education which were enjoyed by every child in Great Britain. He desired to say a few words on the Consolidated Fund Bill. He did not at all like this system of appropriations in aid; he preferred to have the money specifically voted by the House of Commons, and he was afraid that the system of appropriations in aid would be so extended by successive Governments that the House of Commons would soon have no Supply at all to consider. In conclusion, he would say that he hoped they would never again have this scamping through Supply which had been adopted this Session. The first duty of hon. Members was to consider the expenditure of public money, and as on that expenditure rested, to a large extent, the comfort and happiness of the people, they ought to be allowed full opportunities for considering it.
    MR. BRYCE, replying to the remarks of the hon. Member on the subject of workmen's trains, said the Board of Trade were as anxious as any body of men could be to provide full facilities for working men in the matter of cheap trains. They had, by continual representations to the Railway Companies, obtained nearly everything which, under their statutory powers, they could at present obtain, and had made representations to the Companies to induce them to go even beyond what their statutory powers entitled the Board of Trade to ask. He could assure the House that the Board of Trade felt the hardship that was inflicted on workmen in the matter, and they were anxious to do everything in their power to improve the present state of things.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: What about return tickets?
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he knew nothing personally about the Return Tickets Bill; but if any such notice of opposition had been given he suggested that it must have been merely in the belief that if the Railway Companies were pressed any further they would withdraw the facilities already given, and which the Board of

    401
    Trade had not the statutory power to enforce.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: With regard to tramways?
    MR. BRYCEreplied that in the matter of tramways the Board of Trade had done all they possibly could in the direction indicated by the hon. Member, and would continue the policy they had initiated.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,said, he desired to answer his part of the general catechism of the lion. Member for Peterborough. With regard to the Bechuanaland Railway, he submitted that the opportunity promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for discussing the matter had reference to discussion in Committee of Supply, and the contract between the Company and the Government had been laid on the Table three weeks ago. That opportunity had been afforded, though the time had been unavoidably curtailed this year, so that no promise of the Government had been broken in regard to that matter.
    MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the hon. Gentleman meant to say that the Government, in taking up the time that should be devoted to Supply, had not deprived hon. Members of discussing this matter?
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, the only opportunity that could be given for discussing a matter of this kind was in Supply; and though that opportunity had not perhaps occurred in any adequate sense this year, owing to causes with which the hon. Member was familiar, no complaint could be brought against to the Government in regard to it. As to the contention that the guarantee should be submitted to the House before it was practically ratified by the Government, such a course might be possible under a system for a general Committee to discuss colonial and foreign relations; but at present the only practicable course was that the Government should carry out the agreement on their own responsibility; and if the House should choose bow to the opinion of the House. He fully believed that, instead of the railway being the cause of any additional charge being thrown upon the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, it would by aiding in
    402
    the development of the country benefit to them in the future.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman in that supposition.
    MR. KNOXsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough that the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year gave a pledge that the House would be given the opportunity of discussing this question with regard to the Bechuanaland Railway. The question was perhaps of less importance in one way, as the matter could be raised year by year, and he thought it only right that notice should lie given to persons who might be inclined to invest in the shares of the railway; that a large number of Members objected to the scheme, and would protest against it every year for the 10 years the guarantee would last. But he rose principally to call attention to a matter connected with Irish affairs, and which deeply concerned a large number of his constituents. Under an Act passed in 1883 certain light railways were constructed in Ireland with a guarantee of 5 per cent. to the shareholders upon the baronies through which those light railways ran. By that Act the Treasury was also to give a guarantee of 2 per cent., not to the shareholders, but to the baronies—that was to say, the baronies paid the shareholders 5 per cent., and that the baronies received from the Treasury 2 per cent. That system was from the beginning a most wasteful one. If the Treasury guarantee had been given directly to the shareholders, it would have brought in £66, and therefore the baronies, after the balance of 3 per cent., only got 33 per cent., so that they were really given a guarantee of a far larger sum than was supposed. It was a wasteful system, but the greater number of the light railways were built under it, and it had brought a very heavy charge on some of the poorest districts of the country. In the County of Leitrim, near his own Division, where the valuation was very high—much higher than in the South—the people were paying 2s. in the £1 county cess for a railway line. He asked English Members to consider what that meant. He saw nothing to compare to it in Great Britain, and naturally the people complained. There had been talks of a

    403
    strike against county cess, and he would not be surprised if there were strikes against the county cess. There was one way out of the difficulty, which occurred to the Directors of the railways so far back as six years ago: That was, commuting the Treasury payment by a capital sum, and reducing the capital proportionately with the consent of the shareholders. The Directors pressed this claim on the Treasury six years ago. He knew that four years ago Lord Kings-court and a deputation representing the different railways came to London and pressed this scheme on the Treasury. The Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson) then said that in the existing condition of Government business they could not bring in the Bill which was necessary, and he added that he had no objection in principle to the scheme. In 1893 he (Mr. Knox) and some of his friends introduced a Bill on the subject. He frankly admitted that that Bill did not meet with the general consent of all the Companies, but it passed its Second Reading, and could get no further. He made it his business immediately afterwards to see if a scheme could not be devised which would meet with the approval of all the interests concerned. He saw a gentleman in London who represented the greater part of the share capital, and saw the Directors of the Cavan line. They saw the Treasury officials on the matter, and he had to say that although the Irish Members had to find fault with the Treasury several times, yet in this matter they had been treated by the Secretary to the Treasury and the officials with the greatest courtesy and with a strong desire to afford the necessary relief if they could do so. In the end a Government Bill was drafted and introduced into the House, which he believed would have reduced the charge on those unfortunate districts by about one-third. That was a very important matter; but in consequence of the action of the present Chief Secretary, the poor farmers in these districts would have to pay 8d. in the £1 more county cess than they otherwise would have to pay. It was a permissive Bill. Nothing could be done under it except by Order in Council. The consent of the Lord Lieutenant, the consent of the Treasury, the consent of the Company, and the consent of the Grand Jury were all
    404
    necessary, and when he stated that fact he thought it was plainly evident the Bill could inflict no injustice on anybody. The Member for South Tyrone, who represented the district through which the Clogher Valley line ran, was in favour of the Bill, and so also was the Member for South Antrim, who was a Director and large shareholder in the line. He (Mr. Knox) believed there was not even one Irish Member, be he Tory, Unionist, or Nationalist, who had a word to say against the Bill. Under those circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that the Bill passed through all its stages in that House without opposition. Afterwards some gentlemen came over from Dublin to protest against it. He did not know what their protest was; it was made in private, and there was no opportunity of answering it. He wished to put this extraordinary fact on record that those gentlemen who came over—those Dublin stockjobbers—had been able to do more to move the Irish administration than all the Irish Members of all sections. The Bill had passed the House of Commons, and if there had not been a House of Lords it would now be the law of the land. If the House of Lords had been ended, as the Chief Secretary said he wanted to have it ended, his constituents would have now been relieved of a considerable portion of the burden they had to bear. The Bill had gone to the House of Lords, but it had got no farther, because, although the name of the Chief Secretary was on the back of it, he had used his influence to prevent it going any further. He felt keenly about this matter. He asserted that this was a discreditable business. It was a most unfortunate and regrettable fact that a Bill supported by every Irish Member should not have been pressed on because a mere handful of Dublin stockbrokers had brought objections to the Bill which they had not dared to put forward in the public Press.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,: The hon. and learned Member has used a very strong expression for which he has only been able to give a weak justification, or no justification at all. He used the expression "discreditable." I do not know what view the hon. and learned Member takes of what is creditable or discreditable to

    405
    a Minister, but I think that "discreditable" is a rather strong expression to use unless the hon. and learned Member is able to back it up by some more substantial justification than he has been able to give to the House. He said that I used my influence to prevent this Bill from passing in the House of Lords, because pressure had been put upon me by some stock-jobbers from Dublin. What kind of authority has the hon. and learned Member for making any such statement? As far as I know, no pressure has been brought to bear upon any Member of the Government by any set of stock-jobbers in Dublin. I have seen no stock-jobbers from Dublin. I do not believe I know any stock-jobbers in Dublin, and I do not know that I should be any the worse if I did. What are the facts? The Bill was introduced into this House last week, and undoubtedly passed through all its stages, and was sent up to another place. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to attach some odium to the House of Lords in this matter, and also made an attack on myself for having used my influence to prevent the Bill from passing through the other House. I take the responsibility, and I have to entirely relieve another place from any blame in the matter. At the time that the Bill passed its Second Reading I was not aware that there were considerable numbers of persons interested in these financial proposals to whom the Bill was unsatisfactory. But knowing that, the obvious course was to keep back the Bill until an opportunity was afforded to those persons to submit their objections. I do not know how far the hon. and learned Member was literally accurate in stating that all the Irish Members in the House are in favour of the Bill. But, even if it were absolutely true, that is not enough. A Bill of this kind being objected to by persons possessing substantial interests, it is clearly my duty not to allow the measure to be hurried on and a step to be taken which may afterwards be regretted. No substantial injury will be done by postponing the Bill. This is a Treasury affair. But, with the approval of the Treasury, at the very beginning of next Session a Committee shall be appointed to examine the proposals in the Bill. This will take a very short time. There will be very
    406
    little delay. The Bill will go through the Committee with or without amendment, and will then pass the two Houses without any loss of time. It seems to me that the persons interested will find themselves without any substantial injury. I hope that, the hon. and learned Member will feel that he has used language which is too strong in regard to myself, and will see that in the action I have taken I have been doing my best for all parties concerned.
    MR. KNOXexplained that he did not mean the word "discreditable" to apply personally to the Chief Secretary. He merely meant that it was curious that the views of a few financial gentlemen from Dublin should have more influence with the right hon. Gentleman than all the Irish Members.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, it appeared to him that the House was much indebted to the Secretary to the Treasury for the prompt and efficient manner in which the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee had been carried out in regard to appropriations in aid. Those appropriations in aid were becoming of great importance, amounting now to £7,750,000, which was 10 per cent. on the total expenditure voted by the House. The Auditor and Controller General was right in recommending that these appropriations in aid should be distributed in the Appropriation Act. Of course, it was not expected that the Government would carry out the change in the present measure, but the Treasury had carried out the alteration with its usual promptitude and efficiency. He would only suggest that in future the manner in which the figures were presented should be altered, so as to show the separate items under each head of service.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the Vote on the Public Record Office. That Office contains a large mass of documents relating to Wales, which are uncalendared and unindexed. At the present rate a very long time must elapse before the necessary work of calendaring these manuscripts has been completed. This question is entirely apart and distinct from the calendaring of ancient manuscripts in the Welsh language. I have to acknowledge the fair and kindly spirit in which the Financial Secretary to the

    407
    Treasury has met us in regard to that branch of the work. All I ask him to do now is in any future appointment that may be made at the Public Record Office to consider the claims of Wales. I am informed that neither in the Public Record Office nor the British Museum is there a single official who knows enough Welsh to understand the place names and other Welsh words which occur in these documents preserved at the Public Record Office. Educationists in Wales constantly call for the production of a good Welsh history. Without disparaging in any way the efforts of those literary Welshmen who have in the past written histories of their country, I may say that there is at the present time no Welsh history written from the modern critical standpoint. Only the other day one of the most distinguished historians in the country lamented this fact. He said that if he wanted to know the relations between Owen Gleudower and the Pope he knew where to find the materials; if he wanted to know the relation of the Welsh Chieftain with the King of France he knew where to lay his hand upon the necessary information; ho could even discover his relations with the Spanish pirates; but when he came to the relations which existed between him and the Court of England, he was entirely at a loss for the necessary material. I am aware that complaints may be justly made from other parts of the country as well as from Wales with regard to the slowness of work at the Record Office, which appears to be overcrowded with documents and undermanned with officials. But the need of Wales is a special need, and a good history of Wales cannot possibly be forthcoming until the materials to which I have referred have been collected together and indexed. To show the real interest that is taken in this question, I may mention that a private Society has undertaken the publication of specimens of the Ruthin Court Rolls, probably the finest set of Court Rolls in existence. They throw a flood of light upon the social usages of the people during the Middle Ages, and yet it has been left for a Welsh Society, which contains several Members sitting on both sides of this House, to undertake the expense and the work of publishing these documents. No better proof can possibly be given of the
    408
    practical interest which is taken in the matter or of the genuineness of the appeal that I am now making to the right hon. Gentleman. At present we only ask him that he will carefully consider in any future appointment that may be made the claims of Wales, and that during the Recess, or early next year, he will consent to meet a deputation of Welsh educationists to consider the practical steps to be taken to carry out the object they have in view.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,: I can assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate the friendly spirit in which this matter has been brought before the House, and I promise to take an early opportunity to confer with the Keeper of the Record Office on the subject. The Welsh Records will, however, have to take their turn with other very valuable Papers in the Record Office. I hope that arrangements will be made which will be satisfactory to the hon. Member.
    MR. LITTLEsaid, he desired to call attention to the phrase in the Appropriation Bill which sets forth that the Commons "cheerfully granted" the Supplies for the year. With respect to the vast majority of the items dealt with in the Bill, he offered no objection to them; but he wanted to point out to the Government why it was that, as a Liberal Member, he objected to the special item for the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords? They had had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland two arguments with respect to this sum for the services of the Peers—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is out of Order. It is entirely out of Order to allude to the constitution of the House of Lords upon the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, or to any action that the Lords have taken with respect to any Bill that has been before Parliament. That is an ordinary Rule of Parliament. There have been previous occasions on which it has been held to be out of Order to make any attack upon the action of the other House on the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. Member would be in Order if he is prepared to say that the number of officers who discharge the business of the House of Lords is more than sufficient for the purpose, or that

    409
    "the sum with which they are remunerated is more than adequate. No reference to the action of the House of Lords upon any Bill that has come before them would be in Order.
    MR. LITTLE: I think, Sir, if you will just remember from the words which I have addressed to you at this moment—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has clearly indicated his intention, and I must inform him that he is out of Order.
    MR. LITTLE: Perhaps you will allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that I had not referred to any Bill, and did not intend to—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman had distinctly indicated his intention to refer to what had been said by Members of the Government upon the subject of the House of Lords.
    MR. LITTLE: I was going to refer, Sir, to the fact that the Chief Secretary had said that to object to the expenses of the House of Lords was a trumpery matter. That is the point upon which I was going to address the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: That is the very point upon which I rule the hon. Gentleman to be out of Order. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that these expenses are trumpery matters. What he did say was that this was a trumpery case on which to hang a cause so great, and that if that grave issue were to be raised it should be raised in some more proper and constitutional form than merely to refuse to grant the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords.
    MR. LITTLE: If you, Sir, rule, as I understand you do, that one cannot object to these salaries being voted by the House of Commons, of course I accept your ruling. But as I understood it, Mr. Speaker, your objection was to one's discussing the action or policy of the House of Lords, and that is what I do not intend to do. The point to which I wished to draw attention was this—that as a Representative of a constituency which objects to these expenses for the House of Lords being granted by this House, I was prepared to vote against the Appropriation Bill as a whole unless the Government would give a promise that this item for the House of Lords would not appear in next year's Appropriation Bill. Of course, Sir, if you rule that I am out
    410
    of Order, I should not seek to pursue the question. I was not, however, going in any way to refer to the House of Lords or their policy, but simply to deal with the question whether the appropriation of money for the House of Lords was a desirable object.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move the omission of an item in the Appropriation Bill, and therefore he is out of Order.
    MR. LITTLE: I was simply raising the question as to whether this item for the Lords should appear in the Appropriation Bill at a future time, because, unless the Government will state that it shall not, I should be prepared to vote against the whole Appropriation Bill. If you rule, Sir, that that is out of Order I must at once bow to your ruling.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already expressed my ruling very distinctly, that any allusion to the action of the House of Lords on any Bill which has passed this House would be entirely out of Order. If the hon. Member intends to mulct the House of Lords for any action they have taken, I repeat that that would be entirely out of Order.
    MR. LITTLE: Then, Sir, I shall draw attention to another matter—namely, the action of the Government with respect to Bills which have passed through this House. I wish especially in this connection to mention the Employers' Liability Bill, and to ask the Government what steps they intend to take. I should like to have from them some definite statement as to whether they intend to re-introduce an Employers' Liability Bill next Session?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry again to come into collision with the hon. Member, and to rule that he is out of Order. It is not in Order upon the Appropriation Bill to refer to any legislation for next Session.
    MR. HUMPHREYS-OWENsaid, he desired to draw attention to the grants for University Colleges in Great Britain. He did so because he imagined that some misconception existed in some part of the country as to the extent and nature of the work which was done by these Colleges in Wales. There was some suggestion that the country did not receive full value for the £12,000 a year now voted for this purpose in Wales. The

    411
    misconceptions to which he referred were divided into three. The first was that those Colleges situated in Wales were not really Welsh Colleges—that was to say, that though they attracted a certain number of students from Wales on the whole their students came from other parts of the United Kingdom, and that, therefore, these funds to provide education might just as well be spent in England or in Scotland, as in Wales. As he was connected officially with two of the three Colleges, and had some knowledge of the working of the third, he was able to say that that was not the case. There were, it was true, a certain number of students from England and Scotland, and other parts of the United Kingdom in these Colleges, but the great preponderance of students were Welsh. So far as it was possible for institutions of higher education to be distinctively national, they were Welsh Colleges and not English, in the same way as the Colleges in Edinburgh and Glasgow were Scottish institutions, and not English institutions. In the course of the Debates on the Report of the Estimates, it was suggested that there was no certain information obtainable as to the nationality of the students in the different Colleges, but he was in a position to state that at Aberystwith and Bangor, careful Registers were kept, and that they showed that the large majority of students were Welsh. He had not been able to get the actual figures for Aberystwith, but those for Bangor he had. It appeared from them that there had been 513 students since the College was founded who were either of Welsh parentage or came from Wales itself, and only 124 who were from England or other parts of the Empire; and he knew that the figures of Aberystwith would show a similar, if not a larger, proportion of Welsh students. Though it would be unnecessary to go through a list of those who had profited by the teaching of these institutions it would be acknowledged that it was something to have produced, as Aberystwith had done, the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury—whose name he only gave as an instance of the men sent forth by the Welsh Colleges. And as to the number of students in the Welsh Colleges, it was said that the number was smaller than the number who
    412
    attended similar Colleges in England and Scotland. The English Colleges no doubt showed a large number of students on their books, but these were obtained by counting in continuation students and extension students. But if these English and Scottish Colleges included students of that kind, it would be only fair to give credit to the Welsh Colleges for students who attended in very large numbers courses of extension lectures which these Colleges had been giving for many years. If they took as a real test of the work—the University character of the work—the numbers of students who attended as day students, they would find that Welsh Colleges had no cause whatever to be ashamed of their numbers as compared with those who attended the English Colleges. In England and Scotland—excluding London—the average attendance of students of that class in the Colleges was 355, whereas in Wales the corresponding number was 227. If they took the population of England and Scotland, and compared it with the population of Wales, they would see that there was a far larger proportion of day students attending Welsh Colleges in proportion to population than those who attended the English Colleges. Then, again, taking the other test given in the Blue Book of the number of students attending two or more courses of lectures or attending for more than 125 hours in the course of the academical year, he found that the average number of students, under these figures, were in England and Scotland 197, whereas the corresponding average in Wales was 207. That was actually a larger average attendance of students taking the longer courses in Wales than in Great Britain. He was not prejudging the question as to the value of extension lectures or of evening lectures, but he was pointing-out that the proportion of students receiving University and higher education in the Welsh Colleges excelled rather than fell short of the corresponding proportion in the Colleges of England and Scotland. He excluded London, because King's and University Colleges had been working for 60 years, and had the huge population of the Metropolis to draw on as well as the population of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding that, even for London, the figures were not so very much greater, so far as he could judge,

    413
    than those for Wales. Unfortunately King's College did not issue Returns in such a form as to show the courses taken by the University students, the figures for the school and the College being lumped together. University College, however, gave 770 day students and 458 who took three or more courses. Then it had been suggested that the Welsh Colleges were over-staffed. If efficient higher education were to be given a large and varied staff of Professors and other teachers must be provided in the different branches of the various Faculties. Judged by that standard the Welsh Colleges were, if anything, under rather than over-staffed, and the actual amount of work done by the Professors and lecturers was very great. Then in regard to the proportion taking degrees to the total number of University students, judged by that test the Welsh Colleges and Owen's College stood far and away at the head of the list, the proportion for the English and Scotch Colleges being 66 per cent., and for the Welsh and Owen's 90 per cent. What he had said would be sufficient to show the House that at all events for this grant the country received thorough value for its money. He would only add that the incredulity shown as to the nature of the work done in the Colleges seemed to be a part of the general ignorance of Members opposite of matters affecting the Principality. On behalf of the Welsh Colleges he cordially invited those Members who were interested in Higher Education to go down to visit these Colleges, and they would then see for themselves that the work done there, both socially and intellectually, was at least as good as that done by their sister rivals throughout the Kingdom.
    MR. WEIRsaid, he could not let the Debate close without making reference to the promises given that the claims of the Highland crofters would be dealt with. He must protest against the treatment of the crofters by the Government, and hoped they would take an early opportunity of redeeming their pledges. He was sorry the Lord Advocate was absent, for he desired to point out the great need for the appointment in the Highlands of Sheriffs, Sheriff Substitutes, Sheriff Clerks, and Procurators Fiscal, who could speak Gaelic. At present many of them had no knowledge whatever of that language.
    414
    He should also have been glad to hear from the Secretary for Scotland whether he had made demands on the Treasury or Admiralty for increased means to deal with trawlers which were causing so much destruction to the fisheries on the coast of Scotland, and especially in the Highlands. Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would state why the rates paid by occupants of apartments in Royal Palaces only amounted to £1,350, the same as last year. The general experience was that rates increased—they certainly did not diminish; and he should be glad to know why there had been no increase in the valuation of the apartments occupied in the Palaces? In regard to the exemption from rates of houses occupied by foreign Representatives, he would have no objection to that if our Representatives abroad were treated in the same way and likewise exempted from payment of rates. The sum expended on Royal Parks this year was £90,000, and against that the item for sale of venison, &c., &c., was only £301. Surely there must be something radically wrong. Then £3,500 was charged for additional furniture, whilst no account was taken of the discarded furniture. Some statement of it should be given. In conclusion, he again expressed a hope that the Government would see justice done to the Highland crofters.
    MAJOR JONESwished to impress on the Representative of the Board of Trade the importance of doing something during the Recess in the way of raising the standard of education for master mariners and mates intending to enter the Merchant Navy. In this country they had, for the last 40 years, been practically marking time—certainly they had not been making progress like other countries. They were really at the foot of the ladder among the commercial nations of the world in regard to this matter. They could not help being pressed by foreign countries in the way of bounties and subventions, but education was a matter entirely in our own control. The right hon. Gentleman might do something on the petitions of the Shipmasters' Association, a body numbering some 9,000 men.
    SIR W. LAWSONsaid, he understood from the Speaker's ruling that they could not discuss the action of the House of Lords

    415
    on the Vote of £41,595 for the House of Lords' officers. Would it be in Order to move to omit the amount of the Vote?
    MR. SPEAKER: You cannot move to omit an item on the Appropriation Bill. The Bill is to appropriate the Supplies already granted. If the hon. Member thinks that the number of clerks in the House of Lords is excessive or that their salaries are too high, he would be in Order in discussing that. But, as I stated before most explicitly, it is a common and well-known ruling from the Chair that to question any action the House of Lords may have taken in reference to a Bill or to animadvert on the position of that Chamber in the Constitution is out of Order on the Appropriation Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th instant, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS.
Ordered, That this House do meet on Tuesday the 13th day of November next for the purpose of hearing and determining Appeals and matters connected therewith, pursuant to the provisions of the "Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876"; and that during such meeting of the House leave be given to the Appeal Committee to meet.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL. (No. 218.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 222.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 212.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with an Amendment.
Commons Amendment to Lords Amendments considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past Four o'clock, to Saturday next, a quarter past Nine o'clock.