Sitting of 31 July 1894

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL BILL (by Order).—(No. 252.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. ERNEST SPENCERrose to move, in Clause 15, page 6, line 7, to leave out—
    "Or where merchandise is conveyed in a boat which does not pass through a lock on the canal to or from a railway basin or railway wharf the Company may charge a minimum toll of three shillings."
    He said, that the discussion would be materially shortened by the fact that an agreement had been arrived at by all the parties who were interested, and many questions would be thus avoided which otherwise would have been discussed at considerable length. He had placed Amendments on the Paper under the following circumstances. The Birmingham Canal traversed the whole of his constituency. It was, in fact, a waterway upon which the district had to depend very largely for the movements of goods therein manufactured. It was, therefore, of vital importance that the tolls and charges of the Company should not be in any way exorbitant, or press unduly on the trade of the district. With considerable alarm the traders some time ago saw that a proposal had been made by the Board of Trade in their Provisional Order under the powers of the Railway and Canal Act

    1369
    to fix a minimum, in the case of traffic carried short distances, of 1s. per boatload and 3s. if proceeding through a lock. This would mean in many cases a very material increase, and traders were sanguine enough to think it would not be passed by the Joint Committee—or, at worst, would be reduced. It was, therefore, with consternation and dismay—
    Black Rod here attended with Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:—
    The House went;—and being returned;

  ROYAL ASSENT.
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

  Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1894.

  Finance Act, 1894.

  Zanzibar Indemnity Act, 1894.

  Registration Acceleration Act, 1894.

  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders (Confirmation No. 14.) Act, 1894.

  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 17) Act, 1894.

  Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 18) Act, 1894.

  CANAL TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL (by Order).—(No. 252.)
  Bill, as amended, further considered.
  MR. ERNEST SPENCER, resuming, said, that it was with consternation and dismay that the traders saw that the Joint Committee had not only accepted the recommendation of the Board of Trade, but had accepted Amendments which went largely and materially beyond it. The Board of Trade being of opinion that, to a certain extent, an injustice was being done to the Canal Company by its having to carry small loads for short distances by mileage and tonnage rates, had proposed that a minimum should be fixed of 1s. and 3s. when a boat proceeded through a lock. The Joint Committee, however, in addition to this, accepted Amendments by which boats which proceeded to or from a railway basin or railway wharf without passing through a lock should pay a charge of 3s., and by which boats which pass through one or more locks to a rail-
  1370
  way basin or railway wharf should pay a charge of 5s. It was felt that these additions to the Board of Trade proposals—themselves being a large increase against traders and in favour of the Canal Company—ought to be strenuously opposed, because, in the first place, they established a preferential charge in favour of railway basins, and, in the second place, because they imposed burdens which could not be borne by the traders of South Staffordshire. He, as a consequence, arranged for the Board of Trade to receive a deputation, which he had the honour of introducing. It was a largely representative gathering. He was supported by hon. Members representing Handsworth, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Oldbury, and Walsall. So strong a case was shown that, by the kindness of the Board of Trade, a conference was arranged between the traders and others interested, and an agreement was entered into by means of which the preferential charge to which they objected was withdrawn, and an all-round minimum established — namely, 1s. 6d. per boat, and 3s. when it passed through a lock, this minimum to be universal in character and apply to all cases. He thought that this was a satisfactory conclusion to what would have been a very awkward question. He might say that the traders were grateful for the kindness shown to them in this matter by the officials of the Board of Trade, especially by Sir Courtenay Boyle and Mr. Pelham. It was largely owing to these gentlemen that a matter was settled which, if continued in the condition it left the Joint Committee, would have been fraught with serious if not disastrous consequences to the trade and industries of South Staffordshire, a district already heavily, and in some cases unfairly, handicapped as compared with its more favourably placed rivals, and incapable of bearing fresh burdens, especially at a time of such universal depression that its very existence as a great iron centre was more or less imperilled. He begged to move the Amendment.
  SIR A. HICKMANseconded the Amendment. He said that the conference, which was arranged at the instance of the President of the Board of Trade, represented very fairly the traders of the district, and the

  1371
  arrangement come to was a beneficial one.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 15, page 6, line 7, to leave out
  "Or where merchandise is conveyed in a boat which does not pass through a lock on the canal to or from a railway basin or railway wharf the Company may charge a minimum toll of three shillings."—(Mr. Ernest Spencer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. LLOYD WILSONremarked that, unfortunately, as the Bill had not yet been printed, it was impossible to examine it. He thought that there should be a few days' delay so that they could get the Bill before them and consider carefully the effect of the alterations which the Committee had made. The Bill might, of course, be perfectly in Order. They had the assurance of the Member for Wolverhampton that it was in Order, but still it was reasonable that before going further they should have the print of the Bill. If they had the print of the Bill they could confer with the traders and discuss the alterations with them. A few days' delay would not in any way imperil the Bill. It was his view and the view of the traders of South Staffordshire that no increase ought to be allowed in the rates of the canal. He trusted that no increase had been attempted, for the state of trade in South Staffordshire was such that it would not bear any increase. They all knew that the relative cost of carriage was enormously increased as compared with what it was years ago. This had come about in this way: that whilst articles such as iron or tubes were now selling at only half what they were 20 years ago, the canal charges which existed 20 years ago were not reduced. It followed that they were in effect double when set against the prices which were obtained to-day. From this point of view it was highly important that no increase of tolls should be granted. That was one of the reasons why he desired that there should be a careful investigation of this Bill before they proceeded to pass it. He moved that the matter be deferred for a week.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member intend to move the Adjournment of the Debate?
  MR. LLOYD WILSON: Yes, Sir.
  MR. YOUNGrose to continue the discussion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to second the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate?
  MR. YOUNG: No, Sir; I merely wish to express my sympathy with the arrangement.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does any Member second the Motion for the Adjournment?
  [There was no response.]
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)said, that he was glad to say that the compromise which had been arrived at in this matter had been effected after every interest concerned had been heard. He thought that the hon. Member (Mr. Lloyd Wilson) would not think that there had been any undue haste in the matter, for certainly the understanding on the part of those who had met at the Board of Trade was that every interest was represented. Every effort had been made to ensure that the matter had been considered from the point of view of every interest, and in this respect he was grateful for the assistance which had been given by the hon. Member for West Bromwich. Under the circumstances, the House might be satisfied that substantial justice had been done.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On Motion of Mr. ERNEST SPENCER the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 15, page 6, line 12, leave out "or where merchandise is conveyed in a boat which passes through one or more locks on the canal to or from a railway basin or railway wharf the Company may charge a minimum toll of five shillings."
  Clause 15, page 6, line 6, after "shilling," insert "and sixpence."
  Clause 15, page 6, line, 15, after "one shilling," insert "and sixpence."
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, he did not propose to move the Amendment standing in his name. He understood that various parties interested in the matter had agreed among themselves that it was a proper Amendment to be made, and an endeavour would be made in another place to secure its insertion. Probably,

  1373
  however, an arrangement would be arrived at by that time.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [Lords] (by Order).—(No. 306.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. A. C. MORTONmoved to add the following new clause:—
    "It shall not be lawful for the Company to take or demand on Sunday or on any bank or other public holiday any higher rates or charges than those levied by them on ordinary week days."
    The hon. Gentleman said, these were the terms in which the clause was inserted in the London Tramways Bill, but he had no objection to alter it by inserting the words "without the consent of the Local Authority" after the word "lawful," so as to bring it into line with the clause as inserted in the Bristol Tramways Bill. The object of the clause was to protect the people, especially the working classes, on holidays, and to secure that only the same fares should be charged then as on other days. He thought he was only right in asking that this Bill should be treated in exactly the same way as all the other Tramways Bills which had been brought before them this Session.
    Amendment proposed, in the Liverpool and Walton-on-the-Hill Tramways Order, to insert, as a new paragraph, the words—
    (As to fares on holidays and Sundays.)
    "It shall not be lawful for the Company to take or demand on Sunday or on any bank or other public holiday any higher rates or charges than those levied by them on ordinary week days."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. LONGsaid, the answer which he had been instructed to give on behalf of the Liverpool Corporation, who were interested in this particular Bill, and the reasons for that answer, were short and simple. The Corporation desired to impress upon the House that if this Motion were carried, either in its present form or in the amended form suggested by the hon. Member for Peterborough, it would
    1374
    confer upon them a power to vary agreements which had been solemnly and deliberately entered into by them with the Liverpool Tramway Company in 1882. In that year the Corporation made an agreement with the Liverpool Tramway Company fixing the maximum fares which the Company should levy, and at the present moment those maximum fares were lower than the maximum fares usually allowed by Provisional Order. The Corporation had considered this question as it would affect them and their position with the Company. He quite understood that the hon. Member's (Mr. Morton's) suggested amendment of the present clause would practically have the effect of leaving it to the Local Authority to decide this matter; but while the House was ready and willing to confer upon Local Authorities those extended powers, at the same time when the Local Authority, having considered the matter, had deliberately come to the conclusion that they did not want those extraordinary powers, he did not think they were justified in forcing them upon them. The Liverpool Corporation considered the matter so serious that they had come to the deliberate determination, if these powers were placed upon them, to drop the Bill. He gathered that though the clause had not been moved in its amended form the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) would be willing to do so if that were made a condition of acceptance. He was instructed to say that that could not be the case with regard to this particular Bill. What the Corporation of Liverpool felt was that they had entered into a deliberate agreement and arrangement with the Tramways Company, and that this alteration would give them a power to vary the conditions which had been entered into and by which they considered they were bound honourably to abide. This Order only affected a short line of tramways—less than a mile in length—and yet if the clause were carried it would refer to the whole length of 50 miles of trams in the City of Liverpool. It was far too serious a case to be assented to by them, and they had instructed him, on their behalf, to say that if the clause were carried by the House they would feel bound to drop the Order. In the action they were thus taking they were supported by all the other Local Authorities who were concerned. There-

    1375
    fore he ventured to hope the House would not force the clause upon the Local Authorities, who were determinedly opposed to it, and the effect of which, if carried, would be to at all events postpone work which was urgently necessary in the interests of the people of Liverpool.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR,)said, he thought the Committee would have no objection to the Amendment in principle; if this were a new Company or a new tramway he thought it would be a right thing that this clause should be inserted. The reason why the clause was not inserted in this Order by the Committee was this: The various Government Departments, as a rule, send in Reports with regard to matter in an Unopposed Bill which they think should be considered by the Committee. Upon this particular Bill the Board of Trade reported to him and to the Committee that the Corporation of Liverpool objected to this clause, and as it was necessary, in the Unopposed Bill Committee, to lay down some rule with regard to these matters, because the parties were not all represented, they considered the Report of the Board of Trade on this Bill, and they came to the conclusion that the safest and best course, under the circumstances, to take was not to insert the clause, seeing that the Corporation which represented the whole mass of ratepayers, and ought to know what was best in this matter, opposed its insertion. If this had been merely the opposition of the promoters, he thought the Committee would have inserted the clause; but as it was objected to by the Corporation, and as it was so reported to them by the Board of Trade, they felt it to be their duty to decline to insert the clause, and to leave it to the House to say whether the view should prevail or not.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, the objection of the Liverpool Corporation to the clause no doubt arose from the fact that when the original agreement was made with the Tramways Company no such difficulty as this was contemplated, and they had made an agreement which they thought it was desirable to continue under all future conditions. But if that principle were allowed the result would be that under no circumstances could this very
    1376
    desirable protection to the working classes be adopted by the House and enforced upon Tramway Companies. They all knew that Railway Companies, instead of raising their fares on holidays, reduced them, and the working classes had thus the opportunity of enjoying the facilities to travel, but it was manifest that the Tramway Companies took advantage of their monopolies—monopolies which had been granted by Parliament—to enforce exactions which were little better than spoliation and robbery from the poor. He hoped the House would protect those who otherwise could not have any protection. As to the Company and the Corporation dropping the Order, he did not think it was probable they would do anything of the sort. They had heard threats of that character before.
    MR. W. LONG: Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that within the last 10 minutes I have been instructed to say, authoritatively and definitely, that if the clause is carried the Corporation will drop the Order.
    MR. SNAPEsaid, he, perhaps, ought to have said that it was not probable they would drop it permanently. If it paid the Corporation and the Tramway Company to make this new extension of their system, there was no question at all that a restriction which would prevent them charging the extra fares on holidays would not be any real and lasting impediment to such extension; and he did not think the House ought to be influenced by that. They were told that at the present moment they did not charge their maximum fares, and that they had not exercised the opportunity of making those extra charges. If that were so, then there was no hardship in asking them to allow this clause to be introduced into the Bill, and he trusted the House would not permit this opportunity of protecting the working classes and the poor in the enjoyment of the vehicular facilities on holidays and similar occasions.
    MR. WILLOXsaid, that no comparison could be drawn between London and Liverpool in this matter, because in Liverpool the fares were fixed under an agreement with the Tramway Company, and the maximum could not be increased. Without going into the question of protecting the interests of the working and industrial classes,

    1377
    he would like to point out to the House that this Provisional Order dealt only with a short length of tramway, which was to be a connecting link between two central parts of the tramway system of Liverpool, so as to enable workmen who lived in one part of the town to reach their work in another; so that this extension was not so much to the interest of either the Corporation or the Tramway Company as to that of the industrial classes, of whom the Member for Heywood (Mr. Snape) was the unappointed champion. He should also like further to suggest that this question was not altogether one of protection for the public, or the increase of powers, but it was the question of the observance of an agreement, which had been solemnly entered into, and which had now been in force for a number of years. He did not express any opinion whether or not this clause was desirable in itself, but he was quite sure that this was not the opportune moment to introduce it, because the lease, which had been running for some years, would bind the one side, whereas the Amendment would have the effect of liberating the other side. When the lease expired, and a new one was to be settled, it might then probably be a fair opportunity for considering the enforcement of such a clause, but in the meantime he could affirm the statement of the hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Long), and say that the Corporation of Liverpool had authoritatively decided that they would not proceed with the Bill if the Amendment was introduced. Further, the Local Board of Walton, which was also a Local Authority, would take similar action, and he thought that where there was no demand made by the Corporation, by the ratepayers, or by the Tramway Company, it seemed somewhat unreasonable that a private Member without local experience should attempt to force this Amendment on a locality of which he had no personal experience. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment, or that, if he should persist in going to a Division, it would be rejected by the House.
    MR. NEVILLEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) would not persist in this Amendment, not because he did not sympathise with the direction in which it was going, but because he thought the result of per-
    1378
    sisting in it on the present occasion would be very unfortunate for those very people whom he desired to serve. This was not the case of a Company coming for a large extension of Parliamentary powers or anything of that kind. It was simply a case where the existing Tramway Company wanted to make a very small extension of one of their lines with the view to suit the convenience mainly of the large class of working people who had their business at some distance and to whom this slight extension would offer very great facilities. Rightly or wrongly, the Liverpool Corporation considered themselves under such an express obligation to the Tramways Company, who were their lessees, that if this Amendment were persisted in they thought it would not be honourable on their part to press forward the Provisional Order. Under these circumstances, the persons whose interests the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) desired to serve could gain nothing, because by his action they would lose the benefits which they would get if this extension were made. He ventured to think this was a case in which the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) would do well to consider before he pressed his Amendment to a Division, with the result, if he was successful, of preventing the enjoyment by the working classes in Liverpool of what would really be a very great convenience and facility.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)said, he sympathised very heartily with the object of the hon. Member (Mr. Morton), and expressed his regret that in this particular case the Corporation of Liverpool had found themselves unable to accept the provision. He wished they had been able to do so, but the position in which they found themselves was that the Corporation and the Company assured them in the most authoritative way that they would immediately drop the Bill if the Amendment was carried. Whatever additional facilities which the Bill proposed to give would thus be lost, and, knowing the feeling of the Corporation, as expressed by the Member for Liverpool who had spoken, and who might be fairly taken to represent the wishes of the city, he would ask his hon. Friend not to pursue the Amendment. If he divided the House, one of two things would happen: either the Amendment

    1379
    would be carried, in which case the Bill would be withdrawn, or, if the Amendment should be defeated, the House would appear to have given a decision against a principle which he was sure most of them heartily sympathised with, but which they felt could not properly be applied in this case against the wishes of the Local Authority. Here they had the Local Authority opposing the Amendment, and he did not think the House would be justified in overriding those wishes, supported as they were by Representatives of the city in that House.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "lawful," the words "without the consent of the Corporation."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    MR. W. LONGsaid, the Corporation of Liverpool would object to the amended Amendment just as much as the original Amendment. The Corporation, as the Local Authority, had considered the matter, and they had come to the conclusion that this power was undesirable. They felt that if these powers were to be exercised it would involve the breach of an honourable arrangement entered into with this Company. [Mr. SNAPE: No.] The hon. Gentleman, who was not a member of the Liverpool Corporation, said "No," but he was only telling the House the conclusion the Corporation had arrived at. He could not speak from personal experience of holidays, but he could say that the tramways of Liverpool were very largely used, and although he had the honour to represent a purely working-class constituency, he had not had one single objection brought to his notice against the existing state of things at Liverpool, and not one single recommendation in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Morton), while he had been urged on the part of Liverpool generally, and of the Corporation and other Local Authorities, to resist this Amendment.
    MR. NEVILLEsaid, he was very sorry that the hon. Member (Mr. Morton) had not adopted the course suggested by the President of the Board of Trade and himself. He should certainly resist the Amendment, because he thought it a
    1380
    great pity that the advantages which the Bill conferred should be lost.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of a Division. He must feel that after the strong opinion which had been expressed by the hon. Members for Liverpool on both sides, the House would certainly not be justified in acting contrary to their wishes.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he must take the opinion of the House upon the matter.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 139.—(Division List, No. 203.)
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that after the Division just taken he would not move what was called "No. 6" on the Paper—namely, to insert in the Liverpool Corporation Tramways (Extension) Bill—
    "It shall not be lawful for the Company to take or demand on Sunday or on any bank or other public holiday any higher rates or charges than those levied by them on ordinary week days."
    He would, however, move "No. 7," which was to insert that clause in the Croydon Corporation Tramways Bill. He did so because he was informed by an hon. Member acquainted with the Corporation of Croydon that that body were willing to accept the clause with some alteration. [A communication was here made to Mr. Morton.] He understood that he had made a mistake, and that the hon. Member did not assent to the clause. Under the circumstances, and considering that the tramway in question was a very short one, he would not trouble the House to divide.
    Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
    MR. S. HERBERTsaid, he would move to omit Clause 17 of the Bill, which said that the promoters should not raise their fares on Sundays or public holidays. The clause was struck out by the Select Committee of the House of Lords, and re-inserted by the Chairman of Committees when it came before the Committee on Unopposed Bills. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in his speech on the Liverpool Bill that he had put in these clauses in order that the House might have an

    1381
    opportunity of deciding on their merits. He understood that the Corporation did not appear before the Committee, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman had no information on the subject before him. He (Mr. Herbert) was not speaking for the Corporation, but from the point of view of the promoters, who were strongly opposed to the insertion of these words. The Chairman of Committees had pointed out that a clause of this sort might very properly be introduced into a Bill promoted by any new Company. He agreed to a great extent with the right hon. Gentleman. This Croydon Tramways Company was not a new Company, but had been in operation for a considerable number of years, and had recently been very largely developing its capabilities. He hoped that considering that the House had just declined to insert in the Liverpool Tramways Bill a clause which was word for word the same as that inserted in this Bill, it would not stultify itself by allowing the clause to remain. He hoped the House would come to the same conclusion as it came to on the Liverpool Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: To what Bill is the hon. Member referring — to the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill—(Right of Extension)? Clause 17 is Power to grant Running Powers.
    MR. S. HERBERT: It is the second Bill on page 17 of the measure.
    MR. SPEAKER: Is it not Clause 14?
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR): It is a now clause—Clause 34, paragraph 17.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member moves to omit paragraph 17 of the Tramways Orders Confirmation (Croydon Extension) (No. 2) Bill.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lord] (by Order).—(No. 307.)
  Amendment proposed to Croydon Extension Order, in page 22, to leave out paragraph 34a—
  "The promoters or any Company or person working or using the tramways shall not raise their fares on any Sunday or public holiday."—(Mr. S. Herbert.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Order."
  MR. A. C. MORTON said, the clause was first inserted by the Board of Trade
  1382
  when the Bill went before the House of Lords. The House of Lords struck it out, and the Bill came before the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, and that right hon. Gentleman re-inserted the clause. This Tramway Company's line practically adjoined the London Tramway system 30 miles in extent, in a Bill affecting which a similar clause was inserted a few weeks back. The Croydon Company covered part of greater London. There had been an appeal from the Corporation of Liverpool, but there had been none such in this case. The Corporation of Croydon had not appeared before the Chairman of Committees, and the only persons who had appealed were the promoters, who thought they should not be restricted as to charges they might make on the people who used their tramway. The Chairman of Committees had seen fit to put this clause in the Bill, and he (Mr. Morton) trusted he would keep it there. At any rate, so far as he was concerned, he should divide against the Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR)said, he thought he ought to state the reasons which induced him to insert the clause in the Bill. He said just now that the best rule on which to decide these matters was to take the opinion of the Local Authorities, whoever they might be, because he thought that the people living on the spot, for whose benefit these Bills were introduced and carried out, were the best judges of the terms upon which the tramways should be constructed. On this Bill the Corporation of Croydon did not appear, and he had no information as to their views. The only persons who appeared before him were the promoters. He heard what they had to say, and as the Bill was unopposed he inserted this clause. In all Bills of the kind where he had no information as to the views of the Local Authorities this clause was inserted. He did not quite understand whether or not on this the hon. Member for Croydon represented the Corporation. [Mr. S. HERBERT: No.] Then, if they had no information as the views of the Corporation, and if no one knew what the Corporation had to say on the matter, either one of two courses should be taken—either they should maintain the clause as it had been inserted, or the subject should be ad-

  1383
  journed, so that the opinion of the Local Authority might be ascertained.
  SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid, he thought they should rather come to an opposite conclusion from the premises laid down by the Chairman of Committees. It was surely for the Local Authority to signify their wish if they desired to have a certain provision introduced into a Bill promoted by a local Company. In the present instance the Local Governing Body had made no suggestion; therefore, it was quite extraneous for any other authority to move in the matter. Surely the Local Authorities were active enough in promoting the interests of their constituencies, and if they had not asked for this clause to be introduced it seemed to him primâ facie evidence that they did not want it.
  MR. S. HERBERTsaid, he perhaps might be allowed to say that, though he did not represent the Corporation on this matter, he did represent it on the subject of the Amendment the hon. Member for Peterborough had put down on the Paper, which had reference to tramways in which the Corporation were directly interested. They were, therefore, interested in the question.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,)said, that the hon. Member was acting merely on inference. For his part, however, it was reasonable to infer that the Croydon Corporation were not interested, as they had expressed no opinion. In the last Division the House had given effect to the view of the Local Authorities because they knew what they were; obviously, they ought to know what the views of the Local Authorities were. He did not understand the hon. Member for Croydon to be in a position to say what the views of the Croydon Corporation were. Therefore, considering the darkness in which the House stood, he thought the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees should be adopted, the discussion being adjourned until they had the views of the Corporation before them.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not pretend to know anything of these matters, but this appeared to be a very interesting question. He did not know whether the information given in regard to the Board of Trade was correct. As he understood
  1384
  it, the clause now objected to was originally inserted at the instigation of the Board of Trade, but that before the Lords Committee the Board of Trade suggested its omission. They themselves represented the desirability of omitting the clause they themselves had previously inserted. He did not know what the reason for that change was, but he was informed that that was the case. It was admitted by the officials of the Board of Trade that it was at their instigation that the clause was withdrawn; and it was re-inserted by the Chairman of Committees. Then came the question, What was the usual practice of the Chairman of Committees? Surely the Unopposed Bill Committee was never accustomed to insert a clause that was in any sense a contentious clause. They only were understood to have the duty imposed on them of inserting clauses in the general interest, and which in other cases had been adopted by Committees of the House. Certainly it would be giving to the Unopposed Bill Committee a most extraordinary power if they were to be entitled, against the opinion of the Board of Trade, to insert a clause which that Department desired to omit. He only wished to state the case as he had heard it from right hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the Debate. He must say that under the circumstances he thought it was a strong thing to ask the House to support the Unopposed Bill Committee in inserting clauses which the Board of Trade wished to have withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR)said, he had no information brought before him, sitting as Chairman of the Unopposed Bill Committee, as to whether or not the Board of Trade approved of the clause, or as to whether it had been omitted at the instance of the Board of Trade. The reason it was inserted was because there was no objection on the part of the Corporation, and in order that the House might pass judgment upon it.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had spoken of the hon. Member for Croydon acting on inference. Well, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have realised the true position of affairs. There were two Croydon Tramway Bills, one promoted by the Tramway Company and the other by the Corpora-

  1385
  tion. In the one case the hon. Member for Peterborough wished to insert a clause, and the hon. Member for Croydon was instructed to oppose it, and it was not an unfair inference that if the Corporation objected to a penalising clause in their own Bill on behalf of their constituents, they would at least, in all honour, oppose the introduction of a similar clause into a Bill introduced by an independent Company working practically under the same circumstances and under the same difficulties. Nothing could be more unfair than to insert this restricted clause in a Bill promoted by a private Company and omit it from a Bill promoted by the Corporation itself. Yet on the evidence before the House that was the course they would be compelled to follow if they proceeded further. The hon. Member for Croydon would much rather that this question should be decided now than that the Debate should be adjourned. The hon. Member would object to the clause if they proceeded further, and under the circumstances he was justified in opposing the imposition of this disparity on the people of Croydon. They had no evidence before them to justify them in coming to the conclusion either that there was any risk of extreme fares being imposed, or that the Company would be able to bear the burden placed on them. Under the circumstances, he hoped that the House would proceed to decide the question.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONmoved the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. BODKINseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. W. Johnston)—put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

QUESTIONS.

  POLICE PROSECUTIONS AT NAAS AND NEWBRIDGE.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Constabulary at Naas and Newbridge, County Kildare, frame their summons under the Towns Improvement Act for offences committed in those towns in their own names in a
  1386
  large number of cases, and not in the names of the Town Commissioners; whether the fines thus inflicted are diverted from being wholly applied in relief of the town rate, as only a small portion of them are so applied when the cases are brought forward in that way; and whether he will communicate with the Inspector General with a view of having this irregularity rectified?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The police at Naas and Newbridge are sometimes in the habit of prosecuting in their own name at Petty Sessions for offences under the Towns Improvement Act. This practice arose from the fact that Courts under the Towns Improvements Act were rarely held in these towns. The fines inflicted in such cases are not wholly applied to the relief of the town rates. The irregularity that now exists will be remedied.
  MR. KENNEDY: Will the Government compensate the Local Authorities for the funds which they have lost owing to this irregularity?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I must ask for notice of that question.

  SAMOA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to report any amelioration in the conditions under which Mataafa and his principal adherents have been exiled from Samoa to the Marshall Islands; whether Jaluit, the island on which Mataafa is imprisoned, is entirely in German occupation, and is only visited by a British trading vessel twice a year; is he aware that the action of Captain Bickford, of H.M.S. Katoomba, in handing over Mataafa to the Germans, is deprecated by a number of the British residents of Samoa; and has any Despatch from the British Consul in Samoa, detailing the circumstances of Mataafa's deportation and exile been received; and, if so, is there any objection to giving a summary of its contents?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I have nothing to add to my previous answer on the 5th of June respecting Mataafa's treatment. Jaluit is

  1387
  in German occupation, but I cannot say how often there is regular communication with it. Mataafa was in the first instance conveyed to the Union group of islands on board a German man-of-war as a matter of convenience, H.M.S. Katoomba not having received her supply of coal from Auckland. Subsequently it was arranged by agreement between the three Treaty Powers that the German Authorities should take charge of him. I do not know how the arrangement is regarded by the majority of the British residents in Samoa, but it does not seem necessary to publish Papers upon the subject.

  RURAL POSTMEN.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that certain exceptions were made in 1891, when the then Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) granted increments of salary to established rural postmen; and whether he will now consider the propriety of extending the 1891 scale of increments to such exceptional cases, or to established rural postmen generally who have travelled 70 miles weekly on foot during the past 12 years, and whose hours of duty prevent their official salaries being supplemented from any other source?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The concession of wages on a rising scale is granted only to officers performing a full day's work, and in the case of rural postmen qualified to hold an established appointment it has already been extended to all postmen whose duties could be fairly regarded as coming up to that standard. I do not consider that it would be right to reduce the standard in order to include an additional number of cases, such as those referred to by the hon. Member.

  CEMETERY FEES AT DALTON-IN-FURNESS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the table of fees and charges of the Dalton-in-Furness Burial Board provides for the payment to ministers, in the unconsecrated part of their cemetery, of fees for interments, vaults, tombstones, &c. (varying from 2s.
  1388
  to £4 4s.), which are identical in amount with those legally payable to the Vicar in the consecrated part; whether this table of fees has received the sanction of the Home Office; and (3), whether, seeing that this is in contravention of Section 17 of 20 & 21 Vic., which provides that such fees shall not be payable in the unconsecrated parts of cemeteries, such steps will be taken as will lead to a revision by the Burial Board of their table of fees and charges for the purpose of making it conformable to law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): (1) My attention had not been previously called to this table of fees, but it appears on inquiry that it contains a column of fees for payment to ministers in the consecrated portion of the cemetery. (2) Such heading is illegal, and does not appear in the print of the table of fees preserved in the Home Office and approved in 1873. (3) The attention of the Burial Board has been called to this irregularity, and the Board have professed their readiness to amend the scale in a manner that may be indicated to them by the Secretary of State.

  LORD CLANRICARDE'S AGENT.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state when and by whom Mr. Edward Shaw Tener, agent to Lord Clanricarde, was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Galway; whether he was the owner of any property in the county at the time of his appointment; whether he is aware that in his capacity of Magistrate he has issued distraining orders to his bailiff to be executed against the tenants on the estate of which he is agent; whether he is aware that upon a recent occasion Mr. Tener, with Mr. Lewis, sat on the Bench at Woodford, and granted a licence for a cattle pound to one of his emergency men for receiving cattle seized for trespassing on evicted farms and for rent due to his employer, although Mr. Hickson, Resident Magistrate, was opposed to granting a licence for an additional pound, as they had already established two in the district, one being in the yard attached to Mr. Lewis's house; and whe-

  1389
  ther he will direct the Lord Chancellor's attention to the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Mr. Tener was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Galway in 1888 by Lord Chancellor Ashbourne, on the recommendation of the lieutenant of the county. He had previously been appointed a Magistrate for the County Cavan by Lord O'Hagan in 1871. Mr. Tener had no landed property in Galway when appointed to the Commission for that county, but he had elsewhere. As regards the third paragraph, it is a fact that Mr. Tener had issued distraining orders for rent to his bailiff, but these orders were granted not in his Magisterial capacity, but as agent to Lord Clanricarde. Landlords and their agents have power to issue such orders. The facts are as stated in the fourth paragraph. It is competent to Justices under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1851, when an insufficient number of pounds are established in a district to establish such additional pounds as they shall think necessary. Mr. Tener and Mr. Lewis seem to have taken it upon themselves to establish the pound in question in the absence of the Resident Magistrate, who was opposed to establishing an additional pound, as he believed that the two already in the neighbourhood were quite sufficient for public requirements. I shall refer the papers to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the power exercised by Mr. Tener cannot be exercised under the Act of Parliament by power of attorney, and whether there have been any two cases of distraint by Mr. Tener, and that in both these cases the rent was paid immediately after the distraint and the stock released?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Of course, I cannot answer the question just put by the hon. Member, as I am not acquainted with the circumstances. But this is not a question exactly of the Act of Parliament. It is rather a question of what is judicious and what is injudicious.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask whether these distraint orders can be signed except by a Magistrate, and whether it is in accordance with the
  1390
  practice for a Magistrate to sign the orders where he himself is the agent?
  MR. J. MORLEY: An agent has power to issue a distraining order for rent.
  MR. FIELD: Has it been brought under the notice of the Government that the agents of landlords are very frequently Magistrates, and use their position as such to sign these distraining notices, and otherwise to promote the interests of the estates for which they are agents?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he could not quite follow the question. He had better have notice.

  COLONEL LONGBOURN, R.M., AND THE CLANRICARDE AGENT.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that upon Colonel Longbourn's Resident Magistrate appointment to the Petty Sessions District of Woodford, he went to Portumna Castle, and after visiting Mr. Tener Lord Clanricarde's agent, he went to the Woodford Petty Sessions to preside, where Mr. Tener attended to prosecute several of the evicted tenants for trespass on their farms, and Colonel Longbourn inflicted fines very much in excess of those inflicted by his predecessor, Mr. Hickson, R.M., for similar offences; whether he is aware that after the Court he got on Mr. Tener's car, and accompanied him back to Portumna; whether he is aware of the strong feeling existing in the district as to the connection between this Resident Magistrate and the prosecutor Mr. Tener; and if he will inquire into the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are generally as stated in the first and second paragraphs; the maximum penalties were inflicted in every case on the occasion referred to. After the sitting of the Court Mr. Tener offered to convey the Resident Magistrate on his car back to Portumna, and this offer Colonel Longbourn accepted. The Resident Magistrate having to assist in the decision of these cases of trespass instituted by direction of Lord Clanricarde, or on his behalf, and having regard to the relations existing between Mr. Tener as agent for Lord Clanricarde and the people of Woodford, it seems to me that

  1391
  the Resident Magistrate acted imprudently under the circumstances. It has not been brought to my knowledge that any strong feeling, as alleged, exists in the district; and it is only fair to add that Colonel Longbourn denies that any connection between him and Mr. Tener exists.

  WYNDHAM PIT MINE, SOUTH WALES.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he is aware that the workmen employed at the Wyndham Pit, North's Navigation, Ogmore Valley, in South Wales, to the number of 1,200, have had to play four days during the last three weeks in consequence of the accumulation of gas in the mine owing to the lack of adequate ventilation; (2) whether Her Majesty's Sub-Inspector Lewis made a visit to this mine on the 16th and 17th of July; (3) whether he visited the following headings, "David Samuels," "Pope's," and "Samuel Jones"; (4) what was the state of the return air in this district; (5) whether this return airway is in a safe condition and of adequate area; (6) whether he is aware that the downcast shaft is 16 feet diameter, and the upcast shaft only 12 feet diameter; (7) whether Her Majesty's Inspector considers this sufficient to ventilate the three extensive mines worked at this pit; and (8) whether the Inspector's Report of his visit on the 16th and 17th can be read to the House?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed by the Inspector that the number of workmen employed at the Wyndham Pit is 660, and not 1,200, as stated by my hon. Friend, which information is confirmed by the workmen themselves. Out of the 660, 470 are employed by day and 190 by night. (2) The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. (3) Mr. Lewis, Assistant Inspector of Mines, visited all the workings of the four-feet seam of the colliery. (4 and 5) The return airway was found not to be in such a satisfactory condition as is desirable, but was being repaired, and is now, I believe, in a satisfactory condition. (6 and 7) The down-cast shaft is 15 feet, and not 16 feet as stated; but in the opinion of the Inspector there is no reason to believe that they are insufficient for the adequate ventilation of the
  1392
  three seams worked in connection with them. I may add that I have received a copy of a letter which the workmen of the Wyndham Colliery have sent to the Press for publication, in which they state that, of their own spontaneous wish, they repudiate the statements with much indignation that the colliery is not properly ventilated, and that in their opinion the colliery is in almost a perfect state of ventilation. (8) Under these circumstances, there seems no occasion to read Mr. Lewis's Report to the House.

  LIVERPOOL TELEGRAPH CLERKS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. W. LONG: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has now considered the statement submitted to him by the Liverpool Postal Telegraph Clerks Association some two and a-half months ago; and whether he is in a position to announce that some, at all events, of the much needed alterations shall be speedily made?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have considered the statement submitted by certain members of the telegraphic staff at Liverpool. Seeing, however, that the position of the telegraphists throughout the United Kingdom was very fully considered in 1890, and that the sanction of the House was then obtained for the expenditure of a large sum of public money in improving their wages and prospects, I am not prepared at the present time to entertain any proposals for further improving the scale of pay; nor do I consider that classification should be abolished, as such a change would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the interests of the Public Service and of the best portion of the staff.

  BODYKE POLICE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police assisted in bringing the crops away from the farm of the Widow Garney, who was recently evicted at Bodyke by Colonel O'Callaghan; and whether the police have any authority to help the landlord in this or any other manner to carry out the work of eviction?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General informs me that it is not the fact that the police assisted in the bringing

  1393
  away of crops from the evicted farm in question. It appears that the caretaker of evicted holdings in this locality, who is under personal police protection, recently visited Mrs. Garney's evicted farm and took away about a stone of potatoes and some cabbage. The police in no way assisted him, and were present in the ordinary course of protection duty.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Why did not the police help the landlord in the eviction?
  MR. J. MORLEY: They have no authority to help; their duty is simply to protect.

  THE CLARE MAGISTRACY.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland upon what grounds Mr. Wakely, J.P., was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for County Clare; and whether he is aware that this gentleman resides in County Galway?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Mr. Wakely was recommended to the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland for appointment to the Commission of the Peace by the Lieutenant of the County Clare. It is true he resides in the adjoining County of Galway, though on the borders of Clare, and he has property in both counties.

  SOLDIERS' WORKSHOPS.
  COLONEL MURRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether facilities exist at any Regimental Districts, or in any garrisons or regimental headquarters at Home or Abroad, to enable soldiers to learn, or keep up any previous knowledge of a trade; and, if so, how the system has been found to work, where tried?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,, &c.): In every corps and in all situations where it is practicable, the Commanding Officer is required by Regulations to establish workshops for the employment and instruction of soldiers in various trades and handicrafts. Difficulties frequently arise through a deficiency of men of the various trades and from other causes; and the large number of recruits in a battalion, in consequence of short service, necessarily militates against any large extension of the system,
  1394
  but where it can be carried out, the result is considered generally satisfactory.

  STAINES RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, notwithstanding the War Office certificate has been withdrawn from the Metropolitan rifle range at Staines, firing still continues at that range, both by Regulars and Volunteers; whether he is aware that the residents in the neighbourhood consider the firing at this range is a source of great danger; whether he is aware that the cattle and sheep have been shot in a field adjoining the butts and paid for by the Rifle Range Company; and if he will direct the range to be closed?
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the withdrawal of the certificate for the Staines Rifle Range still further reduces the inadequate range accommodation for the regular and auxiliary garrison of the Metropolis; what steps the Government propose to take to grapple with this difficulty, and to enable the defenders of the country to be trained in the use of the weapons with which they are armed; and if he will consider the increased difficulties which Metropolitan and Urban Volunteers have, owing to this want of ranges, in complying with the additional musketry requirements of the War Office as regards the capitation grant?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Company to which this range belongs, having been deprived of their rights over some land at the extreme end of it, the War Office certificate authorising it as a safe range has been withdrawn, and the Commanding Officers of the Volunteer corps which have been using the range have been informed of the withdrawal. I presume that its use by them has ceased. It is not required for the Regulars, and they do not use it. I have not heard of any accidents having occurred such as are indicated, but I am aware that some of the neighbouring residents have objected to the shooting. The range belongs to a private Company, and the Secretary of State has no power to interfere further with the control of their property. Undoubtedly the withdrawal of the certificate from the range

  1395
  at Staines will, for a time, reduce the available accommodation for the Volunteers. The Government do not propose further to intervene in the matter, as existing Regulations empower Volunteer corps to combine for the provision of suitable ranges. The new Musketry Regulations in no way increase the difficulty of providing ranges; on the contrary, they rather simplify the question.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the enormous difficulties Volunteer corps experience in finding a range?
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time the people of this district are in danger by reason of the use of this range?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I repeat that I have no control over the range so long as it is used for practice only. All I can do is to withdraw the certificate, allowing it to be used for ordinary prescribed firing. Obviously the Company who own it may allow or prevent anyone using it. As to the last paragraph of the question, and the purposes of the capitation grant, that is a large subject with which I should not like to deal in an answer.

  THE POST OFFICE AND THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is correctly reported in Hansard of 31st August, 1893, to have promised, in reply to the hon. Member for Canterbury, that the proposed Agreement between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company should be submitted to Parliament for their sanction; whether he is aware that the Chairman of the National Telephone Company, in his address to the shareholders, is reported in The Times of the 26th instant to have stated that all difficulties in the matter had now been practically overcome, and the agreement would shortly be submitted for confirmation to the House of Commons; and whether the House will be given an opportunity of considering the Agreement, having regard to the pledges given by him and the very important public interests involved, before the Agreement becomes a definite and binding contract?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I did not, on the 31st August, 1893, say that the Agreement would be submitted to Parliament for their sanction. If the hon. Member will refer to the report he will see that I merely said that it would be submitted to Parliament, and, as at that time it was not intended to lay the Agreement on the Table before it was finally signed, it is clear that I could not have intended to ask Parliament for their sanction. On the 8th of September several questions were addressed to me, including one by my right hon. Friend the late Postmaster General, and I then stated that in view of what appeared to be the intention of some Members of the Select Committee of 1892, I had decided to lay the Agreement on the Table before it was signed. To that decision I adhere; and I hope to be in a position to do so before the House goes into Committee on the Telegraph Estimates. I observe that in the speech to which the hon. Member refers, the Chairman of the National Telephone Company is reported to have said—
  "We are, of course, advised that the Agreement is already in existence, having been signed two years ago on behalf of the Government and this Company."
  and, he added,
  "I apprehend no serious objection being raised to it by the House of Commons."

  INLAND REVENUE BUSINESS IN BERWICKSHIRE.
  MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Inland Revenue business in Berwickshire is conducted by officials in Dumfriesshire; that their want of knowledge of the district and of the industries of the County of Berwick causes much inconvenience and dissatisfaction; if he will explain why this state of things exists; and if he will take steps to have it remedied?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): It is not understood to what particular branch of Inland Revenue business the question refers. If to the collection of taxes, I am informed that, although the Collector of Inland Revenue who receives the taxes for Berwickshire is stationed at Dumfries, he holds a sitting in the county town of Berwickshire in January. No complaint of inconvenience with regard to the collection of taxes appears to have

  1397
  reached the Inland Revenue, nor any expression of dissatisfaction.

  DUBLIN SORTING OFFICE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the revision of the Sorting Office, Dublin General Post Office, has yet been completed, as it appears to have been under consideration for a long time?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The proposal for the revision of the Sorting Office, Dublin General Post Office, has not yet been received in this Office. I am informed that it is still under consideration in Dublin, but that it cannot be completed satisfactorily until after the opening of the now Parcel Sorting Office.

  IMPERIAL PENNY POSTAGE.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Official Report of the Wellington Postal Conference has been received; whether he can state to the House the purport of the Report so far as it relates to the Imperial Penny Postage; and whether any later expressions of opinion have been received from any of the Colonial Governments on the subject?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have now received the Official Report; and the resolution of the Colonial Conference on the subject mentioned is in the following terms:—

  IMPERIAL PENNY POSTAGE.

    PENNY POSTAGE FROM GREAT BRITAIN TO AUSTRALIA.
    Resolved, "That with regard to the proposals from time to time made for penny postage between Great Britain and the Colonies, and, more recently, that such be adopted for letters from the United Kingdom, leaving the rate from the Colonies as at present, this Conference, while recognising the desirableness of adopting the lowest possible rate, desires to express the opinion that the heavy cost of providing speedy and regular communication does not admit of any further reduction being made at the present time, the reduction to 2½d. in 1891 having resulted in an annual loss to the Colonies of about £40,000; and that the partial reduction proposed—namely, in the rate from Great Britain—would be most undesirable, as such a measure would compel the Colonies to reduce their inland and intercolonial rates from 2d. to 1d., involving a probable loss to them of £250,000 per annum, in addition to that already mentioned as the result of the reduction to 2½d., and that a copy of the foregoing be transmitted to the Imperial Government."
    The only later expression of opinion
    1398
    which has been received from any Colonial Government on the subject is a telegram from New South Wales to the Agent General for that Colony in the following terms:—
    "Inform Lord Ripon we repudiate any action taken by Mr. Heaton re Penny Postage, and have sent the following telegram to Victorian Government. This Government dissents from the proposed cable message to Mr. Henniker Heaton for the reasons urged at the Conference by the Postmaster General and other delegates. Mr. Heaton in no way represents this Colony in his views in postal matters."
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is the Postmaster General aware that Sir James Patterson, Prime Minister of Victoria, has denounced the action of the New Zealand Postal Conference as foolish and not in accordance with Australian public opinion; that he has telegraphed to the other Australian Governments cordially approving of Imperial penny postage and my action; that the Governments of New Zealand, Tasmania, and Victoria also concurred in a request to send to England a telegram to this effect; and that the Government of New South Wales (Sir George Dibbs) which has dissented, was turned out of Office a few days after the despatch of the telegram to the Agent General?
    MR. A. MORLEY: No doubt the telegram from New South Wales was in answer to the one from the Victorian Government.

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Elizabeth Saunders, convicted on the 23rd instant at Westminster Police Court of cruelty to three children, and sentenced by Mr. de Rutzen to a term of three months' imprisonment for each offence, or nine months in all; whether he is aware that Provincial Justices, sitting in Petty Sessions, are advised by the Magistrates' clerks that under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts they cannot sentence any prisoner to a punishment exceeding a term of six months with hard labour, except in cases of failure to find security for good behaviour at the end of that term; and whether the London Police Magistrates have larger powers of punishment than Provincial Magistrates sitting in Petty

  1399
  Sessions possess; or whether it is to be understood that Courts of Summary Jurisdiction both in the Metropolis and in the Provinces have powers to inflict cumulative sentences which may extend beyond six months' hard labour?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am advised by the Chief Magistrate that the only restriction in any statute to the passing by Justices of consecutive sentences is contained in the 18th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which only restricts the power in respect of several assaults committed on the same occasion. The London Police Magistrates have no larger powers than Provincial Magistrates, and the sentence passed on Elizabeth Saunders was perfectly legal, and might have been properly passed by Provincial Magistrates sitting in Petty Sessions.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Then if there had been six children instead of three the Magistrate would have had power to inflict 18 months' imprisonment? Is that a proper power for him to possess? I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  MILITARY AND ORPHAN FUNDS IN INDIA.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: In the absence of the hon. Member for Central Hull, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when the last valuations of the Bengal, Madras, and Bombay Military and Orphan Funds were made; and whether in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2 of the Act 29 Vic., c. 18, it is possible to increase the benefits now receivable by the subscribers and their families, and to whom the surplus of those funds will ultimately revert?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The last and only valuations of these funds were made in 1863 (Madras), 1869 (Bengal Military), 1870 (Bombay), and 1872 (Bengal Orphan). Since the passing of the Act quoted by the hon. Member and on a consideration of the said valuations, additional benefits were conferred on subscribers and their families as a final adjustment, and no further concessions can be made. There is no surplus, as the assets and liabilities
  1400
  were merged into the general revenues of the Government of India on the passing of the Act, since which time no separate accounts have been kept.

  INDIAN FOREST SERVICE DEPARTMENT.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the covenanted members of the Forest Service Department of India memorialised the Secretary of State for India 10 years ago, praying that the scale of pensions applicable to covenanted officers of the public works should be granted to them; whether the Government of India repeatedly recommended the grant of this scale of pensions, including special additional pensions of conservators of the first and second grades and Inspector General; whether he is aware that in the prospectus of the forest curriculum of Cooper's Hill it is stated that forest officers have been placed on an equality with public works officers in the matter of pensions, and that nothing to this effect has been published in India; whether the concessions, including special pensions to conservators and Inspector General, have been granted to officers now in the forest service and to those to be appointed hereafter; whether forest officers have in every respect been placed on terms of equality with public works officers, as stated in Cooper's Hill prospectus; and whether, if the concessions have not been granted, copies of the several recommendations and of the replies of the Secretary of State for India will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: My answer to the hon. Baronet's first question is, Yes. With regard to the second question, the first recommendation of the Government of India did not include the grant to forest officers of the special scale of pensions which, for exceptional reasons, had been granted to the Public Works Department alone. But in 1889 they did make such a recommendation as is described in the question; and they repeated it in 1891 and 1893. My answer to the third question is, Yes. With regard to the fourth question, in a Despatch of the 21st of September, 1893, the Secretary of State authorised the grant to forest officers appointed from England of

  1401
  pensions on the same terms as are permitted in the case of civil engineers, up to a maximum of Rs. 5,000 a year, with an addition of Rs.1,000 in the case of officers who shall have rendered not less than three years' approved service as the head of the department in any province, and whose special merits may be considered to be deserving of such a concession. In reply to the fifth question, forest officers appointed from England, who are now in or hereafter enter the service, will receive the same pensionary benefit as engineers hereafter appointed, but not the exceptionally high pensions granted in past years to the Public Works Department. The Correspondence is still incomplete, but when it is complete there will be no objection to lay it on the Table.

  CARLOW DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. BARTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet received the Official Report of the proceedings of the Board of Governors of the Carlow District Lunatic Asylum, held on the 13th instant; is he aware that the Board of Governors proceeded to elect an assistant medical officer on that day; that the resident medical superintendent had by advertisement notified that the election would not take place on that day, and by letter informed one of the candidates that it would not take place; and that the agenda papers distributed to the Governors contained no notice that the election would take place; whether the election held under the circumstances on that date was invalid; and whether an opportunity will be given to the Governors of holding a valid election?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Minutes of the Proceedings of the Board of Governors at their meeting held on the 13th instant has been submitted to the Government. The question of the validity of the election to the office of assistant medical officer is at present under the consideration of the Law Officers, and, pending their opinion on the matter, it is inadvisable to discuss the details arising out of the election.

  EVICTION AT MUNGRET.
  MR. BARTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  1402
  of Ireland whether he can give any information to the House with reference to the violent resistance, on Wednesday last, of a tenant named Bridgman, near Mungret, County Limerick, to eviction for five years' arrears of rent; whether he is aware that the agent was struck on the head with an iron bar, the Sheriff tripped up and otherwise obstructed, and two bailiffs wounded; and whether he intends to take any further steps with reference to any of the persons concerned?
  MR. J. MORLEY: On the 25th of July, Mr. O'Brien, the landlord's agent, went with Mr. Hobson, the sub-Sheriff, for the purpose of evicting a tenant named John Bridgman, who farmed 31 acres of land near Mungret, County Limerick, at a rent of £31, and against whom a decree for possession for non-payment had been issued amounting to £106. Bridgman gave up possession to the Sheriff, but his son was hostile, and a crowd of about 30 men and women assembled. When the bailiffs put out the goods Bridgman refused to leave, and the Sheriff caught him by the shoulder and pushed him; he resisted, but otherwise the Sheriff was not assaulted. Mr. O'Brien was struck on the head with a bar, and lost blood, but no serious injury was inflicted, and he will not prosecute for the assault. No police protection was requisitioned, but when passing the police barracks a few minutes before the eviction, the Sheriff appears to have asked for protection, which could not be given, as there was only one man in the barracks. A similar request was then made to a barrack in another district, but the police there could not give protection without authority. What occurred was altogether due to the action of the Sheriff in going out to evict Bridgman without sending in a requisition for police protection in the regular manner. The Sheriff subsequently applied for protection in the ordinary way for July 28, and the eviction was duly carried out on that day without any trouble. It does not appear that two bailiffs were wounded, but I have called for further information on this point. Inquiries will also be made as to whether the police have initiated proceedings.
  MR. BARTONinquired if it was intended that the benefits of the Eviction

  1403
  Bill should be conferred on such tenants as these?
  Mr. J. MORLEY'S reply was inaudible.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Did not the Sheriff apply for assistance? On what ground was it refused by the police?
  MR. J. MORLEY: They did apply for assistance; but, as I explained, there was only one man at the barracks.

  EVICTED TENANCIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. FISHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now give the House an accurate estimate of the aggregate rental of the whole field of the evicted tenancies which may come under the action of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill; whether he will furnish the Members of the House with figures showing the number of the claimants before the Mathew Commission whose tenancies were determined in each year between 1879 and 1894; and the total rental of the holdings so determined in each year from 1879 to 1894 respectively?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The total estimated number of claimants coming under the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill is 4,076, and the aggregate rental £142,077. Of these, 3,676 were claimants with an aggregate rental of £130,077 before the Mathew Commission, and 400 the number of persons who have been evicted since January, 1893, and who may probably appear as claimants, with an aggregate rental of £12,000. The cases of the claimants before the Mathew Commission could be classified by each year, but this would involve some time. It would not be practicable to make such a classification of the possible claimants since that Commission, the figures in their case being necessarily an estimate. The original estimate of the probable amount was thus an under-estimate, the average rental under Appendix G not having been at the time available.

  BOARD OF IRISH LIGHTS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Irish Lights were within their rights in refusing information about contracts to a Member of this House, who requires the parti-
  1404
  culars on behalf of his working men constituents?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It would be convenient if the hon. Gentleman would give notice of this question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): The control of the Board of Trade over the Lighthouse Authorities is a financial one only, and I have no power to interfere with the Board of Irish Lights on such a matter as the hon. Member refers to.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will bring in a Bill this Session to alter the constitution of the Irish Lights Board, and to extend the franchise upon which they are elected?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already stated to the House that the present constitution of the Board of Irish Lights cannot be regarded as satisfactory, and that I was aware of the desirability of having a representative element introduced on the Board. The subject is engaging the attention of the Board of Trade, the Department more immediately concerned. I do not, however, see any prospect of legislation on the subject being introduced this Session.

  INSPECTORS OF METALLIFEROUS MINES.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Leek, Postmaster at Cleator Moor, who has recently been appointed Assistant Inspector of Metalliferous Mines, has passed any examination entitling him to receive a first-class certificate as manager of a mine; and whether he is within the limit of age prescribed for candidates for appointments as Inspectors of Mines?
  MR. ASQUITH: For the appointment of Inspectors of Metalliferous Mines per se no limit of age or qualification as to previous employment underground has as yet been prescribed, the few appointments of the kind having been conferred upon gentlemen who, on account of their training and experience, have been considered qualified to hold them.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Will this gentleman be called upon to satisfy the Civil Service examiners or to pass any examination before he undertakes these duties, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Mr. Leck is the same gentleman who acted as electioneering agent for the hon. Member for West Cumberland at the last election, and received £100 for his services?
  MR. ASQUITH: This is the first I have heard that Mr. Leck acted as electioneering agent for any gentleman. Mr. Leck will not be required to pass any examination. He is one of the batch of three Inspectors of Metalliferous Mines whom I have appointed, and in the case of all of them the Treasury has not pressed for an examination, as the gentlemen are specially qualified.
  MR. WOODS: Has Mr. Leek any practical experience of mining?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, very considerable.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the statement that all the qualifications as to age, technical requirements, and service underground have not hitherto been required for Inspectors both of coal mines and of metalliferous mines?
  MR. ASQUITH: They have been always required where the Inspectors have to inspect both coal and iron mines.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Then I would ask whether this gentleman, after he has received his appointment, will not, under Section 39 of the Coal Mines Act, 1887, be qualified to act as a Coal Mines Inspector?
  MR. ASQUITH: No; it has been specially inserted as one of the conditions of his employment that he shall not so act.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall on the first opportunity available call attention to this matter.

  SAND HEAPS IN LONDON PARKS.
  MR. CROSFIELD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can provide a heap of clean sand for the amusement of the children who frequent the St. James' and Green Parks?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): I am inquiring of the London County Council as to the result of experiments they have made in this direction.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Is there any known method of keeping the sand clean when it has been provided?
  [No answer was given.]

  RATING OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury valuer is charged with the valuation for rating purposes of land and buildings maintained at the expense of the Government of India as well as of those paid for out of British Revenues; and, if not, what is the system upon which India Office property is valued for rates; and whether the official valuer, if any, for the India Office can exercise the same check upon the valuation for rating purposes in the case of Indian property as is exercised by the Treasury valuer in the case of the property of all British Departments?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury valuer is not directly charged with the valuation for rating purposes of land and buildings maintained at the expense of the Government of India, but he assists in the valuation of such property when called upon. Property occupied by the Indian Government is exempt from rate-ability equally with that occupied by the Home Government, and the exemption rests on the same grounds. The India Office stands in regard to the giving of contributions for its property in precisely the same position as the Treasury stands in regard to giving contributions for property occupied by the Home Government

  THE DIBBS MINISTRY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any telegram has been received at the Colonial Office from the Governor of New South Wales announcing the resignation of the Dibbs Ministry, and the refusal of the Governor to appoint a number of gentlemen to the Legislative Council on the recommendation of the retiring Ministry; if so, whether he is in a position to communicate

  1407
  the contents of the Governor's Message to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Sir George Dibbs' Ministry desired to add 10 gentlemen to the Legislative Council, the Governor thereupon offered to add three. This proposal was, however, declined, and the Government thereupon resigned. Mr. Reid is now engaged in forming a Government.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Has a Colonial Governor the power to refuse to nominate gentlemen to the Legislative Council when recommended by the Government?
  MR. S. BUXTON: A Colonial Governor has the power to refuse the proposals of his Ministry, but he is under the obligation, if they resign in consequence, to find another Government to carry on the business of the country.

  THE ARMENIAN PRISONERS IN TURKEY.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Tinder Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate the results of the renewed efforts which Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has been desired to make on behalf of the Armenian Archbishops of Marash and Zeitoum and the Bishops of Hadjin and Arabgir, whose liberation is claimed on the ground that they have been unjustly punished; whether success has attended the efforts of Sir Philip Currie to obtain the release of the prisoners detained without trial in the prisons of Aleppo, Sivas, Angora, Van, Yuzgat, Adana, and Sinope; and whether, in view of the frequent representations in this House and elsewhere of the position of these untried prisoners, the Government will lay upon the Table of the House further Papers giving information as to the steps taken on behalf of the Armenians in Turkey?
  SIR E. GREY: I informed the hon. Member on the 19th of April that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it would serve no useful purpose to make any representation on behalf of the exiled Bishops of Hadjin and Arabgir. In May last the cases of the Archbishops of Marash and Zeitoum were brought before the Grand Vizier by Her Majesty's Embassy with a view to obtain some mitigation of their sentences. The reply
  1408
  was that they had been properly convicted and merited their sentences. It is, unfortunately, the case that many Armenian prisoners are still awaiting trial, and that the efforts of Her Majesty's Representatives in Turkey to hasten their trial have not been successful, but Her Majesty's Government have never undertaken to ask for their unconditional release. Her Majesty's Government do not consider it desirable to lay Papers relating to one phase only of the Armenian question, and they have frequently stated that a full publication of the correspondence would not be of advantage.

  ARMY MEDICAL STAFF.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers of the Army Medical Staff having servants from the Medical Staff Corps are obliged to make up their departmental pay, about 15s. monthly, in addition to the sum laid down in the Queen's Regulations as applicable to officers of other corps; and if he will take steps to place the officers of the Army Medical Staff on an equality with other officers, regarding soldier servants?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Officers of the Army Medical Staff are allowed the privilege of employing men of their own corps as servants, but they are not required to employ them, and may receive the same money allowance in lieu as is issuable to staff and other departmental officers. If they choose to employ a soldier of the Medical Staff Corps they have to make up to the man the corps pay, which is only issuable by the public when he is employed on corps duty. The same rule as to corps pay applies to officers of other departmental corps; and as there is some difficulty in providing soldier servants for regimental officers, it is not considered desirable to withdraw soldiers from their regiments to act as servants to officers of other corps or of departments.

  WILLS IN THE WELSH LANGUAGE.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that the officials of the Probate Registry in the cases of original wills written in Welsh decline to furnish office copies of such

  1409
  original wills when duly applied for upon a question arising as to the correctness of the translation filed at the Registry; whether on such a question arising it is permissible in construing a will written in Welsh to refer to the original; and whether he will take steps to secure an alteration of the Probate Registry so as to enable parties interested to obtain copies of original Welsh wills?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): The original of a will in Welsh can always be seen at the Registry in which a translation has been proved. If a copy of a Welsh will, a translation of which has been proved in the principal Registry, were required the party requiring it would be permitted to copy it himself, or to send a competent person to take a copy. An office copy under seal of the Court of an original will in Welsh would not be given, because probate is not granted of such original will, but of the translation which is attached to the original. No difficulty has been occasioned in practice; applications of the sort are extremely rare. With reference to the question whether it is permissible, in construing a will written in Welsh, to refer to the original, I think there is some little doubt on the matter, but the better course would be to bring the question of translation before the Probate Court, and if necessary have it corrected there. I have no jurisdiction whatsoever to procure any alteration of the practice of the Probate Registry on any point, and I cannot undertake therefore to take such steps as are suggested in the question.

MOTION.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE ON THE EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION BILL.)

    RESOLUTION.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): In submitting to the House the Resolution of which I have given notice, I am extremely desirous to avoid any language which may give offence to any person or to any Party in the House. In making this Motion I would rather rely on what I believe to be the sense of the great majority of this House—I had almost
    1410
    said the unanimous feeling of the House—as to the necessity of such a Motion. We, at least on these Benches, regard this measure of the Evicted Tenants Bill as one of urgent necessity, as an administrative measure conducing to peace and goodwill in Ireland. The time we have proposed in this Resolution to allot to this discussion, we believe, if fairly employed, is adequate and ample to dispose of the debatable questions which this measure certainly involves. I confess, speaking for myself, that I am not enamoured of these exceptional measures, and I resort to them with a sincere regret. But if I am asked for a justification of this Motion, I would refer to the Order Book of the House of Commons. I would beg leave to alter a celebrated inscription, and say, "Si argumentum quæris, inspice." Those who look at the number of Amendments to the Bill, which, I think, cover 22 or 23 pages, will realise that they are a sufficient argument in this case. In my opinion, these 22 or 23 pages of Amendments are not an index of what is requisite for the reasonable discussion of such a measure as this, or fair Debate upon the question it involves. I will not go into an analysis of these Amendments. Each man is capable of forming his own judgment of how far these Amendments are confined to raising reasonable issues upon the question. I may refer to what has already taken place. We have had two full days of Debate, and I doubt whether we have accomplished two lines of the Bill. I do not know if this is intended to indicate a similar rate of progress on the Bill. If that is so, what is the prospect of the future? If any reasonable expectation were held out that fair limits would be placed on the discussion of this Bill I should not make this Motion. I am sincerely desirous of avoiding giving more offence than is necessary in this matter, and, therefore, without using any words which are calculated to cause irritation, I submit this Motion to the judgment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the proceedings in Committee and on Report, and on the Resolution relating to Guarantees and Expenses, on the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Arbitration Bill, unless previously disposed of, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times and in the manner hereinafter mentioned:—

    1411

    (a) The proceedings in Committee on Clause 1, at Eleven p.m. on Thursday, 2nd August;

    (b) The proceedings in Committee on the Money Resolution, and on Clauses 2 and 3, at Eleven p.m. on Friday, 3rd August;

    (c) The proceedings on Report of the Money Resolution, and in Committee on Clauses 4 and 5, at Eleven p.m. on Monday, 6th August;

    (d) The proceedings in Committee on the remaining Clauses, new Government Clauses, Schedules, and new Government Schedules (if any) at Eleven p.m. on Tuesday, 7th August;

    (e) That the Consideration of the Report be appointed for Thursday, 9th August, and, if not previously disposed of, the proceedings thereon be concluded at Eleven p.m. on that day.

    At the said appointed times the Speaker or Chairman shall put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government, of which Notice has been given (but no other Amendments), and on every other Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business. In the case of new Clauses and Schedules he shall put only the Question, That such Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. Until the conclusion of the Committee, as soon as such allotted business has been disposed of, the Chairman shall report Progress, and at the conclusion he shall report the Bill to the House. The Question on the Motion appointing the next consideration of the Bill shall be put forthwith.
    Proceedings under this Order shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    After the passing of this Order no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor under Standing Order 17, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, shall be received, unless moved by a Minister in charge of the Bill, and the question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has told us that he moves the Motion you have just read from the Chair with a great feeling of reluctance, and nobody who heard what I suppose he would describe as a defence of the proceeding, which has just come from him, can doubt the absolute sincerity of the avowal. Never in the history of Parliament has a proposal like this been made; never in the history of Parliament has it been suggested after two days' Debate in Committee, and two days only, that our further proceedings should be gagged; and yet the Minister who is capable of making this proposal
    1412
    thinks it enough to come down to this House and express in a few perfunctory words his regret at the proceedings he has adopted, but neither by argument nor in any other way to offer the slightest defence of his course. Sir, perhaps I do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. He said one thing that bears some shadowy resemblance to an argument. And what was it? That when he took up the Order Paper he saw a large number of Amendments down to the Bill he proposes to gag. Was ever such a reason given before in this House for such a proceeding? Because the House on the face of the Order Paper shows that a desire exists to discuss this Bill that therefore the discussion of the Bill is to be stopped; and because Members of the House, in the exercise of their undoubted rights, have suggested alterations in the proposal of the Government; therefore, on that account, no Amendments are to be discussed at all. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman imagines he improved his case by giving us that solitary specimen argument in favour of it, because it appears to me that the condemnation of the course he asks us to pursue could not be stated more clearly than in the arguments advanced in its favour by the Leader of the House. I shall not be long in laying my case before the House, although I shall take a little longer to do so than the right hon. Gentleman did, for I have something which I, at all events, think substantial to say in defence of the policy which I earnestly press on the House on the present momentous occasion. I do not wish to put the rights of individual Members or even the rights of a minority too high. I admit that there may be grave crises in the history of the country, practical necessities which have to be got over, which might justify or even, under certain circumstances, compel this House to suspend the rights which for centuries have guarded liberty of Debate. But is this case one of those cases? Is there some practical menacing necessity overhanging us which must be dealt with, which, if not dealt with, will imperil our whole social system or the public external security of this Empire? We have been told, of course, by those who have defended this Bill, that it means to deal with a great social crisis in Ireland. I

    1413
    should not be in Order were I to discuss the magnitude of that crisis or how far this Bill is calculated to meet it; but I am strictly in Order when I remind the House that this social crisis, if it exists at all, has existed for the whole of the two years during which the Government have been in Office, and it was not until the last week in July of this year that they made the slightest endeavour to deal with it. Do not let them tell us—I do not think they will have the courage—that the business on which they have occupied us was of a kind so pressing that a great practical measure would be left undealt with while other measures were being passed. We have too fresh in our recollection the abortive discussions upon their Registration Bill, their Welsh Church Bill, and other measures never intended by their authors to get through the House in the course of the present Session, to leave us in any doubt whatever that if the Government really felt the existence of the kind of necessity which alone would justify such a measure they, as responsible for the executive government of the country, would have brought forward the Bill, not at the end of July, 1894, but early in 1893. Perhaps it may be said even by those who, in the face of what has occurred during the last few years, have given up the argument of imminent public necessity, that this is a measure so clearly just on the face of it that it is absurd for any minority in the House to exercise even the most moderate discussion upon it. Well, Sir, I could not deal with that contention, if seriously made from any quarter of the House, without trespassing on the indulgence of the House more than is desirable and without going into the merits of the Bill, which I wish to leave as much as possible on one side. But let the House recollect that into the merits of the Bill as it stands there never has been any inquiry at all. We are sometimes told that the Bill has been based on the recommendations of the Mathew Commission. In the first place, the Mathew Commission itself was a gagged Commission. In the second place, the Mathew Commission did not examine into things which by the terms of the Reference they were required to do; and, in the third place, this Bill going beyond the terms of the Reference to the Commission. In these
    1414
    three respects, at least, this Bill is before us not based on any examination by a Commission, partial or impartial, not resting upon any knowledge of facts of which the House has cognizance. It is thrown down at this late stage of our proceedings on the responsibility of the Secretary for Ireland, and no other, and we are to be deprived of any opportunity of finding out on what he bases his justification of a measure which we are asked to pass through the Committee stage within the space of seven days from the time the Committee commenced a Bill which covers matters which have afforded this House for the last 14 years subjects of unending controversy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the brief observations he thought sufficient for the occasion, did not tell us what exactly his proposal was with regard to the time we were to spend in Committee. Seven days from the time of our proceedings in Committee is the time the Government have allotted. The time actually taken up, not in Committee of the House, but in the Scotch Grand Committee, in discussing a non-controversial Bill has been 17 days. [Cries of "How many hours?"] Perhaps hon. Gentlemen will allow me to pursue my argument in my own way. These 17 days were not full Parliamentary days. [Ministerial cheers.] Of course not. During part of our proceedings we sat from 12 to 3, and during the other part of our proceedings the sittings were extended till 4 o'clock. Recollect that if you are going to put that on one side of the account you must put a great many other things on the other side of the account. The discussion occurred in a Grand Committee composed not of 670 gentlemen, but of about 70. One-tenth of the House only was engaged in that discussion. In the second place, the Scottish Local Government Bill passed the Second Reading without a Division, and almost without Debate. It is admittedly non - controversial, and it is framed strictly upon the lines of its sister English measure, which has already received full discussion and consideration by this House. Compare that with this Bill. This Bill, of course, is not so long, but it raises, and legitimately raises, almost every question which has ever been debated among the innumerable questions that have ever

    1415
    been debated between the two sides of the House on the subject of Irish land. The whole turbulent and melancholy history of Ireland from 1879 down to the present time comes naturally and necessarily within the scope of discussion. The "No Rent" conspiracy of 1882, the "Plan of Campaign" conspiracy of 1886, every incident of the land war in Ireland, the whole subject of evictions and land tenure—all these things rise directly before us, and cannot be avoided if we are to do our duty in discussing this measure, and yet you ask us, who have spent week after week, and weary night after weary night, in discussing Land Bills proposed by gentlemen opposite or proposed by us, to hurry through this Bill in the space of seven days, and send it up to the House of Lords undiscussed, undealt with, and unconsidered. I do not pretend that the personal sacrifice entailed by this proposal of the Government is very great. We have been 18 months continuously at work on your legislative business, and everything that comes in the shape of a promise of some release from this intolerable burden must be welcomed by the weakness of the flesh. What we are sacrificing is, however, something more important than our personal ease and our personal convenience—it is the tradition of the House of Commons. It is this: that in return for the Leadership of the right hon. Gentleman—the not very zealous Leadership of the right hon. Gentleman—you are asked to give. And what is it we are expected to get in return? Who are the dupes of this proceeding of the Government? Not the English Members who reluctantly support the Government on a Bill which they but half approve; not the Irish Members, who know perfectly well that the Government in the course they are adopting, taken in connection with the course they have adopted, make the fate of this Bill almost certain when it reaches another place.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Hear, hear! We were told that before.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Whom by?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: By the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Saunderson) behind you.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. and gallant Friend may have expressed that opinion on the Second Reading, and he
    1416
    may speak with as much authority as I do, but my opinion is that it is by proceedings of this kind that you make the fate that is awaiting this Bill absolutely certain and inevitable. And why? You have been endeavouring to make it plain to all men that you will not accept Amendments from "another place." You have sacrificed one Bill altogether which you professed to attach, and perhaps did attach, great importance to, because you would not accept any Amendments. On another Bill you rejected many Amendments, but it was nevertheless passed into law, but under the circumstances you cannot expect the House of Lords to correct your errors or to make any great effort towards the end of August to turn your Bills into sense. If you send up this Bill unamended and undiscussed, as you propose to send it up to the Lords, and if you make it clear for the Lords to amend it and improve it is but to waste their time and our time, may I ask what fate can you possibly expect for your measure? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman in taking all this trouble to send up a Bill only to be rejected is doing so with the view of getting up a cry against the House of Lords. If so, I cannot congratulate him upon the particular methods he is using for attaining that desirable result. If you neither wish to get up a cry against the House of Lords nor expect to pass your Bill into law, what is it you do expect? What, in other words, is it that you expect to get in exchange for the sacrifice of our dignity and our honour? I will tell you. You expect to get the votes of the Irish Members now and hereafter, and the Irish Members expect to be able to go to their constituents and say they did their best to obtain £250,000 of public money for the evicted tenants of Ireland to eke out the Paris Funds, but the wicked House of Lords would not let them have it. The only dupes of your proceedings are the Irish public who return the Members below the Gangway to the House of Commons. Those Members know perfectly well that they are doing nothing for their clients in Ireland. They know perfectly well the promises which they and their English followers have lavished upon their "Plan of Campaign" dupes in Ireland are further from fulfilment than

    1417
    ever owing to the very proceeding you are now forcing down our throats. Knowing that, I wonder if they think that the Irish peasant is so simple-minded a person that he will give thanks and gratitude to them for undertaking a task which by the very method in which they have gone about performing it must necessarily end in emptiness and vanity. In my judgment the course which we ought to pursue as to the methods you mean to associate with this proceeding is perfectly clear. Indulge in this petty and sordid trafficking for votes if you like, but do not ask us to help you. Make the honour and the dignity and the traditions of this House the counters in the sorry game you are playing for Irish support, but do pot ask us to take a hand.
    MR. MAC NEILL: We will not ask you.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: For my part, Sir, now that I am no longer to be permitted to perform those duties with which I was entrusted by my constituents, I shall not disturb the harmony which I suppose will henceforth reign between those Benches and these. I feel no natural aptitude and no acquired inclination to act a part in this farce. My duty, as far as the Committee and Report stages of this Bill are concerned, will be sufficiently fulfilled if I warn, as I most solemnly do—and I can assure the House with the deepest feeling of responsibility for what I say—that this kind of proceeding must inevitably end in our abasement as a great public legislative Assembly in the eyes of our countrymen. Do not suppose that it is necessary or even a common consequence of the democratic form of government that the Assembly which represents the democracy stands high in the opinion of that democracy. We know of plenty of cases to the contrary. Hitherto this House has, at all events, through the continuity of its great traditions held itself high among the Assemblies of the world, and has been able to point back to its history without any feeling of shame or self-abasement. But carry on the procedure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer recommends, and see how long that feeling is likely to last. It will be a melancholy reflection if, from less than a decade after popular rights were extended to the whole community—from seven or eight years after the passing of the last great Reform Bill
    1418
    —historians should date the decadence of this Assembly, and should point as its great signs and its great causes to such unhappy Resolutions as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now proposing. At all events, Sir, we will be no parties to that process, which we regret, and in order that our opinion may remain on record in the Journals of the House I shall conclude what I have to say by moving an Amendment to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which embodies our regrets and our condemnation. I shall move that all the words be omitted after the word "That," in order to insert these words:—
    "But this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government, having thought fit to urge upon the attention of a Parliament exhausted by 18 months' continuous Session a measure violent and novel in its character, based upon no adequate inquiry, and involving the most controverted problems connected with the agrarian question in Ireland, should endeavour to pass it through its various stages by methods which deprive the minority of their just rights, make fair discussion impossible, and are calculated to bring the proceedings of this House into deserved contempt."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
    "This House regrets that Her Majesty's Government, having thought fit to urge upon the attention of a Parliament exhausted by 18 months' continuous Session a measure violent and novel in its character, based upon no adequate inquiry, and involving the most controverted problems connected with the agrarian question in Ireland, should endeavour to pass it through its various stages by methods which deprive the minority of their just rights, make fair discussion impossible, and are calculated to bring the proceedings of this House into deserved contempt."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The right hon. Gentleman who has just moved this Amendment wound up with a very eloquently-worded description of the traditions of this House, of the dignity and honour of this House, and of the duty which is incumbent upon all of us to preserve the dignity of this House unimpaired. Who is the right hon. Gentleman who uses that language as to this particular Motion? It is the ex-Minister who not many years ago moved, or was a party to the moving of,

    1419
    a similar proposal to that which we now make. And on what ground and on what occasion? Was it an occasion which, as he said, menaced the security of the Empire?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what I am referring to. I am referring to the Bill constituting the Parnell Commission.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A Bill to the Second Reading of which the right hon. Gentleman assented.
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is not the question. Did not the right hon. Gentleman assent to the Second Reading of this Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Well, you cannot get over this: that on the Bill constituting the Parnell Commission a similar measure of Closure was resorted to. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again, Will he contend that that was an occasion menacing the security of the Empire or making pardonable the abandonment of the sacred traditions and the dignity and honour of this House? Will he contend that the importance of the Parnell Commission, as far as it affected the peace of Ireland, was comparable with the Bill which I have now had the honour of producing to the House? The right hon. Gentleman talked of the Scottish Local Government Bill. I think there never was a more absurd and preposterous parallel. The Scottish Local Government Bill, it is quite true, occupied 17 days in the Grand Committee, but those days altogether amounted, I am told, only to something like 60 hours, or something less than eight Parliamentary days. What are we going to give for the Committee on this Bill? We are going to give seven Parliamentary days for the Committee. And what a difference between the Bills! This Bill contains five operative clauses, eight clauses in all, and the Scotch Local Government Bill contained 69 clauses. It is quite true that the Bill may be made to contain a vast multitude of clauses if you will set Irish lawyers to work to exercise their ingenuity in framing Amendments which will introduce clauses or at all events multiply Divisions upon them. But the real basis of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that in framing legislation our
    1420
    eyes are to be directed to what will be done in another place; that was his main and substantial argument. ["No, no!"] It was that we are to frame measures in this Honse to suit gentlemen in another place. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that the attitude of another place must be the governing consideration. ["No, no!"] If it was not why did the right hon. Gentleman introduce the reference to another place at all? The right hon. Gentleman said we needed another place to correct our errors—the wisdom of another place to turn our Bill into sense. All this is said, I suppose, on behalf of the honour and dignity of the House of Commons.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Such dignity as you leave to the House of Commons by this proposal.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The more gentlemen in another place contest our dignity in the way in which we are now menaced with having it tested the more shall I, for one, rejoice. The right hon. Gentleman taunted us with being English followers of Irish leaders—
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Hear, hear!
    MR. J. MORLEY: And my right hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley approves of that description. Why, it is notorious, as I pointed out in a remark I made on the Second Reading, that the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Gentlemen who sit around the right hon. Member for Bordesley—they are English followers of Irish leaders—have most improvidently surrendered themselves, fast bound, to what I must call the irreconcilable section of Irish landlords. It is for that reason we are driven by their action to the Motion made by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the Opposition talks of hurrying this Bill through. I submit that 12 days for a Bill of this character is ample. There is no Legislative Assembly in the world, having such a Bill before it, that would not think 12 days far more than is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said I had not taken the trouble to make out any case for the Bill. I have not taken any great trouble to show the necessity for it; why? Because the necessity of the case has been admitted from every quarter of the House.
    MR. CARSON: Not the necessity for the compulsory clauses.
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is not the point.
    MR. CARSON: That is the whole point of the Bill.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The point of the right hon. Gentleman was that there was no urgency in this case, that I had made out no case for urgency, that there was no necessity in this case. I repeat that from every quarter of the House, and not the least emphatically from the Bench on which the right hon. Gentleman himself sits, and certainly from the Bench behind him, there was full recognition that there was a case which required to be met, that the sooner it was met the better for the peace of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman who was my predecessor in the Office of Chief Secretary admitted three or four times that there was a condition of things in Ireland in this matter of the tenants which needed to be dealt with.
    MR. JACKSON: I never admitted the urgency.
    MR. J. MORLEY: He admitted the case; and, if it was urgent enough to justify the Government of the day proposing the clauses in the Act of 1891, how can it be said that there is not the same necessity three years later? The hon. and gallant Member for Down admitted the difficulty of the situation, and that there was a case to be met, though he was certainly no friend to the policy of Her Majesty's Government and he did not like the particular plan of the Bill; even he, coming from a North of Ireland constituency, was obliged to admit that he desired to see the case dealt with. Then the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), whose authority on Irish questions is not inconsiderable, and whose Irish experience is not inconsiderable, admitted that there was a difficulty to be met. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) did not deny that there was a difficulty to be solved and a case to be met, and he did not conceal his desire to find some means of meeting the difficulty and solving the problem. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), although I cannot reconcile the vote he gave with what he said, expressed the same view. I hope the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) will tell us he takes the same view of the urgency of the Bill which he did on
    1422
    the First Reading. The existence of the case is not denied; the plan is no doubt open to criticism, and we give you ample time for it. Seven days in Committee for a Bill of this kind is an ample allowance. Whatever may happen to this Bill in another place, we at least—and I particularly, as the Minister responsible for the peace and order of Ireland—shall have done our duty in bringing this Bill in and in doing our very best to pass it through Parliament.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot congratulate my right hon. Friend on his interference at this stage in defence of the proposal which was introduced to this House in a magnificent and memorable oration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had an excuse for his brevity. He said he desired to be conciliatory, but my right hon. Friend has no similar excuse for his length; and even with regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think we may point out that when you propose to knock a man down with a poker there is not any necessity for a lengthened description of what you are about to do. Now, what was it the Chief Secretary added to this Debate? He, in the first place, indulges, as usual on these occasions, in the tu quoque argument, appealing to the fact that in past times similar Motions, as he says, have been made. But not on similar occasions. The Chief Secretary omitted to notice what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his opening remarks—namely, that he, for one, did not preclude himself from recognising the necessity for some such Motion on occasions of great national crises or of importance to the dignity of this House. What was the occasion to which the Chief Secretary referred? It was the case of the Parnell Commission, which was brought in with the full assent of the House, which was supported on Second Reading by both sides of the House, and which was only obstructed in the most daring and deliberate way at a late stage of the proceedings by a small knot of Irish Members. I say undoubtedly that if this House is to preserve its character at all it must always reserve to itself the right of interfering when a very small minority attempts such an abuse of the power given to it by the Rules of the

    1423
    House. I never should stand up to say that a Resolution of this kind might not be a necessity, and, as is well known, I have advocated such a change in the Regulations of the House as would give it greater power over its proceedings; but I have never advocated that that power should be given into the hands of the Government of the day, representing only a small majority in this House, whom, by your proceedings, you make absolute masters of its business. The issue now is something quite different from the issue raised either in regard to the Parnell Commission or in regard to a previous discussion on a Coercion Bill. The Chief Secretary talks about this Bill as being a short Bill, and gives that as a reason why there should only be a short discussion upon it; but let me remind him that the importance of a Bill has no relation whatever to its length, and the very Coercion Bill to which he referred was a shorter Bill than the Evicted Tenants Bill, and yet it occupied a much longer time than is proposed to be given to the discussion of this Bill. The Chief Secretary tries to divert attention by saying that the Leader of the Opposition has appealed to the House of Lords. No, Sir; that was not what my right hon. Friend did in his speech. What he did was to point out to you who are desiring, as is notorious, to pick a quarrel with the House of Lords, that by your action you are justifying any proceeding which that House may be pleased to take in regard to this Bill. I do not presume to offer an opinion as to what the House of Lords may do with this Bill; but there is one thing I am justified in expressing an opinion on, and that is this: that there is nothing they can do which will do them or the Unionist Party the slightest harm in the country after the action which you have taken. Now, Sir, what is the pretence of the Government? The pretence is that there is an urgent necessity—not an urgent necessity for this Bill—that is not the point. They have to show that there is an urgent necessity for this stringent form of Closure. What reason have you to say that it is absolutely necessary that the discussion in Committee on this Bill must be closed in seven days? You have only allowed us to go on for two days, and yet before you know what may happen upon the subsequent stages of the Bill,
    1424
    and without regard to the fact, which is of common notoriety, that the later stages of a Bill always proceed with much greater rapidity than the first and operative clauses—in spite of that you propose, after two days' discussion, to limit us to seven days. What is the urgent necessity? The urgent necessity is the holiday of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is simply in order that his holiday and the holiday of his friends may not be shortened that we are called upon now, almost before we have entered upon the discussion, to Closure it in seven days. "But, oh!" says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "look at the long list of Amendments." He will not say, because he wishes to be conciliatory, whether these Amendments are fair and reasonable. You can only judge of the Amendments still to be discussed by the Amendments which have been discussed. Now, what is the object of discussion in this House? I venture to say there are two objects. The first is in order that our constituents and the people of the country may thoroughly understand what is the nature of the legislation we are discussing. Do you pretend that they understood the nature of this legislation when it was brought into the House? Do you deny that the two days we have already spent upon the discussion has thrown a flood of light upon this Bill? Why, you cannot do it. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been present during any large portion of our Debates; but, if not, I will tell him that in the course of these Debates we have proved that the Government have brought in an irregular and disorderly Bill. We have proved by the statement of the Chairman of Committees himself that this Bill is not in accordance with its title, and that its irregularity is such that if attention had been called to it on Second Reading the Bill would have had to be withdrawn. Do not let the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagine, in his ignorance of the nature of this Bill, that this is a technical point. It is not so at all. The Chief Secretary has been shown, in letters to the friends of this Bill, to have declared his intention, in bringing it in, of confining it to a certain class of tenants, and above all to tenants residing in Ireland. It is proved that, in spite of the title and the declared intention, the Bill is not confined to tenants

    1425
    of that class, but will include within its ambit tenants of quite a different class and persons who are not tenants at all. If you want a justification of the discussion as far as it has gone you have it clearly in the fact we have shown that the Government themselves did not know what was the nature of their own Bill, and that it was a much wider and more important Bill than the country could possibly have conceived from its title and description. That is not the only thing we have shown. We have brought out what was confirmed by an answer to a question to-day, that the Chief Secretary has been utterly in the dark in making estimates for the Bill. In the first instance, he proposed to deal with a sum of £100,000. He has had to admit that it is altogether insufficient. [Cries of "Order!"] I am in Order. I am showing the value of the discussion to which we have subjected this Bill, and I say that the Chief Secretary, having in the first instance proposed £100,000, and having then submitted a proposal for an increased sum of £250,000, now finds that the calculations upon which he estimated that sum are altogether wrong, and that the total amount of rent to be dealt with is enormously greater than he himself imagined. I say, then, that if our first object in discussions in this House is that our constituents may at least know what is the nature of the legislation proposed, we have amply justified our proceedings. But there is another object which is of even greater importance, and that is that by discussion, not always hostile, especially in reference to a Bill of this kind—as to which the Chief Secretary has said there has been from the first some agreement, at all events, as to the conditions which have given it birth—we improve a Bill, brought in by whatsoever Government, and to secure that the object it is intended to obtain shall be arrived at. It is quite true that I cannot prove to the House that we have hitherto been permitted to make many Amendments. Not one single Amendment suggested has yet been accepted by the Government. But I do say that at the time this monstrous proposal was made to us we were apparently on the eve of what might have been a most important settlement. What is the use of the Chief Secretary getting up, as he has done,
    1426
    again and again, and appealing to me and to my friends around me and saying, "You are seriously anxious to arrive at a settlement of this Bill," when at the very moment we were working for this settlement, and when this settlement was apparently within reach, we are met by a blow in the face such as this Resolution is, and in view of which it is absolutely impossible to continue any amicable negotiation whatsoever? I say that a settlement seemed to me, and I believe it seemed to others, to have been possible. What was the state of the case? On Friday night, when this most useful and valuable discussion closed, it had brought out the willingness of the Leader of the Opposition to agree to a measure which would, at all events, have dealt with the vast majority of hard cases of evicted tenants, provided this measure were voluntary. It had brought from the Chief Secretary himself a confession that, as far as he was concerned, rather than that the Session should be barren of legislation, he would agree to a transformation of his Bill—
    MR. J. MORLEY: I said it was a great pity, and that if the same spirit had been shown, some transformation of the Bill might have been effected, but that spirit had not been shown.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: But why? Can anything be more ridiculous, more petty in spirit, than the statement just made by the Chief Secretary? He says that when there was a spirit in the House tending towards agreement, his view was that that spirit could not be accepted, and that no agreement could be come to, because, at some previous time, there had been a different spirit. I am sure the better sense of my right hon. Friend will never stand to such a statement as that. I go on therefore to say that on Friday night the Chief Secretary stated that if a good spirit prevailed, a transformation of his Bill might have taken place. [Mr. J. MORLEY: Perhaps.] I referred on Friday night to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, who, without binding himself strictly, said, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that he was prepared to adopt the principle of the Arrears Act, and I say—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. What occurred was this: I asked the

    1427
    Opposition why it was they allowed the principle of compulsion to appear in the Act of 1882 without protest when they were now so strongly opposed to it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have been referred to, I may say that that is not according to my recollection. I understood the hon. and learned Gentlemen distinctly to suggest, as a possible arrangement, the adoption of a clause like that in the Arrears Act, for he said, if you think the clause in the Arrears Act is not a compulsory clause, why do not you accept it in this Bill?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman will express what his present opinion and intention are, but I confess I was extremely hopeful from what he said that we had, at all events, the foundation for an arrangement which would have united all sections in the House. If it had united all sections in the House, is there anybody who will tell me it would not have been an advantage to Ireland? It is the interests of Ireland, after all, that ought to be paramount in the mind of the Chief Secretary, and yet, when the Chief Secretary has the chance of carrying out a plan which would undoubtedly have given to the majority of Irish evicted tenants some opportunity of being reinstated upon the land, he refuses that opportunity, and he meets the opportunity of reconciliation with a Motion of this kind. He meets the conciliation, which he recognises we have been showing with a Motion of this kind, which makes it absolutely impossible that we should continue the discussion any further. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has expressed his opinion that it would not be consistent with his dignity, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, to continue the discussion either upon the Committee stage or upon the Report stage. I entirely agree with him, and, so far as I am concerned, I shall certainly leave the discussion during these two stages entirely to the Government and the Irish Members. And I do so with this warning. It is perfectly evident that the Amendments which are down upon the Paper are not exclusively in the names of English Members. There are many Amendments of the greatest importance down in the name of Irish Members. Are the Government going
    1428
    to accept these Amendments or are they going to reject them? If they are going to reject them they are going to do what they blame us for doing. They are going to pass Irish legislation in opposition to the views of those who claim a monopoly of the representation of Irish opinion, and they have been warned from the Irish Benches that any legislation of the kind will be futile, and will, as was said by an hon. Member opposite in the course of the Debate, be a guarantee for further agitation. If, on the other hand, they are going, under pressure, to accept the Amendments which will be proposed from the other side, then it will not be the Bill of the Government that we shall be asked to carry on the Report stage, but it will be a totally different Bill, going very far indeed beyond it, and not merely going beyond it, but inconsistent with the pledges that have been given over and over again by the Chief Secretary. That is a dilemma in which I do not envy the position of the Government, and in which I am perfectly content to leave them entirely alone.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it seemed to him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to alter his Resolution. The House had received the joyful assurance from the Leader of the official Opposition and from the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that they and their supporters intended to take no part in the further discussion of the Bill. That was the best proof that could be given of the wisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in moving his Resolution. What was the complaint of the Member for West Birmingham? The right hon. Gentleman never could get out of his mind the idea that, though he was in the minority, he ought still to dominate in the House. He complained that there had been no settlement by arrangement. But settlement by arrangement meant absolute surrender to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the business of the Opposition to alter and amend the Bill; but surely he did not contend that every one of the 23 pages of Amendments would improve the Bill. He would suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind, and wished to discuss the Bill, he should hold a committee of his friends for the purpose of choosing those Amendments

    1429
    that would alter and amend the Bill, and confine the discussion to them. Everybody on the Opposition side really rejoiced at the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fact was they had had enough in these 18 months, and they all wanted to get away, hon. Members on the other side sharing this anxiety as much as they. He knew perfectly well it was usual on such an occasion to go through a certain amount of fireworks, but they all wanted to get away, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would be in despair if they were taken at their word when they said they were willing to remain for ever in order to discuss the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had a second line of defence in the House of Lords. They might enjoy their holiday, perfectly certain that so long as the House of Lords existed any Radical measure brought in by a Liberal Government would be thrown out. He would like to know what was the view of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham as to the veto of the House of Lords. In his former speeches the right hon. Gentleman certainly did not adopt an attitude of abject servility and admiration of the House of Lords. Did he justify them in throwing out this Bill?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether they are going to.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I am afraid there is a split between the two Leaders of the Opposition. For my part I take the word of the Leader of the official Opposition, who said he was absolutely certain that the House of Lords would throw out the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member puts words into my mouth which I never used. What I said was, that the course which the House has pursued in connection with this Resolution, and has pursued on previous occasions when the Lords have sent down Bills with Amendments, made it hardly open to doubt that they will be driven to reject the Bill.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it seemed to him that he had fairly represented the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He was told that the actual words of the right hon. Gentleman were that the Lords would inevitably throw out this measure. He knew the right hon. Gentleman agreed with him. He supposed there was not any doubt that the
    1430
    Lords would reject the Bill. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was really a waste of time on the part of the Liberals and Radicals who were sent to this House to support Liberal and Radical measures, to discuss and carry Bills through this House so long as they were thrown out by the House of Lords. He should like the Estimates passed and the Appropriation Bill brought in at once, for he did not see the use of discussing a Bill day after day, and week after week, when they were told by those who held the House of Lords in their pockets that that House would throw it out. It would be much better that they should as soon as possible appeal to the country as to whether the majority of the Representatives of the nation were to be masters of the situation, or whether they were to be the subservient, humble servants of hereditary legislators, Peers, and Bishops, who rendered it absolutely impossible for any Liberal Government whatsoever to give effect to the grounds on which they were placed in Office. That was the question which he wished to impress, not upon the Opposition, but upon the Government; and he hoped that they would have no more of this nonsense in future Sessions, but that they would as speedily as possible go for the abolition of the House of Lords.
    MR. COURTNEY: I am afraid it is of very little use attempting to add any words to the discussion in which we are engaged, but I cannot help expressing my profound regret at the deplorable condition in which we are landed. I regret it on two grounds. I regret it, first, with regard to the condition of Ireland. I, at all events, have no doubt as to the profoundly important character of the subject dealt with by this Bill. I do not commit myself for one moment to the particular method which is adopted in the Bill, but that it is desirable, urgent, and necessary to deal in some way with the crowd of evicted tenants who are found in a landless and workless condition near the places where they once dwelt and worked as tenants is in my mind an abiding conviction. I learned it from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he was conducting his Bill through the House in 1891, when he was in touch with Irish affairs, and

    1431
    knew exactly the conditions of life in the West of Ireland, when reports came to him daily and almost hourly as to the relations between the guardians of order and this ragged regiment. And what did he do? He did not want seven days; he did not want seven hours to agree to a clause in his Bill affirming the expediency and the Imperial desirability of dealing with this question. It is quite true that he did not introduce the element of compulsion, but that has nothing in the world to do with the argument now submitted as to the importance of dealing in some way or other with this phenomena in Ireland. Much might be said on that question, if it were proper at this stage in relation to this Motion to enter upon it. But I confess that it is difficult to take up the position of affirming that it is desirable, expedient, and reasonable that the credit of the State should be used and the procedure of the Court extended and made more elaborate in order to bring back tenants to their holdings, and that, at the same time, it is reasonable to allow an unreasonable landlord to object. The thing in itself is a thing we desire as a matter of Imperial policy. You may get half a dozen individuals—certainly not expressing the views of the majority of the Irish landlords—unreasonably preventing what you say is a reasonable solution, and you will not allow the interference of the State to prevent these plague spots being removed. In the interests of Ireland I am profoundly moved by the spectacle before us of the certain failure of the Bill. It is not necessary to mince words about it. The step you are taking to-night destroys the chance of the Bill being read or treated in any fashion in another place. There would have been difficulty in any case. There would have been some obstacles no doubt, but perhaps not absolutely insurmountable, elsewhere. But this is a difficult Bill to recommend to the limited English intelligence. They are not wholly acquainted with the condition of Ireland. They do not see the facts and circumstances which make the thing not only expedient and desirable, but moral and just, which to them appears to be immoral or wrong. There would have been great difficulty, no doubt, in inducing the other House to entertain and to return this Bill in a shape which might have been approved.
    1432
    But that is not possible now. To-night it has been made impossible, and who is responsible for it? Is it the impetuosity of the Government? Perhaps it is. But in order to consider that, I have to turn to the next subject which excites my feelings, and that is the condition and conduct of business in this House. To what are we coming? One precedent follows another and improves upon it. This Motion now before us goes further than any previous Motion. It embraces two series of Acts, the Committee as well as the Report stage in a single Resolution. Some Government in the future may possibly go better, and put three transactions into one Resolution, until we reach a certain Transatlantic condition in which a Bill is put upon the Table and ordered to be reported immediately. Here the same question arises, Who is responsible? There is a very ready trick of carrying back responsibility from one Government to its predecessors, and of pointing to the Parnell Commission and the Crimes Act. It needs must be that offences come, but woe to them through whom they come. From whom does the offence come that this Resolution and similar Resolutions have been proposed? Surely the original offence lies in those Members of the House who, disregarding the true use of its functions, and disregarding its high mission and purpose, abuse their powers so as to destroy what should be the right conduct of public business. One side to-day, another yesterday, and a third to-morrow. Shall We get any reform out of these moralities? Not, I think, until we get a sound conviction among the less responsible Members of the House of the mischief they are doing this great Assembly, and some conviction also on the part of Leaders, whether in or out of Office, to use their power to coerce the irresponsible friends behind them. We are in this situation, not only in respect to the Bill itself, but also as to the way it is conducted—that the true conduct has passed from those who know to the less informed as well as less responsible members and partisans. Whereas we had the evidence and testimony of people who had the conduct of the government of Ireland in their hands on one side, we have now on the other got a junta of irresponsible landlords putting their power on those who

    1433
    ought to resist them. It is in them that the evil, the foolish motive, and the vainer thoughts lie—persons less calculated to deal with such exigencies in this House. Is it now too late? My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham in the really valuable portion of his extraordinary clever speech said, "You have been too eager; on Friday night we were approaching something like a settlement out of which an agreement might have been come to. How can we go on in that manner when the reward of the temper we then showed is a slap in the face and a knock on the head which brings us to the ground?" If that was the temper on Friday night—and I note with great satisfaction the report that such temper was being developed—has the impetuosity of the Government been such as to prevent a return to that temper now? If that was my right hon. Friend's feeling of the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition, is it too late even now to say in that temper, "Withdraw this Closure Resolution and let us agree within a reasonable time that the proceedings on the remaining stages of the Bill shall stop." [Sir W. HARCOURT: "Hear, hear!"] If we were approaching a condition on Friday in which some settlement might have been arrived at, surely it should not be too late, if the Government will admit that they are ready to consider it, to come to a reasonable solution even yet. Then we may rescue out of this ruinous situation, not only the House of Commons, but also the Bill, and we may send it to the other House in the hope of seeing some settlement arrived at. I left out one of the elements of the picture when I was speaking of the position and degradation of the House. We are threatened with a further abdication of Debate and judgment, for, if this Resolution is passed, my right hon. Friend says he and his friends will have nothing to do with it. I hesitate to come to that line of action. Even in the last necessity something is due to ourselves and to the House of which we are Members, and the great traditions of which we are the inheritors. Even if but a limited time were allowed for the consideration of this Bill I would go on trying, even in that minimum of time, to improve it. I cannot think that we are furthering our own dignity, or showing ourselves
    1434
    true Members of the House, by abdicating and refusing further to discuss this measure because the time is short. Perhaps what I say is like the voice of one crying in the wilderness and saying, "Peace, peace," where there is no peace. Yet I would even repeat what I have already said, if there is the temper which was shown on Friday night still present, something ought to be capable of being made of that temper. Some solution ought to be possible—something which would redeem this House from this worse than degradation, the saving for Ireland of a measure which would be the means of bringing peace and relief to that most distracted country.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin has made a speech which, I think, in the opinion of every man who heard it, was worthy of himself and of the House of Commons. I stated in the few remarks which I used in commencing this Debate that I have made this Motion with great reluctance, and only because I was convinced of its necessity. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well what reasons I had to be convinced of its necessity. I used these words, and I used them deliberately, in introducing the Motion. I said if any reasonable expectation were held out that fair limits would be placed on this discussion I should not make this Motion. I have sought, and sought eagerly, for some assurance that any such reasonable limits would be put on this discussion, and it was not until these hopes and these expectations were disappointed that I found myself compelled to make the Motion that I have made.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From whom did you seek it?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should ask that question.
    MR. T. E. ELLIS: Hear, hear.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Sir, I repeat the words which I have used already, and I say now, if any reasonable expectation were held out that fair limits would be placed on this discussion I should not make this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman has threatened Parliamentary secession.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is a good old Whig precedent.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: But even Whig precedents are not always fortunate precedents. I remember Lord Beaconsfield saying that England does not love coalitions. The political history of this country and the verdict of posterity have not been favourable to Parliamentary secessions, which, in my opinion, mean nothing else but Parliamentary cowardice.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What about the Crimes Act?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The men who secede because they cannot have their own way, I agree with my right hon. Friend, are not doing their duty to the House or the country. In my opinion, at this moment if there was any prospect of this Bill being fairly dealt with and fairly discussed—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What do you mean by "fairly"?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean by "fairly," and he knows also perfectly well, and the House and the country know perfectly well, that it never was intended by the Opposition from the commencement to deal fairly with the Bill. If that be not so, what was the meaning of the announcement made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh when he moved the Amendment to which hon. Members opposite were obliged to submit? He said that the Bill was going to be rejected by the House of Lords. That announcement he placed at the very fore-front of his battle-speech. Did that announcement indicate that the Bill was going to be discussed here in a fair spirit? Sir, in conclusion, I repeat again that if we had any assurance whatever that there was a disposition to deal fairly by this Bill Her Majesty's Government would not stand in the way of such a settlement as the right hon. Member for Bodmin has recommended.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I scarcely know in what tone to answer the right hon. Gentleman. At one time it seemed as if he was under the influence of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bodmin, and was prepared to extricate the House from the difficulty in which it finds itself, but before he sat down he brought into play the usual hostility of his partisan mind. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman
    1436
    could not sit down without having a fling at this side of the House and without throwing down a challenge, which, of course, makes it extremely difficult to entertain any of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions. The right hon. Member for Bodmin spoke with a deep sense of the dignity of this House, and expressed a desire, which all must sharer that our Debates should not be reduced to the position of discussions under the gag. [Cheers and interruption.] Well, under a time-table. Upon a Bill of this kind it would be a farce to endeavour to argue if a time limit is imposed. The right hon. Gentleman says that if we made fair proposals he would wish to meet them. But what does the right hon. Gentleman think is a fair proposal? We know he thinks that seven days are enough for this Bill. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, but there are important issues raised by this Bill which cannot be discussed adequately in the time given by the right hon. Gentleman. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite perhaps do not know to what extent the taxpayer is-interested in this measure. We have not examined yet the question whether £250,000 will be enough. Hon. Members do not realise the risks that will be run under the Purchase Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman thinks this Bill can be disposed of in seven days. I remember what he thought could be done in seven days when we sat upon the Treasury Bench. Then even the smallest questions were argued for more days than the right hon. Gentleman proposes to allot to the whole of this important measure. This Motion has been made after two days' discussion of the Bill in Committee. That is an entire novelty. The right hon. Gentleman takes the Order Paper in his hand and says, "There are a great many Amendments here, and therefore I will limit the discussion; I will only give it seven days." I invite everyone who takes an interest in the Constitution of this country to mark this new principle, that notwithstanding a number of Amendments may be proposed the Minister of the day is to decide how many days are to be given for the discussion of a Bill. Is the same method to be applied to the Equalisation of Rates Bill? Are you going through your Order Paper and then fix your limit of two or three days? Are these to be

    1437
    the conditions under which Parliament is to legislate in the future, and if not, why not? That is the precedent the Government is setting, and that is why my right hon. Friend opposite has spoken on the subject. I do not believe that a proposal like this has ever before been made by any responsible Government. I deeply deplore that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have thought it necessary to set a precedent of this kind. Why has he done it? Was it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham said, in order to hasten the holidays? Are we to be subjected to this simply because the supporters of the Government are getting tired and think that the end of the Session ought to come? [Ministerial cries of "No!"] If not, then let them sit on. Let this gag be removed, and let us see whether in a regular discussion of this Bill we cannot make sufficient progress. Let the right hon. Gentleman not press this Motion if he believes that his English friends will sit on. The hon. Member for Northampton said that everybody would be glad of this Motion because it would enable hon. Members to take their holiday. I trust that there are many Members of this House to whom the precedents to be set in the House of Commons are of greater moment than their own personal convenience. This is an entire departure from all Parliamentary traditions, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remove this Resolution from the Paper and let the discussion proceed. He will then see whether the length of it is such as to justify this application of the gag.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I rise to make a personal explanation. Some words fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, I think, could only be interpreted by those who heard them in this way, that reasonable suggestions or offers were made to me and that I refused them. I desire to say that if such an impression is derived from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that impression is not correct.
    MR. RATHBONEdesired to make an appeal to the House in support of the admirable speech of the right hon. Member for Bodmin. Surely it was impossible for them after listening to such a speech to degrade themselves to the level of aspersions,
    1438
    provocations, and recriminations. He did not wish to blame anyone. What he meant was that hon. Members should put strife aside and do the best they could for the poor creatures whom they all professed a desire to serve, who had been evicted from their homes, and who, as all had admitted, ought to be restored if possible. During the last 25 years every measure for the benefit of the Irish tenantry had been ineffective by the action of a few bad landlords. Time after time opportunities had been lost, because at the end of a Session Members would not take time to consider how to complete and carry out the necessary work. The Leader of the Irish people said that the Conservative Land Act, if the arrears question was settled, would be a message of peace to Ireland. The House should not repeat old errors, but should give this Bill sympathetic consideration. They all felt in their hearts that the question of evicted tenants ought to be settled, and they could settle it now if they would take the matter into their own hands and disregard the pressure exerted by a few extremists who would be themselves the first to regret, when they came out of the combat and arrived at a cooler state of mind, that they had not been compelled to do that which their own hearts would not have prompted them to do. What they all desired to do was to remedy the present condition of things in Ireland due to a few bad landlords, who had dealt unjustly and cruelly with their tenants. Let them, therefore, show themselves willing to make the required alteration in the law, and not forget the result of foolish action in the past. If the Leader of the Opposition would make a reasonable offer they would be prepared to listen to it. No one was better aware of that than himself. Let him remember the numerous cases in which he had made the same kind of mistake, and not lose an opportunity like this. If they failed to take advantage of it now, the speech of the right hon. Member for Bodmin would go out into the country in condemnation of the Leaders of the House, and in witness that they had failed to do what they ought—a failure which would be a disgrace to them.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that the right hon. Member for Bodmin had made one of those speeches

    1439
    which were supposed to appeal to the better feelings of hon. Members sitting on all sides of the House, and which often elicited much cheering, but to him it appeared to be a one - sided speech. The right hon. Gentleman had so evenly balanced a mind that sometimes neither he nor his friends knew exactly what line the right hon. Gentleman was going to take, and on this occasion he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject under discussion with the distinctness which generally characterised his observations. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the "plague spot" in Ireland, and he thought that he had done something towards making that "plague spot" more visible. According to the right hon. Gentleman there was a plague spot in Ireland which this Bill was brought in to obliterate, and that was the conduct of what were termed the "irreconcilable landlords of Ireland," who were or should be deserving of condemnation. That was the sense in which his observations were received by his friends below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman had referred in the course of his speech to those unhappy tenants who were at present living in huts in view of their own homes. But who had put those tenants there? They were placed there, not by their landlords, but in consequence of being the dupes of the leaders of the Plan of Campaign. It was very easy to say that the Irish landlords were irreconcilable, and no doubt they were irreconcilably opposed to the principle of compulsion proposed to be adopted in this Bill. But it must be remembered that without that principle being contained in it the Bill would never for a moment have been accepted by hon. Members below the Gangway. The Opposition had put down many Amendments to the Bill, and during two days there had been an animated discussion in Committee; but there had been nothing on their part which savoured of what was called obstruction. The speeches on those Amendments had been remarkable for their brevity and also for their cogency, but the Opposition were in this difficulty—that they could not get the Government to meet their arguments, and probably the Government would not have answered them at all had it not been for the right
    1440
    hon. Member for Birmingham putting on the last twist of the screw, which they could not resist. There had been no obstruction, and there was no justification for the proposal of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that there was a great necessity for this measure, but he did not tell them what constituted that necessity. Yes, there was a great necessity for this measure, but it was to be found not so much in Ireland as in the House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench had not brought in this Bill, they themselves would have become evicted tenants. They knew that as well as he did. Had the Government really meant the Bill to be passed into law, could it be conceived that they would have brought it in at the tail end of the Session? The Bill was full of contentious matter such as had never before been introduced into any measure that had been brought into that House. With regard to the probable action of the House of Lords in relation to this Bill, all he had done was to express his opinion that when the measure came before that body—which was not usually supposed to be affected with lunacy—it would receive at their hands, as it ought from any intelligent body of men, emphatic rejection. The Government had refused to accept any Amendments to the measure on the ground that if they accepted one it would only be made a peg upon which to hang others, and at length they had resorted to the argument, which they really could use with some prospect of success—they simply said, as they had said in regard to the Home Rule Bill, "Go and be gagged." That was the conciliatory spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite dealt with his political opponents. As far as he was personally concerned, he did not think that it was fair for any man to accuse him or his friends or colleagues of being irreconcilable landlords. However much the landlords might oppose this Bill, they were justified in doing so, as they regarded it as an abominable injustice to 1,500 tenants, who under it would be—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now going into matter which is outside of the Question before the House.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he supposed that he might go so far as to say that he and his colleagues who were accused of being irreconcilable were only irreconcilable to an act of injustice, for they regarded this Bill as an act of injustice not only to themselves, but to the 1,500 Irish tenants who had never broken the law. Had the measure been framed on another principle and in a different spirit, and had the principle of compulsion been omitted, they would have given it a fair and candid hearing. There was another respect in which they were irreconcilable, and that was that they regarded the present proposal of the Government as a degradation of the House of Commons. What would be the position in future of any minority, however large it might be, if the House assented to this proposal of the Government? The Government whenever they pleased could cram down the throats of the minority any measure they pleased practically without argument, and all that the minority could do would be, as they did last year, to make peripatetic protests in the Lobby against the policy with which they disagreed. If the House of Lords threw out the Bill, their action would meet with the acclamation of 19 out of every 20 Radicals themselves in the country. They had heard vague threats of what would happen if the Bill met its deserved fate in another place. They all knew how these threats were fulfilled. Similar threats were made in connection with the Home Rule Bill, and now it was said that, if the House of Lords ventured to make use of the power which it was its special function to exercise, and to reject the Bill because they believed it, in their consciences, to be an unjust and an unrighteous measure, they would meet with the condemnation of the country. In his opinion, the House of Lords in such an event would have nothing to fear from the attacks of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He believed that the House of Commons was in far more danger of public condemnation than the House of Lords in this matter, and he ventured to say that, if the House of Commons cringed to the Government and accepted such a proposal as this, it would meet with that condemnation throughout the country which it would richly deserve. In accepting this proposal the House of Commons would be wiping out
    1442
    of the flag which the Liberal Party, of all Parties, was the most proud to bear the two mottoes "Fairness of Discussion" and "Freedom of Debate."
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, before the effect of the right hon. Member for Bodmin's speech passed away at the moment he would say briefly that he could scarcely describe the pleasure and admiration with which he had listened to it, for it was one of the noblest efforts which it had been his lot to hear in the House of Commons. He saw no advantage in discussing then what was likely to be the fate of that Bill when it got into the House of Lords. All that they were concerned with was to make it the best Bill they could in the House of Commons, whatever might be its fate elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman had made an appeal which, he thought, must have touched the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman had been followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in the most conciliatory tone made an offer to withdraw this Motion if there was any reasonable prospect that proper progress would be made with the Bill. That offer was as conciliatory as anything could be. He would not now stop to question some words which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer afterwards. The House of Commons and the Front Benches fortunately had not come to the condition that because of some slight war of words they were unable to exercise a calm and proper judgment upon a question of vast importance. He confessed that he always voted with pain for any form of Closure and never did so till he believed it to be necessary. He set the House of Commons and the interests of the House of Commons above the value of any Party. He thought that the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin and the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserved from the Leader of the Opposition something more than the mere retort that no offer had been made to him. The Leader of the Opposition had the power, if he liked, to impress upon those Members who sat behind him the necessity for moderation in the discussion of this Bill. Nobody doubted that if the right hon. Gentleman chose to exercise that power this Bill could be got through in a reasonable

    1443
    time. Upon whom would the charge of unreasonableness rest, if nothing came from the Front Opposition Bench but the offer of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, that if the Closure Resolution were withdrawn, the Government would see how long Members of the Opposition would be willing to sit on?
    MR. GOSCHEN: What offer?
    MR. WHITBREADwould make one more appeal to the Leader of the Opposition to use the power which he undoubtedly possessed to bring this matter to a conclusion, and bring about the withdrawal of the Closure. That was what they all really desired; but if the Leader of the Opposition would not use his power to bring that about, he and other Members on the Ministerial side of the House would support the Government to the full. But he and others on that side of the House earnestly desired that the Opposition should take a reasonable view of the situation, and see whether they could not give such pledges as would lead to an amicable solution of the present difficulty.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no right, nor had I the slightest intention, to say another word; but the challenge of the hon. Gentleman, coupled with considerable blame for my previous silence, does seem to impose on me the necessity for saying, with the leave of the House, one or two words on what has passed. I got up, and, by way of personal explanation, attempted to do away with the idea which some persons might gather from what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that reasonable proposals had been made to us, and that these reasonable proposals had been rejected. Nothing of that sort has occurred; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear out what I say. Then, says the hon. Member for Bedford, an offer has been made to you across the floor of the House that this Motion would be withdrawn if an assurance were now given that the Bill would be proceeded with in a reasonable manner; and, apparently, it is to that challenge that I am asked to reply, and am reproached with not having replied to before. In the first place, I never gathered anything of the kind from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One's attention sometimes wanders for a moment, and I may have missed some-
    1444
    thing; but I did not hear him offer to withdraw this Motion on that or any other condition. Did any other hon. Gentleman except the hon. Member for Bedford hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer make that offer? I do not think anybody did. It is evident, then, that I am right, and that no offer has been made, and it is all in the imagination of the hon. Member who has just sat down. Then, why am I reproached for refusing to reply to an offer that was never made at all, except in the imagination of the hon. Member? Under these circumstances, it is not necessary for me to say another word, nor do I see that another word can be appropriately said. The fact is that the Government, I presume, in the terms of this Resolution have told the House of Commons what they think is a reasonable time in which to discuss this Bill. To me it appears to be grossly and flagrantly unreasonable and unfair, and I do not think that it rests with the Leader of the Government, on the spur of the moment, or, indeed, at all, to lay down either in public or private the number of days that he thinks this discussion should last. As far as I understand the matter, should the Government think better of their present policy, there would be no desire on our part for unreasonable discussion on this Bill. But we cannot, in justice either to our constituents or to the traditions of this House, agree to fetter ourselves in the way that the hon. Gentleman opposite appears to suggest. [Mr. J. MORLEY: Hear, hear.] Nor do I augur from the cheer of the Chief Secretary for Ireland that any arrangement could be come to. I can only express, on behalf of myself and my friends, my deliberate intention, if this Motion is withdrawn, to discuss the Bill in a perfectly reasonable spirit; and I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I am abrogating any duty when I refuse to discuss this measure further under the conditions that he desires to impose on us. Nor do I think that we are guilty of all the errors that he now seeks to attribute to us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who made the appeal to me will feel that no offer of the kind he indicated was made. I do not see that the initiative lies with the Opposition in this case, though I can repeat to him the assurance that neither I nor my friends have any desire that this Bill

    1445
    shall be discussed at any unreasonable length or in an unreasonable spirit.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that he did not think that the Chief Secretary would hold that on this question he was an "irreconcilable," and he certainly would not say he had ever denied the existence of a great evil which required to be met and dealt with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening speech that evening, had pointed to 23 pages of Amendments, and then threw the Order Book down on the Table as if that settled the question. In the first place, he desired to submit that the diagnosis of the right hon. Gentleman might be absolutely wrong, and he would show him why. He himself had put down eight Amendments to the first clause. With the negativing of the first of those Amendments the other seven would be disposed of, and, therefore, it was not fair for the right hon. Gentleman to take the 23 pages of Amendments as an accurate estimate. The second point was, that, looking at the two nights spent in Committee on the Bill, he was unable to say that there had been anything like obstructive procedure. He did not put that forward on his own bare statement, but simply pointed out that the three chief matters discussed were all points that the Government might have conceded without injuring their Bill as originally introduced—namely, tenants evicted for breach of statutory conditions; tenants evicted by order of the High Court of Justice; and evicted tenants not now residing in Ireland. The Government, at that time, never intended to include within the scope of the Bill tenants evicted for breach of the statutory conditions, nor tenants who no longer resided in Ireland. His reason for saying so was the letter of the Chief Secretary to the hon. Member for Longford. Moreover, the Government ought never to have left the decrees of the High Court at the mercy of two solicitors. The Government might have accepted most of the Amendments proposed without in any way affecting the object for which they had introduced the Bill. Not only did he deny that there had been any obstruction in Committee, but he maintained that the Debate and the Amendments were in Order on all the points discussed, and that
    1446
    those points were strictly relevant to the question. From the beginning, ever since the Bill had been introduced, he had seen that it must either be a question of compromise or no Bill at all. There had been a good deal of appealing to Leaders on one side of the House and the other, but he was going to make an appeal to a quarter of the House to which no appeal had yet been made. He believed that this Bill represented the irreducible minimum of the Irish Members, and he believed that the Chief Secretary was tied down to that, and that this was really the reason why the right hon. Gentleman would not either accept Amendments or agree to compromise. It was all very well for hon. Members and for the hon. Member for Bedford, who was accustomed to this sort of thing, but who never gave up anything on his own side, to make those appeals; but there was a far more potent quarter to which he now desired to appeal. Everybody in the House and outside was aware that if the compulsory principle in the Bill were abrogated, a settlement could be arrived at in that House. What stood in the way of that compromise was the position of hon. Members opposite, to whom he now appealed. Their position no doubt was perfectly straightforward; they did not believe that the Bill without compulsion would serve their purpose, and, therefore, the Chief Secretary found himself unable to accept Amendments in that direction. If this Bill was lost it would be because of the extremists on both sides of this question, and that was a miserable result. If Irish Members opposite would be reasonable, then this question could be settled. If there was no reasonableness shown there, and no disposition to accept any Amendment or compromise, he was afraid the Bill would go to its own place, and that place would not be the Statute Book. It might easily have been otherwise, and he, for one, would always regret that in a case where compromise was possible compromise could not be brought about in consequence of the inflexibility of extreme men on both sides.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 217; Noes 174.—(Division List, No. 204.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF DAY.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [30th July] reported.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1894–5
  (THIRD VOTE ON ACCOUNT.)
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £3,583,150, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895."—[See page 1273.]
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERcalled attention to the case of Mr. W. Leek, who had recently been appointed an Inspector of Metalliferous Mines in the County of Cumberland. So far as he had been able to gather from the Home Secretary at question time that afternoon, it appeared that no qualifications were at present laid down for candidates for such appointments. But he observed from a Paper issued by the Home Office that three necessary qualifications were very properly laid down in the cases of Inspectors of Coal Mines. First, the candidate, within five years of the time of his appointment, must have been employed for two years under ground; second, he must satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners that he possesses certain necessary qualifications; and third, he must be over 23 and less than 35 years of age. If those conditions were necessary in the case of an Inspector of Coal Mines, he could not conceive why they should not be applied to the case of an Inspector of Metalliferous Mines. Mr. William Leck, however, did not satisfy a single one of those three requirements. He had no experience whatever of coal mines; he did not even possess a second-class certificate, and yet he might be called upon to supervise the work of first-class certificated managers of mines under the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887. It appeared from Section 39, Sub-section 4 of that Act, that this gentleman, although appointed as an Inspector of Metalliferous Mines, and although he did not possess a single one of the qualifications laid down by the Home Office in the case of an Inspector
  1448
  of Coal Mines, might be called upon to act as an Inspector of Coal Mines.
  MR. ASQUITH: If required.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, that although an arrangement had been come to by the Home Secretary with Mr. Leck that Mr. Leck should not inspect coal mines, that understanding could not be binding on the successor of the right hon. Gentleman in the Home Office; and therefore this anomalous state of things was possible—that a gentleman who had been appointed an Inspector of Metalliferous Mines might at a future time be called upon to inspect coal mines, although he did not possess a single one of the qualifications required by the Home Office. Mr. Leck had not satisfied the Civil Service Commissioners of his fitness for the post, because he had passed no examination, nor was it intended that he should submit to any examination in the future. Besides, Mr. Leck was over the prescribed age, being 40.
  MR. ASQUITH: Thirty-seven.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, that was over the age prescribed, which was 35. He had shown that Mr. Leck had none of the necessary qualifications, and he would now point out Mr. Leek's disqualifications. It appeared that Mr. Leek had been employed as an under-manager in an iron mine belonging to the hon. Member for West Cumberland, and he was also Secretary of the Cleator Moor Liberal Association. In November, 1888, unfortunately an accident took place in the mine, and the coroner's jury added to their verdict words reflecting on three persons, of whom Mr. Leck was one, by declaring that there had been "great but not criminal neglect" on the part of those three officials of the mine. Therefore, so far from Mr. Leck being qualified to act as an Inspector of Coal Mines, he had recorded against him the pronouncement of a jury of his countrymen that he had been guilty of great, though not criminal, neglect in his duties. They did not wish him to be prosecuted. They found there was no criminal neglect. Soon after the inquest Mr. Leck left the service of the hon. Member for West Cumberland—which was not a matter of much surprise—and since then up to the present time, as he (Mr. Lowther) was informed, he had not since been employed in any mine. He (Mr. Lowther) did not think Mr. Leck could be employed as

  1449
  a manager or under-manager, as he did not hold the necessary certificates. Until May this year his employment had been that which he had combined with the under managership of the hon. Member's mine—namely, Secretary to the Cleator Moor Liberal Association. Mr. Leck in that capacity assisted very largely in bringing about the return of the hon. Member for West Cumberland. Not only did he assist the hon. Member as a Party worker, but he was actually employed by him as one of his sub-agents at the last election, and so valuable were his services that the hon. Member rewarded him with a fee as large as that which he had paid to his election agent—namely, £100, and to this day might be seen in the election expenses returned by the hon. Member for West Cumberland the item of £100 paid to this gentleman. And this was not all that fell into the mouth of this fortunate gentleman. In May of this year the postmastership of Cleator Moor fell vacant, and Mr. Leck was appointed by the hon. Member for West Cumberland, and it was from that humble position he had been chosen as an Inspector of Metalliferous Mines. It was a great pity that an appointment such as this should have been conferred upon a man who had distinguished himself, above all others, in promoting the interests of one political Party.
  MR. ASQUITH: Does the hon. Member suggest that is why he was appointed?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: If the right hon. Gentleman says he is not aware of it—
  MR. ASQUITH: I was totally unaware of it.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid, he accepted the statement at once. If the right hon. Gentleman said he was not aware of the great part Mr. Leck had played during the last few years in Cumberland politics, all he could say was he must have been very badly informed by those who represented that particular part of the country. If he had asked the hon. Baronet below the Gangway (Sir W. Lawson) he would have told him that he knew Mr. Leck as a thorough-going Party man. There could be little doubt that it was at the instigation of the hon. Member for West Cumberland and others of that political faith that Mr. Leck had been fortunate enough
  1450
  to secure this appointment. He had read in the chief Radical organ of the constituency a passage which he thought very instructive. It said—
  "At the request of the working men, Mr. Ainsworth took up the question of getting such an appointment made shortly after the last General Election, and during all the time that has elapsed he has never wearied in his efforts to comply with the request of the working men. Even when he was ill and confined to his house, as we have good reason for knowing, he kept pegging away at his task of convincing the Home Secretary of the wisdom of the course that ought to be adopted. Although Mr. Ainsworth's illness has prevented him from making a big score in the Division Lobby, all those connected with the iron industry know-well how earnestly Mr. Ainsworth has worked with this object, which I am glad to learn is now completely successful, much to Mr. Ainsworth's credit."
  He was sure they all regretted very much the long absence of the hon. Member for West Cumberland from the House in consequence of illness, but he must say that their regret was a little tempered when they found that even on a bed of sickness he was trying to work what in Cumberland was regarded as a political job. He (Mr. J. W. Lowther) had thought it right to bring this case before the House of Commons. He had also thought it his duty last January, when he heard that it was possible that this gentleman might be appointed, to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he had laid certain facts before him, some of which he had detailed to the House. Other facts which he had mentioned had only come to his knowledge since that period. But when, last January, he heard that the right hon. Gentleman was contemplating the appointment he warned him that it would not be favourably received in Cumberland, and laid certain facts before him as to the verdict of the jury. He was afraid he had not a copy of the letter, but if the right hon. Gentleman had the letter by him he should not object to its being read. He considered it a very important fact that there should be selected for the post of Inspector of Mines a man who was found by a jury of his countrymen to have been guilty of gross but not criminal neglect in the management of a mine. He thought that pretty serious. Subsequent to that other facts had come to his knowledge as to this appointment, so that he had thought it right to bring the

  1451
  matter before the House. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he knew nothing whatever of the politics of this man was surprising, but he did not blame the right hon. Gentleman as much as he blamed his colleagues in his representation of the county. The right hon. Gentleman had taken six months to consider whether he would appoint this gentleman, and, therefore, he must have had considerable doubt in his own mind. It was not desirable that such an appointment should be given to a man, however deserving he might be, who had taken so active a part in political organisation. In the delicate work which he would have to perform as Inspector of Mines questions would arise—were certain to arise—in which political animus would be introduced, and it would be very difficult for an Inspector to maintain that judicial and impartial attitude in dealing with such matters if he had formerly been a strong political partisan in the county in which he was nominated to serve.
  MR. J. WILSONsaid, that he wished to say a few words in order to remove a false impression which appeared to be in the mind of the hon. Member for Penrith. The hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the appointment of Mr. Leck from the point of view of fitness or ability to fill the office of Inspector, but from the point of view of politics, throwing discredit on the appointment because Mr. Leck had acted as a political agent. Therefore, it was necessary that one who knew the history of the appointment should state what the facts were. The hon. Member had said that Mr. Ainsworth, the Member for West Cumberland, had brought forward Mr. Leck's claims. That was not exactly correct. He (Mr. Wilson) had himself brought the claims of Mr. Leek not only before the present Home Secretary, but before his predecessor. He did so for two or three reasons. Cleator Moor was somewhat far from North Durham and South Northumberland, and he and his friends had therefore considered that the area was too large for the then staff of Inspectors, and that it would be an advantage if they could get a new district formed comprising the metalliferous mines of Cumberland. In the second place, they thought that a man proficient in the technicalities of metalliferous mines would be the best man to inspect those
  1452
  mines. And, in the third place, they thought that in Mr. Leck they had a man well qualified to fill the office. As far back as five years ago he recommended Mr. Leck for the appoinment. He did so not from any knowledge of the political bias of Mr. Leck's mind, but because he was urged to do so by the workmen of the district. It might not be within the knowledge of all hon. Members that there had been two or three deputations of workmen who brought the claims of Mr. Leck before the Home Secretary, and those deputations had been supplemented by others from the employers, who themselves believed that Mr. Leck was a properly qualified person to fill the office. Despite these facts the hon. Member had dealt with the appointment from a political standpoint. With the exception of a slight reference to a mishap which occurred to a mine in the district over which Mr. Leck had been placed, the whole of the argument was addressed to the fact that Mr. Leck had been a political agent for the hon. Member for the Egremont Division of Cumberland. So far as he (Mr. Wilson) was concerned, he did not know, when he recommended Mr. Leck, whether he was a Liberal or a Conservative. He was bound, however, on this subject to remark that he did not see that it mattered what politics a man might profess, provided he was sufficiently well qualified to fill the post for which he was required. Mines belonged to Conservatives as well as to Liberals, and it ought not to be supposed that because a man was qualifying for any prospective post that he might have open to him, he should not, apart from this, have the right to take part in politics on any side that he pleased. With regard to Mr. Leck, he was confident that if the present Home Secretary were in office for 20 or 30 years to come, he would never be able to appoint a fitter man for the place. And he was confident also that the right hon. Gentleman would never be able to appoint a man who had so large a consensus of approval behind him as Mr. Leck had, both from employers and workmen.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not sorry that the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to take this, perhaps, not very convenient opportunity of raising this question, which certainly might more fitly have been

  1453
  taken on the general discussion on the Estimates. He has levelled against me one of the most serious accusations which could possibly be made in this House against a Minister of the Crown.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: No.
  MR. ASQUITH: He has said that I deliberately appointed to a position of great responsibility a person not competent to discharge the duties, because he happened to be a supporter of the political Party to which I myself belong. That is the charge which the hon. Gentleman made, and it is a charge which I am glad to have the opportunity of meeting, contradicting, and refuting at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I made no such charge at all. I simply stated the facts, and said that it was very regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman should have been placed in such a delicate position. I accepted the right hon. Gentleman's statement at once when he said that he did not know that Mr. Leck had been employed politically.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am glad to hear it. But certainly the inference which I drew, and which no doubt the House drew from the language, which the hon. Member used was, that this gentleman would not have been appointed unless the judgment of those responsible for the appointment had been swayed by political considerations. If I misunderstood, or in any way misrepresented the hon. Gentleman in drawing this conclusion, I readily apologise. Now that the question has been raised, I may say that since I have been in Office a great deal of patronage has had to be bestowed, and I certainly feel that no more invidious, and indeed, distasteful, duty than the making of appointments to places of this kind has fallen on me. But I have never appointed any person to any place within my control for political considerations, direct or indirect. Only the other day when I had to make an appointment to that which was the most important place in my disposal—the Assistant Under Secretaryship in my own Office—I appointed a gentleman whom I knew to be strongly opposed to my own political opinions, because I believed him to be the fittest man to discharge the duties of the office. I do not really think that any hon. Member
  1454
  would believe that I gave any place to any man, passing over a fit man for an unfit man, because he belonged to the Liberal Party. Putting this aside, I must candidly say, since I had given the strongest possible denial to the suggestion that I have had Mr. Leck's political opinions in view—that having looked this afternoon through a number of letters and other documents received by me, some nearly two years ago, in relation, to this matter, I have found a casual statement in one of the letters that this gentleman was a supporter of or active worker on behalf of the Liberal Party in his district. I can assure the House that this statement had entirely dropped out of my mind, and I had no idea of anything of the sort when the appointment was made. I wish to say, unhesitatingly, that in all the patronage which I have had to dispose of, I have never had such a remarkable combination of opinion from opposite quarters as in the case of this gentleman. Very shortly after I came into Office, I received a deputation from the Miners of the Cumberland and the North Lancashire district, who strongly urged on me the appointment of an additional Inspector for that district, and they recommended Mr. Leck as the man which commanded the confidence of the miners of the whole of the locality. This was the first I heard of the matter. Some time elapsed, and when I had the advantage of going into the matter I arrived at the conclusion that the staff of Mining Inspectors did need strengthening. I then proceeded to consider what were the conditions under which Metalliferous Mines Inspectors had before been appointed. I followed in this case the precedent set by every one of my successors. [An Irish MEMBER: Predecessors.] Yes, predecessors. I am glad that it is a Member from the Sister Isle who has corrected me. There is not, so far as I know, a single case of a Metalliferous Mines Inspector who has not been appointed under precisely the same conditions as Mr. Leck and the two gentlemen who were appointed at the same time for North Wales. The appointment of Inspectors of Metalliferous Mines has always been treated by successive Secretaries of State for the Home Department, and by the Treasury, as coming under the 4th sec-

  1455
  tion of the Superannuation Act, 1859. The powers of that section both exempt the candidate from limitations as to age which are exacted in the case of Coal Mines Inspectors, and from the passing of the qualifying examination. There are quite a number of cases in which the Treasury and the Secretary of State have acted on that view. I have laid the whole of the facts before the Treasury, and stated that in my opinion it would not be desirable, having regard to the peculiar conditions of the iron mines and quarries, to take only men who have passed the coal mines examination, and who must have spent two years underground in coal mines, and that I thought that I had found men who were qualified by special experience for this particular kind of work. There was, therefore, nothing exceptional in the appointments. Some reference has been made to the provisions of the Coal Mines Act of 1887. But the 39th section of that Act, which has been referred to by the hon. Member, does not mean that the Secretary of State should be debarred from appointing as a Metallierous Mines Inspector any person unless he is a Coal Mines Inspector, but that if the Inspector is sufficiently qualified he may be required to act either in the one capacity or the other. There were a large number of applications for the appointment, but I can unhesitatingly say that there was no one who had anything like the support Mr. Leck had. The whole of the local Mining Associations passed resolutions and forwarded them to me, asserting that Mr. Leck was the man who possessed their confidence in the largest degree. A Memorial was signed by no less than 14 of the largest mine-owners in this district in favour of Mr. Leck, the output from their mines ranging from no less than 500,000 to 20,000 tons. The hon. Member for West Cumberland also urged his claims. I also had a conversation with the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr: Burt), than whom there is no man more qualified to pronounce an opinion and less open to suspicion, and he took the same view as did the hon. Member for Mid Durham who has just addressed the House. I have never had experience of the claims of a candidate for an office having so large a consensus of opinion of workmen and employers in the trade. There was one dissentient voice, that of
  1456
  the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman wrote a letter nearly a year ago in which he said that if it was proposed that Mr. Leck should be appointed he desired to make some representations on the subject. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman and asked him to state what he knew against Mr. Leck. The two allegations made against Mr. Leck by the hon. Gentleman were, first, the verdict of the Coroner's Jury in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and next the fact that Mr. Leck did not possess a certificate. There is not a syllable in the documents sent by him to me warning me that Mr. Leck was a political partisan, or that his application had been promoted by persons of my Party. I remained as ignorant after the letter as I was before that Mr. Leck belonged to my political Party. There is one fact to which I attached great importance, and that is the verdict of the Coroner's Jury. I paused for a long time in the face of that verdict in giving this gentleman the place I have given him. I thought the mere fact that such a verdict had been recorded was a strong argument against his appointment. But I examined the case most carefully, and I will tell the House what it amounted to. It amounted to this: that a fire broke out in the Cleator Ore Mine in 1887. There were two pits, No. 9 and No. 6. The fire broke out in No. 6. Mr. Addison was the general manager and Mr. Leck was the manager, and a person of the name of Crawford was the overseer. When the fire was discovered it was not disputed that Mr. Leck and Mr. Addison not only used energy but displayed something approaching to heroism in their attempts to extinguish it and prevent it spreading. These efforts were successful as regarded No. 6 shaft. What happened was this. Addison, the general manager, was weak, and injured by his exertions. Leek, the manager, was also injured by his exertions; and Crawford, the other man, whose duty it would have been to warn the men not to descend the other, or No. 9, shaft, was disabled by his exertions, and under these conditions, there being some misunderstanding as to whether Leck or Addison ought to have told Crawford that it was his duty to warn the men the accident happened. I do not think I can say that a man in that state of physical and mental depression

  1457
  having failed to give an order, which it is admitted somebody else might have given, ought to be disqualified from discharging duties which everybody in his district agreed he was thoroughly qualified to discharge.
  An hon. MEMBER: What about his age?
  MR. ASQUITH: There is no qualification about the age of Metalliferous Inspectors. There is nothing to prevent me appointing a man who is 60 years of age, but I agree that it is desirable as far as possible to follow the analogy of the Rules laid down in reference to the Coal Act. There the maximum age is 35, and this man was, I was told, 37, which I do not think a disqualification under all the circumstances. There is one consideration which I think was at the bottom of this Motion. Mr. Leck was a workman.
  An hon. MEMBER: A postman.
  MR. ASQUITH: I know nothing about that. The greater part of his life had been spent in mining underground, and he gradually attained by industry and energy the position of manager. After being manager for five or six years he carried on mining operations for a short time on his own account. These operations were not successful. This was a new departure. [Cries of "No!"] Yes, this was a new departure to appoint workmen to Metalliferous Mine Inspectorships. He could not help thinking that a good deal of the feeling which had been caused by this particular appointment was due to the fact that they had gone out of the ordinary run and had taken a man from the ranks. He was satisfied that Mr. Leck had the confidence both of employers and employed, and that he would discharge his duty with efficiency and despatch.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had degraded the discussion to the lowest depths of Parliamentary partisanship by the totally unjustified insinuations he had made in the concluding part of his speech. The example had been set to the right hon. Gentleman by his Conservative predecessors to appoint workingmen Inspectors of Mines and Factories.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that no Inspector of Metalliferous Mines had before been a workman.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman founded himself on
  1458
  a frail distinction. It was true that working men were not appointed to Inspectorships of Metalliferous Mines. Why? They were appointed when they were qualified to make the inspections. The two Inspectors appointed to districts containing only Metalliferous Mines had hitherto been men of high scientific qualifications like Professor Foster and the late Sir Warington Smyth. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to compare men like Mr. Leck with these men? He asserted that the appointment of Mr. Leck was a new departure to which attention ought to be drawn. He could not think that the fact that a man was recommended by all the Trades Unions in the districts and some of the employers was a recommendation. An Inspector armed with rights of entry and with power (should he have the inclination) to discriminate between one employer and another should not feel that he owed his appointment to those to whom he was to stand in such a delicate position. That was contrary to public policy and a thing which the right hon. Gentleman ought to give more attention to. The right hon. Gentleman said it was pressed upon him that this new district wanted creating, but this proposal to create a new district came repeatedly accompanied by a recommendation to appoint a particular personage, and the requirements of the district ought to be heavily discounted in view of this most improper proposal to usurp patronage which did not belong to them, and which they ought not to have. Let the last part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman be forgotten, but while accepting his repudiation of being influenced by a political motive, it is well that attention had been brought to that case. Whether it be right or wrong to create these new districts or class of Inspectors, I wish that the first example of the creation had been of a less objectionable kind.
  MR. LEGHsaid, that the innocence displayed by Mr. Asquith was positively refreshing, seeing the history of Mr. Leck and the fact that the persons who recommended him were supporters of the Government. Out of the testimonials from millowners, the only Conservative expressed the opinion that Mr. Leck was not a suitable person for the appointment. They naturally accepted the

  1459
  assurances of the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought they might legitimately complain that his inquiries were not pushed a little further into this matter. He was convinced that there would be a widely disseminated opinion that one of the qualifications for an Inspector of Mines were that he should be a partisan of one political Party. It was unfortunate that such an impression should have been created, and especially that it should be due to the action of the Government, which claimed to have done more for the working man than any Government of recent times. He thought his hon. Friend was well advised to bring his question before the House, and if he went to a Division he would support him.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that in the appointment of Inspectors of Mines the principal object to secure was the safety of the miners, and the only consideration which should have weight was, that the man proposed to be appointed was the best qualified man to fulfill that condition. The principle ought to be laid down that no one should be called on to act as an Inspector of Mines who had not the minimum knowledge of mines required for those whose operations he was called on to inspect. The question was left in an unsatisfactory condition when it was said that Inspectors might be appointed without having given evidence of knowledge of these subjects, but simply on the opinion of their fitness expressed by workmen and employers. In the case of one of the candidates the applicant had been told that he was not eligible for the reason that he was over 40 years of age.
  MR. ASQUITH: Was he a candidate for this appointment?
  MR. TOMLINSON: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman would not be surprised if this man and his friends held the view that favoritism had been displayed, seeing that the candidate appointed was over 35 years of age.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think any such intimation was made to the candidates; but I will make inquiries into the matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Penrith, and it had appeared to him not only a plausible but a powerful indictment of Mr. Leek. He had discounted in his own mind all arguments founded on political partisanship—though
  1460
  he thought that politics had a great deal too much to do with nominations of this kind. If a vote had been taken on the question simply on the statement made in regard to Mr. Leek's non-examination and want of qualification he (Mr. Burns) would have been found in the Lobby with the hon. Member. But they had heard the other side of the case, and though the Home Secretary had not altogether exonerated his Office from blame he had shown that under a certain section of the Metalliferous Mines Act the candidates might be exempted from undergoing examination.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Treasury have power to exempt them.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes; the Treasury. It did seem to him that the time had arrived when an irresponsible body like the Treasury, which was an irresponsible body never brought into contact with miners, should have the power taken away from it of dealing with these appointments, and that the power should be vested in the Home Office. The hon. Member for Penrith had based his charge on the ground that Mr. Leek was not qualified and had proved his contention, he (Mr. J. Burns) should have had pleasure in seconding his Motion; but, unfortunately for the hon. Member, he had not been able to sustain his charge. It had been shown that this man had been a mining engineer and, subsequently, the manager of a mine. That would indicate that he was qualified for an Inspector ship of Mines. They had gathered from the Home Secretary that this person had only recently come under his view; but they had heard from other hon. Members that for the past six or seven years there had been a strong attempt, not only on the part of Members of Parliament; but on the part of miners and mine-owners, to get Mr. Leek appointed. He deprecated these attempts on the part of Members of Parliament in regard to Factory as well as Mine Inspectorships. Although Mr. Leek's conduct had been censured by the Coroner's Court, an examination of the facts considerably palliated that conduct. The Home Secretary said the appointment had been made because strong recommendations came from all quarters, and because Mr. Leek was such an excellent man, so popular and so well qualified. If it was the case

  1461
  that this man was strongly recommended, that he was popular and well qualified, why not subject him to the ordinary mining examination. One of his qualifications wag that he was a working man, but there was no particular virtue in being a working man. A man ought to be in possession of other qualifications than that of being a working man for a post of this kind. There was only one safeguard against political partisanship in such appointments, and it was to be found in a thoroughly sound system whereby all men were put through the mill of an examination which proved their qualifications. He sincerely hoped that the Home Secretary would bear this discussion in mind, and would systematically put into the waste-paper basket the hundreds of letters he received from Members of the House of Commons asking him to speak in favor of Tom, Dick, or Harry who was a candidate for the post of Factory Inspector or of some other appointment. He trusted also that the right hon. Gentleman would try and induce the Postmaster General (Mr. A. Morley) to put an end to the jobbery in regard to Postmasterships in which Members on both sides of the House indulged to an extent that in his opinion was most discreditable, and that resulted in frequently causing one man to be appointed rather than another for purely political considerations.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1894–5

    BRITISH SUBJECTS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to call attention to the present position of affairs in the Transvaal. He thought he should be able to prove without difficulty that the condition of our fellow-subjects in that part of South Africa was very serious. The dissatisfaction which prevailed amongst British subjects in the Transvaal 13 years ago in consequence of the mournful surrender of their interests by the then British Government had not seriously diminished, and he was told by those who knew South Africa best, that never since the surrender that followed Majuba Hill had there been such grave discontent amongst British subjects in the Transvaal as at the present moment. The British people in the Transvaal numbered 70,000.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,), dissented.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he had this information on good authority, and was told the British subjects far outnumbered the Boers, who were the governing and ascendant race. He believed also that British residents in the Transvaal paid nine-tenths of the taxation of the country, whilst it was the fact that to British enterprise and British capital the Transvaal owed its remarkable development within the last 10 years. The gold mines of the Randt District had been developed almost exclusively by British capital and energy, and the fact that the Boer Government now enjoyed a surplus of nearly £1,000,000 a year was due to British enterprise, labor, and capital. The British in the Transvaal were impressed with the idea that their interests were wholly neglected by the Home Government. They felt that they could not depend upon the Home Government to defend their rights or even the most elementary privileges which residents in a quasi-foreign country had a right to demand. The Boer Government had deliberately set to work to deprive our fellow-subjects of their rights and of all power of asserting those rights, and of gaining the ordinary privileges of citizens. Six months ago a law was passed with regard to the franchise. British subjects in the Transvaal would be perfectly satisfied to take their chance if they were put on a level with the Boer citizens. They demanded the right to acquire the franchise after residing for a certain time in the Transvaal and fulfilling certain conditions. The law, however, passed by the Boer Volksraad prevented British subjects from gaining the franchise on any terms unless their parents had been naturalized before them The next step was to forcibly commandeer British residents, to take them from their homes by force, to carry them off to the front and to compel them to fight in the commandos against the native races. It was hardly credible that the Colonial Office should have allowed to prevail for so many years a state of things under which action of this kind could be taken, and it was the one partly

    1463
    satisfactory point of the Government case that they had at last raised themselves to a realization of the position, and had succeeded in putting an end to this monstrous system of commandeering of British subjects. Still, so poor was the British reputation with the Boer Government, and so afraid was our Government of taking energetic steps, that they had actually waited until the commando was sent back before the British subjects who had been commandeered were released. [Mr. S. BUXTON dissented.] The hon. Gentleman had distinctly told the House that the British subjects would not return to their homes for two or three weeks, when the whole of the command would be sent back. Well, all this happened whilst the Queen was Suzerain. Under the Conventions of 1881 and 1884 the Boer Government were forbidden to conclude any Treaties with foreign nations who had not the approval of Her Majesty's Government. The commandeering of food and supplies still remained in force, and British subjects were liable to have the Boer Field-Cornet, a comparatively subordinate officer in charge of a district, coming down upon them and demanding supplies for the Army. When it was realized how ignorant and brutal in many cases these subordinate Boer officers were, it would be easily understood how objectionable this form of commandeering was to British subjects. So far as he knew, no protest had been made by Her Majesty's Government against this action of the Boer Government. He came now to the last and worst act of oppression. It was hardly credible that in the 19th century, and while the Queen was Suzerain of the Transvaal, the Boer Volksraad had passed a law in secret session which practically took away from British subjects all right of public meeting. According to the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Buxton) the other day all right of outdoor meeting, all right of procession, and any form of demonstration in the open air were forbidden by this law. He very much doubted whether there were half a dozen rooms in the whole of the Transvaal suitable for indoor meetings, so that this law practically took away from the 70,000 British subjects in the Transvaal all right of expressing their grievances.
    1464
    The Volksraad had also added a clause forbidding the assembly of more than five persons in a room without the consent of the Boer Local Authorities. There was no doubt that the Boer Local Authorities would not hesitate to refuse to British residents the right of meeting when they knew that such right would be used with the object of urging their claims. The police were empowered to break in upon meetings held contrary to this law, and suppress them by force, whilst any person who was proved to have violated this monstrous enactment was liable to two years' imprisonment, and a fine of £500. Such an outrage had never been inflicted upon British subjects before, especially in a country where the Queen still possessed the right of Suzerainty. Since he had called public attention to the subject by questions in the House he had received a large number of letters from persons who were interested in it. The point which his correspondents were most indignant about was that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Buxton) had actually gone out of his way to throw his aegis of approbation over the law just passed by the Volksraad. He did not think that a British Minister had ever committed himself in such a mistaken and humiliating way as the hon. Gentleman did when he made the statement that whatever might be the merits or demerits of the law the South African Republic appeared to be acting within their rights in passing it. Even if it were so, what business had the hon. Gentleman to make such a statement in the House of Commons? He knew that 70,000 of our fellow-subjects in the Transvaal were denied the most elementary rights, that they were being oppressed, bullied, and cowed, and that whenever they had attempted to hold meetings they had had large numbers of armed Boers riding amongst and threatening to shoot them down unless they disappeared. The hon. Gentleman had no business to make such a statement knowing that it would be immediately telegraphed to South Africa, and would be held by the Boers as ample justification for the oppression of our countrymen. People who knew the Transvaal best said that the neglect of British interests there and the abandonment of the British

    1465
    colonists who in 1881 made such sacrifices to maintain British supremacy was producing a most disastrous effect on our position in South Africa. There was a great risk of repetition of the case of the American colonies. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would give up trifling with this question and would take up the firm and resolute line of action which was most likely to avert conflicts. It was only because the Boers thought they could safely oppress British subjects and bully the Home Government that they attempted these extreme measures. Surely the men who had turned the Transvaal from a ruined and bankrupt wilderness into a flourishing country had a right to the protection of the British Government. As to Swaziland, under the Convention of 1884 the Swazis were guaranteed their independence. It was a country of great natural wealth, and the Swazi people were unanimously opposed to annexation by the Transvaal. But, whatever settlement might be arrived at, he hoped that above all things Her Majesty's Government would insist on British subjects being allowed to assert their rights by constitutional means.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he hoped the eloquent words which had fallen from his hon. Friend would have some effect upon the Government. If the British colonists in the Transvaal could not get the British Government to listen to their grievances, they might at least feel that some Members of the House of Commons were anxious to support them. The Queen was suzerain of the Transvaal, and that must imply some influence in domestic affairs, especially with respect to the interests of British subjects. That was certainly the view which would be taken by British colonists in South Africa, and our position had never been so easy there as in other colonies. Therefore, it was just as well to secure the cordial allegiance of the British colonists; and their position now was intolerable. In no other part of the globe in which England had any supremacy was anything so unjust allowed as the method that had been adopted there to raise contributions in kine and capital. How long were these unjust conditions to remain in force? He was glad to hear that the President
    1466
    of the Dutch Republic was on his way to visit England, and he trusted that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs' would convey to him in very strong terms the views that had so often been expressed on the matter by responsible Members of that House. He was anxious to know what steps the Government intended to take with regard to the Swaziland question. They had been informed that the interests of the natives would be fully provided for under the terms of the Convention. When, however, they were able to examine the terms of the Convention for themselves, they found it laid down that the natives were not to be made the absolute subjects of the Boers unless they freely consented to submit to Dutch protection. This seemed a very menacing condition to the independence of the natives, for, whatever might be the view taken of the matter by the native Sovereign, the Boers would have but little trouble, he believed, in obtaining the consent of the natives to their exercising the rights of suzerainty over their territory. Indeed, complaints that such was likely to be the case had lately been received, and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would see that the terms of the Convention were very strictly enforced. It was not to be forgotten that in former years England had undertaken a moral responsibility in the welfare of these people which it was her duty to carry through. Moreover, the Convention went so far as to give to the natives a freedom of choice in the matter, and, that being so, it became doubly our duty to see that their right of liberty of choice was not taken away from them by the Boers. It was also a matter of the greatest importance to this country to maintain the independency of that territory. Whatever rights the Boers had acquired over the country they were certainly less than those possessed by England, and therefore from a strategic as well as from a moral point of view it was obviously to our interests that the independency of that country should be very carefully guarded. He did not know whether the House had carefully read the Agreement referring to Matabeleland and Mashonaland. It was unquestionably a most intricate document; but still, as it had been submitted to the considera-

    1467
    tion of hon. Members of that House, he as one of them would like to offer his opinion upon it. The first thing that struck him was that the powers that England had reserved over this tract of territory that had lately been acquired and polished by the energy of our own countrymen seemed to be so divided and scattered. One would have supposed that there would be somebody in sole command; but in some respects the chief officer of the British South Africa Company in Matabeleland was under the Secretary of State, while in other respects he seemed to be under the High Commissioner for South Africa. This country had never governed her territories in the East in that way. The Viceroy of India, though responsible to the Secretary of State for India, was in sole command in all respects in India. In Matabeleland, on the contrary, the appointment of some officials had to be sanctioned by the Secretary of State and others by the High Commissioner. As to the rights of the native inhabitants in these territories, it was very satisfactory to observe that in the Agreement were included many strong clauses protecting those rights. He congratulated the Government on having been so considerate and careful of the rights of the natives. He would, however, have thought that the right of appeal which was given to the natives would have been made to the High Commissioner in South Africa rather than to the Secretary of State in London.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, he might explain that where the Secretary of State was mentioned in the Agreement the correspondence would have to come through the High Commissioner.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he was obliged for the explanation, but he wanted to know why, in that case, the High Commissioner was not constituted the appellate authority? He apologized for the time he had occupied, but this Agreement was really a very important matter. This country was acquiring a new field for trade and enterprise which might be the germ of a vast dominion, and hereafter might become a great Empire. Under the circumstances, it was highly satisfactory to note that provision was made for preventing the natives in those territories from obtaining
    1468
    liquor, arms, or ammunition. He congratulated the Government on this humane foresight. It was also very satisfactory to note a clause relating to the acquisition of land by natives in the same way as it could be acquired by persons who were not natives. Among them he would mention the fact that there was a clause relating to the acquisition of land by the natives in the same way as it could be acquired by persons who were not natives which included a certain proportion of spring and arable land. That showed how the rights had been reserved in such territory as that of Matabeleland. He observed that provision was made that everything underground, which he supposed meant all minerals, mines, and the like, should be reserved to the Company. He presumed that this agreement having been ratified by the Company, the Company would be placed in a really strong position, and unlike the unfortunate though equally deserving Company about which a discussion took place last night, it would be placed in a position strong enough and rich enough to enable it to discharge its duties satisfactorily, not only in its own province but in the face of all South Africa, and that any remains of discontent which they used to hear of a few months ago from the mouths of Mr. Rhodes and others would finally vanish. He heartily trusted the arrangement now made might conduce to the further consolidation of the British Empire in South Africa.
    MR. WHITELEYsaid, he wished to call attention to the annexation of Pondoland by Cape Colony. He had inquired into the matter, and found that during the last few years the merchants in the North of England had established and developed trading stations and established a commercial activity in Pondoland, and the more he had inquired into the matter the more he had been convinced that the inaction of the Government in respect to the annexation would result in he might almost say, the annihilation of the Lancashire and Cheshire trade with Pondoland. Owing to the supineness of the Colonial Office, Cape Colony, through that shrewd, hard headed man, Mr. Cecil Rhodes, had been able to trample on the rights of a small colony, and leave a sense of injury to rankle

    1469
    in the minds of their people. He did not for a moment deny that in 1886 Cape Colony had the power given to them to annex Pondoland. He might prophesy at the outset what the reply of the Under Secretary for the Colonies would be; it would be the reply contained in Lord Ripon's Dispatch of the 19th of July, 1894, a reply which, in his judgment, read more like an apology for the inaction of the Colonial Office than anything else, an excuse or explanation that he (Lord Ripon) and the Colonial Office were bound to carry out the policy of their predecessors. Lord Ripon was not able to deny in that Dispatch that Natal now had, and at that time possessed, strong claims to the annexation of Pondoland; but, notwithstanding that, Lord Ripon sheltered himself under the wing, if he might so describe it, of his predecessors, and adopted the policy, "As it was in the beginning so it is now, and ever shall be." Lord Ripon refused to recognize the new state of affairs that had sprung up with respect to Pondoland and Natal, of which his predecessors in Office could have had no knowledge. As he had said in 1886, the Cape Colony had power given to annex Pondoland, but that power remained practically a dead letter, as the Cape Authorities declined all responsibility in the matter, and no steps were taken to annex. But since 1886 a perfectly new state of things had arisen. Natal, during the eight years, had been at very great expense in policing the border in order to prevent cattle-stealing raids, which were always rife on the borders of the South African Colonies, and to repress the troubles that had sprung up during the last few years in Pondoland. During this time a large and lucrative trade had grown up and crossed the border dividing Natal from Pondoland, a trade which had been a source of considerable financial gain to the Colony of Natal, therefore for Lord Ripon to shelter himself behind the plea that it was carrying out the policy of his predecessors in Office, in view of the altered state of facts was, in his (Mr. Whiteley's) judgment, not only wrong, but almost wicked, judged from the results that followed. He knew that Pondoland was a far cry from Westminster; it was a small tract of country to the South of Natal,
    1470
    and only separated from Natal by a small fordable river, practically fordable throughout its entire length, and was only about 100 miles from the capital of Natal, whereas it was at least 600 miles to the capital of Cape Colony. It was always expected by the traders and merchants of the North of England that when any division or annexation of Pondoland took place, that at any rate Eastern Pondoland, that part to the North East of the St. John's River, and which bordered Natal, would fall to the lot of Natal. At the end of April or the beginning of May of this year he called attention to the matter by a question in this House when the hon. Member replied to him that he did not consider the subject one of great public importance, and did not propose to present any Papers to Parliament as all information would be contained in the Blue Book. He had some extracts from the Blue Book, and he found the ball opened with a Dispatch from the Prime Minister of Natal to the Governor of Natal, in which he called attention to the disturbed condition of Pondoland, especially of that territory that abutted on the southern portion of Natal, and likewise maintained that it was used for the base of operations, and the natives were being kept in a constant state of ferment. The Prime Minister also called attention to the fact that the loss in trade with Natal by the annexation would amount to £25,000 a year, and requested that some steps be taken, pending the final settlement, for a meeting of the authorities of the Cape and Natal. That communication was sent on by the Governor of Natal to the High Commissioner, and in his letter accompanying it, he endorsed what the Prime Minister of Natal had said. On the 1st of September, 1893, the Prime Minister of Natal wrote again to the Governor a long Memorandum in which he dealt with the whole, position of affairs, and stated he had reason to believe that the Pondos at large would be glad to come under the rule of Natal, with which they were content, and with which they were connected by old times and associations. The Prime Minister further stated that Natal would be glad to accept the responsibility of administering the affairs of Pondoland. The Governor

    1471
    in sending that on to the High Commissioner asked for favorable attention to the views expressed in it. Sir Henry Robinson was unable to agree with Sir H. Bulwer's recommendation, but expressed the belief that Lord Ripon and the High Commissioner would be of opinion the time had come for bringing the Pondoland question to a final settlement. The next extract was a Petition of the Chiefs in Pondoland, a Petition of three-fourths—he believed, of seven-eighths—of the people of Pondoland, represented by their Chiefs, and they concluded with this significant sentence—
    "We are tired of living in a country without rule and order and in a state of barbarism."
    And they requested the Natal Government to take them over with their people and territories, living as they did on the borders of Natal; that they were quite aware of the laws of the Colony, and earnestly desired to become law abiding subjects of Her Majesty. That was the resolution come to by the Chiefs ruling over seven-eighths of the inhabitants of Pondoland. To that, as he had previously said, Lord Ripon replied that he had examined the question and the claims of Natal, but he must rest his policy on the declaration of his predecessors. At the end of his Dispatch Lord Ripon said that the occupation of Pondoland by the Cape would be in itself a considerable and distinct advantage to Natal, and he would invite their attention to the question whether Natal would not be going out of its way to take the responsibility. To him (Mr. Whiteley) it seemed that Lord Ripon had already made up his mind, and that the question had received only scant treatment at his hands when the claims and arguments of Natal were disposed of in this summary manner. The next of these Reports was from the Prime Minister of Natal to the Governor, in which he referred to this Dispatch of Lord Ripon, and pointed out that Natal was perfectly aware of the responsibility they undertook, and that they still believed the policy that had been suggested might be carried out. A few more extracts followed which illustrated the mind of the Government, and, in his opinion, the wrongful action of the Cape Authorities in the matter. The Prime Minister of Natal claimed that the rights of Natal
    1472
    ought to be considered on the grounds of equity, long associations, and the geographical position of Natal and Pondoland, and pointed out that the settlement about to be made would tend to strain the relations of the two colonies. These extracts showed that not only was Natal anxious to annex that part of Pondoland adjacent to it, but that the annexation by the Cape and the position taken up by the Home Government had created feelings of injury in the minds of the people of Natal and Pondoland. He would now for a moment just draw attention to the question of trade in that country. As he had said, the merchants of Manchester, and Lancashire, and Cheshire generally, had been improving their commerce in Pondoland. The trade had been through what was known as the outward counties, and cotton goods entering Eastern Pondoland had paid a duty to Natal of 6 per cent., but now that the annexation had taken place, and Poudoland was placed under the Cape Colony, the duty levied was 17½ per cent. That alone was a strong reason why the merchants of the North of England should desire Pondoland to be given over to Natal. Further than that, Natal Representatives, speaking in the Natal Legislature, said that the annexation of Pondoland to the Cape would mean a loss to Natal of £25,000 a year, because the trade would be stopped, as no one could afford to pay double duties, nor could they otherwise compete with the Cape traders, therefore, it would be a very serious matter to the outward counties. He had had to hurry over this matter because the time was short; but he believed he had made good his case that it had been the wish of Natal to annex that part of Pondoland running along its borders, and that that wish was shared by the traders who carried on business with Pondoland, both in the North of England and in Natal, and it was the desire of at least seven-eighths of the Pondos themselves. In spite of all this Her Majesty's Government had permitted the annexation by the Cape 600 miles away.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,)said, the Debate had traveled over various parts of Africa, and he would take

    1473
    the questions raised in their reverse order. He would say a word first upon the speech they had just listened to. So far as he was concerned, his only duty was to defend the action of the Colonial Office in this matter The Colonial Office had no control over the Cape and Natal as to what they did as colonies with responsible Governments. The hon. Gentleman accused the Colonial Office of supineness in this matter, in giving way, as he said, to the Cape Colony. The right hon. Gentleman read numerous long extracts from the Natal Blue Book; but he omitted to read two that were germane to the question as regarded the position of the Colonial Office. When this matter of Pondoland came to an acute stage the other day it was their anxious desire to bring the Cape and Natal into friendly relations, and he could show that they were anxious to meet the views of Natal as far as they could. The hon. Member had omitted to read a Minute of the Governor of Natal to the Prime Minister of Natal, in which he stated that Lord Ripon had expressed a strong opinion that the case was one for a friendly and direct understanding between the two Governments and personal communication between the two Premiers. So far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, they desired that the two Colonial Governments should be brought together to settle the question in an amicable spirit. But when an amicable arrangement was not come to the present Government were bound by the action of their predecessors to oppose the claim of Natal upon Pondoland. The hon. Gentleman omitted to refer to a Dispatch of February 16th, 1894, which detailed the different Dispatches and pledges that had been given by the predecessors of Lord Ripon at the Colonial Office, dated in 1886–87–88, from which it was clear that the Home Government had stated that the question of Pondoland was one entirely and absolutely for the Cape Government to decide for themselves. Their predecessors having made those declarations, though they were anxious to bring the two Governments together in a friendly way, they were incapacitated by previous pledges, even if they had wished, from acting differently to the way they did. If the Cape had been somewhat grasping, and Natal had suf-
    1474
    fered, it was not the fault of the Home Government, as they had done their best to bring them together. So much for the question of Pondoland As to the question of the Matabeleland Agreement raised by the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple), he did not know that he need go into any detail upon that, because, as he understood the hon. Gentleman, he only wanted one item of information, which he supplied the hon. Member with across the Table. In regard to the matter the House was most interested in—namely, the care of the natives, he understood the hon. Member to be complimentary to the Colonial Office for having taken care that the interests of the natives were properly guarded and provided for. As regards the Agreement as a whole, they had done their best to make it a fair arrangement as between the Imperial Government and the Chartered Company, and to safeguard the rights of the natives in the best possible way.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: Will the hon. Gentleman remember my question about the position of the High Commissioner?
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, he thought he had explained that across the Table; it was this: that for every action he did the High Commissioner was responsible to the Secretary of State, and all matters affecting South Africa came through the High Commissioner before they reached the Secretary of State. It had been thought advisable that, in regard to certain points, the matter should be put upon a firmer basis, and that it should be specifically stated that they had to be decided by the Secretary of State; but certain subsidiary matters were left to the decision of the High Commissioner, who was responsible to the Secretary of State, so that in effect there was no practical distinction. Then the hon. Member raised the question of Swaziland, which was also alluded to by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett). He did not understand they desired, or that the House would wish him, to go into this question at any length, but he would remind the hon. Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple) it was not the present Government who reopened, or desired to reopen, the Swaziland question. There, again, they found themselves tied and bound by the action of their predecessors

    1475
    towards the South African Republic and by the good faith of English Governments in maintaining continuity of policy. In regard to the past, they were bound to listen to representations of the South African Republic and to meet them as far as they could with regard to this question of Swaziland, and what they had done was before the House. While they had acquiesced in the control of the Government of Swaziland by the Transvaal, they had stipulated for the native independence of the Swazis themselves, and in the Convention, which he hoped before long would be signed, they had safeguarded the rights of the Europeans there as well as of the natives themselves. In order that the negotiations might be completed, Sir Henry Loch had obtained from the South African Republic an extension for six mouths of the existing Convention, which he hoped would enable the matter to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion to all the parties concerned. The hon. Member for Sheffield had made a very violent and excited speech in reference to the action of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the questions in the Transvaal. The hon. Member's view, as he understood it, was practically that on all the matters mentioned by him, it was the bounden duty of the Government to have at once, and in a most hostile spirit towards the South African Republic, insisted on interfering with their internal legislation, and seeing that certain matters on which we might disagree with them were carried through in the way we desired.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that the Government ought to defend the rights of the British subjects, and enter a resolute protest against the monstrous law infringing the right of public meeting.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, there was a drawback to the hon. Member's policy which he would explain. While he said that Her Majesty's Government, on whatever side of the House they might sit, were always anxious and willing to protect the rights of British subjects in other countries, the policy the hon. Member proposed, in so many words, came to this: that we were to insist on the repeal of the laws affecting British subjects in the Transvaal, and if the
    1476
    Transvaal declined to do this, we should insist upon it by force of arms. He was glad to think that the responsible Members of the late Government—and he desired to thank them for it—had been much more anxious to strengthen the hands of the Colonial Office, being desirous to prevent premature discussion in regard to these matters, and to treat the Transvaal, not as a hostile, but as a friendly country. The hon. Member very much perverted certain words which he (Mr. Buxton) let fall the other day in reply to a question as to this law of public meeting.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I quoted the exact words.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, he objected to the inference the hon. Member drew from them. The hon. Member had asked whether the Government intended at once to enter a strong protest in regard to the law of public meeting, and he (Mr. Buxton) stated what was true, and which was this: Whatever might be the merits or demerits of the law relating to public meetings, the South African Republic appeared to be acting within their rights in passing such a law. That was in strict accordance with the principle laid down in 1890 by Mr. W. H. Smith in regard to the Imperial relations to the Transvaal. Mr. Smith, who at that time was Leader of the House, speaking in regard to the question of the Suzerainty, stated that, though Her Majesty's Government under the Suzerainty retained the power of refusing to sanction Treaties made by the South African Republic with foreign States, the cardinal principle of that settlement was that the internal Government and legislation of the South African Republic should not be interfered with. That was all to which he (Mr. Buxton) referred, and by which he meant that though they might, if they thought well, in this particular matter enter an Imperial protest, they had no locus standi in regard to the matter at all. What was the position in relation to the three matters to which the hon. Member had referred He took first the case of the franchise. He thought himself the franchise in the South African Republic was restricted in a way that he should much regret to see in any other country throughout

    1477
    the length and breadth of the world. But he would remind the House that in regard to the question of the franchise, as, indeed, in regard to the law of public meetings, the Colonial Office had had no protests sent by those resident in the Transvaal asking them to interfere or protest in this matter.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: There was a representation signed by 15,000 persons sent to Sir Henry Loch.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, that was with reference to the commandeering question. When considering the question of negotiating in reference to the question of Swaziland the question of the franchise had come up, the point being whether, when they were negotiating that matter, they should not also endeavor to obtain better terms for the British inhabitants in the Transvaal in order to diminish those disabilities under which they suffered. What was the result? The inhabitants of the Transvaal, as we understood, did not desire that the Colonial Office should interfere in the matter, because they believed they were quite able to obtain a remedy for themselves, and that they were more likely to obtain fair terms if they were left alone. But when it came to the question of commandeering, that was a matter which stood on a very different basis. That was not entirely a matter of internal law, but one in which certain disabilities were specifically placed on British subjects, from which the subjects of certain other countries were exempt by Treaty, and strong protests having been received in regard to that matter, it was the duty of the Colonial Office to interfere and to make representations to the South African Republic. As regarded the legal position in this matter, they had the legal opinion of Sir Hardinge Giffard and Sir John Holker, reinforced by the opinions of their own Law Officers, that as far as concerned the legal question they had no case on which they might approach the South African Republic. But they did believe that they had a moral claim to interfere, because it was not right that in a friendly country British subjects should be under disabilities from which the subjects of certain other Powers were exempt. They placed this matter before the South African Republic in friendly and
    1478
    courteous terms. The representations so made were, he was glad to think, met in the same spirit, and the result was that a Convention was to be negotiated exempting British subjects from military service and contribution. And, in order to show their friendly spirit, the authorities of the Republic brought the arrangement into force at once, and immediately enlisted a fresh burgher force to relieve the British subjects who had been commandeered up to that time. The question of the military contribution on British subjects was in exactly the same position as compulsory military service—namely, it formed part of the Convention; it would be removed, and, in fact, it was removed, at the moment the principle of a Convention was accepted. They had got a telegram from the High Commissioner only a few hours ago, stating that there had been no further British subjects commandeered, nor military contributions placed on them except the ordinary War Tax, which was placed on all residents in the Transvaal of whatever nationality they might be, and whether they were burghers or not. That was not the special military contribution to which the hon. Member referred, but what he might call a War Tax, which was placed on all the inhabitants of the country. British subjects were now to be free from any contribution which was not equally placed on the subjects of other Powers and upon the individual burghers living in the Transvaal. Looking at the circumstances all round, and to the fact that this country had no legal position in the matter, he thought that Her Majesty's Government had obtained, in a friendly way, from the Government of the South African Republic what might be considered as a very satisfactory solution of the commandeering question. While on this point he would like to say that he thought that the country was very much indebted to Sir Henry Loch for the way in which he had carried through the negotiations. He did not go to them, as the hon. Member would have had him do, with a pistol to their heads, but he went in friendly courtesy; but, nevertheless, by firmness, and by his tact, and the high character he held out there, and his great ability, he was able to carry through this very delicate and, as it might have been,

    1479
    dangerous question in a way satisfactory to us, and he thought not unsatisfactory to the South African Republic as well. As regarded other matters in which British subjects might be placed under some special disability, he could say the Government would always be ready to do their best to see that justice was done to British subjects in any part of the world. With reference to the question of public meetings, he did not wish to say at the present moment what, if any, steps could be taken in regard to it. He wished, however, to point out that this was not a question like the commandeering, which was one especially affecting British subjects, and not the general population of the country. He did not for a moment say it would not indirectly chiefly affect the British subjects, because they were those who were most likely to hold these meetings, but it was, as he had said, in a different position from the commandeering question. The latter was a matter directly affecting British subjects, but the question of public meetings was one which applied equally and impartially to all those living in the Transvaal. He did not wish to make any statement on the subject, for the very good reason that Sir Henry Loch would be here in a few days' time, and it was desirable to consult him on this and other matters affecting the Transvaal before making any statement. It must be borne in mind that the Transvaal was, in regard to its internal affairs, practically an independent country; and when they were dealing with a country like that, it was a great misfortune that speeches like that to which they had just listened from the hon. Member for Sheffield should be made in the House of Commons. Such speeches as that of the hon. Member were far more likely to embitter our relations with the Transvaal than lead to a satisfactory conclusion. The Government by friendly and courteous representations to the South African Republic had obtained what they desired without any humiliation to the South African Republic itself, whereas if they had gone on the principle laid down by the hon. Member they should certainly not have obtained what they required, and probably would ultimately have had to go to war. The policy of their predecessors
    1480
    had been the same as that of themselves in regard to the Transvaal, and he was sure that that was the right policy, while it certainly would be much more likely to lead to satisfactory results, and be much more to the interests of the British inhabitants of that part of the country, and very much more to the Imperial interests which were also involved, than the blustering and bombastic policy of the hon. Gentleman. It was to be remembered that while the Transvaal was governed by the Dutch there was also a large Dutch element throughout Cape Colony, which sympathised with the Dutch in the Transvaal. Though our sympathies might naturally go with the British part of those living in South Africa, it should be remembered that two great interests were involved in South Africa. The policy being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in South Africa would tend, he hoped and believed, to friendly relations between the different parts of South Africa and the Imperial Government: and this policy they would continue to pursue.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTrose to move the reduction of the Vote by £100, in order to call attention to the correspondence between the British South Africa Company and the Colonial Office relative to Clause 13 of the Matabeleland and the Mashonaland Agreement in regard to the limitation of Customs Duties. The facts were exceedingly simple and might be briefly stated. On May 8th, 1894, the Colonial Office sent to the British South Africa Company a Draft Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Company as to the future administration of Matabeleland and Mashonaland. Clause 13 of this Agreement, which had been duly executed, ran thus:—
    "The power of making Ordinances granted to the Company under Clause 10 of its Charter shall be deemed to include the power of imposing by such Ordinances all such taxes as may be necessary for the order and good government of the said territories, and for the raising of revenue therein; also the right to impose and collect Customs Duties."
    These last words Mr. Rhodes desired to have qualified by the following proviso:—
    "Provided that if Customs Duties are levied, then, in so far as Customs Dues on British goods are concerned, they shall not exceed the duties thereon according to the tariff at present in force in the South African Customs Union."

    1481
    What was the object of Mr. Rhodes, the Premier of Cape Colony, in wishing for that proviso? His object was to secure that the duties to be imposed on British goods should never exceed the amount required for the purposes of revenue; that there should be a check against the introduction of the principle of extreme protection, and that the colonies should make a commercial return to the Mother Country for the expenditure of life and money she had incurred in establishing them. He thought Englishmen were indebted to Mr. Rhodes for his desire to make it a cardinal condition of the Constitutions of Matabeleland and Mashonaland that these countries, covering enormous areas and likely to become exceedingly prosperous, should never put protective duties on British goods. He believed that this feeling would be reechoed in every industrial constituency in the country, more especially at the present time, because, as Mr. Rhodes clearly and distinctly said, he wished to have this proviso added in the interest of the English people, who were daily perceiving that the only return made to them by the colonies they had founded, and for all the blood and treasure they had spent, was that the present occupants of such colonies placed a prohibitive tariff on British goods, thereby removing the only existing benefit to the British manufacturer. He had no desire then to advocate protectionist doctrines, but he felt bound to say that he thought it a matter of great regret that British colonies should impose such duties on the goods of the Mother Country. For one he was heartily glad that Mr. Rhodes, as the Leader of Colonial statesmen, desired to put an end to this state of affairs. The injury which these tariff duties of foreign countries and the colonies did to our trade was absolutely incontestible, and yet what did they find was the action taken by the Secretary of State for the Colonies? Lord Ripon was the first Secretary of State who had ever had an offer of this kind made to him, and he rejected it. Why did he reject it? Because the proviso did not extend to goods from foreign states. It did not so extend for the best of all reasons. If the United States and other Powers continued their power of excluding British manufactures from their coun-
    1482
    tries by their high tariffs, Mr. Rhodes desired to retain the power for Matabeleland and Mashonaland—although not claiming it at the present time—if it should become necessary in the future, of saying they had the right of imposing differential duties and considering the advisability of meeting these foreign tariffs, which did our own trade so much harm, in the same spirit. What were the terms of the answer of Lord Ripon, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, to this very generous and most patriotic offer of Mr. Rhodes, an offer which showed that he and his supporters desired nothing better than to cement closer and closer the ties which connected the colonies and the Mother Country, and to obtain for the Mother Country the great advantages which their prosperous markets offered to her in the present depressed condition of trade in this country? The Marquess of Ripon, writing to the Company on June 11th, 1894, expressed the opinion that—
    "The proviso was unnecessary because the Company could only impose taxation by Ordinance, and such Ordinances were subject to disallowance by the Secretary of State, and consequently no Customs Duties could be levied which the Secretary of State was not prepared to sanction. There was, therefore, no reason, to fear that the Company would be allowed to impose excessive duties."
    But he desired to call the attention of the Under Secretary and of the House to the fact that the Crown had now the power of disallowing any Bill proposed or enacted by a Colonial Legislature, including any Bill for the imposing of protective duties against British goods. But this was a right which neither this nor any previous Government had exercised, nor, he ventured to say, would any future Government of this country ever venture to exercise in respect of any Bill regulating the fiscal policy of any self-governing colony. It was quite impossible at this time of day for the Mother Country to interfere with the fiscal policy of any self-governing colony. All duties of this kind, levied by any foreign State or colony, were detrimental to the best interests of our trade. But the Marquess of Ripon based his refusal, not on consideration of the interests of British trade, but on the grounds that the proviso did not extend to foreign countries, and that the adoption of such a policy

    1483
    would involve a departure from the course pursued for many years by the British Government. The long and short of the matter was that the Marquess of Ripon had declined this offer by Mr. Rhodes, not in the interests of British trade, but simply and solely because, sooner or later, it might become necessary in Matabeleland or Mashonaland, for the sake of revenue and other reasons, to put foreign goods in a less favourable position on their entrance into those territories than British goods. What had the British Secretary of State for the Colonies to do with the interests of foreigners? Had foreign nations done anything for the establishment of Matabeleland, Mashonaland, or any British colony? But being so solicitous for the foreigner he might have ascertained that as long as the clauses in the Treaty with Belgium of 1862, and with the Zollverein of 1865, providing that foreign goods should not pay a higher duty than British goods in British colonies remained unrepealed, foreigners could prevent any differential duties being levied upon them by the Company. While, then, Lord Ripon had secured no greater benefit to the foreigner than he enjoyed under existing treaties, he had failed to secure a great advantage offered spontaneously to the British people. Why had he not paid attention to the great need that existed for new markets? Did he not know of the great depression in trade; did he not know of the large number of people unemployed in the country, and how great was the cry in every manufacturing centre amongst manufacturers and workpeople for new markets? All who had any knowledge of the subject agreed that new markets had become an absolute necessity for us. Yet when the Secretary of State for the Colonies had an opportunity of securing that the markets of 800,000 square miles of British territory should never be protectively closed against British goods, he contemptuously rejected it. He was not going to labour the matter further seeing the lateness of the hour (11.13 p.m.). He had raised the question entirely in the interest of his own constituents. It was a matter of vital importance to them that new markets should be secured for their products. He would, in conclusion, draw
    1484
    the attention of the House to a very memorable speech made by the Premier of Cape Colony, a true Imperial statesman. Mr. Rhodes had said—
    "The onus of rejection of this splendid offer lies with Her Majesty's Government. They spend their whole time on small matters. But the big question of the trade of the people they neglect. They forget that England is but a small country, and yet has to support nearly 40,000,000 people, who directly and indirectly are engaged in working up the raw product into the manufactured article, and distributing this article over the world. The world, finding that England is unrivalled in the manufacture from the raw material, has of late years been devising schemes, by protective and prohibitive tariffs, to shut her out—see, for instance, the action of the United States, of France, and of Russia; and yet the most extraordinary thing is that, when the English people are offered the privilege that South of the Zambesi their goods shall be admitted for ever on a fair basis, their rulers absolutely refuse. It will, I hope, be brought home to the English people, for with them rests the final decision."
    He could not do much to bring this matter home to the English people, but what little he could do he was doing and he should do. It was for that reason that he ventured to move a reduction of the salary of the Secretary for the Colonies by £100.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out "£3,583,150," in order to insert £3,583,050."—(Colonel Howard Vincent.)
    Question proposed, "That £3,583,150 stand part of the Resolution."
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, he desired to follow the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, though not, perhaps, on the same lines. It was not necessary, he imagined, for the hon. Member's Motion to be seconded, or he (Admiral Field) would second it, for he had a grievance against the Colonial Office and against the hon. Gentleman who so ably represented that Office in this House. The grievance was one he wished to ventilate in the interest of the important shipping industry of the country. He wished to call attention to the mischievous system which prevailed to a limited extent of subsidising foreign mail steamers under foreign flags. He alluded in particular to the case of the subsidy paid with the partial approval of the Colonial Office to the Messageries Maritimes de France for carrying English mails to the Island of Mauritius. He

    1485
    had put a question to the Government on the subject more than once, but without eliciting a satisfactory answer. He had been supported by hon. Gentlemen who who had put further questions—
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that this was a new subject, and that the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield ought to be disposed of first.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, he would not detain the House more than a few moments in replying to the hon. Member for Sheffield, who had moved a reduction in the Vote because the Secretary of State was unable to accept Mr. Rhodes's offer in regard to the Matabeleland and Mashonaland settlement. Mr. Rhodes's proposal was that no higher duties than those at present in force under the Customs Union should be placed on British goods in Matabeleland and Mashonaland. That was a proposal which the Government could not accept, because it was based on the ground that it might become necessary at a future time to place differential duties on foreign goods. By this arrangement, therefore, it was intended practically to put a lower duty on British goods than on foreign goods imported into the country. That, of course, raised the question that was known as Fair Trade. He was not going to discuss that question this evening, but they did feel that when they had to decide the matter or alter their policy they should look at the whole fiscal principles upon which this country had acted for 50 years. Would it have been compatible with their duty to accept a proposal affecting one small colony only, but aimed practically at the fiscal principles accepted by this country for so long a period? The Secretary of State thought that if any alteration was to be made in our fiscal policy it ought to be done deliberately after due consideration and after taking into counsel all those who were interested in the change. The Secretary of State held that it would not be right to do anything by a side wind which might affect the general fiscal principles in which this country had hitherto acted. That was the ground on which the proposal was rejected, and he would point out further that as regarded the situation in Matabeleland and Mashonaland the rejection of the proposal in no way prejudiced
    1486
    British interests. On the contrary, he believed that it was more likely that there would be lower duties on British goods in that part of the country than if Mr. Rhodes's proposal had been accepted. In the Bechuanaland Railway agreement the Secretary of State retained full power of refusing to pass any Ordinance introduced by the Chartered Company in that territory. The principle had been introduced that with regard to the whole of that territory the duties should not exceed the duties in force in the Customs Union, and in regard to Swaziland the identically same principle had been carried out. The hon. Member opposite was labouring under a serious mistake if he thought that, apart from the question of Fair Trade, the Government had in any way injured or damnified British interests. He would only say that, while the Government were very anxious to meet Mr. Rhodes's proposal in this matter, they did not think that in dealing with a small part of the great British Empire it would have been right or proper to raise a great fiscal question, and they thought that was a sufficient ground for the rejection of the proposal. As far as they could they had endeavoured to protect the interests of the British producer and the British exporter, and he believed they would be better rather than worse off by the proposals the Government had laid before the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he would not detain the House more than a few moments; but as regarded what had been said earlier as to the relations existing between ourselves, our fellow-countrymen in the Transvaal, and the Transvaal Government, it was desirable that a word or two should be said in reply by Members who had had the privilege of mixing with the Boers and their leaders, and who were acquainted with the President of the Republic. Random utterances by gentlemen who were unacquainted with the Transvaal as to the treatment of our fellow-countrymen in that country were to be deprecated. The hon. Member for

    1487
    Sheffield had used expressions which were certainly not warranted, and which were calculated to do a great deal of harm by straining the relations between their own people and the inhabitants of the Transvaal. Unfortunately, words uttered by however humble and insignificant Members of the House were reported, and had an importance attached to them far beyond their merits by the people of the Transvaal, and other countries of the kind. He remembered observing, a few years ago, when he happened to be travelling in the Transvaal at the same time that the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington was making an excursion there, that that noble Lord had inspired very strong resentment, and incurred considerable odium from the people, to the injury of the interests of this country, by the unwarrantable language he had used against that people. That being the case, he thought it only fair to say a single word from personal knowledge of the people of the Transvaal and their leaders, in support of the generous sentiments of the hon. Member for Poplar, and the credit he had given Sir Henry Loch, our Representative in South Africa, for the manner in which he had brought about an adjustment of the difficult, and delicate, and thorny questions which had arisen between this country and the Transvaal. The particular point made against the people of the Transvaal was on the commandeering and franchise questions. On that he would only say that it was too commonly the idea of Englishmen that they could go and exploit foreign countries without being liable to pay taxes in support of law and order. The position taken up by our countrymen in the Transvaal was that which, unfortunately, foreigners thought they were always entitled to take up in countries which they considered half-civilised. The same thing had taken place in Egypt in times past. There were, no doubt, some Englishmen in the Transvaal who thought they were justified in refusing to submit to taxation for the purpose of maintaining the Government of the Republic. He did not think that their view was general. No doubt the system of compelling Englishmen to to take part in military operations, and
    1488
    to join expeditions against the unfortunate natives, ought to be put down. But to suppose that, therefore, they should be exempt from the payment of all taxation which was necessary for the carrying on of the government of the country, was a proposal to which he, for one, could not assent. People who went to the Transvaal to make their fortunes must expect to have to contribute something towards the cost of the maintenance of law and order. But if they did so contribute it was only right that they should have some share in the representation. The hon. Member for Sheffield, who talked so glibly against the Government of the Transvaal on these matters, probably was not aware of what had already been done in respect of giving a certain share of representation to our people in that country. He was not aware, perhaps, that a second Folksraad had been established for the representation of the European population. This was not all that was to be desired, but it was worthy of note that that concession had been obtained through the exertions of an hon. Member of the House whose name was honourably associated with all that was best in the progress of South Africa. The representation in the Transvaal was not so far behind our own. He had heard it said that a man could not be represented until he had lived 15 years in the country; but that was not correct. The necessary period of residence was either two or five years—he believed the former—though a man was not eligible for office until he had had 15 years' residence. Well, in this country two years' residence, and very often two and a-half years' residence, was necessary in order to give a man a vote. The President of the Transvaal Republic had a good answer to make to anyone who complained. He had said to him (Mr. Conybeare) that if they were to give a vote to everybody in the country in the present condition of things, with a large floating population consisting of people of all nationalities, most of whom went there to make fortunes and cleared out with as much money as they could collect, the Republic would soon be brought to ruin. It was, therefore, necessary for the well-being of the country that a reasonable period of

    1489
    residence should be required to confer the franchise upon the foreigner. He commended the President of the Republic and his Ministers for insisting upon a measure of this kind as a measure of safety. Although they might feel, as Englishmen, that many of the arrangements in the Transvaal did not conduce as much as might be desired to the full development of the industry of the country in which so many millions of British capital had already been invested, he did not think there was the slightest desire on the part of any of the leading men in the Republic to treat Englishmen in a different manner to that in which they would treat their own people or the people of other States. Speeches were sometimes made on the floor of this House by gentlemen who knew nothing about the Transvaal or the rights and wrongs of the question, which tended to strain the relations between ourselves and the Boers. For that reason he was glad to have heard the speech delivered by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. He congratulated the hon. Member on the line of policy that Lord Ripon and he had laid down and carried out.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid he wished, in the interests of his constituents, to refer to a grievance they suffered through the way in which the Education Act was being administered towards voluntary schools, and the friction which existed between Her Majesty's Inspector and the managers of the voluntary school—
    MR. ACLANDsaid, that he had asked the Chief Inspector to go to Lowestoft and to look into the whole question, because he recognised that the matter had not been well managed.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, that in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the fulness and frankness of which he acknowledged, he would refrain from saying anything further.
    MR. JEFFREYSsaid, he wished to call attention to the Merchandise Marks Protection Act recently passed, and to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he would do his best to see it was enforced, as it was competent for his Department to institute proceedings under it. The Act provided for the prosecution of those who sold foreign or colonial meat as
    1490
    English meat. Much harm had been done to British agriculture by this practice, which was carried on to an enormous extent. A Committee of the House of Lords took evidence on this question, and one of the witnesses before it stated that close to Westminster there was a house which professed to sell Welsh mutton, whereas the meat in the shop came from New Zealand, and not a single joint of Welsh mutton could be found there. That was a case surely in which the owner or salesman ought to be prosecuted, and he hoped consequently the President of the Board of Trade would take action. A former Member of the Government, Lord Playfair, had pointed out that this was a matter which more concerned agriculture than the Board of Trade, and the Government had shown its willingness that a Bill should be introduced giving the Board of Agriculture those powers which the Board of Trade possessed under the Merchandise Marks Act with a view to the prevention of the sale of foreign and colonial meat under the name of English meat. If the right hon. Gentleman would assure him that he intended to use these powers he would be willing to withdraw the Bill standing in his own name, and he was confident that such an assurance would give lively satisfaction to the agriculturists of the United Kingdom.
    MR. H. GARDNERsaid, that while admitting that agriculturists not unnaturally had shown some little impatience on this subject, he was glad to be able to point to the fact that the Bill promised by Lord Playfair had passed the House of Commons without dissent, and that it transferred to the Board of Agriculture powers conferred on the Board of Trade. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that misrepresentation in a matter such as that was much to be deplored, and he could assure them that in enforcing the Act he would interpret the powers it gave to the Board of Agriculture in the most liberal sense, and apply them whenever any case was brought before him which seemed to justify that course.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Under Secretary for the Colonies to the appointment of Dr. Grigsby as Chief Justice of Cyprus, and had to ask what

    1491
    his qualifications were for the position? He was aware that Dr. Grigsby was a barrister and a member of the London County Council. But the one qualification which seemed to have secured him the berth was that he contested a Division of Mid Essex in the Radical interest at the General Election of 1892; and it really seemed that nowadays the shortest way of obtaining preferment was to contest a constituency in the Radical interest. This Chief Justice had joined a certain Company as a Director—a Company known as the Solicitors' Investment Government Trust—a name which would have frightened any sensible man. The Company was born in the year 1890, and after a variegated and chequered existence a petition was filed against it in the year 1892, and so disreputable were the circumstances attending its demise that the Board of Trade ordered an official inquiry, and Dr. Grigsby was ordered home from Cyprus to give evidence on the subject. A report of the investigation would be found in The Times of February 20th last, and without going into details he would point out that Dr. Grigsby appeared to have been concerned in three transactions of a questionable character—namely, lending money to someone who stuck to it, borrowing money himself from the Company, and also lending the Company's funds to a friend. He wished to know from the Under Secretary to the Colonies why this Judge was ever allowed to return to Cyprus as Chief Justice after his examination in relation to the liquidation of the Company with which he was connected. He had not the slightest grudge personally against this legal luminary, but he did think the House were entitled to an explanation of the action of the Government.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was, of course, entitled to raise this question, but it would have been more convenient if he had given notice of his intention to do so. So far as his recollection went, however, he would deal with the matter. In the first place, Dr. Grigsby was not Chief Justice of Cyprus, but a minor Judge corresponding in position to a Magistrate here. He had had a distinguished career at his University and as a barrister, and he was
    1492
    recommended very strongly for the post. The hon. Member had commented on the fact that Dr. Grigsby stood against him in an election, and was defeated.
    MAJOR RASCH: Not against me.
    MR. S. BUXTONsaid, that his career was such that he seemed to be a fitting person for the appointment. The Colonial Office had no knowledge at the time of any connection of Dr. Grigsby with the Company in question, or that such a Company was in existence or had come to grief. But undoubtedly the Secretary of State felt the question was one of great gravity, and it was only after careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case that they came to the decision to allow him to go back to Cyprus. Although questions of gross carelessness were involved, they came to the conclusion that the accusations of fraud had failed, and whether they had been right or wrong in allowing Dr. Grigsby to return to Cyprus he was prepared to defend the decision at which they arrived.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]. (No. 335.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Could not this Bill be made to apply to Ireland?
    MR. PAULTON: That point has been carefully considered, but it was found that the conditions obtaining in Ireland with regard to these institutions differed so widely from those in England that the extension would lead to great difficulty and inconvenience, and it would be better not to make it.
    Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Finance Bill.
  Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer additional powers on

  1493
  Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration." [Boards of Conciliation Bill [Lords].]
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to Consolidate the Copyhold Acts." [Copyhold Consolidation Bill [Lords].]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 237.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
  EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER (CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [Lords]. (No. 300.)
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARRY, &C.) BILL [Lords].—(No. 310.)
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Fourth Report, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 249.]

  COAL MINES (CHECK WEIGHER) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 340.]
  QUARRIES BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 341.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to Consolidate the Acts relating to the Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of, Children." [Prevention of Cruelty to Children Bill [Lords].]
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 342.]

  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ARBITRATION [GUARANTEE AND EXPENSES] BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee advances, not exceeding £250,000, charged on the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make-provision for the restoration of Evicted Tenants in Ireland, and to charge the sums required to meet such guarantee on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  And to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries, remuneration, and expenses which may become payable under the said Act.—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  PRIZE COURTS BILL [Lords].—(No. 311.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS, &C.
  Message from the Lords [30th July], requesting this House to nominate an additional Member to the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills, considered.
  Ordered, That Mr. Channing be added to the Select Committee appointed by this House to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]. (No. 335.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MEAT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 45.)
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [4th April] read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL MEAT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 45.)

    PRIVATE BILLS.
    Returns ordered, "of the number of Private Bills introduced and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1894, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways; Tramways; Tramroads; Subways; Canals and Navigations; Roads and Bridges; Water; Gas; Gas and Water; Improvement; Police and Sanitary Regulations; Corporations, &c. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations or to Lighting and Improvement Schemes); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Inclosure and Drainage; Estate; Divorce; and Miscellaneous."
    "Of all the Private Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, which, in the Session of 1894, have been treated as Opposed Bills; specifying those which have been classified in Groups by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills; together with the names of the Selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each Selected Member has served; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed; the Bills referral back to the Committee of Selection, or to the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, as having become unopposed, and the Bills withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties."
    "And, of all Private Bills which, in the Session of 1894, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.172, of Session 1893–4)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
    Return ordered, "showing, with reference to Session 1894, (1) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Private Members had precedence; (3) the number of other Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government Business had precedence; (4) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a Special Order of the House; (5) the number of Saturday Sittings; (6) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (7) the total number of Days on which the House sat; (8) the total number of
    1496
    Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of Days in Supply (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.83, of Session 1893–4)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

    DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
    Return ordered, "of the number of Divisions of the House in the Session of 1894; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.171, of Session 1893–4)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    PUBLIC PETITIONS.
    Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in the Session of 1894; with the total number of Signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.174, of Session 1893–4)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
    Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in the Session of 1894, stating, for each day the date of the month, and day of the week, the hour of the meeting and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.176, of Session 1893–4)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    PUBLIC BILLS.
    Return ordered, "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1894; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.173, of Session 1893–4)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1442 (Shanghai), and of 1443 (Nagasaki) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Consolidated Fund (No. 3.)

Finance.

Zanzibar Indemnity.

Parochial Electors (Registration Acceleration).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14.)

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 17.)

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 18.)

UNIFORMS BILL.—(No. 175.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, in moving the Second Reading, that this was a very simple Bill which had passed through all its stages in the other House. Its object was to restrict the wearing of uniforms of Her Majesty's Military and Naval Services to those serving in the Forces and to prevent their being worn by persons not directly connected with the Services. Provisions were contained in the Bill for exemption in certain cases, and particularly in the case of semi-public bands. The main object really was to prevent the uniforms of Her Majesty's Forces being used indiscriminately for advertising purposes by men carrying sandwich - boards and other persons parading the streets. The first enacting clause provided that military uniforms should not be worn without authority by any person not serving in Her Majesty's Military Forces nor any other dress having the appearance or bearing the regimental and distinctive marks of such uniforms. Exemption was made in the case of bandsmen at public performances for six years from the passing of the Act. During that period they might continue to wear the then
  1366
  recognised uniform of the band unless it was an exact imitation of a military uniform. In fact, six years were given them to wear out their uniforms. He confessed, for his own part, that he should have been glad if a shorter time had been fixed, and there certainly could be no objection offered on the ground of hardship upon those who had adopted a uniform. Then also persons who had adopted a uniform for the purpose of a stage-play were not to be prevented from wearing it or for circus performances or for bonâ fide military representations. The third clause provided that if uniforms were worn by unauthorised persons in such a way as to bring them into contempt, the wearers would come under the penalty imposed by the Act. He was sure the measure would have their Lordships' sympathy, and begged to move its Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chelmsford.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST): My Lords, the noble Lord has fully explained the provisions of this Bill. It has passed through the House of Commons after being threshed out in a Select Committee to whom it was referred, and I have only to say that the Government will be glad to assist the object of the measure.
  LORD CHELMSFORDexpressed his acknowledgments to Mr. Brookfield and others who piloted the Bill through its different stages in the other House.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

BRITISH MUSEUM (PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.—(No. 173.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSEBERY), in moving the Second Reading, said: My Lords, I congratulate myself on being able to introduce a Bill which I think, even in a fuller House than this, would meet with acceptance. It is for the purpose of securing the future of the

  1367
  Museum as well as its protection from fire by the acquisition of the property mentioned in the Bill. The additional property consists of 69 houses and their gardens, all belonging to the Duke of Bedford, who has met the wishes of the Museum Trustees and of the Treasury in the most fair and liberal spirit. Of course it is quite obvious that if the Collections in the British Museum go on extending at their present rate it is of the most vital importance to secure the room for their expansion; and it has also been stated authoritatively to the Trustees by the Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade that there is a grave danger to the Museum in the existence of any buildings not in the control of the Trustees between that structure and Montague Street, Montague Place, and Charlotte Street. By this Bill that property will be placed under the control of the Museum authorities, and I think your Lordships will agree that that is a laudable object.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL.—(No. 132.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House, and of the Amendments made by the Standing Committee, to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 192.)
NAUTICAL ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 179.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: the Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 193.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 180.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Friday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 194.)

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]—(No. 178.)
Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.