Sitting of 26 February 1894

THE UNEMPLOYED IN SCOTLAND.
SIR J. CARMICHAEL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is prepared to take steps to enable Local Authorities in Scotland to institute Registers of the unemployed, either in connection with the offices of the Registrars of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, or otherwise?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): So far as Scotland is concerned, I am informed that, when necessity arises, no difficulty has been experienced by the Local Authorities in instituting Registers for the unemployed, and, as a matter of fact, they are frequently opened. From the latest information I have received from the important centres in Scotland, the Local Authorities are undoubtedly willing, and I believe are able, to look after any undue distress arising from want of employment. The precise proposal made by the hon. Member is a new proposal, and the Registrar General, whom I have consulted, sees serious difficulties and objections to it. It is a proposal which I shall further consider with my right
1020
hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.
SIR J. CARMICIIAEL: May I ask whether the Registers at present kept are paid for out of public funds?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I know that in one case the Register is made by the Police Commissioners of a great city, and is presumably paid for out of the public funds. But in other cities the Local Authorities have disbursed private funds for the purpose.

THE STATUE TO LORD LANSDOWNE AT CALCUTTA.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India has observed in the Indian Press that, out of Rs.80,000 required for a statue to Lansdowne at Calcutta, over lis.60,000 have been obtained from 35 Indian Princes an Chiefs, including minors; and whether he has information to show that, in accordance with the Standing Orders on the subject, all political officers have refrained from bringing any pressure to boar upon these Princes and Chiefs in order to obtain these subscriptions?
SIR J. FERGUSSON: May I ask the Under Secretary for India whether it is within his knowledge that the Princes and Chiefs of India are generally anxious to testify their respect towards the Representatives of the Empress, in addition to their regard for them individually; and whether they are not likely to be wounded by a suggestion that their loyal attitude in regard to the matter referred to, as in their large contributions to Imperial defence in the times of Lord Dufferin and Lord Lansdowne, has been due to official pressure?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): I do not feel called upon to enter into the speculative part of the right hon. Baronet's question; but I do not doubt that what he suggests is the feeling among the Princes of India, in regard to all signs of respect for Her Majesty's Representative, is quite correct. I have to say, in answer to the question on the Paper, that the Secretary of State is aware from the Indian Press that a committee has been appointed to collect subscriptions for a

1021
statue to Lord Lansdowne, but be has no other information on the subject.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Has to bear upon the Maharajah of Cashmere and the Maharajah of Gwalior, who is a minor?
MR, GEORGE RUSSELL: I cannot undertake to answer that, but I have no doubt the Secretary of State will inquire into any specific cases which the hon. Baronet may bring to his attention.

THE LEE-METFORD RI FLE.
COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War bow many Lee-Metford rifles are now in England and the Colonies, bow many in India, and how many have to be manufactured to make up the complement which the War Office consider necessary?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): In India there are Lee-Metford rifles for the European troops and a reserve. In the Colonies the Infantry is armed with them, and at home there is an ample supply of arms for the Regulars and the Militia, and a large reserve in addition. It is not desirable in the public interests to answer the question more minutely.
MR. HANBURY: Are all the Regulars at home armed with this rifle now?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is a sufficient supply of the weapon for all the Regulars at home.
MR. HANBURY: Is it not a fact that two or three battalions have not yet received it?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If so, that is because they possess no range at which it can be used.
*MR. WEIR: Have the troops in Scotland been supplied with the rifle?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must ask for notice of that question.

IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-MAINTENANCE OF A SON.
SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the ease of John Henry Swift, a collier, residing at Coedpoeth, near Wrexham, who was ordered to pay 2s. 6d. a week
1022
towards the maintenance of his son in the Chester Industrial School, and having fallen into arrear with such payments to the amount of about £6 was committed by the local Bench of Magistrates to Shrewsbury Prison for two months: whether be is aware that Swift's default in making these payments was caused by his inability to find work in consequence of the strike in the coal trade, and the consequent stoppage of work in the Coedpoeth and neighbouring districts; and that, though a very steady man and anxious to find work, he only earned £2:5s. (id. during the whole of 1893; and whether, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, be can see his way to exercise the discretionary power given to him by the 39th and 40th sections of "The Industrial Schools Act, 18b'6,"of remitting the payment of the above arrears and discharging the man from prison?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AsQUITH,): My attention has been called to this case, and after careful inquiry I learn that the record of the defendant is not a good one, and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot interfere with his term of imprisonment, but I have given instructions that his weekly payment shall be reduced to 1s. 6d.

THE SALE OF CARBOLIC ACID.
MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether The British Medical Journal of 30th December, 1893, was correct in stating that ho had written to Mr. Ernest Hart, Chairman of the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the British Medical Association, in reply to a communication urging protective restrictions on the sale of carbolic acid, and in that reply had promised the serious consideration of the Board; whether he can now state the result of that consideration; and whether he is aware that between the date of his reply to Mr. H art and the 10th of this month 27 deaths from carbolic acid either by suicide or misadventure have been reported by the Press? I desire to supplement the question by asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Coroner of the South West District of London, at the request of a jury sitting on an inquest

1023
on the 20th instant, addressed a letter to the Clerk of the Privy Council urging the necessity for placing carbolic acid in the Schedule of Poisons under the Pharmacy Act; and whether he has seen in this morning's papers the report of a case in which a whole family narrowly escaped poisoning by carbolic acid being poured into the cistern?
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The statement in The British Medical Journal referred to in the question is substantially correct. The imposition of protective restrictions on the sale of carbolic acid is a matter for the Privy Council, and the Board have been in communication on the subject with that Department, who I believe have the matter still under consideration. I have communicated with the Registrar General as to the number of deaths from carbolic acid between the 3rd December and the 17th instant. He is not in a position at present to give this information as regards the country generally; but he states that in Loudon during the period referred to out of a total of 28 deaths from accidental poisoning one was duo to carbolic acid, and out of 97 cases of suicide seven were due to poisoning by this acid. I have no information as to the letter stated to have been addressed to the Clerk of the Council. I have seen the report in the newspaper of the case to which my hon. Friend refers.
MR. PICTON: May we hope that the result of the promised consideration will be the imposition of restrictions on the sale of carbolic acid?
SIR W. FOSTER: That question must be put to the Privy Council.

COLLON POSTAL GRIEVANCE.
DR. D. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he could remedy the grievance of the inhabitants of Collon, County Louth, as evinced in a recent Memorial to him from them, regarding the late hour at which the morning mail is delivered; and whether he will arrange that the mail which arrives in Drogheda in the evening should be delivered at Collon by 7.30 next morning, and also if the return of the mail car to Drogheda could be delayed till 7 o'clock in the evening?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The establishment of a mail car service between Drogheda and Collon in lieu of the existing foot post, which would practically meet the wishes of the Memorialists, is under consideration. Tenders have been called for, and I hope shortly to be in a position to come to a decision in the matter.

RAILWAY RATES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to introduce, next Session, a Bill in pursuance of the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Rates; and, if so, whether be will have regard to the widely-expressed opinion of agriculturists that an appeal should be given against all unreasonable or excessive rates and charges, and not merely in the ease of rates and charges which exceed those made by the Railway Companies in 1892; and whether he will also, in any such legislation, provide a cheap and prompt procedure for deciding cases of preferential rates on foreign produce?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): It will be my duty to introduce a Bill next Session based on the Report of the Select Committee; but it would be very inconvenient, even if it were possible, to state its provisions, and their bearing on the questions to which my hon. Friend refers, before its introduction.
MR. CHANNING: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to promise full consideration to the point raised in the question as well as to the recommendations of the Report?
MR. MUNDELLA: All representations made to me on the question of railway rates will receive full consideration, and, therefore, my promise covers every representation.
MAJOR RASCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything with regard to legislation on preferential rates?
MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir; I can say nothing as to the Bills of next Session. There is legislation as to this matter in the Act of 1888.

DISTURBANCES AT YOZGAT.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate any information with regard to the recent disturbances at Yozgat; whether he is aware that there are at Sivas more than 400 untried Armenian prisoners; and whether inquiries will be made into the circumstances?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OK STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): There was a disturbance on the 12th December, in which one Armenian and two Turks were killed, and other persons wounded. The cause of the disturbance is stated to have been a demonstration of the Mussulman population against the Armenians, and the cause of the demonstration is said to have been the indignation of the Mussulmans at the illtreatment of a Cadi by brigands, whom they supposed to have been Armenians, though we are not aware that this has been proved. A Special Commission was sent from Constantinople to inquire into this affair. There were fresh conflicts on the 1st and 2nd of February, resulting in the death of several persons on both sides. The official account is that these were due to an attack upon the police. Martial Law was proclaimed; but the Order has since been revoked or suspended, and no further troubles have been reported. We have been informed that there are 83 Armenian prisoners untried at Sivas, and Sir A. Nicholson represented to the Grand Vizier about three weeks ago the desirability of having them tried without delay, if there were substantial charges against them.

THE OPERATIONS IN MATABELELAND.
MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the troops acting under the orders of the High Commissioner in South Africa, in the war now going on in Matabeleland, are under the Mutiny Act?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The forces acting under the orders of the High Commissioner in South Africa are
1026
subject to the disciplinary provisions of the Cape Mounted Riflemen Act, 1878. I may add that the forces of the British South Africa Company were also under Ordinance 1, of 1891, subject to the same Act.

ALLEGED CRUELTY BY HIGHLAND SCHOOLMASTERS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the duty of the Procurator Fiscal to deal with cases of alleged cruelty by schoolmasters towards school children in the Highlands of Scot-hind, on such cases being duly reported to him by the parents?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.): In the event of any charge of assault by a schoolmaster upon a pupil, which would constitute a crime, being reported to the Procurator Fiscal, it would be his duty to investigate it, but moderate and reasonable chastisement would not constitute such an assault.

DANGERS OF ELECTRICITY.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a letter in the newspapers by Mr.James Keith, C.E., of 57, Holborn Viaduct, stating that outside the precincts of the Houses of Parliament more than ordinary danger from high tension electric currents has to be faced, seeing the public streets around or near the Legislative Chambers are intersected in almost every direction by underground high voltage electric cables; and what could so easily happen under 2,000 volts in Bournemouth may, under certain conditions, and under a higher voltage, perhaps occur more easily in the streets of London: and whether any effective means of dealing with leakage of high voltage electricity in underground cables have yet been placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade?
MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir. In 1890 the Board of Trade made Regulations which, after consulting the highest scientific authorities, were deemed to be sufficient. If experience shows that any amplification or alteration of these Regulations is desirable they will be amended in the necessary direction.
*MR. WEIR: Is not the high tension system in use around the Houses of

1027
Parliament, and is there not great danger to foot passengers in consequence?
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that according to expert advice there was ample protection for all purposes.

THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called by the Colonial Office to the official journal of the French Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, of the 29th December last, in which there is an official advertisement directing French fishermen who wish to fish on the so-called "French shore" during the next fishing season to register themselves at the Inscription Maritime for fixed places on the coast of Newfoundland; and also to an independent newspaper published in the same islands, of the 4th January of the present year, in the first leading article of which it is stated that the French Government is going to improve the position of the fishermen, in assuring them fixed places on the French shore; whether it is supposed to be the intention of the French Government to itself carry the fishermen to the shore by steamer; whether the Treaty right of France is confined to the drying on shore of the fish caught by Frenchmen in French vessels; whether the proposal to bring the fishermen to the coast, and carry them back again, would constitute a breach of Treaty; and whether Her Majesty's Government will explain in advance, for the purpose of preventing those conflicts which must otherwise arise, that it would be contrary to Treaty for foreign fishermen to live on the strand, or otherwise than on board their ships, and that provisions lauded for them would be liable to the same duties which have to be paid on provisions landed for the use of the inhabitants of the Colony living on the coast?
SIR E. GREY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. In answer to the next three paragraphs, I have to say that the Treaty right of France is defined by the 1oth Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, which limits the rights of the French on the Treaty shore to stages made of boards, and huts necessary and usual for drying fish. According to our information, the pro-
1028
posal now appears to be that a bounty of 50 francs should be given to each fisherman to cover the cost of transport, but not that transport should be furnished. It is a question whether the arrangements contemplated are consistent with Article 5 of the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, and with Article 3 of the British Declaration annexed to that Treaty. The question asked in the first, part of the last paragraph is now under consideration in conjunction with the Law Officers of the Crown; and, with regard to the second part, the Colonial Government have stated that—
"While they have no intention of levying duty on goods brought by French citizens in their fishing vessels solely for the sustenance of the crew during the season, or for use in catching and drying fish, they intend for the future to exercise the right of requiring ail vessels entering Newfoundland ports to conform to the Customs Laws of the Colony, and of collecting duties on all goods imported into the Colony for whatever purpose."'
Her Majesty's Government have communicated this decision to the Government of France, and have at the same time stated that there is no ground for interfering with the Colonial Government in the exercise of this right.

AN INDIAN RAILWAY OFFICIAL'S GRIEVANCE.
ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that Mr. Pudan, a district railway traffic superintendent of 15 years' service on the permanent establishment under the Government of India, when on furlough in this country, was ordered not to return to India on expiration of his leave, and was subsequently served with six weeks' notice to quit the service on the plea of "reduction of establishment"; whether it is a fact that no bona fide reduction was taking place at all, and that there were 48 officers in the Department junior to Mr. Pudan who should have been removed before him if reductions were determined upon; whether Mr. Pudan was subsequently informed, in reply to his remonstrance at such treatment, that unfavourable Reports had been made against him by the Director General of Railway Department in India; whether the Secretary of State declined to furnish Mr. Pudan with particulars of the charges

1029
brought against him, whereby alone ho could defend himself: whether Mr. Pudan's request to be allowed to return to India in order to meet the charges thus brought against him was refused; whether it is a fact that Mr. Pudan was year after year very favourably reported on by all his superiors until the Report in question: whether it is true that Mr. Pudan brought an action against the Secretary of State for wrongful dismissal, and on the eve of the case coming on was paid £1,500 and taxed costs to withdraw the action without prejudice to his claim for increase of pension; whether, on applying in December last for equitable adjustment of his pension, he was informed by letter that he should make his claim upon the Government of India; whether the Secretary of State will direct that the claim of this Civil servant for pension he considered without delay; and whether, in view of the serious loss of family pension from Indian Fund, suffered by Mr. Pudan owing to his dismissal from the Service and detention in this country, the Secretary of State will cause him and his family to be compensated for the great loss thus sustained?
*MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: (1) The answer to the hon. Member's first query is "Yes," with the addition that Mr. Pudan was granted a sum of £100 to compensate him for any loss incurred in consequence of the late period of his leave in this country at which he received notice of the discontinuance of his services in India. (2) A reorganisation of the Rail-way Traffic Establishment was under consideration at the time of Mr. Pudan's retirement. This involved a reduction of the establishment, which was duly carried into effect. Mr. Pudan was retired in anticipation of the scheme being sanctioned. (3) It is open to the Government of India to select such of their officers in the position held by Mr. Pudan as they may choose for retirement on reduction of establishment, and the services of Mr. Pudan were dispensed with in preference to those of officers junior to him. (4) No such intimation WAS made to Mr. Pudan by the India, Office. (5) No charge was brought against Mr. Pudan, his services having been dispensed with on the ground of reduction of establishment. The Secretary of State only declined to
1030
allow Mr. Pudan to proceed to India to resume duty. (6) The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the Reports made on Mr. Pudan by his superiors in India. (7) Mr. Pudan brought an action against the Secretary of State, which has been settled out of Court on the terms stated. (8) Yes. (9) The Secretary of State sees no reason for taking any such action as that indicated in the last two queries.
ADMIRAL FIELD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks it consistent to refuse to allow this official to return to India, and then tell him he may claim a re-adjustment of his pension before the Government of India? How can he do that unless he is allowed to go free?
[The question was not answered.]

THE LOSS OF THE"PORT YARROCK."
*ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the narrative of the late Mr. W. P. Baines, of the ship Port Varrock, 2,175 tons, recently wrecked in Brandon Bay, near Tralee, wherein it is alleged that the ship was grossly undermanned, with only seven A. B. 's, two ordinary (one of whom had never been to sea before), and six apprentices, of whom Mr. Baines only had been to sea before, and that in consequence of such undermauning the crew suffered great hardships from overwork: and that it is also alleged that the ship was not properly provisioned; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to whether the ship was manned and provisioned as described, and if such was the case, will he institute proceedings at law against the owners?
MR. MUNDELLA: In answer to a similar question last week, I informed the House that my attention had been called to the circumstances of the case referred to in the question, and that I had ordered a full and formal inquiry to be held. Until the Report of this inquiry has been received, I think it only right that I should defer answering the supplemental question of the hon. and gallant Member.
MR. J. G. LAWSON: Will the relatives of the crew be allowed to be represented at the inquiry?
ME. MUNDELLA: That is entirely a question for the Court.

PUBLIC WORKS AT DOMINICA.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Kerry, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Colonel Sir A. Macworth, R.E., has reported adversely on the public works undertaken in the Island of Dominica under loan; and, if so, whether the Governor of the Leeward Islands will be held responsible for the expenditure; and whether, in connection with the finances of Dominica, a large floating debt has been incurred by the Governor without any vote of the Local Legislature; and, if so, whether the Governor has exceeded his functions in this matter?
MR. S. BUXTON: It is possible that this may be one of the points that will be dealt with by Sir R. Hamilton in his Report, not yet received; so meanwhile I would ask my hon. Friend to let the matter stand over.

THE LEEWARD ISLANDS.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received a resolution of the Federal Council of the Leeward Islands suggesting the continuance in office of the present Governor for a further term of years; if he is aware that the resolution was passed in a council composed of six paid officials, four nominees of the Crown, and three elected members; whether any section of the population of the Colony has at any previous time petitioned for the removal or promotion of the Governor; and what is the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the subject?
MR. S. BUXTON: The resolution referred to has been received by the Secretary of State. A Despatch in reply will go out by Tuesday's mail; and it would be against the usual and proper practice to state the contents of a Despatch until it is received in the Colony.

POST OFFICE SURVEYORS.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is a fact
1032
that great delays have occurred in filling up vacancies in the surveying branch of the Secretary's office of the General Post Office; and, if he can state the reason for such delays?
*MR. A. MORLEY: I think that the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension. In the Surveyors' establishment, which, I may observe, is quite distinct from the Secretary's office, there is no more than one vacancy; and this occurred only a few weeks ago.

REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES IN IRELAND.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of applications made by tenants to have the holdings they have purchased registered under "The Local Registration of Title Act, 1891"; whether he can specify the numbers, by counties, in which such registration has been completed; and when it is expected that all such registration will be finished; and whether, as the Land Certificate to be issued, after the title has been registered, takes the place of the former vesting order, and is to be retained by the Land Commission until the entire advance has been repaid by the tenant, a copy, free of cost, will be supplied to each tenant who has purchased his holding, prior to the passing of the said Act?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,) (for Mr. J. MORLEY): It appears from a Report which has been made by the Registrar of Titles, that the total number of holdings which have been registered to the present date is 9,568. In all cases where the Land Commission applied for registration of the title, they supplied, free of charge, a copy of the Land Certificate to the tenant purchaser, whether he purchased prior or subsequently to the passing of the Act, and in all other cases a copy free of charge was also furnished on application. The work connected with the registration of titles has been undoubtedly slow, but, apparently, unavoidably slow, and I understand that the point is one into which the Select Committee to be appointed to inquire as to the working of the Land Acts will examine.

WAGES AT THE LONDON SMALL ARMS COMPANY'S WORKS.
MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the piece-work rates paid for Government work by the London Small Arms Company, at How, are less than the rates current for similar work in Government Establishments: and whether the undertaking given by the company in August last, that the prices to which the men and boys engaged in the factory are entitled shall be placed in such a position as to make them accessible to everybody concerned, has been observed?
*THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL, Hanley) (who replied)said: The processes of manufacture in the factory of the London Small Arms Company differs much in many of their stages from those in the Government factories, and it is scarcely possible to make a reliable comparison as to the rates of wages paid. As far as I can ascertain, the undertaking given in August last has been fairly carried out.
MR. MAC DONALD: Is the notice really posted up at the works as required?
MR. WOODALL: What the Government insisted upon was that the price lists should be placed in such a position as to be accessible to every one in the service of the company, and I find that they are all in a book to which access is allowed. The rates of wages are made out by the foremen, and the money is paid direct to the men without the intervention of a third person.
MR. MACDONALD: Is there any objection to the prices being posted up in the works so as to preclude the necessity of the men having to apply to see the book?
*MR. WOODALL: I have no objection to make the proposition, but I am told that the prices are so numerous as to render it a very inconvenient course.

UNIQUE LETTER WRITING LESSONS.
SIR H. ROSCOE (Manchester, S.): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a letter has been forwarded to him written, by the direction of the teacher, by a child in St. Stephen's
1034
Girls' School, Chorlton-on-Medlock, asking her parents to pay subscriptions instead of -the school fees which have been remitted; whether he can give the terms of the letter; and whether the writing of such letter is sanctioned by the Department?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): A letter has been forwarded to me, which, I am informed, was written by a girl in this school by order of the teacher. This girl, who, I presume, goes home every day, appeals to her parents by letter asking them for subscriptions instead of school fees which have been remitted. It runs as follows: —
"St Stephen's Girls',
C.-on-M., Fob. 9th, 1894
"My dear Parents,—I have much pleasure in stating that the managers of our school propose to remit the school fees, in my standard, until the end of the school year—that is, until March 31, 1894.
Some time ago the managers made a special appeal to you, in common with other parents, to assist them in raising a fund to carry out some important and necessary alterations in the school premises.
This appeal has not met with as liberal a response as they could have wished, owing, perhaps, to the season of commercial depression which has been passing over us for some time. With a view to increase the amount already raised towards the alteration fund, and to give us. the children, a personal interest in the matter, the managers desire that we may have an opportunity of paying into this fund the amount we should have paid in school fees.
If you kindly agree to this proposal, please write "Yes" across the front of this letter, and return it on Monday morning next. I am, your loving (laugher.
"FLORENCE WARD."
Practice in letter writing is a very useful part of school work; but to make children copy out what is really a circular soliciting subscriptions for the school seems to me to be a very undesirable proceeding. I will make further inquiry into the case.
MR DODD: What is the writing like?
MR. ACLAND: Oh, very good. I should think it is the writing of a child about 10 or 11 years old.

SUPERVISION IN THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to

1035
the costly supervision in the Central Telegraph Office Counter and Delivery Offices; whether in the one the clerical staff number 12, and in the other 7; and whether, having regard to the decrease in the number of messages dealt with, and the smallness of the staff supervised, he will take steps to utilise the service of one of the supervisors elsewhere, and so lighten the public cost?
MR. A. MORLEY: The question of the hon. Member relates to certain details of Office management which cannot, I think, be conveniently dealt with in this House. I have, however, satisfied myself that it would not be wise to make such a reduction as is suggested in the number of supervising officers at the Central Telegraph Office Counter and Delivery Offices.

TOBACCO DEALERS IN BOMBAY.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been drawn to a Petition, dated 30th of November last, from the retail tobacco dealers of Bombay to the Bombay Government, in which they complain that persons charged with offences against the Rules and Regulations issued under the Tobacco Act IV. of 1857 are tried by officers of the Customs Department; that Petitioners are refused copies of the Rules and Regulations under which they are tried; that these trials are not held in public; and that the persons accused are not allowed to be represented by their legal advisers; and whether the Secretary of State will direct that copies of the said Rules and Regulations be supplied to Petitioners, and will advise the Bombay Government to amend the Act of 1857, so that offences under it may be tried by the ordinary tribunals under the usual sanctions?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Secretary of State has not seen the Petition described in the question. Offences under Act IV. of 1857 are triable by any Magistrate in Bombay; and any judicial act done by such Magistrate is subject to appeal to, and control by, the Superior Courts and the High Court of Bombay. The Secretary of State does not, as at present advised, see reason for action in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend: but he will
1036
forward a copy of my hon. Friend's question and of the present reply to the Bombay Government for any observations they may desire to offer on the subject.

FEES FOR SCHOOL BOOKS.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can inform the House of any case, before 1891, in which the Department warned managers of schools that they could not compel the parents of a child to pay for school books, except on the plea of poverty, or for some other reasonable excuse; whether, in the fee-paying schools, where in the determining year the payment for books was added to the school fee and merged, the parents have a right now to deduct the amount which represents the payment for books; whether, if the parents refuse to pay the full merged fee, the managers are or are not entitled to refuse admission to the child; and whether he will state the course which the Department advise should be adopted by the managers of those fee-paying schools, where, on the assurance of the Department that a book fee might still be charged in addition to an instruction fee, the fees were not merged in the determining year?
MR. ACLAND: In reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I may say that the Education Department informed the correspondent of the Clipston Church of England School, Northamptonshire, on the 1oth August, 1888, that they did not consider the managers would be justified in refusing admission to hildren whose parents were unwilling to pay for school books. Letters in similar terms have been addressed to both Board and Voluntary Schools. I must add that, as I have already pointed out more than once, the Code has, since 1890, obliged managers to furnish their schools with all needful books and apparatus. I informed the hon. Member, on the 27th December last, that fees for the use of books in the determining year have been added to the other fees, for the purpose of calculating the fee allowable under the Act of 1891, in all schools which had made the claim. If there are any which have not yet made it, they may still do so.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Manchester School Board, in one of their schools, charge fees for school hooks and yet receives the Government Grant for that school? Is that not contrary to the Rule of the Department?
MR. ACLANDwas understood to reply that the fees, if charged prior to the decision of the Department, could he continued, hut it was not now possible to compel children to pay any fees for hooks at all.

SALT PROVISIONS FOR SHIPS.
MR. RENSHAW (Renfrew. W.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the recapping with salt or the renewing of the pickle of casks of salt provisions, in accordance with the instructions of an Inspector under "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1892,"prior to same being passed by him for ships use, constitutes a, technical rejection of the entire parcel submitted for inspection; and whether the list of inspected, passed, and rejected stores, detailed in the Letter of the Board of Trade to the Chairman of the Chamber of Shipping of date 1st, February, 1891, was compiled on this basis, and, if so, how many of the 65.'! tierces of beef under new stores, and 450 tierces under surplus stores, also of the 345 casks of pork under new stores, and 348 under surplus stores, returned therein as rejected, were technical rejections in the sense referred to?
MR. MUNDELLA: In cases where the pickle on salt provisions was had, or where an insufficient quantity of salt was in the casks, the parcel was rejected. In the list; sent to the Chamber of Shipping such rejections were included and were as follows:—New beef, 149 tierces: surplus beef, 209 tierces; new pork, 87 barrels: surplus pork, 185 barrels.

POOR LAW STATUTES AND ORDERS— CONSOLIDATION.
MR. ROUNDELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is prepared to take steps for consolidating the Statutes relating to the Poor Law, as well as the Orders of the Local Government Board, relating to the administration of the Poor Law? I may further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to issue,
1038
in a cheap form, separately, the several Orders relating to the duties of Poor Law Officers, which at present can only be obtained by purchase at considerable cost in the aggregate?
*THE PRESIDENT OK THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): I propose to communicate with the Statute Law Revision Committee with the view of ascertaining whether the preparation of a Bill to consolidate the Acts relating to the Poor Law would be practicable. These Acts arc, however, very numerous. The Local Government Board have under consideration proposals in relation to the consolidation of the Poor Law Orders. It is the custom of the Board on the application of any Poor Law Officer to furnish him with copies of the Orders which contain provisions relating to his duties. As regards some Officers, the Board have caused extracts to he made from the Orders and separately printed, so far as they relate to the duties of these Officers. I shall be happy to consider whether this practice may not be extended.

MOORGATE STREET STATION.
MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the dangerous condition of the structure known as Moorgate Street Station, owned by the Metropolitan Railway Company; whether he is aware that the said Railway Company has recently been summoned to the Guildhall for allowing certain portions of the said station to be in a dangerous condition; whether he is aware that the glass roofing of a considerable portion of the said station has had to be removed because it was dangerous; and would he state what steps he is prepared to take in the interest of public safety?
MR. MUNDELLA: I have seen a report of the proceedings at the Guildhall Police Court, wherein it is stated that the station in question is to be pulled down, and that the roof is condemned as a dangerous structure. The Order was made for the necessary work to be completed in 14 days. No representation whatever has been made to me on the subject.

SEAMEN'S EYESIGHT.
DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board has yet decided upon the new Regulations for the efficient examination of the eyesight of seamen; and, if so, whether, in the proposed new system of examination, any provision has been made for determining that every successful candidate possesses satisfactory acuteness of vision for distant objects as well as proper colour sense; and whether the Board is now able to lay before Parliament the Correspondence which has taken place between the Board and the Railway Companies as regards testing the eyesight of railway servants?
MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade have decided upon the new Regulations for testing the eyesight of seamen. They will be issued shortly, and will contain provisions for testing form vision as well as colour vision. The correspondence to which the hon. Member refers is in print, and will be presented forthwith.

HARBOUR ACCOMMODATION IN THE MORAY FIRTH.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, looking to the destructive effect of recent gales, and to the fact that the clauses of the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill relating to fishery harbours have failed to become law, what early steps the Government will take to provide adequate harbour accommodation along the Moray Firth, in order to protect the lives and property of the fishing population?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Fishery Board, since their creation in 1882, have assisted in the construction and extension of eight harbour works on the east coast of Scotland, of which three are situated on the coast of Banffshire. The surplus accruing from the annual statutory grant of £3,000 at the disposal of the Board is at present pretty well exhausted, and I can only say that, as soon as some of the works now in hand are completed, due consideration will be given to the claims of the Moray Firth, along with the claims of other parts of the east coast of Scotland. The large expenditure which would be required for making a harbour
1040
of refuge, even under a careful scheme such as the hon. Member has brought under my notice, would require a special grant from the Treasury, unless it could be provided for by mortgaging the annual grant to the Fishery Board, which can only be done after fresh legislation.

FACTION FIGHTS IN ARMAGH.
MR. BARTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the evening of Saturday the 17th instant, at about 6 o'clock, in the County of Armagh, a Protestant band, principally composed of lads belonging to the parishes of Grange and Allcrstragh, was stopped by a hostile crowd which was brought together by the blowing of horns, and was armed with scythes, billhooks, spades, shovels, and other weapons, and that the members of the Protestant band were commanded by persons in the crowd not to proceed on their way from Grange to Allerstragh; whether it is true that the members of the Protestant baud, having remonstrated and asserted their right to proceed on their way, were attacked and driven back by the crowd; whether he is aware that in the conflict which ensued four members of the Protestant band and one of the attacking party were seriously wounded, and other persons sustained injuries, and that the Protestant baud, when stopped and commanded to turn back, was playing music of a non-Party character, and proceeding by the shortest public way from Grange to Allerstragh; and what steps the Government propose to take to protect the freedom of the highway in the district?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): It is a fact that on the day mentioned an affray took place in the locality referred to, in the course of which several members of each party received injuries, none of which, however, as I am informed by the police, were of a serious character. The Irish Government has directed proceedings to be instituted against a number of persons on each side, and, pending the investigation of the case, the hon. and learned Gentleman will, I feel sure, agree with me that it would be improper to enter into further details, or express an opinion on the subject.

NEWTOWNBUTLER MAGISTERIAL BENCH.
MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.): On behalf of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Magisterial Bench in New town butler, County Fermanagh; whether, in view of the fact that on the last Petty Sessions day, 20th instant, a number of people were greatly disappointed that their cases could not be gone into on account of there being no Magistrate to deal with them, he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter, so that some of the long-promised appointments to the Bench in this district may be made at once; whether he is aware that the Lord Chancellor has had a number of names submitted for his consideration some time ago; and whether he is aware that in this district, although Catholics form one-half of the population, they have hitherto been excluded from the Magistracy?
MR. BRVCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): A Report has been called for in reference to this question; but as it has not yet been received, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat the question on a, future day.

FREE TELEGRAMS FOR RAILWAY COMPANIES.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the present position of the negotiations with the Railway Companies for limiting the increase in the number of telegrams which the companies are entitled to send over the public telegraphs free of charge; and whether the arrangement with the Midland and the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Companies, announced by the Postmaster General on the 27th February, 1893, has now been adopted by the companies generally; and, if not, whether, in fairness to the companies which have come to terms, as well as in the interests of the public, he will take steps to ensure an early and complete settlement of the question?
*MR. A. MORLEY: Since the date of my reply to my right hon. Friend's question of last February, several important Railway Companies have entered into agreements similar to that concluded
1042
with the Midland and the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Companies. Amongst these companies are the following:—The Great Northern; the Lancashire and Yorkshire; the Loudon and Southwestern; the London, Brighton, and South Coast; the London, Chatham, and Dover; the North British; the Hierh-land; and the Great North of Scotland. Negotiations are pending with the London and North Western, the Great Western, and other large companies; but I regret to say that these companies have not yet seen their way to accept such terms as I have felt able, in justice to the public interests, to offer. I think, with my right hon. Friend, that it would not be fair to the companies which have entered into agreements on the subject that a settlement with the other companies should be indefinitely postponed. But I trust that a spirit of accommodation will prevail on the part of these companies, and that exceptional measures for the protection of the Public Revenue will not become necessary.
SIR J. FERGUSSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return of the names of the companies standing out, as well as the figures showing the great increase in the number of free messages?
*MR. A. MOKLEY: If my right hon. Friend will speak to mo on the subject I will consider the suggestion.
ME. J. E.ELLIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking slops to put pressure on the companies?
MR. A. MORLEY: I have no power except by negotiation, and I have done my best in that direction.

NEW PROCEDURE FOR PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now see his way to making arrangements for economising the time of this House at the commencement of next Session by taking the ballot for Notices of Private Members' Bills and (if possible) the formal presentation of such Bills in some other manner than that hitherto customary?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I regard the object of my hon. Friend's question with very great sympathy, and I hope that some-

1043
thing may be done. But I need hardly point out that the authority in this matter does not rest with me. On seeing the question on the Paper I thought it my duty immediately to communicate with the Chair, and I believe I am permitted to appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, upon this occasion, and to request you to state how far you may think it possible for the House, without any inconvenience, to go in the direction indicated in the inquiry.
*MR. SPEAKER: I was not aware that it would fall to me to answer the question directly, but of course I have considered it, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to communicate with me upon the subject. I think there will be no difficulty in the first stage, that of the ballot, for the introduction of Bills. The ballot might take place outside this House, whereby from one to two hours of the time of the House will be saved. With reference to the further question, as to whether it would he possible to extend the same arrangement to the Motion for Leave and the First Reading of Bills when the date is named for Second Reading, I think the fixing the date of Second Reading should take place in the open House. The proceedings on the Order of Leave and on the First Reading are each the act of the House, and I am bound by the Standing Orders. It is obviously very important for hon. Members who wish to choose a clear day to know what date has been fixed for the Second Reading of Bills appointed before their own is called on, and the utmost publicity should be given to that fact. Subject, therefore, to the approval of the House, I propose to carry out the first part of the arrangement, which may be done in the Committee Rooms upstairs, where a sufficient number of clerks might attend for the purpose of duly carrying out what I understand to be the wish of the House.

SCOTTISH LEGISLATION.
DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the expediency of introducing next Session a Bill to entitle Scotland to manage and control her local affairs; whether he is aware that many Scotsmen and Scottish Members believe that this would be a preferable way of dealing with Scottish business to its
1044
devolution on a Grand Committee of this House; and, seeing the backward state of Scottish legislation and the congested condition of the Imperial Parliament, he will devise some speedy way out of the difficulty?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is somewhat too early for any Member of the Government to undertake to give a binding engagement as to the Bills to be introduced in the coming Session by the Government, but as to this particular Bill I have only two things to say. I do not think that any prospect of the introduction of such a Bill on the responsibility of the Government could with propriety be held out, and I may also remind my hon. Friend that we are distinctly pledged to bring under the notice of the House of Commons—I hope the favourable notice—a plan for giving more effective consideration to Scotch measures by referring them to a Grand Committee constituted for the purpose. But as the Bill indicated, I cannot hold out any expectation; and I have not yet had any evidence laid before me, as stated by my hon. Friend, that such a measure is desired by any large number of Scotch Members.
DR. MACGREGOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there is a limit to the patience even of long-suffering Scotchmen?
[No answer was returned.]
MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire,): May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will give the same advantage to Welsh measures as he has promised to Scotch?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should be very glad indeed, after we have seen what practical progress can be made with Scotch measures, to consider what better provision may be made for Welsh measures, for it will be felt that the claims of Wales should not be left to stand in a worse position.
MR. TOMLINSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the claims of every nationality except one appear to have been favourably considered by the Government, whether he is going to make similar provision for English Bills?
[No answer was returned.]

REGISTERS OF UNEMPLOYED.
SIR J. CARMICHAEL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is prepared to take steps to enable Local Authorities in England and Wales to institute Registers of the unemployed, either in connection with the offices of the Registrars of Births Deaths, and Marriages, or otherwise?
MR. H. H. FOLWER: The Local Government Board have no power to enable Local Authorities in England and Wales to institute Registers of the unemployed. So far as the Registrars of Births, Deaths, and Marriages are concerned, their duties are limited to the execution of the Acts under which they are appointed, and they are paid for the discharge of these duties by foes. There is no provision under which they could be paid for keeping Registers of the unemployed, and, apart from this, I learn from the Registrar General that in his opinion the task of keeping such a Register is not one which could generally be undertaken by these officers.

INDIAN LAND RECORDS.
SIR J. GORST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government has forwarded to the Secretary of State a Report of the proceedings of the recent Conference at Calcutta on the maintenance of land records, with a Minute or Despatch recommending any scheme for Bengal or other Province; if so, whether, before deciding on any such recommendation, the Secretary of State will afford the landholders and tenants whose interests will be affected an opportunity to consider the Report and recommendations, and state their views or objections?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has reached the Secretary of State, and will be considered by him in Council. The landholding class were represented at the Conference; and the Secretary of State cannot undertake to postpone the consideration of this matter, on which an early decision is desirable, for the purpose indicated in the right hon. Gentleman's question.

ILLEGAL FISHING IN THE LOWER SHANNON.
MR. MAGUIRE (Clare, W.): I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mr. Hall, Inspector to the Limerick Board of Conservators, swore at the late inquiry at Kilrush, held by the Inspectors Irish Fisheries, that out of 44 or 45. weirs in the Lower Shannon only two or three were fished legally: and what is the reason that those who fish these weirs illegally are not prosecuted; and whether he is aware that the above-named Inspector also swore at the same inquiry that weir owners were fined over £600 last season; and, if so, on what grounds were these fines reduced to an almost nominal sum?
MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): I am informed that the Inspector to the Limerick Board of Conservators did make the statements referred to, and that throughout the year 1893 the Conservators themselves instituted proceedings in several cases for illegal fishing of the weirs. With respect to the second paragraph, the mitigation of penalties in cases in which application is made in this regard rests with the Lord Lieutenant, who, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, and after consultation with the Local Justices who had expressed their approval of a reduced penalty in each case, made an order to this effect accordingly.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR ARMY OFFICERS.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the allowance of 61 days' leave of absence per annum to Staff and Departmental Army officers includes all leave of absence to which these officers are entitled; whether this Order is obeyed; whether regimental officers are under the same Order; and is it correct that any officers take from 90 to 100 days' absence per annum?
*MR. CAMRBELL-BANNERMAN: The 61 days include all the leave to which the officers are entitled with pay, and the Regulation is strictly enforced. Regimental officers are not under the same Order, and under special circumstances officers occasionally obtain longer leave.

POOR BELIEF AND THE DISQUALIFICATION OF ELECTORS.
MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the receipt of food or drink supplied by a relieving officer of a Union, by order of a district medical officer, to a Parliamentary or local government elector, renders him liable to be struck off such Registers of electors?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have no power to decide the question put by my hon. Friend, but I am advised that the receipt of food or drink supplied by a relieving officer on the recommendation of a district medical officer having authority to give such recommendation would not deprive a person of his right to be registered or to vote as a Parliamentary or local government elector.
MR. STRACHEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a Circular to Boards of Guardians requesting them to instruct their relieving officers accordingly?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is not a question for relieving officers; it rests with the Revising Barristers.

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS REPORT.
MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick's): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received the Bovine Tuberculosis Report; and, if not, when it may be expected?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have not as yet received the Report referred to, but I am informed that the work of the Commission is being pressed forward with all possible speed, and that the Report will shortly be issued.

THE WATERFORD AND LIMERICK MAILS.
MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the evening mail from Loudon and England generally reaches Limerick Junction at 9.52 a.m. on the following day, and is brought from thence to Tipperary by a Limerick and Waterford Railway train—another line; and that if the mail train from Dublin is late, as frequently happens, the Waterford and Limerick train departs without the letters, and the inhabitants do not receive their letters until two or
1048
three hours later; and whether, in such a case, the Post Office will go to the small expense of a car from Limerick Junction to Tipperary with the letters?
MR. A. MORLEY: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member calls attention, and I have given directions for a mail car to be used from Limerick Junction to Tipperary in future, when a serious delay of the mails would be avoided thereby?

BETTING ON RACECOURSES.
MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the observations made by Mr. Justice Hawkins, in the course of a trial at the Leicester Assizes, on Tuesday, the 13th instant, on the immunity of betting rings on racecourses; and whether he will consider if any change in the law is needed in order to put a stop to the practices condemned by the learned Judge, or, if the law is at present able to deal with the evil, whether he will consider how to quicken its operation in accordance with the declaration of Mr. Justice Hawkins, who is reported by The Leicester Daily Post, of Wednesday, to have said—
"When I hear this sort of thing is done, and done openly, and is permitted by the people who take gate money, I can only say that some day or other some people will find themselves in trouble."
MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to these observations, and I have been in correspondence with the learned Judge. I have no reason to think that the law is insufficient; but I think it better that it should be left to the Local Authorities, who have fuller means of knowledge than I can possess as to the circumstances of particular places, to use their discretion as to the cases in which it should be actively set in motion.

THE WORCESTER MEDICAL OFFICER.
MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the medical officer at Worcester, Dr. Read, was during the past year very ill and incapacitated for months by blood poisoning, setting in within six days after re-vaccination by himself with calf lymph, also that the

1049
doctor accounts for the blood poisoning by some microbe from the external air entering at the place of vaccination; has inquiry been made whence the virus with which the calf was inoculated came and what it was: and is it possible to guarantee the vaccinated against similar microbes?
SIR W. FOSTER: I learn from Dr. Read that about a year ago he suffered for three months from inflammation of the left arm, shoulder, and side, and that the inflammation commenced on the seventh day subsequent to re-vaccination of his arm with calf lymph obtained in the ordinary way from one of the vendors of this article. Dr. Read attributes his illness to the entrance of some extraneous microbic infection to his system at the place of revaccination, at a late stage of the vaccination process. Dr. Read has not thought it necessary to make inquiry about the calf lymph in question, as he does not regard his illness as in any way directly related to the lymph, and, moreover, other persons vaccinated by him with the same lymph suffered no illness whatever. It is obviously impossible to guarantee persons against the entrance to any wound of microbes which may happen to be diffused in the atmosphere.

COUNTY JUSTICES RETURN.
MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether the Return as to County Justices appointed since 5th May, 1893, will be presented in time to be printed by the commencement of the next Session?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): No, Sir; but I will hasten the preparation of it so far as I can.

THE BRITISH REVERSE IN WEST AFRICA.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government has any further news with regard to the reverse which has occurred to a naval expedition in West Africa; and whether there is any truth in the statement of the evening papers that a second reverse has occurred, with further loss of life?
*THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH,): All the information which can be given has been communicated to the newspapers, including the deplorable facts as to the loss of life. One further death has occurred, that of a man whose name is Underbill. With one exception, that is all I have to communicate. With reference to the last part of the question of the noble Lord, I have to say that, so far as the Admiralty are aware, there is no truth in the rumour of a second reverse at a place called Gunjur. The second party was merely reconnoitring the ground for a favourable place for landing. We feel assured that there is no truth in the rumour.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the Government have in contemplation to move certain Amendments on Clause 9 of the Local Government Bill. My hon. Friend on my right made inquiries at the Vote Office in order to get those Amendments, but he failed; thus we are put to considerable disadvantage. I should be glad to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can suggest any means by which the inconvenience can be avoided?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I understand that it is not usual to circulate Amendments to Lords Amendments at this stage, but I can appreciate the difficulty. When I come to Clause 9 I will endeavour to explain the only substantial Amendment that we propose. There are a large number of Amendments which are of a purely drafting character, and which have been made with the knowledge, and I think I may say with the concurrence, of those who were responsible for the Amendments in another place. Meantime, I am happy now to place in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman a print of the Amendments. I expect further prints down shortly.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Lords Amendments, to the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments, and Consequential Amendments to the Bill, and Lords Reasons, considered.
  Lords Amendment—
  In page 1, line 10, proposed in lieu of the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed—namely, after the word "upwards," to insert the words "Provided that in every parish having a population of more than 200, but less than 500, the parish meeting may pass a resolution that there shall be no Parish Council in that parish, and such resolution until rescinded shall have effect,"
  the first Amendment, read a second time.
  *THE PEES1DENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr.H. H. FOWLER,): The first Amendment which comes back to this House is also the first Amendment which was sent up to the House of Lords last week. The House will recollect that originally the Government proposed to limit the population above which Parish Councils should be compulsory to 200. The House of Lords altered the 200 into 500, and the point was again considered by the House of Commons, which by a very large majority determined to adhere to the limit of 200. The House of Lords did not insist upon their Amendment, but proposed another course. They now propose that parishes having a population of more than 200 and less than 500 may pass a resolution saying they will not have a Parish Council. In other words, the alternative before us a few days ago was that parish meetings might pass resolutions to obtain Parish Councils, and if they did not. pass these resolutions they were not to have them. The effect of this Amendment is that, having got Parish Councils, they may pass resolutions to get rid of them. I have no doubt that very acute minds may discern some difference between the two proposals, but, to my mind, the difference is very minute and inappreciable. The introduction of a novel principle of legislation—after the House has enacted that Parish Councils should be conferred upon populations of 200, then to limit the number by providing that populations between 200 and 500 may rid themselves of the enactment by passing a resolution— is one which I hope the House will not agree to. A very powerful speech was delivered on this point by a noble and learned Lord who has not hitherto been distinguished for his favourable appreciation of the Bill. I regret that the speech was not reported more fully in the newspapers.
  1052
  I allude to Lord Selborne, who pointed out with very great force the disadvantages of government by parish meetings and by committees of parish meetings as compared with the simpler, more effective, and, as I venture to think, more economical mode of governing by Parish Councils. I must ask the House to-adhere to the limit of 200, and to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,.
  "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I regret the speech which the right, hon. Gentleman has delivered, and I regret the decision to which the speech was germane. It appears to me the right hon. Gentleman might have done us the honour of attempting to prove the main propositions connected with the merits of the case he has laid before us. He has told us that, in his opinion, the government by Parish Councils was—I forget exactly the adjectives which he quoted from Lord Selborne — more effective, more simple, and more economical. But whether it is more effective and more simple—[Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Yes, more effective and simple.] Yes, and more economical. What we have always alleged is that it is not, and cannot be, more economical; and although he has referred in a somewhat airy manner to this subject, I do not recollect one single Debate in which he or any one of his colleagues have addressed themselves to the task of demonstrating that government by Parish Councils will confer on the population an economical administration. He relies to-day on his mere ipse dixit in that matter; and I do not believe there is a single gentleman, whether in favour of the Lords Amendment or against it, who is prepared to get up and say that he has grounds to believe that the complex machinery of this Bill is likely to lead to economy. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that his mind is not subtle enough to distinguish between the Amendment originally sent down and its revised form. There is the whole difference, which lies between the burden of proof being put on one party or the other party. I do not wish Tolabour a point which we have dealt with more than once in this House; but

  1053
  I question whether agricultural Members on the other side of the House can be found to get up and say that they believe in their hearts that in the ease of small and scattered parishes under 500 this particular method of administration by a Parish Council will be one which will lead to general economy of administration. The Government have never fully realised what is the chief danger which gentlemen on this side of the House fear from this Bill. I have never pretended that I thought it would lead to anything like tyranny, or oppression, or spoliation; but I do believe that at this moment the heaviest burden under which the agricultural community is labouring is the burden of the rates, and I believe that this Bill must unquestionably increase that burden. I cannot understand on what ground the Government refuses to come to some arrangement on this matter. Certainly the House of Lords, in dealing with this Bill, have not shown themselves unduly anxious to force their opinion on this House, or to do anything which would give a legitimate excuse to any man to say that they contributed in the smallest degree to spoil this measure. It appears to me that they have done the very minimum that ought to be thrown upon a Second Chamber, whatever its constitution, in dealing with a measure of this importance; and I am altogether at a loss to understand why the Government, who do not pretend even now that this is an interference with liberty—who have dropped the argument which figured so largely in our previous Debates, that the tyranny of some class or classes in a parish would be able to coerce the general inhabitants of the district into depriving themselves of the blessings they pined for—having dropped those arguments, and having seen their futility—in fact, having dropped the whole of the original case— I am unable to understand how it is that the Government find it impossible to meet the views we have so earnestly pressed upon them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite look—and I think they are quite right in looking—to the interest of the rural labouring population as an important factor in determining the course they ought to pursue; but surely common sense will dictate to men who profess to be regulated by common sense, that when you are starting a new experiment of this
  1054
  kind it is well to conciliate as far as possible all sections of opinion among those who have to administer the Act. They must know that in many cases the country farmers, if not in the least opposed to the granting of these powers, are, nevertheless, deeply and justly alarmed at the probable increase of their already overwhelming burdens; and I should have supposed that hon. Gentlemen would have been glad of any plan by which those fears might be allayed, provided that plan be of a kind which cannot in anyway touch the principle of the Bill. These are reasons which I venture to address to the Statesmanship on the other side of the House. I ask them not to do anything to destroy their Bill or to interfere with the privileges or autonomous powers they propose to confer on the rural population. I ask them to conciliate a large class which will have to do with the administration of this measure; to give a much-needed elasticity to the machinery they are setting in motion: and to show in this substantial measure the sympathy which they have with the burdens which already weigh so heavily upon our rural districts.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOUKT,): There is one circumstance to which the right hon. Gentleman has not called attention which I think is worthy of reflection by the House, and that is the attitude taken up on this question by the majority of the House of Commons and the extent of the majority in the House of Lords. As my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill has stated, the previous Amendment, which was practically the same thing as that now before us, was rejected in this House by a large majority—I think I may say by double the normal majority of the Government.-That is the situation upon a subject to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches so much importance. He appeals to the Statesmanship on this side of the House yet that appeal was not responded to by a great number of gentlemen not among the ordinary supporters of the Government in the House of Lords, for Lord Salisbury, the commander of an enormous majority in the House of Lords, appealed to the Statesmanship of the House of Lords upon this very question, and Lord Salisbury upon this question had against

  1055
  him so large a number of gentlemen—I should say noblemen; I beg pardon— who habitually support Lord Salisbury in that House and oppose the Government that Lord Salisbury, the commander of so many legions, secured a majority of 13 only, about one-tenth part of his normal majority. Therefore, upon this question, which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward as a high question of statesmanship, the situation is this—(hat in the House of Commons the Government are supported by double their normal majority, and in the House of Lords Lord Salisbury is abandoned by nine-tenths of his normal majority. That is the situation upon this question which the right hon. Gentleman says so deeply concerns the farmers of England. Among those gentlemen who are not supporters of the Government, on this question of statesmanship we had the almost unexampled advantage of three Lukes supporting us against this statesmanlike Amendment of Lord Salisbury's—the Dukes of Devonshire, Grafton, and Westminster. We had even a supply of Marquesses, and the Earls who did not support the Amendment were so numerous that they secured to us the extraordinary advantage in a Division of 76 against 89. And, without mentioning more names, I may say this—that the number of noblemen, Members of the House of Lords, belonging to what is called the Liberal Unionist Party went almost in a body against Lord Salisbury upon this Amendment, and among its opponents there are also the names of many noblemen habitually recognised as most faithful Members of the Conservative Party. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that this House of Commons, which, by an overwhelming majority, has declared in favour of the Bill as it; went up to the House of Lords, can accept an Amendment which has been so weakly supported in the House of Lords by the supporters of Lord Salisbury? Without attempting to argue with the followers of the right hon. Gentleman — [Opposition cheers.] Well, I will put it in this way: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot convince the Dukes of Devonshire and Westminster on this subject, he is not likely to convince us. If he cannot convince his own Party, and that powerful section upon which his Party relies in this House and
  1056
  out of it, it is not the least likely he can convince us. If all the bogus fears and alarms of which he has spoken have had no effect upon these noblemen, the right hon. Gentleman surely cannot imagine that we, who have expressed our views on this subject over and over again, are likely to alter them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not attempt to continue the contest in this matter, seeing that Lord Salisbury has had such a doubtful success upon it in another place.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he deeply regretted the Government were not disposed to listen to so moderate and' rational an Amendment. It had at least three important points to recommend it—-namely, that it was in favour of liberty, of local option, of which gentlemen opposite professed to be the champions, and also of economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might think that economy was a bogey, but the bogey in the country was rates and not economy. There was a fear in the country that this Bill would increase the rates—a fear which he believed was well grounded— and it was a matter of great regret that the Government could not see their way to accept such a rational Amendment as this. Where was the coercion Government now? The Government were favouring coercion by their attitude. The Government was going to force down the throats of the people that which they did not want. The Amendment was in favour of economy, and the people of the country would be anxious to see such an Amendment adopted.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: We have reached a stage in The consideration of the Bill when such appeals as have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the ground of expediency and Parliamentary tactics are entitled to some weight. I regret, however, the decision at which the Government has arrived. I have hitherto thought that some such Amendment as that now before the House might be adopted, believing that it would conduce to the smooth working of the Bill. But the Government do not intend to argue the question on its merits. That that is the case has been shown throughout the controversies in the other House. What is the reason that has been given for rejecting the Lords Amendment? It is that

  1057
  the Amendment would prevent parishes with a population between 200 and 500 from having the same rights as parishes having 300 inhabitants. No, Sir, I venture to say that these reasons are in the first place absolutely incorrect, and in the second place they are illogical. They are illogical, because it is perfectly clear that they must apply just as much to parishes under 200 as to parishes between 200 and 500, and they are inaccurate because it is untrue to say that the Amendment of the Lords, modified as it has been with a conciliatory intention, will deprive any parish of any right. It will only come into operation in cases in which a, majority of the parish, representing the general feeling of the parish, are opposed to the particular right which the Government desire to impose upon them. I have always held—and this has been the reason for my action hitherto—that in these very small parishes government by parish meeting will be a much more convenient form of administration than government by Parish Council. But, as I have said, we have reached a position when argument is out of place, and when we have only to consider tactically the question whether it is worth while to run any risk in connection with a matter which, after all, is not of primary importance. In my own view, the popularity of the Bill would have been increased if the Government had seen their way to accept this Amendment; but as the Government refuse it, I do not think it worth while to carry the controversy further, and am not prepared to record another vote in favour of the proposal.
  *MR. W. LONG: I would advance one argument more in defence of the course we feel compelled to take. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us just now that the Government could not accept the Amendment, not because they had any good reasons to advance against the course recommended by us or in favour of the course recommended by the Government, but because of the old principle upon which they have so long relied —that is to say, because, after counting heads, the balance of voting power appears to be on their side rather than on ours. No doubt there has been a division of opinion on this subject
  1058
  even among those who usually act together, but I venture to say there is a very strong reason why Members who represent agricultural villagers in this House should support this Amendment. We have been told over and over again that the principle underlying this Hill is to be found in the words "trust the people." I venture to say that if you honestly and really trust in the people you will show it more by giving them an opportunity of deciding for themselves whether they will have Parish Councils or not than you will by forcing the Councils on them whether they like them or not. The Earl of Selborne, who is a high authority on this subject, has said that a Parish Council is a better form of government than a parish meeting, and that may be the ease. But why deny to the inhabitants of our smaller country villages the right of exercising their own discretion—a right recognised in other legislation—and of deciding for themselves which is the better form of government? The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who is not now in his place, gave expression in the course of debate in this House to what I believe to be the real opinion held in agricultural districts and by the best Poor Law and local government reformers—namely, that it is the duty of the Government, and very desirable, to bring into existence a reformed system of local government for our villages, and that having done that you should not force on them powers they do not seek nor require and which they may not be able to exercise. You should give them a certain option as to the course they desire to take. Whatever the House may do in its general decision on the Bill, whether it may adopt the margin or whether it may decline to adopt it, I can safely say the course we on this side have followed in supporting this Amendment, by our speeches and by our votes, is one which recommends itself to the majority of those in whose interests you profess to be acting in passing this Bill. It commends itself to the vast majority of those who will be called on hereafter to exercise the powers you are creating; and I would repeat, what I have said here before, that it would tend more to the ultimate successful working of the Bill if you loft it to the parishes themselves to say who-

  1059
  ther or no they would have Parish Councils than if you compelled them to have those Councils. For that reason I support the Lords Amendment.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he only wished to say one word before this matter was concluded, to express his regret that the Government had not seen their way to assent to this very fair and reasonable Amendment, and also that the Opposition could not calculate in the coming Division upon the support of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and those who usually acted with him. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) could not help again calling attention to the unfortunate advocacy of the Government case by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had laid great stress on the circumstance that this Amendment was only carried in the other House by a majority of 13. The right hon. Gentleman was entitled to whatever weight that argument might-have. Undoubtedly it had some weight. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman that an important Amendment to another Bill was carried by the Government by a still smaller majority—namely, two. The Government, according to the present view of the right hon. Gentleman, ought not to have insisted upon that Amendment. At any rate, if at any time it were possible to move the rejection of that Amendment, they would be able to claim the right hon. Gentleman's support. All the Opposition asked by this Amendment was that small country parishes should not have this Bill thrust upon them against their will. There were many people outside the House, at any rate, who viewed this legislation as likely to be very disastrous, financially and otherwise. In his opinion, it would prove to be one of the most mischievous Bills ever passed. It would foster ill-will, discontent, and extravagance. Believing this, and also believing that if liberty of choice were left to these parishes they would not have any of this legislation, he felt bound to litter this last protest against the measure. In opposing the Amendment the Government were showing their distrust of the people, and their utter want of belief in their own Bill. If they did trust the people, surely they would leave them liberty of choice in this matter.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that when this question first arose, and before it led to this difference between the two branches of the Legislature, he had ventured to support the principle of this Amendment, and to observe that the Government themselves had begun by laying down a limit of 300 population. He had thought that the question could be best decided by reference to the condition of the several parishes rather than by laying down a hard-and-fast rule, which, in the case of certain parishes, would be extremely inconvenient. They had had the strong argument of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stans-feld) in favour of the higher limit of 500, not merely on the ground that it would be more economical, but also on the ground that it would be more democratic. However, he (Mr. Courtney) recognised the force of the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when there was a difference of opinion between the two branches of the Legislature, or when the opinion of one branch was strong and consistent whilst that of the other was weak and wavering, the former ought to prevail over the latter. ["Hear, hear !"] He was glad to receive that applause, because he remembered a recent occasion when the Government could only muster a majority of two, as against a very strong and consistent majority elsewhere, which included several Gladstonian Peers. On that occasion, however, the strong and resolute opinion of one branch of the Legislature was not allowed to prevail over the weak and wavering view of the other. He did not wish to dwell upon that, which was merely an argument as to the general conduct between the two Houses. He wished to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to some other Amendments to the present Bill on which contests might arise between the two Houses. He trusted that the Government would act in accordance with the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the case of some of the Amendments that were yet to be considered. Recognising, as he had said, the force of the right hon. Gentleman's contention, he should not vote for the Lords Amendment now before them, although on former occasions he had

  1061
  supported the principle upon which it was based.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that before this Motion was passed, though he had always spoken and voted in favour of the Amendment of the Lords, he was disposed to agree with the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. The Amendment was comparatively of a secondary importance, and not vital to the interests of the Opposition. He should refrain from voting in favour of the Amendment, and he hoped the Front Opposition Bench would be disposed not to take a Division.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 161.—(Division List, No. 448.)
  Lords Amendment—
  The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 3, line 39, but propose to amend the words restored by the Commons by inserting in page 3, line 40, after "meetings" the words 'convened by the chairman of the parish meeting or by the Parish Council, or otherwise as the Local Government Board may by rule prescribe."
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: This is a clause regulating the user of the schoolroom. The House of Lords have practically assented to the view of the House of Commons on the question, but they have introduced one Amendment. Under Sub-section (c) of Clause 4, the Bill gave power to use, free of charge, the schoolroom for
  "holding meetings to discuss any question relating to allotments, under the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890, or under this Act."
  The Lords have interpolated after "meetings" the words—
  "Convened by the chairman of the parish meeting or by the Parish Council, or otherwise as the Local Government Board may by Rule prescribe,"
  which, of course, is a very wide power. But the difficulty in the case is this—? that under the Allotments Act of 1890 the meeting has to be called under a notice signed by not less than six ratepayers. The acceptance of the Lords Amendment would deprive any six ratepayers of that power and devolve the responsibility of calling the meeting
  1062
  on the chairman of the parish meeting or the Parish Council or the Local Government Board. If the Amendment were adopted it would be the duty of the Local Government Board to prescribe as early as possible that the conditions of the Act of 1890 should be complied with. It seems to Her Majesty's Government, therefore, that it would be better not to assent to the Amendment and to let the powers under the Act of 1890 remain in their present state. I move to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Here, again, I think the right hon. Gentleman has not shown a desire to come to an accommodation with the House of Lords at this stage of the Bill. He admits that under the Amendment as it has been sent down from the Lords there will be no real hardship inflicted on any class of the community who might desire to use these schoolrooms. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, the words—
  "Or otherwise as the Local Government Board may by Rule prescribe,"
  give ample scope for drawing up Rules to afford facility for the user of the schools to anyone who might desire it. Then what harm could this Amendment do?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It would do away with the existing power which enables six ratepayers to call a meeting.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had forgotten that it was confined to the question of allotments. It is not for me to object to the provisions of an Act for which I, as a Member of the Government that passed it, am in a sense responsible. But it does seem to me that the Lords Amendment has something to be said for it, because although the Allotments Act requires these signatures under this proposal, it would be competent for the Local Government Board to make Regulations of an easier and more lax description. I think there is something to be said for a proposal which will give elasticity in this matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment—
  The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 4, line 19, but propose to amend the words restored by the Commons by inserting in page 4, line 21, after "reimbursed" the words "to the parish meeting or the Parish Council."
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment—
  The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 5, line 23, but propose to make the following consequential Amendment in lieu thereof:—Page 5, line 23, leave out "ecclesiastical."
  ME. H. H. FOWLERsaid, ho moved to agree to the Lords Amendment. A conflict of opinion had taken place in the House of Commons as to whether the duties of Churchwardens, as trustees of non-ecclesiastical charities, would he transferred to the Parish Councils, and he had promised that words should be inserted in the House of Lords making it clear that it was the intention of the Government not to transfer those powers. This was done by leaving out the word "ecclesiastical."
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendments—?
  The Lords insist on their Amendments in page !), lines 13 and 14, for the following reason:—Because the County Council is the authority to which these applications can be most appropriately addressed.
  *MR. H. H. FOWLER: This is the first Amendment which deals with Clause 9, and I think it would be convenient to state the views of the Government on the section as a whole, and I hope right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not charge me with any unwillingness to consider in a friendly spirit what has been done elsewhere. The House may recollect what has been the history of this controversy on Clause 9, hut perhaps it would be well for me to recall it. Under the existing law, where there is an application for allotments by a certain number of ratepayers, that application is made, in the first instance, to the District Council; and if the District Council, after inquiry, are satisfied that there is need for allotments, and they cannot be obtained on reasonable terms by voluntary agreement, they are
  1064
  empowered to go to the County Council to ask them to put in force compulsory powers of purchase. If the County Council is satisfied—and I would point out in passing that the veto of the County Council is final, there being no appeal against it—that compulsory powers ought to be put in force they can-make a Provisional Order, and after certain inquiries and other technicalities, which I need not trouble the House with, have been complied with, that Provisional Order is sent up to the Local Government Board. It is then the duty of the Local Government Board to bring in an Act of Parliament in order to confirm the Provisional Order which, if opposed—and it is subject to the same course of opposition in the House—is dealt with like any ordinary Private Act. That is the present position—that was the position before the Government brought in this Bill. We were satisfied from the first, and have never altered our opinion, that the introduction of a Private Act of Parliament in order to obtain these allotments was an unnecessary, expensive, and dilatory proceeding. 'We therefore proposed in the first instance to wipe out, so to speak, the County Council altogether, and enable the District Council to proceed direct to the Local Government Board. The House will recollect the long discussion that took place on that original proposition. It was sent up to the House of Lords. They originally objected to the elimination of the interference of Parliament, and the scheme which was known as Lord Morley's scheme came down to this House. No doubt in that considerable improvements were made in Parliamentary procedure; but it was the opinion of the Government and of a large majority in this House that the interference of Parliament would be dilatory, expensive, and unnecessary. Under these circumstances, our clause went back to the House of Lords in its original state. The Duke of Devonshire then submitted to their Lordships a scheme the practical effect of which is, that when an application for compulsory powers of purchase is made to the County Council, the County Council shall have power to make an Order, which will not need Parliamentary confirmation, but that County Council Order will be subject

  1065
  only to the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. An appeal will lie to the Local Government Hoard, and if that appeal is not sustained the Order must pass. There is a great deal to be said in Favour of that proposal, not only on the individual grounds of this case, but on the general policy of dealing with these Provisional Orders by a Local Authority in the absence of the Central Authority. The difficulty as to the County Council is that if you remove from Parliamentary jurisdiction what Parliament has hitherto always exercised with reference to these compulsory powers, the new tribunal substituted should be responsible to Parliament. The County Council are not responsible to Parliament, but the Local Government Board is; therefore, if yon ensure that the Local Government Board shall have the controlling veto, you can at any time interfere if dissatisfied with the mode in which the Local Government Board has exercised its powers. The Duke of Devonshire proposes that the County Council Order should be subject to appeal to the Local Government Board. He also provides that the inquiry should be public and local, and that all reasonable precautions shall be taken. If there is no appeal the Local Government Board will not interfere, but when the Order is passed it will have statutory force without requiring the confirmation of Parliament. I do not hesitate to say that this proposal in the main meets the requirements of the Government. The principle on which our original clause was framed, the principle for which we have contended all through, is that of no Parliamentary inquiry and no Parliamentary costs, but the substitution of some tribunal which shall be satisfactory equally to those who apply for allotments and to those from whose lands the allotments are to be taken, and an intimation to that effect was thrown out to the House of Lords, both by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), who was then leading the House, and by myself, and I am bound to say that I think they have very fairly responded to that intimation. J must, however, inform the House that there are a number of Amendments to this clause which the Government feel it to be their duty to propose. Nine-tenths
  1066
  of them are purely drafting Amendments which are necessary in order to bring this clause into harmony with the Bill. I am exceedingly sorry that I have not been able to put those Amendments on the Paper so that the House might have an opportunity of considering them, but I will explain them to the House. The first Amendment I propose to move to the Lords Amendments is simply a verbal one as to the causing of a public inquiry to be held in the parish and as to notice being given to the owner, lessee, and so forth. Sub-section 5 of the Lords Amendment contains a point which is novel. I said just now that under the existing provision if a County Council vetoed the application for allotments the thing would be at an end. There is no power to ask whether the County Council has acted rightly or not. Under the scheme the Government proposed, the removal of the County Council enabled the Local Government Board to hear both sides on that question. What I now propose is that if we substitute the County Council for the Local Government Board, and give the Local Government, Board only the right of interfering on appeal, the appeal must be granted to both sides; those who ask for allotments must be entitled to appeal as well as those who object to the acquisition of the land compulsorily. I shall therefore propose to insert—
  "If the County Council refuse to make any such Order the Parish Council or District Council, as the case may be, may petition the Local Government Board, and that Hoard, after a local inquiry, may, if they think proper, make the Order, and that Order shall apply as if the Order had been made by the County Council."
  There will be a series of verbal Amendments to the next two pages of the Lords Amendments, but the next point at which we propose a serious change in the Lords Amendments is on Sub-section 10. This sub-section we propose to omit. The rest of the clause proceeds on the assumption that the Local Government Hoard will make Regulations for carrying it out. The Lords have interpolated here a reference to an Act passed in 1890 with respect to the issue of Stock by Local Authorities. Under that Act the Local Government Board are entitled to

  1067
  make certain Regulations, and those Regulations are to be laid on the Table of both Houses. If either House disagrees with them they are to be at an end. The Lords propose that this section shall apply to the proceedings under this clause, so that you will again have the power of intervention on the part of Parliament coming in not in an expensive, but I think in an unsatisfactory way. Either House will have the power to interfere with these Regulations and to annul them. There is no objection, I think, to laying the Regulations before either House, and we have every desire for publicity in this matter. But I think that this is not the best mode of procedure, and I do not think it is one which the House will be disposed to agree to. Of course, if the House should see fit to agree to the Lords clause as I propose to amend it it will then go back to the other House, and they will see the complete scheme which the House of Commons is prepared to accept. This House is at a disadvantage in having to deal with these long Amendments without having the Government Amendments before it; but that is not our fault, and it is well that the two Houses should be able to see at as early a date as possible whether they can agree upon the procedure to be adopted. The procedure proposed by the Duke of Devonshire's Amendments carries out suggestions that come from both sides of this House in favour of making the County Council the determining authority and safeguarding the interests of both sides by appeals to the Local Government Board. Such a procedure would not over-weight the Local Government Board with a large amount of administrative detail, but at the same time it would extend the Provisional Order system and reduce the enormous expense of Parliamentary inquiries, whilst by retaining the appellate jurisdiction of the Local Government Board it will secure that the interests of all parties will be properly safeguarded. The first Amendment is to leave out "District" and insert "County," and to that I shall propose to agree. I then propose to move the Amendments as they come in due course on the various sections of the clause. I can only say, in? conclusion, that I have endeavoured to state the case as clearly and as frankly as I can.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth agree to the Lords Amendment to omit 'District' for the purpose of inserting 'County.'"—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)said, the Lords Amendment was entirely in the nature of a compromise, and, as such, no doubt was open to objection on both sides, but he sincerely hoped that it would be accepted by both sides as a compromise which was intended to settle one of the most vexed questions in the Bill. The Duke of Devonshire had given into the Government to the extent of surrendering the principle which many Members had considered a most valuable one—that of having a right of public inquiry before Parliamentary Committees. On the other hand, further safeguards against injustice had been introduced, and he thought that, both from that point of view and from the administrative point of view, the proposal if adopted would be a great improvement upon the proposal originally made by the Government. If the County Council was the first authority to make compulsory Orders it would in many cases be also the final authority. Its decisions would be much less likely to be appealed against than would be those of the District Councils, and there would be far less work thrown on the Local Government Board—a Department which he thought was now beginning to tremble at the enormous amount of labour which would devolve upon it under this Bill—whilst matters which, after all, were of purety local interest would be satisfactorily settled in the localities themselves. Surely that in itself was a most valuable improvement upon the provisions of the Bill. Through the courtesy of the President of the Local Government Board he had had the advantage of going through the Amendments which the Government intended to propose, and he could assure the House that nine out of ten were of a purely technical character and were perfectly reasonable. As to the somewhat controversial proposals respecting an appeal from the County Council to the Local Government Board, they seemed to him to be perfectly reasonable. If one party had a right to appeal the other party ought to have that right, whilst in this way Parliamentary control would be indirectly retained through the Local Government Board over the proceedings

  1069
  of the County Council. There was a small point with regard to Parliamentary control over the Regulations to be made by the Local Government Board. Such Regulations would in some respects be of importance to the owners and occupiers of land, and he should have thought it was preferable that they should be laid on the Tables of both Houses. Such a procedure would not have involved any delay, because no operations could take place under the clause until the Parish Councils came into operation next November. This, however, was, after all, only a matter of detail, and he sincerely hoped that, upon the principle of the Amendment there would be a general consensus of opinion, inasmuch as it would avoid all unnecessary cost and delay in taking land while it would prevent any injustice being done to the owners of land.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has shown a conciliatory spirit in meeting the suggestions made by the Lords in their Amendment. Of course, I still adhere to the opinion I expressed so strongly when this Bill was last before us, that the application of the Provisional Order system was the best and cheapest method of dealing with this subject. I admit, however, that a compromise had to be made, and probably the other House was not ill-advised in making the suggestion which in its main outline the right hon. Gentleman has now accepted. There are only two points on which I wish to say a word in reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the general course proposed to be taken by the Government. The first relates to the introduction of the District Council. I do not quite gather from the right hon. Gentleman what the District Council has to do with the alteration proposed. It was probably my stupidity, but we have not had much time to consider these things, and I do not quite understand what function the District Council was to perform. The right hon. Gentleman in the Amendment he intends to propose says—
  "If the County Council refuse to make any such Order the County Council or District Council, as the case may be," &c.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The application is to go to the County Council.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the Government accept the view of the Lords that the tribunal in the first instance is to be the County Council.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. There is no disagreement now between the two sides of the House. Then I do not follow what function the District Council is to perform.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: The District Council is at present the authority for petitioning the County Council under the Act of 1887, and therefore it is necessary to bring it in here unless you begin at the beginning and reform the whole of the procedure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But may I point out that if this Amendment is to revise the Acts of 1887 and 1890,as well as this Act, we must be careful what we are about? I certainly hoped that the District Council was altogether excluded from the operation as far as this Bill was concerned. I do not think the District Council is likely to be a good wheel in the machinery. I see great objections to the District Council, whether it be constituted as it is now—namely, principally by farmers, or whether it be constituted as it may be in the near future by those who have been anxious to oust farmers from the management of the Poor Law—in either case I see great objection to allowing it to interfere in this matter. The only point of substance on which I have anything to say relates to the Government Amendment, by which they propose to deprive the Houses of Parliament of the opportunity of considering the Orders made by the Local Government Board. I have, of course, ceased to fight for the Provisional Order; but I do think that if you are to carry out the principle of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and to bring home to the Local Government Board its responsibility to Parliament, it would be convenient and useful without being a laborious process to say that the Orders of the Local Government Board should lie on the Table. I am glad the Government have accepted a large portion of the revised plan which the other House have sent down to us.
  MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)pointed out that in the case of urban districts there would be no Parish Council, and if the District Council were struck out of the proposed Amendment the power

  1071
  of appeal would be taken from them. Then there was another case—that of the rural parish—-which under this Bill was cut off from another district, and stood alone by itself as a District Council, and the Parish Council there became the District Council. This parish would not be mentioned, and it would be as well to leave the words in for the sake of these two cases.
  MR. C. HOBHOUSEshould be sorry if the Government substituted County Council for the District Council, for by such a substitution they would be excluding the labourers. In the Report of the Commission which inquired into the condition of the agricultural labourer it was shown that in 32 counties the labourers held their houses on the service tenure. From the County Council electorate were excluded all persons who hold their houses on the service franchise, so that, consequently, in a great number of counties the agricultural labourers would be excluded from exercising the franchise for the County Council. In the county to which the President of the Local Government Board belonged no less than two-fifths of the labourers would be so excluded. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing to refer the question of the acquisition of land to a tribunal from which at least one of the parties interested was excluded from representation. He was sorry, therefore, that the Government had consented to accept a proposal which seemed to him to be a very mischievous one.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, in reference to the observations of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to these Regulations, the great objection of the Government was that in the present form of the Amendment either House of Parliament, not both, could disapprove of the Regulations, and if they did could suspend the whole of the proceedings. Therefore, if the Regulations were laid before the House of Lords and the House of Lords disapproved of them, the whole affair would be hung up and nothing would be done. Was it worth while to go through the whole procedure of a Joint Address by both Houses of Parliament? The Government thought on matters of this kind that it was not worth while creating so solemn an obligation as that, and they
  1072
  thought it would be quite sufficient if these Regulations were the subject of debate in Parliament, and especially in this House, where was the Minister who was responsible for the Regulations and who would have to justify and account for them. The Government could not agree to the Amendment as sent down, thus leaving it to one House of Parliament to suspend the whole operation of the allotments clause by simply disapproving of the Regulations. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's question as to how the District Council came into this matter, he had to point out that in urban districts there would be no Parish Council, and, therefore, the application must be in these urban districts by the District Council, because there was no Parish Council to apply to the County Council. It was obvious that the words "District Council" should be inserted, because no Parish Councils existed in these districts. That, he hoped, explained the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, if it was perfectly clear that this appeal could only be made by the District Council where the District Council had made the representation in the first instance there would be no objection; but it did appear to be a little doubtful whether this power of appeal might not lay with the District Council even where the first application had been made not by the District, but by the Parish, Council. That, would be eminently unjust and undesirable. If it was intended it should cover the cases where the District Council acted as the authority applying for the Order, then, of course, the answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question was complete and the objection would fall to the ground. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the Government did not think that so solemn an obligation as to submit these Regulation to the approval of both Houses ought to be necessary. It was probable, and it was to be hoped, that these Regulations would provoke little or no comment or objection; but, at the same time, it did seem only fair and just that there should be a reasonable procedure provided by which they could be discussed in either House, and by which disapproval, if necessary, could be expressed from them. If this proposal were rejected, the only method by which

  1073
  any Member who desired to criticise these Regulations could do so would be by either moving to reduce the salary of the President of the Local Government Board—which came on, according to modern Parliamentary practice, some time in September—or by formally moving the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. These were obviously courses highly inconvenient, yet in order to discuss them it might be necessary to move a Resolution throwing out these Regulations, so that the action of {he Head of the Department who sanctioned them might he criticised by Parliament. For these reasons they attached considerable importance to this part of the Amendment suggested by their Lordships, and they hoped the Government would yet see their way to include it in their Amendment. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that ho declined to give the House of Lords the power they possessed at present in regard to other Regulations, and that they could not be trusted to discuss Regulations of this character. The Opposition did not share that want of confidence demonstrated in the other House by the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly they were not likely to be parties to a proposal to exclude them from the reasonable power and privileges which they suggested should be extended alike to both Houses. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the veto of the oilier House would lead to a postponement of the whole proceedings he was anticipating a result that it was extremely improbable would ever happen. All that was asked for the protection of minorities was that there should be a reasonable opportunity afforded for the discussion of these Regulations and for their rejection if necessary. The Opposition did not suggest that the power should be conferred only on one House; and if it should be necessary that postponement should be the result of this power being extended to both Houses, they would rather run the risk of that postponement than that improper Regulations should be drawn up for the discussion of which no proper opportunity would be afforded. The President of the Local Government Board, on the first Amendment, had expressed the views of the Government with regard to the
  1074
  altered condition of the allotments clause. He (Mr. Long) only wished to add one word to what had been said by the Leader of the Opposition. The Members of the Opposition had all along expressed as sincerely as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill the desire that the procedure under which land was to be acquired should be simplified and cheapened, and in adhering to the Provisional Order system they did not want to adhere 1o an expensive or prolonged system. What they felt, however, was that the Government by their proposal were throwing on a Government Department an amount of responsibility and power which it would be difficult and invidious to cast upon them. He rejoiced that this middle course had been suggested under which the County Council should first act; that then there should be an appeal to the Local Government Board, and he entirely agreed that the appeal should be an open one.
  MR. CHANNINGdid not wish to prolong the Debate, but concurring, as he did, with the argument of the Member for East Wilts he was bound to express his regret that the Government had felt themselves obliged to accept the County Council as the authority on this matter. His main reason for this was that the feesimple of the land purchased for allotments would not pass to the Parish Council, but would remain in the hands of the intermediate authority, as it was far more desirable it should be in the hands of the District rather than the County Council. As the Government, however, had taken this line, he should not challenge their action. The President of the Local Government Board had very wisely introduced an appeal open to both sides, and he trusted it would be provided that that should be a public local inquiry. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: That is provided.] He was glad of that, because the most essential point they had to insist upon in this question was that there should be every publicity in connection with these inquiries. He still retained the strong opinion that in this purchase clause it would have been better to have adhered to the District Council rather than substitute the County Council.
  *SIR C. W. DILKE, as one favourable to this Amend-

  1075
  ment, would like to express the great regret with which he heard the declarations from the Front Bench opposite in favour of a power to either House to destroy or suspend the Regulations of the Local Government Board. It had never occurred to them that there would be such suspensory power in regard to these Regulations given to either House, and it was a great pity that by insisting on this power they should risk and jeopardise the very fair compromise come to. He and some of his friends thought this Amendment was an improvement to the Bill, and it would be a pity that at this moment they should quarrel on this point. He thought when hon. Gentlemen opposite considered the oppressive effect of the provision that either House might suspend the whole action by disallowing the Regulations of the Local Government Board they would hardly take issue upon that particular point. He hoped, therefore, this power would not be insisted upon and the compromise jeopardised by such insistence.
  MR. TOMLLNSONsaid, that arising out of the question of the District Council, he would like to know whether the position of a county borough would be in any way affected by it? Would the power given under the Arbitration Clause go from the District to the County Council? because, if so, that would cause a great deal of friction.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The observation made by the Member for East Northampton is due to misapprehension on his part, but I should like some explanation on this point. The Member for Northampton said that the laud which was purchased for allotments would be held by the authorities whichever it was —that is to say, by the District Council as originally proposed by the Government, but by the County Council under this proposal—and the hon. Member objected to the County Council as being the worse authority of the two to hold land. I have understood that the laud would be held by the Parish Council, and I believe that is the intention of the Government, but I find that in Sub-section (c) they say that—
  "Where the land is acquired otherwise than for allotments it shall be assured to the Parish Council."
  You then go on to say that where it is purchased by the County Council it may-
  1076
  be assured to the Parish Council, so that there is a discrepancy, and unless an alteration is made the Member for Northampton may be correct, and the Parish Council may not be the authority which will ultimately hold the land. That is not the intention of the Government, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether be would be prepared to make the holding of laud by the Parish Council imperative, and to use the word "shall" both in regard to the land taken for allotments and other purposes? As regards the two points we have been discussing, for myself I confess I have failed to understand exactly why the Government object to having precisely the same procedure with regard to these Regulations; which has already been adopted in regard to all similar Regulations. There has hitherto been no distinction shown, and if it be wrong in the present case it must be wrong in the other cases in which such procedure has been sanctioned by both Parties in this House; and until some cause is shown for the distinction, I think J am bound to support the reasonable proposal of the Lords. Another question arises upon the subject of drafting, which was raised by the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool. As Sub-section 5 is now drawn it appears to me to be perfectly possible that the District Council, even if it were not the originator of the application, would have the right of appeal to the Local Government Board. Clearly, the Government did not intend that that should be the case, and in order to make it perfectly clear and prevent possible litigation it would be desirable to add after the words "District Council" the words—
  "which has originated the application, as the case may be."
  It would then be perfectly clear; the intention of the Government would be fulfilled, and either the Parish Council or the District Council, in cases in which the District Council must originate the application, would have the right of appeal, and not otherwise.
  Question,
  "That the House do agree with so much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to omit District and substitute County Councils,"
  put, and agreed to.
  MR.H. H.FOWLERmoved to amend the Lords Amendment by proposing that the local inquiry with regard to the taking of land for allotments should be made in the parish, notice being given to all persons interested, who should be permitted to attend the inquiry to support or oppose the taking of land.
  Amendment agreed to.
  General drafting agreed to.
  Amendments,
  (9) "In this and the following section the expression prescribed' means prescribed by the Regulations of the Local Government Board, and such Regulations shall include forms of notices to be given by the Parish and County Councils to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of any land proposed to be taken, and other notices, orders, and documents for the purposes of proceedings under this section."
  Question, "That the Sub-section stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
  (10) "Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 52 of he Public Health Acts Amendments Act, 1890, shall be applicable to such Regulations as if the same were Regulations made under the powers of that section."
  Question, "That the Sub-section stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the Lords Amendment, as amended, be agreed to," put, and agreed to.
  "The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 10, line 26, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—Page 10, line 26, leave out from the word ("the") to ("Council") in line 28, and insert ("County Council, and the County Council may make an Order authorising the Order").
  Line 31, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 37, and insert ("as respects confirmation and otherwise be subject to the like provisions as if it were an Order of the County Council under the last preceding section of this Act").
  The Lords do not insist on that part of their Amendment in page 11, line 8, but propose, in lieu thereof, the following Amendment:—
  Page 11, line 10, after ("hiring") insert "The arbitrator in fixing rent or other compensation, shall take into consideration any damage likely to be incurred during the term of hiring by the owner in consequence of his being prevented from applying the land to a more profitable use, or by the occupier by reason of his being hindered in his business as a farmer in respect to other lands by the land proposed to be taken."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We have now come to Clause 10, which is the clause relating to the hiring of allotments. We
  1078
  have been dealing hitherto with the question of the purchase of allotments. The question of hiring, in the opinion of the Government, stands on a very different footing from the question of purchase, and we are not able to assent to the proposals of the Lords that the hiring clause shall be placed on the same footing with respect to procedure as the purchase clause. In our opinion, there is not the same reason, with reference to hiring, as there is with respect to purchase, for going through the long and expensive process of going to the County Council. We attach immense importance to making the hiring clause a very rapid and economical procedure, and we therefore cannot agree to the proposal they have made in reference to hiring—namely, that the appeal shall go at, once from the Parish Council to the Local Government Hoard, who will deal with the question immediately. Then we come to the second Amendment, which proposes that the owner or the occupier of land should be indemnified for any pecuniary damage done to his business by the taking of a valuable field, quite apart from the compensation for the taking of the field. We are not going to oppose the spirit of the Amendment, though we are going to propose words to carry out the object intended in a more satisfactory manner. We therefore propose to amend the second Amendment by leaving out all the words after "consideration," and inserting these words—
  "Of all the circumstances connected with the land, and the use to which it might otherwise be put by the owner, during the term of hiring, and any depreciation of the value to the tenant of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land, hired by the Parish Council."
  Then, as regards the last Amendment, it is now merely a technical question. The Lords say—
  "The Lords insist on their Amendment in page 11, line 41, for the following reason:— because the Amendment is consequential on the Amendments previously insisted on."
  That does not appear to be the case. If the words the Lords insist on were inserted, they would make nonsense. Our position is, we are not prepared to apply the purchase method of procedure to the question of hiring; and with regard to the question of compensation, we think the Lords' words are too loose, and any-

  1079
  one who has had any experience of arbitration knows how dangerous it is to have loose words, and we therefore substitute more appropriate words.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords Amendment in page 9, line 26."—(Sir W. Harcourt)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has surveyed in his speech not merely the Amendment which yon, Mr. Speaker, have put from the Chair, but two other Amendments of importance, though of a more technical character. I will not say anything about the last Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, as it is purely technical. With regard to the second one, I will only say that undoubtedly the Government have rightly appreciated the point we have had in view with regard to the kind of injury for which compensation should be paid; and if in the opinion of those more expert in drafting than I can pretend to be the objects we have had in view in pressing this point are practically carried out by the now words proposed by the Government, I need hardly say that we shall raise no objection to it. But matters wear a different complexion when we come to discuss the point on which there is a substantial difference between the two sides of the House, and that is, as to the tribunal which is to decide the important question of the hiring of land. The right hon. Gentleman has told us there is a wide distinction between hiring and purchase, and that whereas it was fair and just to have a somewhat elaborate tribunal to settle the important question of compulsory purchase, that a rougher and more imperfect machinery may be sufficient when you are only dealing with hiring. I must say my view of the question is exactly the opposite. It seems to mo the procedure we ought most carefully to guard is not the question connected with purchase, but that connected with hiring, and for the reason that it is a more novel procedure, and a procedure more likely to be abused. The right hon. Gentleman says their object is to make the procedure more economical and rapid. Those are the two ideas a reformer always has dangling before his eyes at the beginning of a legal reform, and the difficulty so to
  1080
  obtain the maximum of economy and rapidity is that it is impossible to devise what shall be the instrument which shall do justice between the parties. Now, is justice between the parties more likely to be done in the case of compulsory hiring than in the ease of compulsory purchase? I think not, for two reasons: I think that the Parish Councils are more likely to embark rashly on some scheme of allotments when the ground taken for allotments is hired than when the land is purchased; it is a proceeding upon which they enter with a light heart, and therefore I say that if there is injustice to be done at all, injustice is more likely to be done by the Parish Council in the case of compulsory hiring than in the case of compulsory purchase. When you turn from the authority that may inflict the injustice to the persons on whom the injustice may be inflicted, does the House consider that either landlords or farmers are likely to suffer less in the case of hiring than in the case of purchase? I think just the reverse. Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that a landlord does not suffer on account of his land being taken because it is only taken for 14 years. But if you take it compulsorily for 14 years you may take it by successive periods of 14 years for ever; there is absolutely no limit. I am going on the hypothesis that the parish only wish to make an experiment for 14 years, but they make take the land under the Bill of the Government not for 14 years only, but for 99 years, and not for 99 years only, but for 999 years, so that we have the Government in this extraordinary position, that while they admit—
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me for a moment; on this point there ought to be no misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman asks us to take a limit, and we have always been ready to take a limit. We offered to take the limit fixed by the Allotments Act, but the House of Lords did not adopt the suggestion. I desire to say we are perfectly willing to take a limit of 35 years.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Whether it would or would not be desirable to have a limit of 14, 28, or 35 years, I will not deal with now, but will proceed to argue the question of compulsory hiring on the 35 years' limit

  1081
  accepted by the Government. If you deliberately set up this admittedly imperfect machinery for the more perfect machinery in regard to compulsory purchase, you may have the land taken for 35 years, and greater injustice may be done by hiring than could be done to the land if the land is purchased. When you come to hiring, every man who knows anything about land knows that until the end of the lease it is impossible to say whether the land was taken on fair terms or not. There is every species of deterioration which cannot be estimated beforehand; every species of small injury may be done to the man who nominal1y remains the landlord, though for all time the land may be taken from him against his will by those who are his tenants by compulsion, by a process absolutely unknown to our law. There is only one more point I would urge on the Government. When dealing with a well-known principle familiar to our law, with which the Courts have had to deal, certain rules and principles get laid down by which substantial justice is done between the parties; but when you start an entirely new idea it is inevitable that great injustice might be done to one or other of the parties, and therefore it is that you are bound to fence round the new procedure and establish a tribunal which shall be a tribunal above suspicion. I would remind the Government that this subject of compulsory hiring is one that has excited very widespread feeling of uneasiness among all occupiers and owners in the country, who think that these provisions may be used and abused for purposes that are not for public purposes, but for private purposes. With this suspicion in view do you think it prudent to alarm these classes, or is it not proper to give them every reassurance which a careful selection of your tribunal can give? It appears to mo nothing-would be lost by adopting the principle you have accepted for compulsory purchase. Having once admitted in the ease of purchase that justice can only be done by the machinery you have just set up in Clause 9, do not stultify yourselves by telling us in another clause, where injustice is more probable, that some rougher, ruder, and more imperfect tribunal is enough to meet all the circumstances of the case. I do feel very strongly on this subject, and I am certain
  1082
  I speak the voices of the class whom you ought to consult if you want your Bill to work. And I am quite unable to discover in what respect the interests of the labourers and others desiring allotments would be injured by adopting the procedure you consider necessary in the case of compulsory purchase. I do beg the Government to re-consider the decision— which I hope they have arrived at reluctantly—and meet us in this demand, which I am certain is for the interests of the Bill itself as a workable measure, and which I do not believe would delay by any appreciable space the rapidity with which the machinery you have invented may be set in motion to provide such allotments as may be necessary for the rural poor. If the Government do not adopt the suggestion I shall find it my duty to vote against this Amendment; therefore, I trust that the Government, even now, may reconsider their position.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he thought he was the only Liberal who, 10 or 12 days ago, voted for the Lords Amendment, and he therefore desired to ask leave to make a few observations on the present state of affairs. He understood that the Government had consented to make the County Council the responsible authority in the case of the purchase of land. He was extremely glad to hear it, and he understood the Government had declined to make the County Council the responsible authority in the case of the hiring of laud. For himself, he did not understand the distinction, and he wished to place some practical considerations before the Government which perhaps might have some weight with them in inducing them to change their minds. He should state, however, that the reasons that urged him to speak now were not those which urged the right hon. Gentleman opposite; at least, they were not those put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. For his part, he did not care much about conciliating either the squire or the farmer in this matter; but he wanted as many allotments as possible and as quickly as possible, and it was from that standpoint that he ventured to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said he wished to make the procedure under Clause 10 as rapid and economical as possible. It was admitted on all hands that the number of cases where

  1083
  allotments would be obtained by purchase would be nothing like so great as those where allotments would be obtained by hiring. Then it followed there would be throughout the country, as they hoped and believed, an enormous number of applications for allotments by the Parish Councils under Clause 10. What was to happen to these? There were thousands of parishes in the 52 counties, and the whole of the applications from all these were to fall on one Department, the Local Government Board. Could anyone contend that this Department could attend to the applications with the same rapidity as would be the ease if the various County Councils throughout England and Wales were loft, to deal with the applications from their own county? That was the first point he put to the President of the Local Government Board; but he ventured to put another to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Radicals of the House. What was this new-fangled notion that had sprung into existence amongst them which made them distrust the County Councils? He always found it best in this House, even if it was unpleasant, to speak frankly, and therefore he would say what he thought, and that was, that if the County Councils were as preponderatingly Radical as they were unfortunately preponderatingly Tory, some of them would not have had the same objection to their dealing with the matter. He did not say that was the case—he merely suggested it; but if it were true, he did not understand Liberals to maintain any such opinion. He had voted throughout this Bill consistently from end to end, not always with the Government, but from end to end for putting the local powers in these matters into the hands of the Local Authorities. In local affairs he believed they should either trust them all in all or not at all. Take the County Council of any county; they considered they would manage the allotments that were purchased satisfactorily, but that they ought not to be trusted with powers for compulsory hiring of land. The most Tory County Council in England, the Council the most full of squires, and farmers, and parsons, if they were left face to face with the Parish Council in the matter of allotments, he believed they would do their duty, and, if not, the Parish Council would soon teach them their duty, or they would dismiss
  1084
  those County Councillors who did not vote for what the parish needed. Therefore, in all these matters he felt they ought to leave them to the Local Authorities. What was the use of a County Council if it could not manage the allotments in its own county? He did not like at this stage to vote against the Government. [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] Well, he did not; it was the most disagreeable thing to him to vote for the House of Lords at any time; but looking at the matter from an impartial point of view, he was convinced it was the proper course to take, because it would expedite the acquisition of allotments and would exalt the Local Authority, which was the County Council. There was another matter he wished to refer to. He understood that hon. Members opposite wished to deal with the Rules under which the acquisition of land for allotments was to take place by having them laid on the Table of the House, leaving it to either the House of Lords—
  An hon. MEMBER: That has been disposed of.
  MR. STOREYsaid, that he was not aware it was settled with regard to this clause, and he certainly hoped there would be no claim allowed of interference by either House of Parliament. He did not object to the Rules being laid on the Table for the sake of information, but he hoped the Local Government Board would be left to make its own Rules and to see that they were carried out. Having said so much, he would ask the Government whether, on consideration, they would not alter their mind on this matter, as he was certain it would make their Bill more workable? He hoped the Government would do in the case of hiring what they had consented to do in the case of purchase. If the Government could not agree, he should feel it his duty to give effect to the view he had shown that he entertained a fortnight ago, and go into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, he wished, and he believed he was speaking for many hon. Members on that side of the House, to express the profound satisfaction with which the County Members, and especially those representing agricultural constituencies, had heard the announcement of the

  1085
  Chancellor of the Exchequer. One part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech gave, he was sure, to many hon. Members on that side great satisfaction, and that was the extraordinary large concession that the Ministry was making to the farming class, who, erroneously he thought, imagined they would be injured under this Bill. He would like to point out the effect of the valuable concession his right hon. Friend now proposed—[Cries of" Speak to the Amendment !"] He would only say, then, that it was an exceedingly valuable concession, and even went further than the 41st section of the Agricultural Holdings Act, under which the farmer was left to obtain his compensation. He did not in the least agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) in thinking that the Amendment would either provide more allotments or that the Local Government Board would he too much overworked if this question of hiring Was dealt with by them, because they knew how many capable men the Board had who could act as arbitrators in the matter, and the question would present no difficulties to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition objected to this proposal on the ground that the Parish Council could apply for Unlimited hiring of land, but that was inherent in the very principle of the Bill.
  [At this stage the cries of "Divide !"and" Agreed !"became so constant and loud that the rest of the hon. Member's speech failed to reach the Reporters' Gallery.]
  *MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)said, he desired to look at this question not quite in the light of his hon. Friend who had just spoken, but to ask the House to look at it as a practical question of convenience. To him it seemed that the Government, having assented in the ease of purchase to put the County Council between the Parish Council and the Local Government Board, there was no reason why they should not adopt the same principle in regard to the compulsory hiring, and with his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) he would urge it was better to do so both on account of rapidity and convenience. He knew from personal experience that inquiries conducted by County Councils were much
  1086
  quicker than those conducted by the Local Government Board. He could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for East Northamptonshire, and he was not inclined to think that any Liberal County Member, who was also an elected County Councillor, would stand up and say that in his experience the working of the Allotments Act by the County Councils had been anything but fair and honest. He could most certainly speak for his own County Council, the great majority of which belonged to the Party opposite and who were opposed to the Party to which ho belonged in this House, and he found no difficulty in getting them to take reasonable and progressive views on the question of allotments. The reason of that was not far to seek. The great majority of the County Councils were elected representatives, who would have to reckon with their constituents for their action in this matter. It was quite true they had had difficulties in obtaining allotments in the past, not owing to the fault of the County Councils, but due to the Rural Sanitary Authority, for it should not be forgotten that the members of that particular body were returned on an unequal franchise, and there was also a high property qualification. That was totally unsatisfactory. He ventured to appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter. It was a question of convenience and of getting the land more quickly. Under the proposal of the Government Inspectors would be sent down who had no local knowledge, and he thought that in the interests both of the Parish Council and of the landlords they should have practical men as they had in the County Council.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHadmitted there was something very substantial in the position taken up by a landlord or a farmer who was to be deprived of his laud for a period of 35 years. It was such an entire wrench from his land as to entitle him to the consideration of the House of Commons. On the other hand, he did not agree with the Member for East Northampton, that they had any reason whatever to show distrust in the County Councils. Their position would be materially changed under this measure, and he regarded them as the most efficient and experienced bodies to which the Parish Councils could

  1087
  refer. In the circumstances, he thought the Government would be justified in concurring in the proposal coming from the other side of the House. He considered that in the machinery of the County Council the agricultural labourers in this county would have every security and every facility that their case required.
  MR. EVERETTwas one of those who considered that a simple and easy way of acquiring land was an essential part of the present Bill. He confessed that when they came to any question of difference as between the labourers wishing to hire and the owner or occupier of the land it did seem to him the natural course was to call in a jury of their neighbours to decide on the point at issue. To come up to Loudon and bring gentlemen out of an office who were not experienced in agriculture did not commend itself to him as the proper way to get the most satisfactory decision. He lived in a county in which the members of the County Council were, on the whole, decidedly Conservative. He was on the allotments committee of that County Council, and he had found a complete willingness on the part of the members generally to do all they could to get allotments for the labourers. He was convinced that the same spirit pervaded County Councils, whatever might be their political composition, and ho therefore hoped the Government would see their way to take the natural course of allowing an appeal to the County Council.
  SIR W. HARCOURTobserved, that the Leader of the Opposition had stated that opinion on the subject of appeal was very strong in regard to hiring as also in regard to purchase, and as the feeling was not unanimous on that side of the House the Government were certainly not desirous of entering into a conflict on the matter in order to press a point on which the majority of the House had no very strong view. It would be very unwise for the Government to do anything of the kind, and, that being so, he would certainly not oppose these Amendments.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer assented to the
  1088
  proposition that there should be some maximum limit to the term for which hiring was to be allowed, and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would move the insertion of words to carry out that intention, or whether it would be done in another place?
  MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid, many of them in the Eastern Counties and other parts preferred the County Council, but they only preferred it if there was to be an appeal to the Local Government Board. Were they to understand that that was to be the case?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is so. The effect of this Amendment will be to apply exactly the same process to hiring as to purchase.
  *MR. W. LONGobserved, that the Government having accepted the Lords Amendment it would be necessary to insert certain consequential Amendments.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must press for an answer to his question, as it raised an important point of Order. He was very glad the Government had agreed to the Lords Amendment, but that would not, as a matter of Order, preclude the insertion elsewhere of a limit of years. If such a limit were not inserted, it would be felt to be an objection on both sides of the House. All they need do was to make verbal alterations in the Lords Amendments to enable that to be done.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We are going to do so.
  Lords Amendment read—?
  The Lords do not insist on that part of their Amendment in page 11, line 8, but proposes in lieu thereof the following Amendment:—Page 11, line 10. after ("hiving") insert ("The arbitrator, in fixing rent or other compensation, shall take into consideration any damage likely to be incurred during the term of hiring by the owner in consequence of his being prevented from applying the land to a more profitable use, or by the occupier by reason of his being hindered in his business as a farmer in respect to other lands by the loss of the land proposed to be taken").
  SIR W. HARCOURTproposed to omit all the words after the word "consideration," for the purpose of inserting the following words:—
  "All the circumstances connected with the land and the use to which it might otherwise be put by the owner, and any depreciation of the value to the tenant of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land hired by the Parish Council,"
  Amendment agreed to.
  Some verbal consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Lords Amendment read—
  The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 14, line 37, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:—Page 15. Leave out lines 1 to 23 ("Sub-section (3)"), and insert —("Where the Governing Body of a parochial charity other than an ecclesiastical charity does not include any persons elected by the ratepayers or parochial electors, or inhabitants of the parish or appointed by the Parish Council or parish meeting, the Parish Council may appoint additional members of that Governing Body not exceeding the number allowed by the Charity Commissioners in each case. and not exceeding in any case one-third of the whole number of the Governing Body; and if the management of any such charity is vested in a sole trustee, the number of trustees may, with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, be increased to three, one of whom may be nominated by such sole trustee, and one by the Parish Council or parish meeting. Nothing in this sub-section shall prejudicially affect the power or authority of the Charity Commissioners, under any of the Acts relating to charities, to settle or alter schemes for the better administration of any charity").
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I rise to move that we disagree with the Lords Amendment. I think it is not desirable, in an Amendment which we have already fully discussed, that we should enter into any lengthened Debate. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been censured this evening because he has not entered into the arguments of the case where they have been repeated over and over again, and I my self have been recently censured for having entered into the arguments where I admit they have been pretty well known. With regard to the present Amendment, it appears to me that its far as argument goes we are exactly where we were. We think that this is a matter in which the rural population are very deeply interested, and have a very strong opinion which they are extremely entitled to express. I do not dwell upon that argument; but we hold the ground we hold before, and I hope the House will continue to hold its ground. As to the state of opinion in the two Houses upon this subject, the clause has been affirmed by large majorities, by majorities considerably larger than any majority representing only the relative strength of Parties in this House. It was objected that the majority of 61 was obtained in a House of exhausted
  1090
  numbers. But we have had a Division in a House of full numbers, and if the figure was not 61 it was at any rate 51, which represents a considerably larger number than the normal majority of the Government in this House. Exactly the reverse process has taken place in the other House. There leaders of opinion who usually vote against the Government, and form part of the large and solid majority in that House—including some distinguished persons who are certainly persons not wanting in their regard for what might be Conservative policy—have actually voted with friends of the Government, and largely reduced the numbers against us. That being the case, the Government have shown that where there was on the other side of the House a decided opinion and on their own side a divided opinion, they were not unwilling to have regard to that Division, and accept the sentiments which were entertained on opposite sides of the House. I therefore think we might hope to receive similar treatment. We are here a large majority, a decided majority, and a majority including-, its is obvious, some portion of those who usually differ from us. We have in the House of Lords a minority, it is true, but a minority which includes a very considerable and important portion of those who differ from us. This state of things forms, in my opinion, a most legitimate and most weighty plea, which we might fairly use, and it is, therefore, with some confidence as to the result that I venture to ask the House to disagree—.and to disagree by a decided majority—with this Amendment of the House of Lords.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has followed the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the evening, and has relied upon his estimate of the relative forces in each House arrayed for and against the Amendment rather than on the merits of the Amendment itself, and has given as a reason for that procedure the fact I am ready to admit—uamely, that the merits of the Amendment have to a great extent been threshed out on previous occasions, and the right hon. Gentleman

  1091
  is unwilling to repeat arguments which have been used before in the House. I do not say there is no value or weight to be attached to the new method of deciding questions in this House—namely, counting Divisions which have already taken place here and elsewhere. But it. is a very dangerous procedure, because, if I rightly understand the grounds upon which the distinguished persons quoted by the right hon. Gentleman acted in the other House, they gave their votes and made their speeches not so much upon the intrinsic merits of the question as upon Divisions which had taken place in the Commons. Therefore, we are now in this extraordinary position; the noble lords in the other House decide their votes by the votes given in this House, and we in this House modify our actions in conformity with the action of the other House. This kind of action and re-action between the two Houses; these alternate Divisions in which no account is taken of the relative merits of the question, but only what happens in another place, and the number of votes given in the other place is really an argument which, if persisted in, would carry us away from the merits or demerits of the Amendment proposed by the Lords, and the Amendment to that Amendment proposed by the Government. I think it would be most inconvenient at a period of the evening when we ought to divide if we were to review the history of this question; but I must remind the Government that the proposal which the Lords have now sent down is not their own creation at all, but is the creation of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. The Lords have taken the very words which —speaking not for himself alone, but for the Government of which he is a Member —he announced to the House as the policy of the Government. I am most unwilling to introduce any embittering element into this Debate, but I cannot refrain from pointing out that we were given the most solemn assurances that the particular policy which the right hon. Gentleman announced as the policy of the Government would be carried out in connection with these charities. We were given the very words. Those words have been thrown into the waste-paper basket, and the pledge which was given has been absolutely neglected. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime
  1092
  Minister has told us that the rural districts, as I understand him, have pronounced upon this question, and that the Government dare not neglect the opinion they have expressed. How do we know the rural districts have pronounced? I am entirely sceptical on this point. I do not at least deny that hon. Gentlemen who really represent and are really returned for rural districts—but not for counties in which there is a large urban element —who sit on the other side of the House tell us that their constituents are anxious for the Government policy. But gentlemen on this side of the House who have every bit as much means of obtaining the opinion of the agricultural labourer on that subject do not share that view, and in my view the attitude they have taken up is the right one. This is a matter In which not merely or even deeply, ecclesiastical interests are concerned, but in which the interests concerned are rather rural interests—which are deeply involved. I must confess that the whole dealings of this House with fegard to charities belonging to the poor reflects very little Credit upon us. In the '60's it was the fashion of the Liberal Party to say that all these parish charities were ill-administered, and they deliberately, as a matter of policy, made it their business to take away the charities intended for the poor, and hand them over for the purposes of middle-class education, an subject not contemplated by the original donors. That was the first injury inflicted. How are we following out that policy? You first sever the charities from the intentions of the deners, and, now you are taking action which will inevitably dry up the whole sources of charity in the future. I heard only a few days ago of a gentleman who desired to leave a sum of money for the charities of his district. He wrote to a friend of mine on the subject, and was advised that he had better trust to his heir to carry out his views on the matter and tear up his will, because the House of Commons as at present constituted are so indifferent to the wishes of donors that it is perfectly impossible to depend upon them. That is not the way to consult the interests of the poor, and I would earnestly venture to press upon the House that if they cast their eyes over the whole course of the policy of the Government in the discussions on these clauses in the

  1093
  Bill now before the House they will see, in the first place, that the poor have just ground to complain of their action; and, in the second place, that their pledges to us and to the Church, their statements made in this House on the authority of responsible Ministers, not in their own name but in the name of their colleagues, have raised just expectations among large classes of the community, which you would now not only act dishonourably but foolishly if you ignore. I do not wish to press my opinion upon this point further, because I know that the time of the House is limited; but J tell the Government that, as far as I am able to judge of the present position, they may have to choose between the abandonment of the Bill and making some just concessions to just demands. For my own part, as far as I am concerned, so clear does it seem to me that justice, honour, and expediency, as well as the interests of the Church and the poor, are so bound up in this Amendment, that if the Government are unable to carry out to a successful issue legislation based upon a different principle, the sooner they leave it to others to carry that principle into effect and embody it in the form of a Statute in the Statute Book the better I shall be pleased. I can assure hon. Members opposite that if I now bring my remarks to a conclusion it is not because I have nothing further to say in support of my views, but I do so for the convenience of the House. I have made a perfectly clear exposition of my own general grounds for desiring this Amendment and of the situation of affairs should the Government, in an unhappy moment, turn an absolutely deaf ear to the demands of justice, demands not one of which any Member of the Government can get up and give his reasons for resisting.
  Sir W. HARCOUETrose—
  *MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire,): Might I make a suggestion before the right hon. Gentleman speaks?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I beg pardon for a moment. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only a short time in which to discuss the question before the House, and, therefore, I shall confine myself to an answer which shall be very brief, and which is based upon an authority which the right hon. Gentleman will pay more respect to than to anything I might myself say. My
  1094
  right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that this proposal which is now before us, and which was made by Lord Salisbury, was opposed in the House of Lords, not by the Government alone, but by a majority of those who usually were not supporters of the Government. The Leader of that number was the Duke of Devonshire. The only arguments that I shall use in this case are his words, which were as follows:—
  "The only question upon which he entertained any doubt was as to whether the clause raised a question of principle or such other question of vital importance as to make it incumbent upon their Lordships to insist upon their disagreement with the House of Commons."
  The right hon. Gentleman will see that neither the Duke of Devonshire nor his friends depended simply upon the numbers that were voted in the House of Commons. He said further—
  "He could not quite understand where the question of principle came in. The contention that they had no right to interfere with the wishes of the founders of these trusts was intelligible."
  That was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, who has said that we should dry up the fountain of these charities if we diverted these trusts from their original objects. To that the answer is given—
  That was a position which was inconsistent with what had been done in the case of the Charity Commissioners or with the proposal to appoint one-third of the trustees."
  The noble Duke was then speaking of this Amendment, and of its author, Lord Salisbury, and he said—
  "The noble Marquess drew a distinction between the introduction of the elective element and the introduction of a majority. He failed, however, to sec that such a distinction amounted to an absolute question of principle upon which the House was bound to insist, and he did not think that it was imperative upon their Lordships to insist upon their Amendment."
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it was inconsistent with the interests of the poor that we should discourage the founders of these charities. That is the old argument that was used when the Charity Commission was created. It was then said that if we once interfered with these charities in any way we should dry up eleemosynary charity.
  An hon. MEMBER: So you have.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: But what has been the result? There has been more money given to these charities since the creation of that body than at any time before. [Cries of "No!"] I think I may be allowed to say that that has been the result. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that it would be an entire mistake to take these charities from the poor and to appropriate them to the education of the middle classes. That is, however, the last thing that a Parish Council would ever do. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the imputation that this is an Amendment we have no right to support, inasmuch as it is opposed to the original pledge of the Government. We do not admit that. Although it is perfectly true that the Government originally proposed a different arrangement in the Bill, they have always explained that they were entitled and bound to make amendments in the Bill in accordance with the views of those sitting on our side of the House quite as much as in accordance with those held on the other side of the House. Therefore, I do not think our action in this matter can be made the ground for an imputation of want of good faith on our part.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, they wore not there to consider arguments regarding the majority one way or another in that House or the other on the question. What they had to deal with were the interests of the poor, and those interests were seriously imperilled by this clause. It had been admitted by the Prime Minister that if they made those trusts too large and cumbersome they would ensure maladministration, and that was what this clause inevitably would do. He would propose an Amendment which would not go against the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, and that was that instead of enforcing on rural parishes the necessity of creating trusts that would be absolutely unworkable and ridiculous, they should leave them the chance of managing their business with a little more sense than the House would be showing if it carried this clause. He proposed to alter the clause so that it should read: "Not less than one-third, nor more than a bare majority, of the trust." This Amendment, if adopted, would enable the Parish Councils to
  1096
  form these trusts in a moderate and therefore in a workable size.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not intend to delay the House long, but my hon. Friend who has just spoken has put forward views similar to those which I myself have presented to the House on more than one occasion. On the main principle I am bound to agree with the Government. We are dealing now with charities which are non-ecclesiastical. To whom do they belong? They belong to the parish, and, therefore, I say that although a limitation might be placed upon the power of the parish to deal with the corpus of the trust, because that might belong to future generations, yet the representatives of the parish should have full power to deal with the income of the trust. In these circumstances, the parish ought to have the right to appoint a majority of the trustees. But, on the other hand, it does appear most absurd to insist that the parish should be compelled to appoint a majority of the trustees and so create an unworkable body, instead of leaving the matter to their discretion. On a previous occasion I suggested that the word "may" should be substituted for "shall," leaving it open to the Parish Council to appoint a majority of the trustees if they thought fit, and in the cases where they did not think that necessary 'or desirable to appoint a lesser number. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the Debate in another place, and has spoken of the action taken by certain noble Lords. But he has forgotten to say that that action was taken subsequent to a proposal by one of these noble Lords in favour of the substitution of "may" for "shall." The answer which was given to that proposal was not altogether satisfactory. Lord Kimberley said the Government would give to it a less direct opposition than to the original Amendment. It would materially assist us if the Government would say how they would view such a proposal now. If they accept it I think there would be good reason to hope that that might see an end of the controversy. But if the Government give us no encouragement there will be a loss of time, and if the division of opinion continues what are the Government going to do? Either they will have to give way or they will have to abandon the Bill. Is it conceiv-

  1097
  able that, the Government would be prepared to go to the country and say, "We have abandoned this Bill with all its advantageous provisions because the House of Lords inserted our own Amendment word for word?" The Government are really in a position in which some compromise would not only be graceful, but is almost necessary.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHwished to point out that the question was not a rural question alone, for it affected towns.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that his proposal does not arise on the Lords Amendment; it can only arise on the original clause.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is perfectly possible and competent for the House to reject the Lords Amendment and substitute for it an Amendment of the original clause.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I was going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, and those who favour his view of the question, that the best course now to take is to disagree with the Lords Amendment as it has come down, and to allow the Lords to send down other proposals, because the House is in ignorance of the view which the Lords take upon the subject. The proposal which was suggested by Lord Helper, and to which Lord Kimberley gave a very judicious reply, never came under consideration in the other House; and, therefore, we are not in a position to judge what view would be taken by the Lords of that plan. I do not say that the Government have made up their minds to oppose such a proposal, but it ought to come to them in a form in which they could consider it.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, what was wanted was an intimation of the ultimate mind of the Government on the subject. He would ask Mr. Speaker whether, in the event of the House rejecting the Lords Amendment, it would be competent to amend the original clause by substituting "may" for "shall"? The Government were certainly not saving time. He was in favour of the Government proposal as a whole, but he was still more in favour of the proposal to substitute "may" for "shall."
  *MR. SPEAKER: It would he competent to make such a proposal as the right hon. Gentleman indicates, as it
  1098
  would be relevant to the Lords Amendment. If it were not relevant to that Amendment, such a proposal would not be in Order.
  MR. ARCHsaid, the agricultural labourers had as much right to choose the administrators of charities left for their benefit as a nobleman had to choose trustees of his estate. He hoped the Government would stick to the word "shall."
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 139.—(Division List, No. 449.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: After the discussion that has just taken place as to whether "may" should be substituted for "shall," the Government are willing to agree to that substitution.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 15, line 3, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the word "may.' —(Sir W. Harcourt.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have more than once had the pleasure of addressing the House on this question, it knows the view I take on it, and that I cannot be satisfied by the proposed change. I do not think the substitution of "may" for "shall" makes the clause materially better than it is at present, and it certainly does not at all leave it in a, position in which it ought to be accepted by the House. I admit, however, that a permissive evil is better than a certain and obligatory evil; and as the clause will be incomparably more workable in its permissive form, leaving principle out of account and treating the matter from the point of view of expediency and convenience, I will not go into the Lobby in opposition to the proposal of the Government.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORXEsaid, the proposal made by the Government, although it might, to some extent, mitigate the evil, would still leave the clause unsatisfactory. It would not meet the point that had always been made in that House and elsewhere, that the proposal of the Government was a great injustice to the donors of charities and to the trustees who now administered charities for the benefit of the poor. As a matter of fact, he did not believe that the Parish Councils would in very many cases desire to interfere with the adminis-

  1099
  tration of the charities, but in cases where they were opposed to the existing trustees and to the methods under which the charities had hitherto been administered they would retain the power if the proposal of the Government were accepted to divert the charities from the management of those persons to whom they had been entrusted by the donors. This appeared to him to be a matter of the highest importance involving a great principle, and to think that because "may" was substituted for "shall" the clause would be acceptable to the Opposition was to entirely misconceive the position. In the judgment of the Opposition the House had no right whatever to allow the Parish Councils to play fast-and-loose with the wishes of those who had left money for charity. Unless it could be shown that a charity was badly administered, the Government had no right to disfranchise the existing trustees or to give anyone power to do so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Reason for insisting on their disagreement to the Commons Amendment in page 27, line 37, to leave out the words "in like manner as to an urban district and," considered.
  Resolved, "That this House doth insist on the said Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
  Lords proposal—
  The Lords propose to amend the words restored by the Commons by inserting in page 28, line 3, after ("auditors") the words ("for parishes") and by inserting in page 28, line 7, after ("Vestries") the words ("Provided that for the consideration of affairs of the Church (including the election of Churchwardens) and of matters relating to ecclesiastical charities, separate meetings of the said Vestries shall be held, and that at every such meeting the Incumbent, if present, shall be the chairman"); and after ("Provided") insert ("also.")
  *MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was unable to agree with this proposal. When the provisions of the Bill were extended to London Vestries, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean moved the omission of the words which would have constituted the Incumbent ex officio chairman and the Incumbent and the Churchwardens ex officio members of the Vestries. The Government agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the chairmanship, but pointed out that as there might
  1100
  still be some Church affairs in the hands of the Vestries these officials should remain members of those bodies, and that was decided upon. The House of Lords proposed to create a statutory chairman and to divide the London Vestries into two bodies—one to dispose of matters relating to ecclesiastical affairs and charities, the other the usual functions of a Vestry. There was, moreover, to be a separate chairman for each, and the Government saw no advantage in having two chairmen for one body, as legal difficulties might possibly arise. For instance, the Vestry might transact business with the wrong statutory chairman in the chair, which might lead to serious difficulty. In these circumstances, he asked the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. H.H Fowler.)
  *SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he was the original Mover of the words out of which this Amendment had grown. He had desired to get rid of the Churchwardens as well as the Incumbent as ex officio members of the Vestry; but the Government had pointed out what was quite true—namely, that the Loudon Vestries had to discharge a few—a very few— ecclesiastical functions, and that, therefore, the Incumbent and Churchwardens should remain ex officio members of the Vestries. The proposal of the Lords would be excellent if it were workable— if they got rid of the membership of the Incumbent and Churchwardens on lay occasions, and only allowed them to act on those rare occasions when ecclesiastical matters were dealt with. He thought it best to adhere to the original House of Commons Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Baronet had been for a long time a distinguished member of one of the London Vestries; therefore, he spoke on this subject with some high authority. He (Mr. Balfour) was informed that in some Vestries, though not in that of Chelsea, there were ecclesiastical duties to be performed of a more important character than the right hon. Baronet had any idea of—such as questions with regard to the alterations of the Church. He agreed that if the Government were

  1101
  prepared, as he hoped they were, to grant this Amendment, the grounds for the original compromise were cut away, and the Incumbent and Churchwardens should have nothing to do with lay affairs. He was anxious to meet the practical difficulty and to relieve the Government of the responsibility of handing over strictly ecclesiastical affairs to be dealt with by the Vestry. Ho believed the object might be attained and the interests of the Church safeguarded if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the division of the kind of Vestries, excluding clergymen from lay work on Vestries.
  MR. KIMBERsaid, that one of the important functions of Churchwardens was to provide for spiritual services of the Church during a vacancy in the incumbency. If an Incumbent died some interval must elapse before his successor was instituted, and it would be the duty of the Churchwardens in that interval to provide for spiritual services. It seemed to him to he beyond all things necessary that the Churchwardens should be parties to the holding of the Vestries. Although the Lords Amendment would provide for this the Bill unamended would not.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Incumbent and Churchwardens would remain members of the Vestry. All they were discussing was whether the Incumbent should be put into the chair. If he were not in the chair he would be in a better position, because he would be able to vote, which he would not be able to do if he presided.
  VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he had no doubt the Government desired to make the best arrangement they could, but Churchmen would prefer that clergymen should cease to be ex officio members of ordinary Vestries if the Incumbent were put in the chair when ecclesiastical matters were dealt with.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that was not the Lords Amendment. It was that the Incumbent should be put in the chair. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Kimber) had given a reason why the clergyman should be put in the chair —namely, because it would be necessary for the Vestry to make arrangements for carrying on the Church services in the event of his death. How the Lords
  1102
  Amendment could enable a clergyman to make arrangements subsequent to his own death he failed to see.
  MR. KIMBERsaid, ho had not been addressing himself to the question of the chairmanship, but to that of the necessity for a separate meeting.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, it would not be unreasonable to provide that the Vicar and Churchwardens should cease to be ex officio members of the Vestry for the purposes of parochial affairs, though no such objection could arise if they were left to deal with ecclesiastical affairs. He could endorse what the Leader of the Opposition had said—namely, that Vestries dealt with the question of repairs and of the enlargement of churches in the Metropolis. The Bishop of London was responsible for the Amendment; therefore, it might be taken that it expressed the views of the London clergy.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords proposal agreed to—
  The Lords propose to amend the Amendment made by the Commons to the Amendment made by the Lords in page 51. line 9, by leaving out, the words ("subject to the provisions of that section"), and inserting the words ('"nothing in this section shall empower a County Council or joint committee to alter the boundaries of a county").
  On the Amendment of the Lords that the expression "ecclesiastical charity" shall include any building which in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners has been erected or provided entirely by or at the cost of members of any particular Church or Denomination,
  *MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Government could not assent to leave out the words "within 40 years before the passing of this Act," though they recognised the objection which had been raised to the word "entirely." They agreed to substitute the word "mainly."
  Word "mainly" substituted for "entirely."
  Question proposed, to disagree with the Lords Amendment, striking out the words "within 40 years before the passing of this Act."
  Mr. GRIFFITH -BOSCAWENdid not know why there should be a limitation of 40 years or 400 years. The same argument which

  1103
  applied to the user of parish rooms to his mind would apply to the user of churches and chapels. They should take the character of the trustees as a test of the character of the parish rooms.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment disagreed with.
  Committee appointed, to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill, and for insisting on one of the Amendments made by the Commons to which the Lords had disagreed:—Mr. H. H. Fowler, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir W. Foster, The Attorney General, The Solicitor General, Mr. H. Gardner, Mr. Causton, Mr. M'Arthur, and Mr. Marjoribanks:—To withdraw immediately.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum. —(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Reasons for disagreeing to Lords Amendments, reported and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.— (Mr. H. H. Fouler.)

  SUDBURY, SUFFOLK, TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK.
  Copy presented,—of Minutes of Proceedings and Notes of Evidence taken at the inquiry into the affairs of the Sudbury Trustee Savings Bank before Cyril Dodd, Esq., Q. C., M. P., the Commissioner appointed by the High Court of Justice [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND.
  Abstract Account presented,—showing the Issues made from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in the year ended 31st March 1893, together with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREST OF DEAN.
  Return presented, — relative thereto [ordered 1oth February, 1894; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE ACT, 1888 (NAVAL SECTION) (AUSTRALASIAN AGREEMENT).
  Account presented,— prepared under the Act up to 31st March 1893; together with the Report of the Comptroller and
  1104
  Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (DERBY).
  Copy presented,—of Order of the County Council of Derby for transferring parts of the parishes or townships of Brampton, Hasland, Newbold and Dunston, and Walton to the parish of Chesterfield [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (SOMERSET).
  Copy presented,—of Order of the County Council of Somerset for transferring parts of the united parishes of Saint Benedict and Saint John, Glastonbury, to the parish of Street, and parts of the parish of Street to the said united parishes, and for transferring parts of the urban district of Street to the rural district of the Wells Union, and of parts of that rural district to the urban district of Street [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (WEST RIDTNG OF YORKSHIRE).
  Copy presented, — of Order of the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire for transferring part of the rural district of the Halifax Union to the urban district of Sowerby Bridge [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.
  Copy presented,—of Annual Statistical Report by the University of Aberdeen for the year 1892-3 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 320 (Bosnia) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday."—(Mr. Marjoribanks)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at half after Eight o'clock till Thursday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MOTION.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Ear] of KIMBEREY): My Lords, I beg leave to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure this evening in order that we may he able to receive, when ready, a communication from the House of Commons as to the Amendments of the Local Government Hill; and then, if convenient to your Lordships, I should certainly hope that we might take those Amendments into consideration to-morrow.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very 1oth to offer any opposition to the arrangements which the noble Earl the Leader of the House proposes for the conduct of your business, but it, seems to me quite unreasonable that we should decide what to do with Amendments which possibly may be of great gravity until we can have them in print and have had a day to consider them. Of course, I am aware that time is precious. I do not wish to trespass on any controversial grounds, but those of your Lordships who hear me will agree with me that the pressure of time is due to the very exceptional character of the procedure of the last six months. Therefore, I do not think it is fair that we should be prevented from taking proper measures to arrive at a sound conclusion and from considering the Amendments most carefully, because, owing to circumstances over which certainly we have had no control, the time has become somewhat short. J therefore propose to move that after rising this day the House do not sit, except for legal business, until Wednesday at half-past 4 o'clock. That would give time for the Amendments of the House of Commons, whatever they are, to be printed, and for us to consider what course each of us would wish to take when we vote concerning them. I would rather not expatiate more upon a subject which might be felt to be thorny; hut I think I am not asking for more
  1018
  than a legitimate time which is necessary for the proper consideration of our business.
  Moved,
  "That this House, after rising this day, do not sit again, except for Judicial Business, until Wednesday next, at half-past Four o'clock."—(The Marquess of Salisbury?)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I quite share the wish of the noble Marquess not to make this an occasion for any thorny discussion. I have no desire to enter upon any controversial topics, but I must confess my great regret at hearing that the noble Marquess is unable to agree to go on with public business to-morrow. I had hoped that, seeing the nature of the case, and that the matters in controversy between the two Houses are narrowed to certainly not very numerous points, however important they may be, it would have been possible, as we consider it necessary, to take the Amendments to-morrow. That being so, I should not consider my responsibility in the matter covered, and I should not think I was doing my duty if I did not dissent from the Motion of the noble Marquess. I would only observe that the reasons arc connected with public business; and without in the least going into past proceedings I would appeal to the House whether, looking to the state of business and to the absolute necessity for getting through whatever business there may be before a certain time, it is not of the very greatest importance that no time should be lost, and that the Prorogation of Parliament should not be further adjourned. I will not detain your Lordships further than to hope that you will not concur in the Motion of the noble Marquess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I do not understand the noble Marquess to object to the House proceeding at present—adjourning during pleasure?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: After its rising to-day.
  On question? their Lordships divided: —Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 16.
  House adjourned during pleasure. House resumed: The Lord Kensington chosen Speaker in the absence of the

  1019
  Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments last made by the Lords, and the further consequential Amendments agreed to; with several other of the Amendments last made by the Lords agreed to, with Amendments; and with several others disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement; and with consequential Amendments to the Bill: The said Amendments and Reasons to be printed; and to be considered on Wednesday next. (No. 306.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter-past Ten o'clock.