Sitting of 7 March 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
MOTIONS.

  LAMBETH WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, that amongst the parties concerned it had been agreed that the Motion standing in his name should be withdrawn, and he would then move an Amended Motion which had been agreed to, and which covered all the points of the case. He asked leave to withdraw the following Motion:—
  "That any County Council and any of the London Water Companies be entitled to be heard before the Select Committee on the above Bill on any Petitions praying to be heard by Counsel, presented by them on or before 14th March next, and that such Petitions be referred to the said Committee."
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  MR. J. STUART MR. J. STUART moved—
  "That any of the London Water Companies, presenting a Petition against the Bill not later than 14th March, praying to be heard by Counsel. Agents, and Witnesses, and the council of any county which includes any part of the Metropolitan water area, presenting a Petition against the Bill not later than 21st March, praying to be heard by Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, shall be entitled to be heard on such Petition before the Select Committee on the Bill. That any district council or other local authority for any district wholly or in part within the Metropolitan water area, the London Water Companies jointly, and any other person claiming to be affected by the Bill, presenting a Petition against the Bill not later than 21st March, praying to be heard by Counsel, Agents and Witnesses, may be heard on such Petition before the Select Committee on the Bill, if and so Far as the Committee shall think fit."
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he did not want to oppose in any way the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, but he would point out to the House that it placed the various county councils in a totally different position to that
  530
  of the local authorities in the metropolitan area and also in London. The county councils had a locus standi before this Committee, whereas the local authorities had simply the permission to ask the Committee if they might appear. He should like to know why the local authorities had not an equal right to a locus standi.
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, the only local authorities who had petitioned in London would have a locus standi at present. Every part who had acted for these local authorities had agreed to the Motion, and the method proposed was the ordinary way in which the business of the House was conducted.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEthought it was very much better to have the matter arranged as was proposed by the Motion, as it would prevent unnecessary Debates.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked if the local authorities had agreed to the matter.
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, he could not mention the exact local authorities, but he knew that very much more than half of the local authorities, through their representatives, had agreed to the matter.
  Motion agreed to.

  SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER (TRANSFER) BILL.
  MR. J. STUARTasked leave to withdraw the following Motion standing upon the Paper:—
  "That any County Council and any of the London Water Companies be entitled to be heard before the Select Committee on the above Bill on any Petitions praying to lie heard by Counsel, presented by them on or before 14th March next, and that such Petitions be referred to the said Committee."
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  MR. J. STUART MR. J. STUART moved:—
  "That any of the London Water Companies, presenting a Petition against the Bill not later than 14th March, praying to be heard by Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, and the council of any county which includes any part of the Metropolitan water area, presenting a Petition against the Bill not later than 21st March, praying to be heard by Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, shall be entitled to be heard on such Petition before the Select Committee on the Bill. That any district council or other local authority for any district wholly or in part within the Metropolitan water area, the London Water

  531
  Companies jointly, and any other person claiming to be affected by the Bill, presenting a Petition against the Bill not later than 21st March, praying to be heard by Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, may be heard on such Petition before the Select Committee on the Bill, if and so far as the Committee shall think fit."
  Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  FITTERS AND SHIPWRIGHTS.
  MR. WALTER HAZELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester, (Mr. H. Broadhurst), I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to the decision of the Government in respect to the appointment of a Committee of experts for the purpose of recommending some rules to deal with the constant recurring differences arising in Her Majesty's dockyards between fitters and shipwrights as to their respective branches of work?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make any statement, but the matter is engaging our attention.

  TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick (Mr. W. Field), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware of the fact that within the period during which the, Bovine Tuberculosis Commission has been sitting the fleshers of Belfast have lost over £2000 from confiscation without compensation; whether the medical and scientific experts have arrived at any conclusion; and, whether the present practice will be modified in Belfast until the Report is issued?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne):The Local Government Board are informed by the Sanitary Authority of Belfast, that seizures of carcasses affected with tuberculosis are made under the provisions of Local Acts and because the carcasses appear to be unsound, unwholesome, and unfit for human food. The Local Government
  532
  Board have no authority to interfere with the local authority in this matter, or to give any directions as suggested at the end of the question.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the Report of a meeting on the subject; and whether he could hold out any prospect of a remedy?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am sorry to say I have not seen a report of the meeting.
  SIR M. W. RIDLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Report of the Committee on Tuberculosis may be expected?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE? I am not able to add anything to the answer I gave to questions on this subject on February 9th, but I trust that the labours of the Commission may soon be concluded.

  THE GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain why Naval pensioners who have reached the age of 55 have not received their augmentation, which they were led to expect, on leaving the service?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The number of Greenwich age pensions which can be in force at one time is governed by the amount of money at the disposal of the Admiralty for that purpose. There is not sufficient to give an age pension to every man at the age of 55, although 10,100 of such pensions are being drawn, at a cost of £100,000 a year. I must demur to the hon. Member's statement that the men were led to expect that every one of them should receive the age pension at 55.

  THE KILLYBEGS PIER.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick's (Mr. W. Field): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware of the fact that, with a view to develope the fishing industry of the north-west coast of Ireland, the Great Northern Railway Company, along with the Donegal Company, brought over a number of English and Scotch fish buyers who promised to

  533
  send over boats if the Killybegs Pier was erected; and, whether he will now advise the Government to make the necessary expenditure upon this undertaking?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts appear to be substantially as stated in the first paragraph. With regard to the question of the erection of a pier at Killybegs, I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar inquiry which was addressed to me on the 21st February by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Donegal.

  THE DENBIGHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL.
  MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will state whether he has received a Resolution passed by the Local Government Committee of the County Council of Denbighshire, in favour of the formation of a rural district council for sanitary and highway purposes, known as the Llansilin District Council; and, whether, as the ratepayers in the locality are strongly in favour of the proposed new district council, he will make an order for such a district?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The Local Government Board have not received a copy of any such Resolution as that referred to in the question. I may remind my hon. Friend that the Local Government Board are not themselves empowered to alter a rural district. This is a matter to be dealt with by the County Council, subject to an appeal to the Board.

  THE BRITISH DOLLAR IN THE COLONIES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether any modification of the policy of the Government in regard to the proposal for the minting of a British dollar at Bombay, suggested by the hon. Member for Canterbury in the House of Commons on the 15th December, 1893, has been made; and, whether the Government statement on that occasion, that the idea of a British dollar does not appear to have found much favour in the Straits Settlements, and at Hong Kong it has been abandoned, is still adhered to?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): There has been some variation of opinion in the Colonies on this subject. The idea of coining a British dollar, after being dropped in Hong Kong at the end of 1893, was revived last year, and Her Majesty's Government have now approved the proposal. Arrangements have been made for issuing the new dollar from the Indian mint for circulation in the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, Labuan, and North Borneo concurrently with the Mexican dollar. I may add that the question of the coinage of a British dollar has for some years engaged the attention of the Goverment. but until the Indian Government last year signified their willingness to coin at a uniform rate of 1 per cent. the scheme appeared impracticable.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS IN THE BOER REPUBLIC
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER:I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the month of January last, a Boer field cornet, of the name of Bodenstein, expelled the representatives of the trading firm of Messrs. E. Harvey from the town of Krugersdorp; whether the ground of such expulsion was stated to be that the persons expelled were Asiatics; whether the persons expelled were British subjects; and whether the law of the Boer Republic permits the forcible expulsion of British subjects on no other ground than that of their nationality?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We have not received any information nor complaint in regard to the subject of the alleged expulsion of the representatives of Messrs. Harvey and Co. from Krudersdorp.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask whether the hon. Member will answer the last portion of my question?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have said that we have received no information or complaint. If we receive any complaint we will carefully look into it.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER:Does the Boer law permit of acts of this kind?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am afraid I cannot say, but an arbitration

  535
  is just about to proceed, and we shall probably receive more information in regard to the subject.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry into the matter?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If we receive a definite complaint, of course inquiry will be made.

  IMPORTED MEAT.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of The Times' correspondent of 4th March, giving details concerning the preparation and packing of diseased meat at Chicago for export to England; whether he has reason to believe (as stated in The Times) that, although a bullock at Chicago may be condemned as diseased and unfit for food, yet its tongue is preserved and exported, whilst the fat is made into oleo-margarine; whether it is a fact that in many instances the diseased meat which has been condemned is, nevertheless, taken out of the condemned tanks after the inspector has left, and is then preserved and exported to England; and, whether he will endeavour to prevent such meat being used in England as food?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER, Essex, Saffron Walden): I have read the statement to which my hon. Friend refers, and I propose to make inquiry through the Foreign Office respecting it, and as to the arrangements in force in the United States for the prevention of the exportation of meat unfit for human food. The prevention of the sale of such meat in this country rests with the sanitary authorities, acting in execution of the powers conferred upon them by the Public Health Act. Those authorities are not in any way subject to the control of the Board of Agriculture, but I shall be very glad to bring under the notice of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board any information which may reach me as to the existence of danger to human health arising from imported food-products.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, previous
  536
  to the slaughter in Australia and other places of sheep and cattle whose flesh is converted into frozen meat and sent to this Country for human food, they are examined by competent inspectors, with a view to ensure that no animals suffering from disease shall be used for that purpose?
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I am not in possession of any official information on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers, the protection of the public health, which presumably is the object my hon. Friend has in view, not being a matter which falls within the province of the Board of Agriculture. I shall, however, be happy to make enquiry through the Foreign and Colonial Offices as to the arrangements in force in the various countries and colonies from which frozen meat is exported, for the prevention of the exportation of meat unfit for human food, and to acquaint my hon. Friend with the replies received. So far as the health of live stock is concerned, there is no reason to think that any danger attends the importation of frozen meat into the United Kingdom.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he received in April last a copy of the unanimous resolution passed by the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, asking him to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee, of the House of Lords on the Marking of Foreign Meat; and whether he is now prepared to introduce a Bill carrying out those recommendations for the purpose of registering dealers in foreign and colonial meat, and of inspecting retail butchers' shops under the Food and Drugs Act by duly qualified Inspectors?
  MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I duly received a copy of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. Since the Select Committee sat, we have passed the Merchandise Marks (Prosecutions) Act, and until it has been shown that the law as it now stands is insufficient to deal with the evil complained of, I think it would be premature to propose further legislation on the subject. As the hon. Member is aware, I have recently taken steps to make the provisions of the Act of last Session very widely known in agricultural circles.

  WINDOW CLEANING.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the 28th Section of the Towns Police Clauses Act, 1847, which prohibits any person standing on the sill of of any window in order to clean, paint, or perform any other operation upon the outside of such window, applies to London; and, if not, whether any similar prohibition exists applicable to London?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): No, it does not apply to London, neither is there at at present any similar prohibition with regard to the Metropolis, but I hope it may be made applicable whenever the Metropolitan Police Acts may be amended.

  THE FROST AND SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  SIR F. S. POWELL (: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the serious loss which many schools must otherwise suffer in consequence of severe weather in calculating their aver age attendance, he will in the new code arrange that such schools should be allowed to omit from the calculation of the average attendance such a number of the meetings, with their attendances, as will secure such schools against any loss due to the severity of the weather?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W. R., Rotherham): I have given directions by a Circular to the inspectors that special allowance is to be made for the recent exceptionally severe weather, in their assessment of the grants and their judgment of the efficiency of schools shortly to be inspected. I am afraid I cannot undertake to go further. To allow schools to count only the best-attended meetings in calculating their average attendance would place the scale of grants on a new footing, and add seriously to the burden on the Exechequer.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of inspectors has yet been called to the desirability of leniency
  538
  in examining schools, owing to the recent severe weather; and, if so, what was the date of the National Board's circular; and whether he will say what are the objections to including among the rules of the National Board a rule similar to rule 101 in the English code, giving to schools where the average attendance has been greatly reduced by the prevalence of an epidemic, or other exceptional cause of the like nature, a special grant making up the loss in the ordinary grant?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am inquiring further into this matter, and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will repeat the question next Thursday.

  THE NEW CODE.
  SIR F. S. POWELL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will make more clear in the text of the Code that Schedule 7 does not apply to schools which have been already approved by the Department, or the plans for which have been passed, but only to new schools; and whether he will also secure further modification of Section 7 in the same schedule, with a view of not recommending so large a number of class rooms in all cases?
  MR. ACLAND: If the hon. Baronet will refer to Article 85 (a) of the Code, he will see that it is there explicitly stated that the rules of Schedule 7 apply to new schools and enlargements, and this statement is repeated at the head of the schedule itself. I do not see how this can be made more clear, but I shall be glad to consider any suggestion which the hon. Baronet may make to me. As regards the paragraph in the schedule as to the number of class rooms, this is not a compulsory requirement, but a practical suggestion meant for the help and guidance of local managers and architects. The consulting architect of the Department recommended its insertion on the ground that he knew from experience that managers often needed help in these details of planning. Classes, of course, means classes under separate teachers.

  DINGLE PIER, COUNTY KERRY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what

  539
  decision has been come to by the Congested Districts Board upon the subject of improving the landing-place, at Dingle, county Kerry?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the consideration of the subject of improving the landing place has been postponed for the present by the Congested Districts Board.

  LOANS TO IRISH TENANTS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether a tenant in Ireland, whose valuation is £12 or under, is unable to obtain a loan from the Board of Works for the improvement of his farm; and (2) whether with a view to encouraging the smaller occupiers to improve their holdings, it would be possible to revert to the rule under which a tenant could obtain a loan to the amount of five times his poor-law valuation, or else to make it possible for tenant occupiers to obtain a smaller loan than the present minimum of £35?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): The statement in the first paragraph of my honourable Friend's question is substantially correct. The risk, expense and loss under this class of loans are at present very serious, partly owing to defects in the legal process of recovery as interpreted by judicial decisions. Until this state of things is remedied, I do not think it would be right to extend the scope of these loans. My honourable Friend may perhaps recollect the failure of the attempt of the late Government to put the security on a more satisfactory basis.

  SWINE FEVER.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Athlone Board of Guardians protesting against the assessment on the union of the sum of £184 9s. 4d. for the expenses of the Board in Dublin under the provisions of the Prevention of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, over and above the local expenditure under the Act, as it was not apparent that the disease had been materially checked by this expensive administration; and whether he will have the
  540
  question of this extraordinary expenditure reconsidered with a view to its reduction.
  Mr. J. MORLEY: I have been furnished with a copy of the resolution referred to. The assessment complained of was levied off the various Poor Law Unions in proportion to the net annual value of the property in each union, and was rendered necessary by the efforts that are being made to deal effectually with swine fever in Ireland. I am advised that there is no power to alter the amount of the assessment in the case of any particular union.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board have received complaints of the operation of the swine fever regulations in Gorey Union; what number of swine have been slaughtered, and what number of cases reported there within the past six months; and what have been the fees of the veterinary surgeon, and the total cost to the rates in this union since the Act was passed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No recent complaints have reached the Veterinary Department of the operations of the swine fever regulations in this Union. During the six months ended 23rd February, 1895, 302 pigs were slaughtered in the Union. Ninety-four cases of supposed swine fever were reported by owners during that period, and in 80 of these the animals were slaughtered by the veterinary inspectors of the local authority as diseased or suspected of disease. The fees paid to the two inspectors in the Union since the passing of the Act in November, 1893, amount to £270. The funds voted by Parliament for the current financial year sufficed to meet the expenditure till the close of the year 1894, and in December an assessment at the rate of ½d. in the 1 was made on the various Poor Law Unions for the purposes of the General Cattle Diseases Fund. The amount assessed on Gorey Union was £167 16s. 6d.

  CONSUMPTION OF SPIRITS IN WEST AFRICA.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to a statement in the Times of 4th March that

  541
  in the English colony of Lagos alone, 2,000,000 gallons of spirits go in every year for native consumption, and in the neighbouring colony of Oil Rivers, known now as the Niger Protectorate, 2,000,000 gallons more go in also every year; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking, or propose to take, to secure uniformity of action throughout the various West African Colonies, with a view to either prohibit the sale of spirits or place high restrictive duties upon their Importation?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My attention has been drawn to the article in question. I fear that so long as other countries have contiguous possessions through which spirits can be imported it is impossible for us to suppress the traffic We already levy in our colonies duties on spirits generally in excess of those imposed in the neighbouring French and German colonies, and also higher than the tariff laid down in the Act of the Brussels Conference.
  MR. J. A. PEASEasked whether the hon. Gentleman would negotiate with the other Powers with a view to the adoption of a uniform system?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid they had endeavoured more than once to do that, but at the present moment there was very little prospect of an agreement being arrived at.

  CIVIL BILL COURTS, COUNTY CAVAN.
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, the county of Cavan being divided into two Civil Bill Divisions, the entire equity business of the county is required by the existing arrangements to be transacted at Cavan, causing inconvenience and loss to persons in the Cootehill Civil Bill Division by requiring them and their witnesses to travel long distances to Cavan to the several equity sittings both before the Judge and the Registrar; (2) whether there is any reason why the equity business arising in the Cootehill Civil Bill District could not be transacted at Cootehill in the same manner as the ordinary Civil Bill business for the district, and will a representation be made in the proper quarter to have the necessary change made; (3) could he explain why the Crown business arising in the Cootehill
  542
  Civil Bill District is all brought to Cavan instead of being disposed of at Cootehill, occasioning inconvenience and loss of time to magistrates, grand jurors, and jurors, and the public generally living in the Cootehill Civil Bill Division; (4) and whether, if a memorial be, influentially signed and presented to the Lord Lieutenant by the people of the Cootehill Division praying for the necessary changes, the Lord Lieutenant will favourably consider the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In reply to paragraphs (1) and (2), I am informed that the equity business of the county is carried on at Cavan in accordance with an Order in Council dated the 11th February, 1878, made to suit the convenience of suitors, and that the arrangement does not, so I am advised, cause the inconvenience and loss mentioned in the question. In reply to paragraph (3), I am informed that the Crown business of the County is carried on at Cavan in accordance with an Order in Council dated the 4th October, 1876, made to suit the convenience of jurors and the public generally. In reply to paragraph (4), such a memorial as is suggested in the question would of course receive the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant.

  METALLIFEROUS MINES.
  MR. D. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he proposes, and if so when, to introduce a Bill to amend the Metalliferous Mines Acts?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not without hope of being able to introduce this Bill, but I cannot at the present moment give a definite pledge.

  THE FALLS OF FOYERS.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that it is proposed by a public company to destroy the Falls of Foyers on Loch Ness; and, if so, will he take prompt measures to prevent the destruction of what is of national interest, especially to tourists?
  DR. MACGREGORwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as these Falls were in his constituency, whether there were not two sides to the question? Whilst he should deprecate

  543
  the destruction of such grand and beautiful Falls just as much as anybody else would, he could not help asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, especially as public works and factories were so scarce in this part of Scotland, it was more desirable to encourage work of this kind than to discourage it, so that some employment might be found for the people in the locality?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. O. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): My hon. Friend has given me a serious problem to solve, but it is one which lies rather with the County Council than with me. I am afraid, however, that the County Council have not yet met to consider the question referred to; but a meeting of the County Road Board, preparatory to holding a meeting of the Council, is called for Friday next to consider whether the Aluminium Company can be allowed to submerge roads near Foyers in carrying out their proposed works. The Company deny that the Falls will be destroyed, but the volume of water will no doubt be lessened at certain seasons of the year. The question, however, is receiving the attention of the County Council, who are, it appears to me, the proper authorities to deal with the matter.

  COCOA FOR THE ROYAL NAVY.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the seamen of Her Majesty's Fleet are, supplied with two kinds of cocoa, manufactured by the Admiralty at Deptford, neither of which are pure according to the strict legal interpretation of the word; whether the cocoa issued for breakfast is compounded of 20 to 25 per cent. of sugar and 80 per cent. of cocoa; whether the cocoa issued in bad weather in middle watch, at option of commanding officer, and called "optional cocoa," is compounded of 25 per cent. of sugar, 25 per cent. of sago flour, and 50 per cent. of cocoa, in order to make it soluble in boiling water; if these figures are not correct, will he please give the correct percentages of sugar and starch and cocoa used in the manufacture of what is considered of excellent quality as a ration for the Fleet, and as such approved by the
  544
  medical department of the Navy; and, at what price per pound, free of duty, is Admiralty cocoa supplied to the War Department when required for issue to tro
  ops?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Cocoa is no issued in the Navy, but two kinds of chocolate are issued: (1) the ordinary, consisting of 16 per cent. of sugar and 84 per cent. of cocoa nibs (pure); (2) soluble, consisting of 18 per cent. ofsugar, 18 per cent. of sago flour or arrowroot, and 64 per cent. of cocoa nibs (pure), the last being so mixed in order to allow of its being quickly prepared for use. Ordinary chocolate only is supplied to the War Office by the Admiralty for use in military prisons, and is charged for at rate book prices namely 64s. 5d. per 100 lbs., plus 5 per cent.

  THE LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) ACT, 1891.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say approximately what is the total interest of all the counties in Ireland in the Land Purchase Guarantee Fund, within the meaning of Section 9 of The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891, taking as the basis of his calculation the Estimates for 1894–5: and what, according to this calculation, is the total balance available for advance under the Act?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: In round figures, the approximate estimate of the total sum which may still be advanced under the Purchase Act of 1891, on the basis of the present figures of the Guarantee Fund, may be put at £30,000,000. This sum is arrived at after making allowance for the amount of stock issued up to date namely, £1,600,000.

  TROUBLES AT BRASS.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the many important British interests connected with that part of Africa, he can now state what is to be the precise scope of the proposed Inquiry into the recent troubles in the Brass neighbourhood, and by whom will the Inquiry be conducted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick):The Inquiry will be made to ascertain what were the causes and character of the attack on the British Settlements; in what manner the natives became, in contravention of the Brussels Act, possessed of guns and arms of precision; what has been the cause and what the extent of the loss by the natives of legitimate trade; and whether measures can be taken for improving their position when peace is definitely restored. The person who will conduct the Inquiry has not been selected.

  PARISH ANNUAL MEETINGS.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any necessity for a parish which has a Parish Council, to hold an annual assembly on or about the 25th day of March this year; whether, if the annual assembly were held, there would be any statutory business to transact; and, whether overseers and, if necessary, assistant overseers, are to be appointed at the meeting of the Parish Council on or about the 15th day of April next?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The Local Government Act, 1894, requires that an annual assembly of the parish meeting shall be held in each year in every rural parish, on March 29, or within seven days before or after that day, although the parish may have a Parish Council. The Act does not prescribe the business to be transacted at the meeting; but it will be competent for the meeting to discuss parish affairs, and to pass resolutions thereon. Overseers and, where necessary, assistant overseers, should be appointed at the annual meeting of the Parish Council, to be held on April 15 next, or within 15 days afterwards.
  MR. JEFFREYSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the second part of his Question, namely, whether there would be any statutory business to transact this year?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was a matter for the assistant overseers.

  SCHOOL GRANTS TO SCOTCH PARISHES.
  MR. T. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland
  546
  whether, inasmuch as extra School grants are given to Highland parishes which have largely reduced the local rates, one half of which reduction goes directly to the landlord, and the greater portion of the other half to the deer forest and other large tenants, he will make it a condition of such extra school grants in future that the Local Authorities provide suitable footpaths, to enable the children to attend the schools in safety and with comfort?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: The additional assistance granted to certain insular parishes in the Highlands, to which the hon. Member refers, is paid lo School Boards for educational purposes, and I have no authority to make any condition about it, other than of an educational character. The Government are very desirous that the children in the Highlands should have facilities for attending schools, and that is one of the reasons which has induced them, in the County Government Bill of this Session, to introduce provisions empowering Local Authorities to make footpaths.

  SWAZILAND.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can state when he can distribute to Members further Correspondence relating to the Swaziland settlement; and, whether it will be possible to append to the Correspondence, for convenience of reference, copies of all five conventions and agreements which have been made with the Transvaal State or South African Republic which affect our relations with Swaziland?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope the Papers will be distributed to-morrow; they were laid some time ago. It had already struck me that it would be a convenience to Members to have the five conventions printed together; and we had, therefore, some time ago, arranged that they should appear as an appendix to the new Blue Book, together with two or three other papers, which will be useful for reference.

  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Admiralty have

  547
  refused to allow Captain Lord Charles Beresford to count as service time 315 days during which he was borne on the books of the flagship at Alexandria for service on Lord Wolseley's Staff in the Nile Expedition, or in command of the Naval Brigade; whether any, and if so how many, Naval Officers junior to Lord Charles Beresford have been allowed to count this as sea time; whether there art any precedents for allowing Lord Charles Beresford to count this time; and, will the effect of refusing Lord Charles Beresford leave to count this time possibly be to compel him to leave the Service without having attained flag rank?
  SIR J. E. GORST: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether it is true the 315 days during which Lord Charles Beresford was in command of a Naval force in the Soudan Expedition are not counted by the Admiralty as active service; whether, if the same period had been spent in command of a harbour ship, it would have been counted as active service; and, whether the Admiralty will establish a precedent whereby war service of an important and distinguished character, when performed by a Naval Officer, may be reckoned as active service in Her Majesty's Navy?
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he will explain why Captain Lord Charles Beresford, R.N., has, contrary to the usual practice in such cases, neither been appointed Aide-de-Camp to the Queen nor given a good service pension, and also that, while his junior officers have been allowed to count as service time the time they spent in the Nile Campaign undertaken for the rescue of General Gordon, he has been refused permission so to count the time he spent in that campaign; whether the Admiralty have consulted and received any advice from Naval or Military Officers of superior rank, and especially from Lord Wolseley, with regard to this matter; and, whether he can inform the House what reasons, if any, exist for thus passing over and refusing time to Lord Charles Beresford?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The usual practice has not been departed from in regard to Lord Charles Beresford's claims to the two appointments
  548
  referred to in the question of the hon. Member for Lynn. With regard to the appointment of Aide-de-Camp to the Queen, the First Lord asks me to say-that he must decline to give reasons for his submitting or not submitting names of Officers for a personal appointment by Her Majesty. It would be manifestly prejudicial to the interests of the service for an officer to assume that he has a right to receive such an appointment. The Good Service Pension to Captains on the Active List, has in practice, been awarded by seniority to Officers (not being Aides-de-Camp) who have had a certain number of years' service. It is thus not given to distinguished, as distinct from long service. Of the five Captains, junior to Lord Charles Beresford, who have received the Good Service Pension, the Officer with the least service has four-and-a-half more years' service, and the one with the longest service has ten more years' service than Lord Charles. Lord Charles would undoubtedly have received the Good Service Pension, had he served for the usual qualifying time. In regard to whether the Admiralty have refused to allow Lord Charles Beresford to count as service the 315 days when he was on Lord Wolseley's staff, I have to say that the Board of Admiralty of the late Government decided that Lord Charles' service in Egypt, viz.: 53 days in command of the Naval Brigade, and 262 days on the staff, should count as sea-service, but not as service in command of a ship of war at sea. Sea-service allowed by the Regulation reckons for all purposes, but in the case of Captains it must be combined with certain service in command of a ship of war at sea in order to count for promotion. It is an essential rule, and one to which the Admiralty attach great importance for the efficiency of the service—that a Captain should serve the first three years of his qualifying sea-service in command of a ship of war at sea. Service during this period in command of a harbour ship would not count for this purpose. The only Officer serving in Egypt, of the same rank but junior to Lord Charles Beresford, and to whom these regulations apply, viz.: Captain Boardman, was refused by the Board of Admiralty of the late Government, to count this service as that in a ship of war at sea.

  549
  Lord Charles Beresford will be able to qualify for flag rank by serving in his present appointment until the 11th March, 1896. It is not, however, possible to say the exact time when Lord Charles will attain flag rank, as it depends upon seniority and certain contingencies which cannot be foreseen; but it will probably not be for a considerable time after having completed his qualifying service. The present Board decided, and so informed Lord Charles Beresford, that if for any unavoidable cause beyond his own control he is rendered unable to complete the qualifying service, the Admiralty will reconsider his case, so that the services of this gallant officer should not be lost to the Navy and the State. The Board of Admiralty see no reason to consult Naval and Military officers on matters relating to the administration of Her Majesty's Navy, for which they are responsible. They are not prepared to alter the existing Regulations. This refusal to allow Lord Charles Beresford to count this time in Egypt as in command of a ship of war at sea affects neither his seniority, his pay, or his retirement. It simply means that the Admiralty expect Lord Charles to continue serving until he has completed the minimum service required by the Regulations to qualify for the high position of British Admiral, a minimum which few officers are content not to greatly exceed.
  SIR J. GORST: May I be allowed to say that I put my question on the paper neither at Lord Charles Beresford's request nor in his interest; but it is my intention on the Naval Estimates to call attention to the Regulations?
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: May I say that I have received no communication from Lord Charles Beresford? I put the question down entirely in consequence of what I saw in the public Press.

  DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. E. F. VESEY-KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can now say whether he will be able to start relief works, and especially to make some much needed roads, to relieve the distress in Glengelvin and Killinagh parishes, County Cavan?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Boards Inspector has visited the
  550
  districts referred to in the question, and made careful inquiry as to the condition of the people there. There appears to be no doubt that a number of families in these localities are very poor, compared with other parts of the union, and have suffered from the failure of the potato crop; but as the Enniskillen union is very well circumstanced, with a high valuation per head of population, and as the poor rates are very low, and the numbers on relief are normal, the Board do not consider that for the present at all events any necessity exists for adopting exceptional measures of relief.

  TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether, in the event of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme recommended by the Departmental Committee for England being adopted, a similar scheme of superannuation will be instituted for the teachers of Scotland.
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: On p. 18 of the Report of the Departmental Committee the hon. Member will find a reference to Scotland, which is differently situated from England in regard to the matter. But I have made representations to the Treasury in regard to the financial claim which might arise for Scotland, in the event of a system of pensions being established for England from Imperial funds.

  THE BARROW DEEPS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether dredgings from Sheerness are still being deposited in the estuary of the Thames or in the Barrow Deeps?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: All dredgings from Sheerness and Chatham are being deposited in the Barrow Deeps.

  THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT.
  Mr. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the scheme which has recently been applied to the clerical staff of the Accountant General's Department will be extended to all the other Departments of the Admiralty, and at what date; and, whether the

  551
  promotions to be made will be antedated so as to rank with those recently given?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is intended to fix an establishment for each Department under the Admiralty, and the scheme lately applied to the Accountant General's Department will be accepted as a model. The needs of each Department have been received and are being considered, and, later on, a fixed normal Establishment will be submitted to the Treasury. The date cannot exactly be fixed, but it may be assumed that a settlement will be arrived at very shortly. Should any advantages accrue to individual members of the staff, the date from which such advantages will accrue will be a matter for consideration. It is very doubtful, however, whether any benefits will be antedated.

  IRISH LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) Whether he is aware that Thomas Briceland, Labourer, of Feddyglas, in the union of Strabane, made due application for a cottage under the Labourers Acts, and attended the investigation held by the Local Government Board's Inspector at Strabane; (2) Whether he has since forwarded to the Local Government Board a notice to quit, served on him by the landlord in consequence of his application; and (3) whether the Local Government Board will direct their Inspector to deal with the case promptly, so that the man may not lose his claim by being compelled to leave the district for want of a habitation?
  Mr. J. MORLEY: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. It is also the fact that this man was served with a notice to quit, and the Local Government Board's Inspector states, that when the man made application for a cottage under the Labourers Acts, he had a very good house with five or six rooms in it, together with a small plot of ground. The Inspector, when making a scheme, will have regard to the general requirements of the district.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Peter M'Brearty filled a representation form under the Labourers Acts, and
  552
  attended the Inspector's inquiry at Strabane, and that the Inspector condemned the man's house as unfit for habitation; whether he is aware that the house has since been nearly destroyed by a storm; and, whether the Inspector will be authorised to make provision for the case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I regret to have to ask my hon. and learned Friend to postpone this question until Monday.
  MR. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state what is the reason of the long delay that has occurred in holding the usual Local Government Board inquiry as to the propriety of a scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages in the vicinity of Kells, county of Meath?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that the inquiry in this case has already been fixed for the 18th instant, and that notice to this effect has been publicly given. The date fixed was the earliest the Board could fix, having regard to the other engagements of their Inspectors.

  SCOTCH MINES INSPECTION.
  MR. J. H. C. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now see his way to increase the number of Inspectors of Mines for Scotland; and, whether he will take care that the appointments in Scotland shall be given to Scotsmen?
  MR. ASQUITH: I should be glad, in view of the heavy and constantly growing burdens which are laid upon the Inspectors by the Legislature and by public opinion, to see the staff increased in numbers, both in Scotland and elsewhere. I fear, however, that I shall not be able to make any further additions to it during the coming financial year. I cannot assent to the assumption which appears to underlie the second question, that appointments in each of the countries which make up the United Kingdom should be confined to natives of that country. There is no part of the Empire which would suffer more from a logical and rigorous application of that principle than Scotland.
  DR. MACGREGORasked, were they to assume that Scotchmen were incapable?

  ARMENIA.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will inquire of Her Majesty's Consul General at Erzeroum if it is possible for a courier to go from Moush to Kars at this season in three days (72 hours).
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: May I ask whether the Under-Secretary is aware that the distance from Mush to Kars, via Kagisvan, is only 155 miles, via Alashgert and Khinis only 145 miles; that there are other ways even shorter; and that the journey has been often performed, even in winter, in less than three days?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The particular point raised by the hon. Member is hardly one for a separate official inquiry. The reports published in the Daily Telegraph, will be referred, through Her Majesty's Embassy, to the Delegate on the spot, in order that the whole question of their accuracy or credibility may be considered there.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Arising out of the hon. Baronet's answer' may I ask whether he is aware that the country between Moush and Kars, is exceedingly difficult; that the roads are exercable, and at this season blocked with snow; and that travelling by night is impossible?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no knowledge of the conditions of the journey between Moush and Kars.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire, whether the despach contained in the Daily Telegraph of 5th March, from its correspondent at Moush, will be brought to the notice of the British Ambassador at Constantinople, and of the European Delegates attending the Sasun Commission of Inquiry; and what steps are being taken, in view of the imminent danger of massacre at Bitlis and at other places mentioned, for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the Christian population?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The report in question will be sent, like the previous one, to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, for communication to the British Delagate on the Commission. Her Majesty's Ambassador is in constant communication with his French and 554
  Russian colleague and will take such action as may be necessary and possible in concert with them, for ensuring the safety of the Christian population.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the hon. Member make specific inquiries as to the accuracy of the dates?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I think it would be impossible for the Delegates to take into account the accuracy or otherwise of the reports without going into the question of where they were written. The reports are being referred to the Delegates through Her Majesty's Ambassador, and one of the points to be taken notice of is where the reports are or have been, written.

  CHRISTIANS IN TURKEY.
  MR. HERBERT PAUL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering that the Turkish Commission of Inquiry in the Sassoun District of Armenia is a purely local one, and that grave anxiety is felt concerning the fate of Christian prisoners in Turkish prisons, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the Powers who signed the Treaty of Berlin the appointment of International Consular Commissioners to secure the safety and ultimate release of the Christians now confined in Turkish gaols without satisfactory proof of their guilt?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I can only repeat my reply on the 21st ult. to the hon. Member for the Tyneside Division of Northumberland. Any cases which appear to deserve consideration will receive the attention of Her Majesty's Embassy at Constantinople, but in the opinion of Her Majesty s Government it would not be expedient to make proposals under present circumstances for joint international action of the nature described.

  COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTION RECOUNTS.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that, at the recent London County Council Elections, after the first counting of the votes in North and South St. Pancras and Central Finsbury, recounts were

  555
  called for, which on each occasion showed a grave divergence from the figures previously arrived at; and whether he proposes to introduce a measure to amend the law in the direction of providing further safeguards for the proper counting of the votes at elections?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have observed from the reports in the Press that the votes at the election of County Councillors in Central Finsbury were counted twice; but I have no other information on the subject. The difference in the numbers at the two countings does not appear in this instance to have exceeded 16 in the case of any candidate, although nearly 9,000 votes were polled. It appears to me that the possibility of a recount is a sufficient and the only remedy for errors in the previous count.

  DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to discharge any, and, if so, how many, labourers now employed in Deptford Victualling Yard; whether some of these men have 13 years' service, and would shortly become entitled to a bonus or pension; and whether they will lose this on their present dismissal.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No discharges properly so called are contemplated at Deptford. Certain retirements take place from time to time under the rules of the Admiralty Service.

  FAIRVIEW POST OFFICE, COUNTY DUBLIN.
  Mr. J. J. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, will he explain why he has refused to extend the business of the post office at Fairview, County of Dublin, in the manner suggested to him some time since by the ratepayers of the locality?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): I understand that the suggestion alluded to was that a new Branch Post Office, to be erected in front of the Postmen's Sorting Office and to be worked by an Established Staff, should be substituted for the Sub Post Office at Fairview. At present the amount of the Post Office business at Fairview is too small to warrant me complying with the suggestion.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS.
  MR. HARRY S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will state upon what clause or clauses in the Education Act of 1870 is based the practice of the department in always refusing to recognise additional school accommodation in any voluntary school in a school board area without the support of the school board of that district; and whether, in view of the strong and unanimous opinion of the Royal Commission on Education and the strong desire of the supporters of voluntary schools, he will consider the advisability of endeavouring to alter the law on the subject?
  MR. ACLAND: The law on this matter is contained in Clauses 18 and 98 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870. The Government are not prepared to introduce legislation with a view of amending the Act of 1870 in regard to these matters. It should be borne in mind that no proposal in this sense was made by the late Government during the four years after the Royal Commission reported.

  ROYAL ENGINEER OFFICERS.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any objection to state the number of Officers of the Royal Engineers who would be required for military purposes in the event of the mobilisation of the whole Indian Army?
  SIR EDWARD GREY, answering in the absence of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, said: The Secretary of State for India does not consider it would be desirable in the public interests to state the number of officers required on the mobilisation of the army in India.

  MILITARY WORKS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will agree to the motion for a copy of the Report of the Committee on Military Works and Public Works Department, which stands on this day's paper?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Neither the Report of the Committee referred to in the hon. Member's motion which stands on this day's paper, nor the evidence taken before that Committee have yet

  557
  been received. The Secretary of State is, therefore, unable to agree to the motion.

  COUNTY COUNCIL LADY VOTERS.
  MR. JOHN AIRD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will have a return prepared giving the number of ladies who have exercised their power of voting at the recent County Council Election?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I presume that the question refers to the recent election of the County Councillors in London, and I have communicated on the subject with the Clerk to the London County Council, who has the custody of the documents from which alone the information desired could be obtained. He informs me that the copies of the register are sealed up with the other papers connected with the ballot, and the packets can only be opened in accordance with the regulations of the Council under the Ballot Act, and that there would be very great practical difficulty in making such a return.

  SKYE STEAMBOAT SERVICE.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has received a memorial from the inhabitants of the districts of Staffin and Kilmaluag in Skye, praying that the steamboat service hitherto available should not be discontinued; and, whether he can give assurances to that effect?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: I have received the memorial in question and am making some inquiry in reference thereto. The contract provides for a call at both places, and the Contractor will be required to observe the obligation during the continuance of the contract.

  CHURCH ENDOWMENTS IN WALES.
  MR. W. ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated value of the endownments now held by Noncomformist Churches in Wales which they held prior to 1703?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no official information on this subject. As a matter of history, I believe that there were not more than about 50 Nonconformist
  558
  Chapels in Wales at the date mentioned, and no doubt the great bulk of such endowments as the Nonconformist Churches in Wales enjoy are of a considerably later origin.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the amount of Nonconformist Endowments since 1703?
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot give that information.

  BEHRING SEA CLAIMS.
  SIR R. E. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have any recent information as to the present position of the negotiations for the settlement of the claims made by the British sealers in respect of the seizure of their vessels in Behring Sea by the United States Government prior to the Behring Sea Arbitration; whether he is aware that every legal ground upon which such seizures were attempted to be justified were decided adversely to the United States Government, by the Award of the tribunal at Paris; and that since the date of that Award, the only question in difference has been one of the amount of compensation to be paid; whether, in order to avoid further disputes and delay, the Canadian Government, many months ago, agreed to accept from the Government of the United States the sum of 425,000 dollars, in settlement of all claims; whether it has come to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, that great and growing dissatisfaction has arisen among Her Majesty's subjects in Canada, by reason of the delay in payment or settlement of their claims; and, whether Her Majesty's Government propose any, and what, steps, to bring the matter to a conclusion, by obtaining payment of the agreed amount, or if necessary by arbitration?
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what was the date of the agreement come to between the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain, that the United States should pay 425,000 dollars as compensation to sealers, under the Behring Sea Arbitration Award: what conditions were attached to the

  559
  agreement to enable the Award to be carried out, in the event of any failure to appropriate the necessary moneys during the Session of Congress, which has now come to an end; and, in the event of the United States Government not being in a position to pay the sum for some time to come, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to advance the said sum to the sealers, many of whom are in serious want, owing to the long deferred payment of their acknowledged claims for just compensation?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I think the last point should be put to the Colonial Office. As to the questions on the Paper, I have to state that, on February 25th, the United States House of Representatives rejected the proposed appropriation for the payment of a lump sum in settlement of the claims for compensation on account of the seizure of British sealing vessels by United States cruisers prior to the Behring Sea Arbitration. The legal questions submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration were determined by a ma-majority of the Arbitrators in a sense adverse to the contentions of the United States Government. The Canadian Government in order to avoid delay, and secure a prompt settlement, consented to accept 45,000 dollars in settlement of the claims. No representation has as yet been received from the Government of the Dominion with regard to the present position of the question, but the delay in the payment of the claims, which are consequent upon the Award of the Arbitrators, must necessarily be felt to be a cause of disappointment and loss. Negotiations were originally in progress for the reference to a commission of all claims of British subjects for injuries sustained by them in the Behring Sea, for which compensation was claimed to be due from the United States under the Award of the Tribunal by Arbitration. These negotiations were suspended when the offer of payment by a lump sum was made by the United States Government. On learning that the House of Representatives had rejected the proposal, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington was instructed by telegraph to urge strongly the necessity of an immediate settlement, and to inquire whether the United States Secretary of
  560
  State would at once resume the negotiations for a Convention. Sir J. Pauncefote replied that Mr. Gresham was quite prepared to resume negotiations at once. The Convention, however, when signed, would have to be submitted to the Senate for confirmation by a two-thirds majority, and unless a special Session were called, which appeared unlikely, this could not be done until December next. The Secretary of State (Mr. Gresham) has expressed to Her Majesty's Ambassador his deep regret, and that of the President, at this unexpected position of affairs, and at the impossibility of preventing the unfortunate delay which must now occur in discharging the national obligations of the United States in regard to these claims.

  CAMPBELTOWN SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. A. CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, on what grounds he refused the application of the Landward School Board of the Parish of Campbeltown for separation of the landward from the burghal portion of the parish for rating purposes; and if, in arriving at his decision, due consideration was given to the unanimous recommendations of the district committee, and also of the Argyleshire County Council, on the subject; and, will he make renewed investigation into the equity of the request.
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: Full consideration was given to the representations of the Landward School Board and the County Council in favour of the application, and to the representations of Campbeltown burgh School Board, the Parochial Board and Town Council against the proposal. My decision was very carefully considered. In my opinion no substantial grounds were put forward which would have justified the division of the parish into two parts. I can hold out no hope of any different decision being arrived at.

  THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. W. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Pall Mall Gazette of 4th March, which states that in December last a Brass chief called Karemma made a statement to the Vice Consul, to the

  561
  effect that his canoes had been seized and four of his boys shot by the crew of one of the Royal Niger Company's launches; and, whether the Government intend to take steps to prevent such occurrences in future.
  MR. H. LABOUCHEREasked whether the House was to understand that the action of the Royal Niger Company was to be inquired into by the Commission.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he had already answered the question. If it was required he would state the purport of it again—namely, that the inquiry would be of a wide scope, and certainly it ought to include such a point as that mentioned.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: But will the inquiry include the action of the Royal Niger Company itself?
  MR. W. ALLEN: Will it be an open inquiry?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The inquiry is to be made by an official selected to inquire into the whole of the causes. It is not possible to make a wider statement than that.

  APPOINTMENT OF OVERSEERS.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the time of the year fast approaching for the appointment of overseers and assistant overseers, the Local Government Board will expedite their decisions on applications from urban district councils to have conferred upon the councils the powers mentioned in Section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1894.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: There are upwards of 500 applications from urban district councils relating to the transfer to them of the power to appoint overseers, and the Local Government Board are using every effort to deal with them before the time when new overseers must be appointed.

  THE VILLAGE OF ST. NINIANS.
  SIR H. MAXWELL (Wigton): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether an Order has been prepared or issued annexing the village, church, manse, and glebe of St. Ninians to the parish of Stirling; whether he is aware that a petition has been numerously signed by
  562
  the inhabitants of St. Ninians protesting against the said Order as injurious to their interests and those of the poor; and, what grounds exist for interfering with the traditional and historical independence of this parish?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: The proposed Order was gazetted on the 25th January. I have received the petition from the inhabitants of St. Ninians protesting against the Order. This will be duly considered before the Order is confirmed. A similar course to that adopted with regard to Stirling burgh has been taken in other cities regarding which I have received applications to place the whole municipal area within a single parish.

  COMMISSIONER OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
  SIR R. PAGET: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he has considered the advisability of taking advantage of the present vacancy in the office of Commissioner of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests to place that office under the control of the Board of Agriculture?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): No; I do not think that a change of that kind would be practicable or advisable. Out of a gross income of £514,000 the agricultural land contributes £72,000, which is not one-seventh part of the whole estate. The rest of it consists of land and house property in London and elsewhere, and of mines and other properties which are not at all appropriate to the Agricultural Department. Though I have profound confidence in my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, I do not think it proper to hand over six-sevenths of this estate to be dealt with by his Department.

  ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Motion to first go into Committee on the Navy Votes for the coming financial year is likely to be made?
  MR. A. B. FORWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman make such arrangements of the business of the House as will allow us to have a very full opportunity of

  563
  discussing the Navy Votes with the Speaker in the Chair without the plea of urgent public circumstances being brought forward to shorten the discussion, as was done last year?
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Bill with regard to the loan for works before we come to the general discussion of naval policy with the Speaker in the Chair?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The loans for works will depend on the decision of the House on the Estimates; I could not take the Bill for loans separately and before the Estimates. I am in considerable difficulty, but I am doing the best I can to make arrangements. Both the Secretary for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty are disabled, and I certainly recognise that we ought to give to the very important proposals of the Government with reference to the Navy the fullest opportunity of discussing this important matter. I should propose, subject to what I have said, to take the Army Estimates first. I must, however, ask leave to postpone the fixing of the date. I am not able to do so at present.

  PENSION FOR TEACHERS.
  MR. A. BILLSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he has considered the Report of the Departmental Committee on Pensions for Teachers; and, if he is able to say whether, and how far, its recommendations can be carried out.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a very interesting and important question. My hon. Friend may be assured that the Government have it under their careful consideration, with a view to arriving at an early decision upon it; but he will feel that, besides the Government, the persons interested—namely, the teachers—ought to have time to consider the proposals of the Departmental Committee. The Government are very desirous to consider and to decide at an early time what action they will be able to take upon this report.

  UNIFICATION OF LONDON.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Government propose to introduce
  564
  their promised Bill on the subject of the Unification of London?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think I can undertake that the Bill will not be introduced before Easter.

  DUTY ON SPIRITS.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to renew in his next Budget the additional duty on spirits imposed by the Finance Act of last year?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the hon. Member, from his experience of the House of Commons, can hardly expect an answer to this question. There is a French saying to the effect that there is no such thing as an indiscreet question, it is only the answer that is indiscreet. Certainly it has never been the practice in this House for a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the middle of March to state what are the arrangements with reference to taxation until the proposal of the Budget.
  MR. J. REDMONDsaid, the reason why he asked the question with reference to the date of the Budget was, because last year, the right hon. Gentleman stated as a concession that this tax would only last for one year.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot at present state the exact date of the Budget, whether it will be produced before or after Easter.

  THE IRISH LAND BILL.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is the intention of the Government to take any special steps to secure the passing of the Irish Land Bill through Committee at an early period of the Session, either by referring it to an Irish Grand Committee, or by proceeding with it pari possu with the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Here, again, I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member much satisfaction. Until after the Second Reading of the Bill we could not make any arrangements or statement as to what will be done in Committee.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: When will the Second Reading of the Bill be taken?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have always said after the second reading of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill.

  OCCUPIERS OF LAND AND INCOME TAX.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether an owner occupying his own land, who presents properly prepared and audited accounts showing a loss instead of a profit on such land, is entitled to demand relief from Income Tax, under Schedule A, before making payment, or whether he must in every case make payment first and seek for repayment or redress afterwards.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: By Section 23 of 53 and 54 Vic., cap. 8, a person occupying lands for the purposes of husbandry only who sustains a loss from such occupation can appeal within six months after the year of assessment to the General Commissioners of Income-Tax for his district, for an adjustment of his liability by reference to the loss and to the aggregate amount of his income for that year, estimated according to the several rules and directions of the Income Tax Acts, which would, of course, include his property assessed under Schedule A. Such a claim would be adjusted by way of repayment only.
  SIR M. E. HICKS-BEACHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries with reference to the delay of repayment, of which he was assured that many complaints might be made by persons who claimed?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No doubt the remissions that were granted in the Budget last year have given rise to a much larger number of claims for repayment than existed before, and the pressure on the department is naturally very great. But I will take care to inquire and to urge that as little delay as possible may arise in respect of those claims.

  THE SWAZILAND MOUNTED POLICE.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that steps have recently been taken, by advertisement and otherwise, to increase the strength of the Swaziland Mounted Police Force; and whether any portion of the extra expense thus incurred will be paid by the Imperial Treasury, or out of the grant made by the Imperial
  566
  Treasury towards the expenses of ruling Swaziland?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Her Majesty's Government some little time ago sanctioned an increase of 30 police in the strength of the Swaziland Mounted Police Force; they are not responsible for any part of the cost of these police after February 20 last, but they are responsible for a moiety of the cost up to that date. The cost will be met out of the South African Vote.

  DANGEROUS EMPLOYMENTS.
  MR. E. F. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what processes or particular descriptions of manual labour have been certified by the Secretary of State, in pursuance of Section 8 of the Factories Act, 1891, to be dangerous or injurious to health or dangerous to life and limb; and whether it is intended by Clause 26 of the Factories and Workshops Bill to empower the Secretary of State to prohibit the employment of women or children, or young persons, in any of these occupations; and, in particular, whether it is intended that the Secretary of State shall have power to order shorter hours in the linen industry than those which prevail in the cotton industry?
  MR. ASQUITH: The processes which have been dealt with under the enactment referred to are the following:—The manufacturers of white, red, orange, and yellow lead, and lead smelting, tinning and enamelling works, the manufacture of colours, lucifer match factories, the making of earthenware, certain processes in the manufacture of explosives, chemical works, electric accumulator works, flax mills, and linen factories, brass mixing and casting, quarries. The clause in question is directed to the case of trades where, from the nature of the industry itself, whatever precautions may be taken to insure the safety of those concerned, particular processes cannot be carried on by particular classes of workers, from reasons of age or sex, without running exceptional risks to life or health. I may mention, by way of illustration, the white lead industry, in which, as the Report of the Departmental Committee showed, young persons ought not to be employed at all, and there are certain processes in which

  567
  no women, and others in which no woman under a certain age, can safely engage. At present the Secretary of State is powerless to deal with such cases. There is no intention whatever to exercise the proposed powers, either as to total prohibition or as to limitation of hours, in the case of the linen industry, which is only dangerous or injurious to health if proper and easily practicable safeguards are neglected. Still less is it intended to make any discrimination between the linen and cotton trades.

  SCOTCH FEUS AND LEASES
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, when he intends to implement the promise made by him to the House on 22nd August last, viz., that the Government would at the earliest period in their power embody in a Bill the recommendations of the Select Committee on Feus and Building Leases in Scotland, including the recommendation that powers should be granted to elected bodies to provide or acquire land by agreement or compulsorily for the erection of workmen's dwellings?
  SIR G. O. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, the Government have a measure on the lines suggested by the Select Committee on Feus and Building Leases in Scotland, which they hope to lay before Parliament at an early date.

  ORKNEY AND SHETLAND LIGHTS.
  MR. M. H. SHAW-STEWART: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, (1) if he is aware that steamers, carrying Her Majesty's bi-weekly mails and passengers, besides many other vessels, have to navigate the dangerous western coasts of the Orkney and Shetland Islands without a single light to guide them, in latitudes where frequent storms occur, and where, during a great part of the year, there are only about seven hours of daylight; and (2) whether, seeing that there been frequent wrecks on the Veeskerrie reef of rocks, lying three miles out from the Shetland coast, and on the North Shoal, lying nine miles out from the Orkney coast, he will cause a lighthouse to be erected on Noop Head, in the island of Westray, Orkney?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): It can hardly be said that the western coasts of the Orkney and Shetland Islands are entirely unlighted, as there are lights at Dunnet Head and Hoy Sound, on the south-western coast of the Orkneys; moreover, a light, which will be of use to trading vessels in those waters, is now being erected at Sule Skerry, and will, I hope, be lit shortly. As regards the second paragraph, a proposal is before me for the erection of a light, either on Mull Head or on Noop Head, both in the Island of Westray, and I have no doubt that the Board of Trade will shortly be able to sanction one or other alternative.

  THE CONVICT CALLAGHAN.
  MR. C. A. V. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Callaghan, who is undergoing a life sentence for treason felony, is still in Portland Prison; whether his eyesight has been entirely lost to him since he has been in gaol; can he explain why Callaghan's wife has received no letter from or news of him for about 12 months, although he is entitled to write a letter once every three months; and, whether it is the rule to require the full term to be served by prisoners who have lost either wholly or partially their eyesight while in prison?
  MR. ASQUITH: Callaghan is still in Portland Prison. It is not the fact that his eyesight has been lost to him since he has been in gaol. He was blind in the left eye before conviction, and as he complained of pains in the right eye and in the head, I had him specially examined about 18 months ago by an ophthalmic expert, who advised the removal of the blind eye. Callaghan assented to this being done, and the operation was successfully performed in July 1893, with the result that the right eye has ceased to give him any trouble, that the pain in the head has gone, and that he is able to read with glasses. I have taken great personal interest in his case, and I am satisfied that he could not have been more skilfully or humanely treated in any hospital. I find that he has not availed himself of the opportunities which he has had for writing letters for

  569
  some time back, but so far as the authorities of the, gaol are concerned, there is no reason why he should not have done so. As Callaghan has not lost his sight while in prison, the last question does not in strictness arise, but I may say that considerations of health are always taken into account in determining how long a prisoner shall serve. In the present case I hope to be very soon in a position to order the prisoner's release.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I had no intention of suggesting that the treatment had not been proper. But with reference to the statement that Callaghan's eyesight was bad from the first, I wish to ask whether it is not a fact that an accident occurred during an operation, and that that accident is supposed to have led to the final obstruction of his sight?
  MR. ASQUITH: Certainly not in my term of office. I have no knowledge of such an accident.

  A TRAINING SHIP FOR QUEENSTOWN HARBOUR.
  CAPT. A. J. C. DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, to whom I have given private notice of the question, whether he can say when the necessary arrangements for the establishment of a Training Ship at Queenstown are likely to be completed? A statement on this subject appears in the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty on the Naval Estimates; and it is a statement which will be received with much satisfaction in the south of Ireland and in my own constituency.
  MR. J. MORLEY: My noble Friend, the First Lord, has made communications to me on the subject from time to time; but all I can say in answer to the specific question is that no time will be lost in establishing a Training Ship in Queenstown Harbour.

  THE EXTRADITION OF JABEZ BALFOUR.
  MR. R. B. MARTIN: I wish, Sir, to call attention to a personal matter, and to offer a word of personal explanation. In the Debate which arose on Tuesday night on the subject of the Supplementary Vote for legal expenses in
  570
  connection with the extradition of Jabez Spencer Balfour, the hon. Member for Haggerston said:
  "There was a strong feeling prevailing out of doors that there was a want of desire on the part of many hon. Members that Jabez Balfour should return to this country."
  The hon. Member was pressed by the Attorney General to put that charge—which was a very grave and serious one—into more definite form, and he then stated that—
  "The general impression out of doors was that money had been found by the Debenture Corporation."
  The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Broad) and myself are directors of the Debenture Corporation, and it is against us that the charge is made. I wish to ask the indulgence of the House to deny most emphatically that it is in the least degree material to me, or to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, or to the Debenture Corporation, or, as far as I know, to any one connected with it, whether Jabez Balfour comes back to this country or not. We have no interest whatever in the matter, and are absolutely unconcerned. I think the House will agree with me that a charge of this kind ought not lightly to be brought, and ought not to be brought without some shadow of proof such as I cannot possibly imagine to exist. All I have to say is, to give a most emphatic denial, in the most public way possible, to the statement, because it has been taken up by several newspapers, and The Times itself has put it forward as an absolute statement of fact by the hon. Member for Haggerston.
  MR. W. H. CREMER: I have to thank the hon. Member for giving me notice that he intended to raise this question this afternoon. Until yesterday I had not the slightest idea that the hon. Member was directly or indirectly connected with the Debenture Corporation, so that what I stated on the occasion to which he has referred could not have had the slightest reference to him. I was acquainted with the fact that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire was connected with the Debenture Corporation, but the observations which I made the night before last

  571
  had not the least personal reference to him any more than to the hon. Member for Worcestershire. I never heard it even rumoured that either of the hon. Members had had any specific charge made against them. Before I say anything more in the matter, I should like, if the forms of the House will permit me, to ask a question of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. There appeared in The Westminster Gazette last night an account headed—
  "Debenture Corporation and Jubez—Mr. Cremer's Statement—An Authoritative and Official Denial."
  I wish to ask the hon. Member for South Derbyshire whether the statement attributed to him by the interviewer of The Westminster Gazette in that account is accurate?
  MR. H. E. BROAD: The statement is perfectly correct.
  MR. CREMER: Then I think no explanation is needed from me. The hon. Member admitted to the interviewer that those rumours to which I have referred did exist, and were largely prevalent. He stated that since the departure of Jabez Balfour from this country the directors of the Debenture Corporation had considerably changed, and that one of the new directors, Mr. Hugh Smith, of the Bank of England—a gentleman of the most perfect honour and integrity—had thought it his duty, before he took part in the official transactions of the Corporation, to put a series of questions, concerning the nature and character of the rumours to which I referred the other night, to the old directors. The admission of the hon. Member that this took place is a justification of my statement that such rumours prevailed out of doors. I made no specific charge against the hon. Member. I made no specific charge against any man or any body of men. I simply spoke of a belief that largely prevailed out of doors; and said I thought that it was time these rumours should either be proved or confuted. I think that the hon. Members ought to thank me for having afforded them the opportunity of publicly making their denial. Perhaps I may be permitted to ask one other question before I sit down. It is, whether the two hon. Members can, on
  572
  behalf of the Debenture Corporation, say whether that company would be willing to have a committee or a commission appointed to inquire into the mysterious circumstances surrounding the whole of these transactions. [Cries of "Order."] As yet, no information is forthcoming as to where these thousands of pounds——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Having elicited from the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Broad) that there is no truth in the rumour referred to, the hon. Member is hardly justified in putting these further questions. I think the statement of the hon. Member for Derbyshire should satisfy all the requirements of the case.

  COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  SIR. M. E. HICKS-BEACHinquired what business would be taken at the Morning Sitting tomorrow, and whether Army and Navy Votes would be taken on Monday; also what business would be set down for Tuesday next?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: To-day we hope to be able to finish the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. I have consulted with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, and he thinks it would be more convenient to the House if the Navy Supplementary Estimates were taken with the other Navy Estimates, and in that am disposed to agree with him. I think, perhaps, it will be the better way. Then, finishing, as I hope we may, the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates tonight, we hope to take what I call the Government minor Bills to-morrow; the First Readings, I mean, of the Scotch Local Government Bill and the Light Railways Bill. Then I am placed in considerable difficulty about the Army Estimates, for I have just received a note from my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War in which he says it is uncertain whether he will be well enough to be here on Monday. Provisionally, therefore, I must propose to take the Navy Estimates on Monday, in case the Secretary for War should not be here to take the Army Estimates. But I would rather not lend myself, and will make a more definite statement to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE.

    SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID in the Chair.

    Class 3.
    £7,000 Miscellaneous Legal Expenses.
    MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, there were some manifestations of impatience and annoyance from the other side of the House when the discussion upon this Vote was carried over from Tuesday last. If justification were wanted for adjourning the discussion, that could be found in that very impatience, and he might further say that the conversation which had just taken place on a matter of personal explanation, increased the necessity for treating the subject as one of considerable Parliamentary importance. The impatience to winch he alluded proceeded from his endeavour to put certain questions to the Government and from the failure of the Government adequately to appreciate the soreness of the public mind in reference to certain circumstances connected with the case of Jabez Balfour, and its indignation at a signal defeat of justice. That failure of the Government to appreciate the attitude of the public mind was evinced on Tuesday in more ways than one. In the first place he protested against the doctrine laid down by the Attorney General, who he thought might have treated the subject with greater gravity than he did—that there was a total absence of continuity between the action of an Attorney General and his successor or predecessor. The learned and distinguished predecessor of the Attorney General, when questioned in the House as to this case, said he could not be answerable for the action of his predecessor.
    SIR ROBERT T. REID: I never said so.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid he was speaking now of the late Attorney General, who, it would be remembered, said he could not be answerable for the action of his predecessor, and the answer of the present Attorney General was in the same direction. Such a doctrine, however, was not consistent with Ministerial and Parliamentary practice. He felt bound to say that, even if it were possible for the Attorney General to plead either from want of records, or on the doctrine of non-continuity of administrative responsibility, that it was impossible for him to answer, still in this case he might stretch a point on account of the public feeling he had referred to. If that doctrine were accepted, then Ministerial responsibility would become attenuated until it became beautifully small and disappeared altogether. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs made an admirable statement so far as it went, but really it was a starting-point to ask for further information. The Committee were glad to hear that the vigour of Her Majesty's Government had obtained the ratification of the inchoate Treaty of Extradition. They were also glad to learn that the Government were seconded—and there was no reason to doubt the loyalty of the Argentine Government—that in putting pressure on the Provincial Government to have these proceedings against Jabez Balfour effectually prosecuted, they had the support of the Argentine Federal Government. What he wished to criticise was the statement of the Under Secretary as regards this prosecution in its latest developments, that the Government could not be expected to make inquiries or communications. To that position he took exception. He did not call upon the Government to put vexatious questions.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Berwick-on-Tweed): I did not mean to imply that. What I intended to say, and what I think I said, was that Her Majesty's Government have no means of knowing the details of this action or of investigating them, for these could only be gone into in the Provincial Court. I did not mean to imply that we

    575
    could not make all possible inquiries before the case was tried.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, it was not necessary that vexatious questions should be put to Argentina which might compromise the dignity of that Government, and still less that any question should imply doubt of the bona fides of that Government; but, considering that Her Majesty's Government had for many months an experienced officer representing them in the territory, and that he had lately returned and would be replaced by another, and seeing that we had a Consular officer also, he could not altogether assent to the proposition that the Government had not the means of getting more information than they seemed to have got. Having the means of getting it, it was their duty to get it and above all to show that they had got it. He made no comment as to whether the charge was genuine or not, but proceeded to give further examples of the points which were not cleared up on Tuesday last. Two facts he gathered from statements then made which carried with them some reassurance—first, that Jabez Balfour was in custody, and not merely under a technical arrest from which he might escape; and, secondly, that the local prosecution if not taken on the initiative of the Provincial Government was managed by the Provincial Government. That was not all they wanted to know. Of course, every prosecution must be on the initiative of the individual sufferer, but was there any serious probability that the energy and means of giving testimony would be effectively forthcoming? The prosecution was being managed by the Provincial Government, but was it assisted by the resources of that Government, or was the animus, or want of animus in the matter, left to the individual prosecutor? The hon. Gentleman spoke of the legal vacation having interposed unexpected and regrettable delay. In this country criminal proceedings were not interfered with in this way, though civil proceedings might be. He was bound to say that one did hear rumours about this case which one would be glad not to hear, such, for instance, as that the papers necessary to the Salta prosecution had been lost: and all would be glad to know what the nature of the
    576
    charges brought against Jabez Balfour in Argentina were. He thought the Government had no reason to complain if, in a matter which gave rise to so much public uneasiness, hon. Members wished to emphasise the inquiries that were being made, by attributing to them as much Parliamentary importance as they could.
    MR. JESSECOLLINGShoped that Members on both sides of the House would do their best to extract from the Government something more satisfactory—something more evidencing their determination to get at the bottom of this matter—than they had hitherto produced; for, although they might get this Vote, that would not finish the matter, because the numerous victims look to the Government to do something in their interest, and in the interest of public morality. The feeling in the matter was very strong, and he was sure it would increase until something more definite was done by the Government. The replies given on Tuesday night on behalf of the Government were most unsatisfactory. The Attorney General turned his mind to charges, which he did not understand to have been made, of bad faith on the part of the Government, and of their having winked at the escape of Balfour. The charge made was that the Government had shown a certain laxity in the pursuit of this question, and he was bound to say that the feeling which largely prevailed outside, and to a great extent in the House, would be greatly confirmed and increased by the inadequacy of the replies from the Front Bench. The reply of the Under Secretary was eminently unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were going to conceal nothing. If they had told the House all they knew, the charge of laxity and want of determination in carrying the matter through had been abundantly proved. It was quite true, as the Under Secretary had said, that there was a provincial Government in Argentina that overruled the central Government, a sort of Home Rule Government that paralysed the action of the law of the land. The Attorney General said that the charge against Balfour was some sort of fraud on a brewer. The House would like to know whether it was a real charge or a collusive charge, made to

    577
    defeat the law, whether Balfour was arrested on that charge or whether he was left free to enjoy himself, as it appeared he had been. They would also like to know, when Balfour took up his residence at Salta, and what steps had been taken by the agents of the Government in Argentina to ascertain how the case was proceeding. They were told by the Under Secretary that the Government had no knowledge of the matter, and, further, that they could not know anything about it. It was simply playing with the House to talk in that manner, and he hoped that an attempt would be made to extract a promise that there should be a fresh departure and an energetic effort made to bring about a settlement. He felt sure that if the Scotland Yard authorities had not been hampered by the Government they would have had Balfour back long before this. There was an impression outside the House that if the Government were to speak to the Argentine Government in a certain tone and let them know that, instead of pursuing this matter in a perfunctory manner, they treated it as a matter of the highest importance which they were determined to prosecute with energy, Jabex Balfour would immediately make his appearance; but so long as it was carried on from month to month with no more energy than was displayed in the speeches of the Attorney General and the Under Secretary, Jabez Balfour would never come back. He hoped the House would get from the Front Bench an undertaking in a different spirit, and he trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Deptford would go to a Division if only to mark the fact that both sides of the House of Commons had a living sympathy with the hundreds and thousands of victims who had been reduced to penury and want, and that the House, whatever the attitude of the Government might be, would do its very best to get this man back to take his trial for what he had done.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir K. T. REID, Dumfries)said, that it was the desire of the Government to give all the information they possessed on this matter. He understood on Tuesday night that there was a suggestion of laxity in the proceedings with regard to this person, by which he was enabled to go away and stay away. So far as his
    578
    remaining in Argentina was concerned after he first got there, that was a matter on which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had spoken, and in regard to which he said —and he was quite certain it was the truth—that every effort that could be made had been made to secure his return. It had been suggested that there had been proceedings of a collusive and criminal character in Argentina, but a moment's reflection would show that, that could not be prevented or controlled from England. Those proceedings were exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Courts in Argentina, and they had decided that they could not surrender this individual until he had answered the criminal charges made against him in that country. As to the suggestion that there had been laxity in allowing this man to go abroad in the winter of 1892, shortly after the Liberator and other Companies had failed, the matter came into the hands of the Official Receiver of the Board of Trade for the purpose of inquiring into the whole of the circumstances. When the Official Receiver determined that there was ground to prosecute Hobbs and Wright, neither he nor the Attorney General of the day was possessed of materials which afforded ground for criminal proceedings against Jabez Balfour. Hon. Gentlemen could have no idea of the complexity of this case. He had himself had to go through enormous masses of correspondence. When Hobbs and Wright were prosecuted on comparatively simple issues extracted from the great volume of matter that existed, there was no material that would warrant proceedings against Jabez Balfour, or enable Her Majesty's Government to commit him, or to interfere with his liberty in any way. In December 1892 Hobbs and Wright were arrested, and immediately after that Jabez Balfour left the country. Everyone familar with criminal proceedings knew that if there was no material for initiating criminal proceedings against a man, he could not be detained. From the moment when materials did come into the hands of the Attorney General, he felt the utmost anxiety that the proper course should be adopted. In point of that, it was then impossible to get Jabez Balfour back, and the difficult question which had to be considered was, what time to select for taking steps

    579
    against any directors of other companies who were connected with these affairs. It was hoped from month to month that news would come of the order for the extradition of Jabez Balfour, and that he would return. It was, however, not till October 1894 that the final order of extradition was made by the Court of Appeal, and then succeeded those other criminal proceedings in Argentina, to which it was decided precedence should be given. As soon as it became apparent that a further delay of an indefinite character was to be interposed before the extradition, the proceedings against other directors were ordered. They were ordered in the beginning of January, and were now going on. It was not until December 1894 that the Law Officers came to the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect the return of Jabez Balfour until further delay should have occurred. The informations against the individuals charged were prepared partially before December, and the final directions for a prosecution were given on January 9 of this year. There was thus a delay on account of the hopes entertained that Jabez Balfour would be brought back to stand his trial with the other parties, but that delay had done no harm at all, because the parties charged had all appeared, and were now before a police magistrate. He believed that any hon. Members who had taken part in that discussion would probably have acted in this matter, if they had been responsible, just as successive Attorneys General had acted. There was no Member of the Government who would fail to sympathise with those who had suffered losses through these defalcations, but it would ill become one who would probably have to conduct the prosecution against the parties charged to express any opinion. as to their guilt or innocence. There was no Member of the Government who did not desire that Jabez Balfour might be brought back to this country as soon as possible, in order that he might either be acquitted or convicted before a court of justice.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEexplained, that hon. Members on his side of the House had no wish to blame in any way the Law Officers of the Crown. Their accusation was against the Foreign
    580
    Department, which was showing a want of political energy and diplomatic capacity. South American Republics shared largely the characteristics and disposition of Eastern peoples, and every man who had served in Asia knew how much diplomatic pressure by such a Power as England could effect. It was his opinion, therefore, that if the voice of England had spoken in proper tones to the Argentine Republic, Jabez Balfour would have been given up long ago. Mere feeble correspondence would not avail, for the Government of Argentina would be anxious to keep him in the country as long as he had money to spend in its law courts. What was the character of the provincial tribunal which was detaining Jabez Balfour? The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had exposed the ignorance of his Department in this affair; but, at all events, the Argentine Government could be asked specifically what were the charges brought against Jabez Balfour in the Provincial Courts. They would then be able to judge whether those charges were real and earnest, or shadowy and unsubstantial. Supposing there should be any collusion on the other side of the Atlantic with the object of keeping Jabez Balfour there, how easy it would be for him to plead guilty to some charge before a Provincial Court, and then to escape while undergoining some nominal imprisonment! In that case we might never see him again. There was a deeply-rooted suspicion in many minds that, while there might be parties in Argentina who were interested in keeping Jabez Balfour there, there were also persons in this country who were similarly interested. That House, which was the grand inquest of the nation, ought not to be satisfied with such speeches as had been delivered from the Treasury Bench, and as a Sovereign Assembly it ought to insist upon the Government taking more vigorous measures.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTERasked, whether they were to understand that information, which was not in the possession of the authorities in December 1892, had reached the law advisers since that time. He referred to information which had enabled them to formulate charges against certain parties. The hon. and learned Gentleman

    581
    would remember that, in the month of November 1892, a Report was issued from the Board of Trade, but was not made public. There was an idea in many people's minds that that Report itself contained sufficiently grave material to warrant the taking of proceedings. It would be interesting to know whether it was upon information subsequently obtained that the proceedings now going on had been initiated.
    SIR R. T. REIDreplied that he had been informed from official sources that when Hobbs and Wright were arrested and Jabez Balfour fled there was no material before the Public Prosecutor which would have warranted additional criminal proceedings.
    SIR R. E. WEBSTERthanked the hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement. It was important, because it disposed once and for ever of the idea that prompter efforts might have been made to bring Jabez Balfour to justice. As to the conduct of the Foreign Office he could say nothing except that he quite understood that it was no easy matter to arrange affairs of this kind when one had to deal with South American Governments and Courts of Justice.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, that various complaints had been made this evening to the effect that he had not given certain specific information in his former speech on the case of Mr. Jabez Balfour. And, first of all, in reference to the complaint of the hon. Member for Kingston, as to want of diplomatic energy, as to making the voice of England heard in such peremptory terms as should secure the surrender of the man who was alleged to have committed a criminal offence, he begged him to remember that under the late Government, as was fully stated in Parliamentary Paper No. 193, Argentine Republic, there had been instances where they had been unable to secure a surrender. What was more, the late Government were unable to secure the execution of an Extradition Treaty betwen Argentina and the Government of this country. The present Government had improved that position. They had secured the ratification of a Treaty, which had now come into force, and which had never existed before, because the Legislature of Argentina had not been willing to sanction its
    582
    ratification. That, at any rate, was some evidence of diplomatic energy and activity on the part of Her Majesty's present Government. The proceedings against Mr. Jabez Balfour under the Extradition Treaty, he admitted, seemed to him to be prolonged—he could not say unduly so, because he was not sufficiently cognisant of the legal and constitutional arguments involved; but certainly to a greater length than Her Majesty's Government wished. They had cost large sums of money, but they were eventually decided in our favour. Subsequently a charge had been brought against Mr. Jabez Balfour in the Provincial Court of Salta, and the construction put upon the Treaty was, that the Provincial Court was entitled to investigate that charge before they surrendered Mr. Jabez Balfour to the Federal authorities. The charge was, that Mr. Jabez Balfour had entered into a contract to purchase a brewery, or into such a contract connected with a brewery, that he bound himself down to pay a considerable sum of money to a certain individual on a certain date last year, that he failed to pay, and that he entered into the contract under an assumed name.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What was the amount of money?
    SIR EDWARD GREYthought the amount was £30,000. The reason why he did not enter fully into details regarding this charge in his former speech was that that was not the real point of the difficulty. The difficulty was, that the Procurator Fiscal in the province of Salta insisted on pressing this charge, and said it was necessary to have the charge threshed out.
    MR. H. DALZIEL: Is it the case that the original complainant has abandoned the charge?
    SIR EDWARD GREYreplied, that that was perfectly true, but the difficulty remained that the Provincial authorities insisted oil pressing the charge in their own Court. Now, Her Majesty's Government had represented to the Federal Government that there ought not to be delay in finishing the case one way or other in the Provincial Court; and the Federal Government, which has strictly prescribed constitutional relations with the Provincial authorities, had more than

    583
    once pressed that view upon the Provincial authorities. If the case ended in favour of Mr. Jabez Balfour, the Provincial authorities were bound to surrender him to the Federal authority, who, in turn, were bound by the decision under the Treaty to surrender him to us without any delay. As to whether there was any chance of his escape while under this charge, whether this was or was not a collusive action, whether there was undue delay in pressing this case—these were matters which concerned most intimately the honour of the Argentine Government. The point on which it was right and sensible and just that Her Majesty's Government should concentrate their efforts was, that there should not be delay in either convicting or acquitting Balfour of the charge. There would be no reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to press that point. He had only to add, on the general question, that though he did not know whether Mr. Jabez Balfour was innocent or guilty of the charges brought against him in this country, but having regard to the nature of those charges—that he was alleged to be the cause of bringing ruin and misery, deep and widespead, into many homes, even in remote and poor villages of the country—in the interests of justice and for the satisfaction of everybody throughout the country, who had suffered under the effects of that which he was alleged to have been the cause, it was of the first importance that he should be surrendered and brought to trial in this country.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, his hon. Friend had brought the point at issue very clearly before the Committee, but what the House of Commons wanted to know was whether the new charge brought against Jabez Balfour was a collusive charge or not. Surely, with the information at their disposal, the Government could form a pretty clear idea upon that point. They must have made up their minds whether this charge, which bore a most suspicious appearance, to say the least of it, was or was not collusive. Because, look at the position, not only in regard to Balfour, but every other criminal who escaped to the Argentine Republic. The Under Secretary made it very properly a boast that the Government had been
    584
    able to obtain the ratification of an Extradition Treaty. But the Treaty was a dead letter. For the moment the Government applied for the extradition of this particular person under the Treaty, some trumpery and ridiculous charge was set up in the Provincial Court, and he was, thereupon, withheld altogether from us. The Under Secretary said the Government would press the case; but, unless the pressure was of a very different kind from anything exerted up to the present time, it was perfectly certain it would be of no avail. But suppose that this new charge was brought to trial, and suppose Mr. Jabez Balfour pleaded guilty—why, he might have arranged his fall, he might have chosen the bed on which he was to lie, he might know the sort of imprisonment which this Provincial Government would extend to him; and in this way the matter might be so conducted by callusion with the Provincial authorities that, after Mr. Jabez Balfour had pleaded guilty in Argentina, he might escape with practically no punishment, and we should never be able to get him back to this country. An hon. Friend near him suggested another possibility, which was that as soon as Mr. Jabez Balfour had been acquitted upon one collusive charge a new collusive charge might be brought, and so on ad infinitum. He would be the most heavily charged man in the world, but the result would be that he would never be punished for any single one of those charges. The practical question was, what ought to be done. He thoroughly agreed with the hon. Member for Kingston that these countries were extremely susceptible to the opinion of European countries, and that in Argentina especially, they were likely to be particularly susceptible to the opinion of the British House of Commons and the British people. Now, had the Federal Government, under the Constitution of Argentina, no control whatever over the Procurator Fiscal?
    SIR EDWARD GREYwas understood to say that they had no control over the Procurator Fiscal of the Provincial Government.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Therefore, as far as these proceedings were concerned, the local Government was absolutely independent of the Federal

    585
    Government, and the local Government, under this system of home rule, might make absolutely of no avail a solemn international agreement of the Federal Government. He wished they had known that two years ago. It would have been a most admirable illustration. But, even if such were the case, he would still submit that the Federal Government must have a good deal of moral influence with the Provincial Government, and would be able in some way, financial or otherwise, to make its opinion respected. Therefore, he still thought our first duty was to make our opinion known and, if possible, respected by the Federal Government. Under ordinary circumstances it was quite true that they did not interfere at all in civil and criminal proceedings in another country, but when their subjects were concerned, when great interests were involved, when there was reason to believe, either that there was collusion or improper and illegal practices or unnecessary delay, or where there was an evident intention to evade the treaty—in all these cases there had been made solemn protests. Up to the present time there had been nothing apparently but the most ordinary diplomatic intercourse. They thought it time that that should cease, and something stronger should be said. They thought if the Government even made an appeal to the commonsense and good feeling of civilised Europe, in regard to matters of this kind, it might be to some effect. It was a perfect disgrace for any Government, which called itself civilised, to be sheltering a criminal or one who was accused of such offences as this man. All this ought to be brought out by the Government. If it were really powerless it should be clearly manifested that everything had been done, the conduct of the Argentine Government and of the Provincial Government should be made clear to the world, and that should be followed up by the strongest terms in which Diplomacy ever indulged. That was the point at issue between the two sides, and unless they could have an assurance from the Government that much stronger action would be taken in the immediate future—and not in so many months or years hence—he should certainly follow his hon. Friend opposite into the Lobby.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESremarked, that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had attempted to ride off on the point whether, under this Treaty, extradition could be granted. But there was a larger and more important question, which was whether, Treaty or no Treaty, under international comity they should not be able to get this fugitive from justice? For years they had no Extradition Treaty with Portugal, but whenever they wanted a criminal who had fled to that country, he was handed over to them under the comity of nations. In this particular case the Government said they could not get Jabez Balfour, because there was difficulty about the Extradition Treaty. But he was offered to them. The Minister for Foreign Affairs at Buenos Ayres, writing on 25th February 1893, said:—
    "If you present a demand for extradition, accompanied by the offer of reciprocity, this Ministry will hasten to comply with it, provided the necessary documents are enclosed therewith."
    So that two years ago, this Ministry might have had Jabez Balfour if they would have promised, on their part, to return any Jabez Balfours from Argentina, who might be in this country. Under these circumstances, it was not possible for the Foreign Office to shelter itself under the Treaty. The hon. Baronet had said that the late Government tried to get a fugitive after the Treaty had been signed, but before it was ratified, and failed. Yes, but that was a fugitive of the vulgar ordinary dimensions—a common-place forger, named Cope—whilst this was a criminal of colossal and national dimensions; and the effort that would have been adequate for a Cope was, by no means, adequate in the case of a Jabez Balfour. He did not know upon what construction of the Treaty itself it was possible for the Argentine Government to refuse the extradition of Balfour at this moment. He presumed it was under Article 4. But Article 4—which was monstrously mis-translated, as was invariably the case with these documents in the Foreign Office—said:—
    "If a person claimed, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or on the part of the Government of the Argentine Republic, should he under examination (the word should be detained, the Spanish word being detenido) for any other crime, in the Argentine Republic or the

    587
    United Kingdom respectively, his extradition shall be deferred until the conclusion of the trial, and full execution of any punishment awarded to him."
    But, when he was claimed, Balfour was not detained or under examination. This new charge was not made for months after he was claimed by the English Government, and it was not until the claim of Her Majesty's Government was admitted by the Federal Government, and the order of extradition had been issued by the Federal Government, that the present charge was made. How was it possible, thereupon, to apply Article 4 to the case? Under no possible construction could it apply, and under this very Article, as well as under the rest of the Treaty, Jabez Balfour ought certainly to be given up to Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Baronet had claimed credit for the ratification of this Treaty, but if the Extradition Treaty was to be of no more effect than this they had better have none at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had shown how, by a succession of charges made one after another, in case Jabez should have the misfortune to be acquitted on one he would get his friends to make another, and the result would be quite interminable. When they were making a Treaty with the Federal Government, and when they knew that the Federal had no control over the Provincial Government, the business of the English Government was either to make an Extradition Treat with each of the Provincial Governments, or else require, as a preliminary to their Extradition Treaty with the Federal Government that it should make one with each Provincial Government, otherwise the Extradition Treaty might be valueless or might be defeated by the perfectly honest but mistaken action of the Provincial Governments. The hon. Baronet, as he had said, claimed credit for having secured the ratification of the Treaty, but he should rather come down to the House in a white sheet and express shame and regret at having made such an illusory and delusive instrument. The ignorance of the Government had been most considerable and most ample throughout this business. On the 31st January 1893, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not know that there was
    588
    any case against Balfour for fraud. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked why he had given the Chiltern Hundreds to Jabez Balfour, he replied: "I had no means of knowing he had committed a series of frauds." Well, everybody else knew that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not. The Treaty had failed, and the expenditure of the £6,400 had failed. This sum had been very badly expended, for he would undertake to say that any competent financier who had to get Jabez Balfour back to this country would have got him back for £4,000 or £5,000 without the slightest difficulty and without any Treaty whatever. The fact that the Government had spent £6,400, and were still without their absent friend, proved that they did not know how to spend the money of the country. He thought the Government were becoming aware of the importance of this question. He noticed that the Under Secretary was very warm in his answer the other night, and he now understood the reason. The hon. Baronet in his guilty conscience knew he had failed where he ought to have succeeded. He knew the hon. Baronet was as able a man as they had had at his post, but like all other Under Secretaries he was the plaything, the victim, and the slave of the Office, and the failure was the failure of the Office. But this £6,400 had to be provided by the House. He, for one, would be no party to providing money for a failure of this kind, and if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should certainly vote with him. There had been and still was a serious and grave aspect of suspicion over the whole of this case, and that was the reason why not less, but more caution should have been exercised by the Government, and why not less, but more ability should have been shown. He believed that if the Government had exercised proper pressure on the Argentine Republic, Jabez Balfour would have been in this country long ago. The Government sent ships to ports of other countries in order to protect or enforce the claims of British subjects, and surely they could show equal energy to obtain so great a criminal as this.
    MR. H. LABOUCHEREobserved that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had not

    589
    very distinctly told them what he wished the Government to do. So far as he understood the hon. Member, he said he, as a competent financier, would be ready to take a contract for the return of Jabez Balfour to England, and he explained to them how he would do it. He would go in command of a ship, or a yacht, or something of that sort. He had no doubt the Government would enter into reasonable terms with the hon. Member if he would do the thing cheaply and effectively, and with some sort of guarantee that he possessed all sorts of facilities for bringing back Jabez Balfour, or for joining him in Argentina. The hon. Gentleman had blamed the Government for not having agreed to the proposal of the Argentine Government, that they would give up Balfour on condition that the Government of this country would equally give up any Argentine fugitive from justice who had come to England. They knew perfectly well that political matters were mixed up with the offence of every fugitive from justice from South America, and he was, therefore, glad that the Government did not take upon themselves the obligation to surrender such offenders. The hon. Gentleman also complained of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having said that when he gave the Chiltern Hundreds to Jabez Balfour, he had no means of knowing that he had committed any offence. But what means of knowing could the right hon. Gentleman have had? The right hon. Gentleman might have read in the newspapers that something had occurred in connection with the Balfour Companies, but it would be absurd if, on a general statement like that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to give Balfour the Chiltern Hundreds. In fact, he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman gave the thing to Balfour, because it relieved them of the presence of the man. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham seemed to be under the impression that Balfour had necessarily escaped by getting a collusive action brought against him. But how did the right hon. Gentleman know that?
    MR. J. H. DALZIEL: That is admitted. The person who brought the action has abandoned it.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid it was perfectly true that Balfour was the sort
    590
    of man to get up collusive proceedings; but, on the other hand, it was extremely probable that, having arrived in Argentina, Balfour commenced to rob there just as he had robbed here; and, therefore, it was not at all clear that the proceedings were collusive. He would point out further, that the Argentine Republic was in this matter precisely in the same position as the United States. If we were to demand the extradition of anyone in the United States, and if the Attorney General of any particular State were to bring an action against that individual, the United States would be obliged to wait until he had purged himself of that particular offence before they could take measures to have him sent back to England. The same provision existed in all our own Extradition Treaties. Therefore, though he should be very glad to see Balfour brought back to this country, he could not see that the Government had been in any way remiss in the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, there was just one new point raised by the hon, Member for King's Lynn to which he desired to reply. The hon. Gentleman said that two years ago the Argentine Republic were ready to extradite Jabez Balfour if the Government promised reciprocity. But if the Government had done so they would have given a promise they could not have fulfilled. In the very same paper from which the hon. Gentleman quoted, there was a communication from Lord Salisbury as Foreign Secretary, dated 16th September, 1890, in reference to the case of James Cope, who was wanted for forgery and embezzlement, and had escaped to Argentina. Lord Salisbury pointed out that in applying for the surrender of Cope, the Government were not in a position to promise reciprocity, because the law of extradition did not enable them to extradite fugitives from Countries with which Great Britain had not concluded treaties.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, Lord Salisbury, nevertheless, concluded his communication by asking for the surrender of Cope as an act of international comity. Why did not the present Government do that in the case of Jabez Balfour?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Because the Argentine Republic refused to surrender Cope as an act of international comity.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he thought this matter should be debated without the introduction of matters which prevent hon. Members from taking an impartial view of it. He failed to grasp the significance which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs seemed to attach to the refusal of the Argentine Republic to surrender Cope in the time of Lord Salisbury's Government. The Liberator frauds were of world-wide notoriety, and he hardly thought it probable that the Argentine Republic would be likely to have treated an application for the surrender of Jabez Balfour on the same ground as they treated the application for the surrender of an obscure criminal, of whose existence the rest of the world were unaware. He might appropriately, by way of illustration, mention that there was an international reciprocity prevailing amongst the sporting communities of the world, by means of which a person guilty of an offence against the turf laws of one country, was debarred from exercising his calling in any other country; and it was only fair to the Foreign Office that it should be known, as evidence of difficulties to be contended with in the case now under discussion, that the only country in the wide world in which this international system of turf comity did not prevail, was the Argentine Republic. It fell to his lot a few years ago, while discharging official duties in connection with the chief turf authority in England——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that his argument does not apply.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERonly mentioned the matter to show that there were difficulties in the way of the Foreign Office in dealing with the public spirit and public opinion of the Argentine Republic which he was bound in fairness to state. But he should add that he believed that if some firmness had been displayed by the Government the surrender of this criminal would have been long since attained. Some earnestness of our intention to obtain the surrender of Balfour should have been shown to the Argentine Republic. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton asked what evidence there was that the charge now preferred
    592
    against Balfour in that country was collusive. Why, the charge—some trifling alleged fraud—was the laughingstock of the world. It was a notorious fact that the witnesses on which the public prosecutor relied had run away, and that therefore all his evidence had disappeared. The House expected some assurance from the Government that when those bogus proceedings against Balfour came to an inevitable collapse they would see that that individual did not remove himself to some other and more secure part of the Argentine or some of the other neighbouring Republics. The Member for Haggerston made some statements which he thought he was justified in making, as to the supply of funds to Jabez Balfour from a particular source, and he did not understand that the denial which was given to imply that some assistance had not been afforded from some source or other during the absence of the fugitive. He thought prompt and immediate steps should be taken—without anything in the shape of coercive action or naval demonstration, such as his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn expressed his readiness to contract—to show that we were in earnest in the matter of this surrender.
    SIR D. H. MACFARLANEsaid that there was not sufficient evidence to justify Her Majesty's Government in charging a friendly Government with deliberate fraud. The whole gist of the question lay in the absence of proof of collusion on the part of the Argentine Republic. They, most of them, believed that it was not altogether a straightforward prosecution, but they were not able to prove that, and therefore Her Majesty's Government had practically no power, and it was useless to discuss the question at great length.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTasked if the Report of the proceedings which took place at Salta would be laid upon the Table. He thought it was very necessary that hon. Members should have an opportunity of reading them. Neither side of the House, he thought, made any charge against the Argentine Government. The real fact was, as had been stated by Mr. Welby, at Buenos Ayres, the good fame of the Argentine Republic demanded that

    593
    the country should not be used as a refuse for criminals. If this matter were pressed energetically on the Federal Government of Argentina he believed Jabez Balfour would, before very long, be extradited.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, the matter had now arrived at a point at which the public had a right to expect that there should not be longer delay in dealing with the case. As soon as the point had been reached at which the proceedings should terminate, or any serious cause of complaint that delay had occurred arose, they should be prepared to publish papers.
    SIR A. K. ROLLITsaid the whole principle, in dealing with extradition, was based to a large extent on the degree and character of the offence. He heartily concurred in what had been said as to the excessive tenderness on the part of other Governments and our own in dealing with matters of extradition. Why should there be any unwillingness to surrender criminals? It was the duty of the Foreign Office to be vigilant in securing the power of extradition. There were some cases in which extradition treaties did not exist between our own and foreign countries, and he hoped that there would be no delay in obtaining these treaties.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if an efficient watch was being kept over the fugitive. He had read statements in the newspapers to the effect that the inspector in charge of the case had returned to this country, but he supposed arrangements had been made for another to take his place?
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid another officer immediately took the place of the inspector who had left Argentina. He thought he ought, in order to prevent any mistake, to say that of course the responsibility for the detention of Jabez Balfour must rest with the Argentine Republic, and that this country could not possibly exercise any administrative power in Argentina.
    MR. C. J. DARLINGsaid he did not think the majority of those on the same side of the House as himself were satisfied that the Government had done as much as possible to secure the extradition of this accused person, and under the circumstances he
    594
    thought it was absolutely necessary to go to a Division on the matter. The other night, in answering his remarks, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs appeared particularly anxious to have it understood that he, and others acting with him, were perfectly satisfied of the honesty of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. He, of course, could never have intended to impute any want of honesty to them. Why, one of the last acts of Mr. Jabez Balfour before he went away was to constitute a company that had for its object the guaranteeing of the honesty of persons in positions of trust and confidence. In the formation of that company there were associated with Mr. Jabez Balfour two Members of the present Government, and Mr. Francis Schnadhorst. How was it possible, then, to doubt the honesty of those who were prepared to guarantee the honesty of others? He concluded by moving to reduce the vote by £5,000.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 106; Noes, 167.—(Division List, No. 21.)
    MR. H. S. FOSTERwished to put a question to the Government with reference to the very peculiar case of Dr. Herz. The money of the British taxpayers was still being spent in maintaining the arrest of Dr. Herz, and apparently in perfectly futile proceedings. He would repeat the question which had been already asked whether the Government could not bring in a short Bill to enable the Bow Street magistrate to go to Bournemouth, where Dr. Herz was lying ill, and hear the case there, or make a representation to the French Government expressing their opinion that the time had come when the proceedings against this man should be dropped. Apart from the cruelty inflicted upon the man himself, he thought some decisive course should be taken in the matter.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby)said, the Government were fully alive to the expense and inconvenience of the present situation, and they would carefully consider what course could best be taken for bringing the matter to a termination.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYcomplained that the Estimates gave no details of the kind of expenses, legal and otherwise, charged in connection with the extradition proceedings against Jabez Balfour. Usually a footnote was inserted giving the items, but it was absent in this case. No information was given to show how much of the sum charged in the estimate was expended in the actual extradition proceedings, or how much of it was absorbed in Home Office expenses.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, the sum of £4,000 or £5,000 seemed to be an enormous amount for counsel's fees in this abortive attempt to secure the extradition of Jabez Balfour. Had the money been paid to Argentine counsel or to English counsel sent out to conduct the proceedings? At any rate, the money had been spent in unsuccessful litigation, and in the circumstances the Committee ought to have further information.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to correct a misapprehension under which the Attorney General laboured, in his reply on Tuesday night. He did not accuse the Government of winking at this case. That serious charge was made by the hon. Member for Haggerston, who sat behind the Government. His charge was that the Government had shown considerable and even gross neglect of opportunities, which a keen and active Government would not have lost, for preventing Jabez Balfour from escaping from this country, and thus of avoiding all these expenses. The Report of the Official Receiver was made in October or November 1892, and was in the hands of the Board of Trade some time before Jabez Balfour applied for the Chiltern Hundreds. The general fact was brought to the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the application for the Chiltern Hundreds, but when the right hon. Gentleman was pressed in January 1893 to explain how he came to allow this notorious person to receive the Chiltern Hundreds, and why the Government did not take steps at least to have him watched, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could only say that he had no alternative but to grant the Chiltern Hundreds. That, however, did not explain the inaction of the Law Officers
    596
    and the Board of Trade during the period after the Official Receiver's Report was made. Someone must be responsible. Hon. Members would recollect how the House was put off during the whole of last year with flippant answers to every question addressed to the Government on the subject. Sixteen months were allowed to pass before the Government made up their minds to prosecute those responsible with Jabez Balfour for these alleged frauds. He did not blame the present Attorney General, but one or other of his predecessors must be responsible, as well as either the present or the late President of the Board of Trade. It was impossible that the Government as a whole could escape responsibility for the delay in attempting to prevent Jabez Balfour's escape; possibly for delay in pressing the Argentine Government for his extradition; and, certainly for delay in deciding to prosecute those who were responsible with Jabez Balfour. It was on account of that delay that he had charged the Government with neglect, and that charge he repeated now.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, he was in error in stating £30,000 as the sum involved in the proceedings against Jabez Balfour at Salta. He ought to have said £3,000.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham)assured the hon. Member for Islington that he did not desire to say anything in the least offensive to him. The hon. Member objected to this expenditure, because he said it was abortive. This £4,000 was paid to a first-class counsel in Argentina, in respect of all law charges there. To say that the efforts of the learned Gentleman were I entirely unsuccessful was not quite correct, because he succeeded in obtaining a decision that Jabez Balfour could be extradited under the Treaty.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked whether the action in reference to the £3,000 at Salta, was not a civil action?
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, he understood there was a civil action. It had been withdrawn, but inasmuch as Jabez Balfour entered into the contract under an assumed name, he was on that ground charged with fraud.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that that comes to this—that the civil action

    597
    having been withdrawn, nothing remains but this charge of fraud trumped up by the Procurator Fiscal?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Procurator Fiscal insists on going on with the charge.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Surely, that is most absurd. There ought to be the strongest protest agains these proceedings.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether Jabez Balfour was under detention on the charge of using a false name, because, under the Treaty, that was the only bar to an application for extradition.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Yes, he is under detention.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Then it comes to this—that the only thing that prevents Jabez Balfour from coming back to his friends is, that he has used a false name in Argentina.
    Mr. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he did not quite understand the Under Secretary's statement that the police officer now charged with the special duty of watching Jabez Balfour, had no administrative powers. Of course he did not suppose that Balfour was in the custody of this officer, but what was the officer's position? Had he any authority from the Federal Government or the Provincial Governments, or any means whatever of watching Balfour's movements. Did he "shadow" him? Was his status and position recognised in any way, either by the authorities of the Republic or of Salta. There was a general belief that as soon as these collusive proceedings were at an end the vigilance of the Salta authorities would cease and Balfour would become a free man.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Provincial Authorities are bound to hand him back to the Federal Authorities.
    Mr. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, Balfour had been handed over by the Federal Authority to the custody of a rival and independent authority. He desired to make quite certain that the Government recognised the facilities for escape which this position offered, and he, therefore, asked what means the English officer had at his disposal to prevent escape.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, the inspector of police was sent out to bring
    598
    Balfour back without delay when he was handed over. But the sole responsibility for Balfour's detention in the Argentine Republic rested with the Government and the authorities of that country. Any attempt on their part to interfere with the administration of the Argentine Republic would bring about a very serious international question in which they would be entirely in the wrong.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, it now appeared that Jabez Balfour had been taken from the Federal, and been placed in the custody of the Provincial, Government. Was the Government going to take any steps to prevent the escape of the culprit from the Provincial Authorities before the Federal had an opportunity of rearresting him? Could the Under Secretary give the Committee any assurance upon that point?
    MAJOR L. DARWINwished to know whether Balfour ever was in the charge of the Federal Government, because if he was, and they handed him over to the Provincial authorities instead of extraditing him, there was a distinct ground for interference.
    MR. VICARY GIBBSunderstood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Foreign Office did not know whether this was a collusive case or not. But, having regard to all the appearances, were they endeavouring to ascertain whether there was collusion? He could not imagine any mercantile house dealing with the Argentine Republic, and having an agent in the country, being in doubt about the matter for a single moment. They would not have had a shadow of doubt after six months, and without spending anything like the sum the Government had expended. The point he wished to press was whether the hon. Gentleman would point out to the Argentine Government the fact that appearances were such as to produce the unanimous impression in this country—with the solitary exception of one hon. Member in the House—that there was collusion. That was not an impression which should be created between one friendly power and another. Further, would the hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that no more actions of this kind occurred? He thought the Committee was entitled to have an

    599
    answer to the question which the previous speaker had put.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYthought it a remarkable fact that in spite of the prosecutor having withdrawn from the case, the Provincial Government should still carry it on. As yet they had had no information from the hon. Gentleman on that point. Was it a usual practice for other Governments to carry cases on after the prosecutions had been dropped? The whole of the crux of the matter was whether there was collusion or not, and as yet there had been no information given the Committee stating that the case would be carried on in a bona fide manner to the end. The Foreign Office seemed to be as ignorant about the matter as they were, but he hardly thought that was really so. Was it in accordance with the usual practice of the Provincial Government to continue prosecutions after the prosecutors had ceased to act?
    MR. P. A. MUNTZasked when the fresh charge was started. Was it before or after the Federal Government had expressed their willingness to hand Balfour over, because if it were stated subsequently the fact would have a very strong bearing on the question of collusion.
    SIR EDWARD GREYwas not quite certain, but believed they were started subsequently to signing of the extradition order. As to the question of custody, Jabez Balfour had been in custody in the same place all the time he had been in custody. The provincial authorities were bound to surrender him to the Federal authorities as soon as the case was decided, but as to the other point which had been raised, the hon. Member was practically asking him to accuse a Foreign State of being engaged in collusive proceedings. The Government had taken those steps which they considered right to take, and it must be recollected the merits of the case had to be gone into in accordance with the due legal process of the Argentine authorities. They could not go behind those legal forms, but they had asked that there should be no undue delay in the settlement of this matter.
    MR. VICARY GIBBSdid not want the hon. Gentleman to insult the Argentine Government; but surely his diplomatic powers were not so limited that he
    600
    was unable to convey to that Government the impression existing in this country. The Government ought to have taken steps before to ascertain whether there had been collusion, and have put pressure upon the Salta Government to bring this matter to a conclusion. As that course, however, had not been taken, he felt justified in moving the reduction of the Vote by £100.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERwanted to know whether the Government was represented by a watching brief in these proceedings, because he could imagine no better way of being able to judge whether these proceedings were real or not. A large sum of money, something like £4,000, had been spent in the matter, but he could not make out what had been done with it. How did the Provisional Government get hold of Jabez Balfour? The hon Gentleman had told them the Federal Government had him in custody originally, but had the Provisional Government got superior powers of arrest?
    MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid he must press his motion to a Division.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, they were entitled to an answer to the question—what had been done for the money? No one would pay a lawyer £4,000 or £5,000 and neglect to inquire what he had done for the amount paid him. Outside, people were very anxious to know all about this transaction.
    SIR EDWARD GREYsaid, he had dealt with this point twice before. His view was, that this was not a point on which they had a right to press the Federal Government. What they had a right to press was, whether the legal forms had been carried out with as little delay as possible. The expenditure of £4,000 was due to the necessity of engaging Counsel to make an application which was contested at every point. The point was as to whether, under the Extradition Act, which came into operation after Jabez Balfour was in the country, he should be given up or not.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, his question had not been answered. Could the Under Secretary assure them that the usual course had been followed, or was the practice adopted simply ad hoc? If this was the case, it looked like collusion.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 131.—(Division List No. 22.)
    On the Supplementary Vote of £35,000 for the Relief of Distress in Ireland,
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTexplained that the Government had taken this Vote out of its usual order. The previous evening the Chief Secretary stated to him that he was obliged to go to Ireland, and his right hon. Friend asked him whether he could place this Vote in an early position for to-day. He was anxious to meet the wishes of his right hon. Friend, and accordingly he had put the Vote down to come after the Vote which had just been taken, due warning having been afforded by a notice to hon. Members on the Notice Paper. The Chief Secretary remained in the House until halt-past six o'clock, and as the train left shortly after eight o'clock he was compelled to leave the House. But his right hon. Friend had asked him to appeal to the Committee to take the discussion on this Vote, not at present, but when the Vote on Account came on. This Vote on Account would be brought forward in the course of next week. The Chief Secretary had been obliged to go to Ireland, where he would obtain additional information on this subject, and his right hon. Friend felt sure that he would be better prepared to deal with the subject after interviewing representatives from different portions of Ireland, than he would have been had he remained and taken charge of the Vote to-day. He trusted, therefore, that considering the distress in Ireland, and the position in which his right hon. Friend had been placed, the Committee would agree to postpone the discussion until a future stage. In the Vote on Account, £33,000 would be asked for this relief in addition to the present sum, and thus there would be the fullest opportunity afforded for discussion.
    MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid, he should be sorry to appear discourteous to the Chief Secretary, who, no doubt had important business to attend to in Ireland; but he could not refrain from reminding the Government what had taken place in the House during the past two or three Sessions. The Closure had been moved on certain occasions, and on each occasion very important
    602
    matters remained to be brought before the House; but the only reception which had been accorded to the complaints of hon. Members was that they could not discuss those questions then. He was prepared, however, notwithstanding the previous attitude of the Government to make an offer. It was to this effect, that if the Committee postponed the discussion on this important Vote, would they undertake to give sufficient time to discuss the question on the Vote on Account? The Vote on Account contained a number of other items, and if the parties who were interested in the earlier items chose to discuss them for the greater part of the allotted time, then his experience had been that the Closure was applied, and the subsequent Votes received no discussion whatever. Hon. Members interested in those Votes had no alternative but to discuss them in August or late in the Session; and to this course they strongly objected.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTundertook that an opportunity would be given to discuss this portion of the Vote on the Vote on Account.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERhoped that this would not be done at the expense of other subjects. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware that there were other subjects of great importance due for discussion, and for which no other legitimate opportunity was afforded other than the Vote on Account. The offer of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, came to this, that the House was to devote the time which might be disposed of on other subjects to this Vote, which the Committee had an opportunity of dealing with now. There was an item to which he was prepared to call the attention of the Committee—namely, the large proportion of what in the commercial world was called "expenses of management." More than one-seventh of the whole Vote came under this head. That subject alone would need a close scrutiny on the part of the Committee.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Hon. Members would have the same opportunity of discussing this question on the Vote on Account.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that after their experience of last year, it must be understood by the Government that the Opposition could not allow any opportunity of discussing this

    603
    important matter, or any aspect of it which could be raised in Committee, to pass by. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think that he desired to obstruct; but he was anxious to know when the Government expected to take the Vote on Account.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Some day next week.
    MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEYpointed out that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman might not be master of the situation. It was impossible for him and his hon. Friends to banish from their minds the recollection of what had occurred on previous Votes on Account, and the unexpected eagerness developed by hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government in the earlier and less important items to discuss them so fully that the opportunity had been taken away from other hon. Members to seriously debate later items on which it was desirable to have a Debate. He suggested that a discussion might be secured if the Government would undertake to allow it to be taken on the Report of the present Vote. The item might be put down as the first order, or at least not taken later on some evening than a reasonable hour. There was another way in which the Government might secure a discussion—namely, by leaving this item out of the Vote on Account and bringing it forward as a separate Vote altogether.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYhoped that the Government would not listen to these suggestions. The Committee had now obtained possession of this Vote, and it was competent to discuss it at this moment. It was no use whatever to have any more understandings. The Opposition had been treated very badly by the Government on the Vote on Account during the past two years; they had always been closured, and their experience led them to suppose that the same thing would happen this year. The Government might promise not to closure the Vote on Account, and yet, after all, they might arrange to take it, as they had done before, on the last day before the holidays. He hoped, therefore, that no bargain would be made, and that the Committee would at once proceed to discuss the Vote.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, that the mention of Vote
    604
    on Account had a very uncomfortable sound to the ears of Members of the Opposition. During the last two years he and his hon. Friends had been deeply dissatisfied with the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of this Vote, which had either been closured or put down for a later day; and in various ways the Opposition had been precluded from discussing the Vote on Account. They desired to raise several important questions, and this consideration hindered them from giving up the opportunity they now possessed of discussing the Vote.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, that practically the whole time of the House had been given to the Government, and this was the only opportunity they had of discussing these points. Members of the Opposition were continually accused by the Government of raising obstructive questions, but they had no opportunity of raising certain questions except on the Estimates. Last year he had several points he wished to bring up, but he was closured. There was the great question of Education, the question of Mr. Sadler, and others which would take a considerable time on the Vote on Account. This present Vote was one which not only concerned Ireland but England. It was a large Vote to confer certain advantages upon Ireland. No doubt the expenditure was wise and good, but they must remember that there was such a place as England, and England had to find this money. Ireland did not find it. When questions affecting the English agriculturist were raised the Government ignored them. He represented a poor district in England which would have to find its share of this money (a district in which there was much distress and want of employment) and he claimed that he had a right to take the only opportunity he had of raising the questions he desired.
    MR. EDWARD CARSONhoped, as this was a large Vote some fuller explanation would be given than appeared on the Estimates, of the purposes for which it was intended. At present they had only the bald and naked statement that it was "for the relief of distress in Ireland." He would like to know on what principle the districts were selected in which the money was to be applied; what the districts were, and what special case had been made out on behalf of each.

    605
    A gentleman residing in the locality brought to his knowledge the other day that, in Killarney, there was a large amount of distress existing which was almost unparalleled in other parts of Ireland, and he undertook that, on the first opportunity, he would ask for some definite information as to the amount of distress existing there. He was particularly anxious to know what reports were made to the Chief Secretary before £29,500 was paid to the various districts and what was the ratio of distress in those districts. He presumed that they could get that information and a detailed account of all that had been done with the £29,500. For his own part, as an Irish representative, he must say, from all the reports that had reached him, that he was not inclined—if the money was properly spent on permanent works—to think that it was at all ill spent. He did not at all agree with his hon. Friend behind him as to poor districts in England subscribing largely to these funds in Ireland. For his own part he should be glad to see the £29,500 increased to £100,000 or £150,000. The money would be very acceptable in Ireland, having regard to the statements made from the Ministerial Benches during the progress of the Home Rule Bill as to the bad way in which Ireland had been treated in the matter of finance. Passing from that, he came to the £5,500 required for the salaries and expenses of inspector and others specially employed. The expenditure of £5,500 in administering relief works to the extent of £29,500 seemed to be an extravagant proportion. How had the £5,500 been spent? He assumed that it had been spent through the Local Government Board. The Local Government Board in Ireland had already a large and efficient staff. They had several inspectors in every county in Ireland, who were permanent officials getting substantial salaries, and these Inspectorships were much sought for. Was he to be told that when they spent £3,000 or £4,000 extra in a county—and he supposed the £29,000 representd so many thousands per county—it was necessary to add to the large staff of inspectors that existed already; and that before they could dole out this money for relief works it was necessary to appoint additional inspectors to carry out the works? There
    606
    were quite sufficient permanent inspectors in Ireland to spend—not only £29,500, but three times that amount, if necessary; and he hoped before the Vote was passed the Secretary to the Treasury would see that the Committee were entitled to something more than the bald statement that £5,500 was to be paid to persons specially employed. He wanted particularly to know, if permanent inspectors had been employed, whether they had so much work cast upon them that they were unable to carry out this extra expenditure in the various counties. He should certainly be amazed to be told that their work was so great in the various counties where distress prevailed that they were unable to carry out these works. With whom rested the appointment to these inspectorships, which seemed somewhat lucrative, and what were the qualifications of the various gentlemen who were appointed to them? Had they been appointed temporarily, or had the permanent staff been added to! The sub-heads, giving the details of the Estimates, really supplied no information at all. He must not be taken as in the slightest degree opposing the expenditure of £29,500 in Ireland. He was glad it should be spent there. It was little enough, judging by the accounts he received of distress prevailing. With regard to the distress in England, English Members could call attention to that at the proper time, and he submitted that it had nothing to do with this grant for Ireland. To put himself in order he would conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote by £5,500 the salaries and expenses of the inspectors and others.
    MR. T. M. HEALYreminded the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University that these inspectors were nearly all Conservatives and sympathisers with the Tory policy in Ireland. The Irish Local Government Board, in appointing these inspectors, often appointed land-grabbers, and persons of that kind. If the hon. and learned Member were in favour of this expenditure on relief works in Ireland he showed it in a curious way by moving the reduction of the Vote by the amount of salaries of persons whom he might console himself were sympathisers with his Party in Ireland.
    SIR. T. HIBBERTregretted that the Chief Secretary was not present to explain the details of the Vote. But in his right hon. Friend's absence he would do the best he could. He was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend, while expressing sympathy with the object of the Vote should have proposed to reduce it. They all knew that money expended in relief works, whether in Ireland or elsewhere, wanted carefully watching and looking after. This was not more necessary, however, in Ireland than anywhere else. There was always a liability when State money was given for any purpose—not only relief of distress—that some of it might be wasted, and he, himself, thought the appointment of these extra inspectors was very necessary to see that none of the money was wasted. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to suggest that only £29,500 was being spent upon the relief of distress in Ireland. The amount proposed to be granted for the purpose was £80,000. £35,000 was to be taken now, and in the Estimates for next year there would be a further sum of £45,000. This money was required owing to the failure of the potato crop, which was more or less serious, he was informed, in about 50 western unions. Therefore, the whole of this money would have to be spent during the next two or three months. It was desired to give relief to those who had lost their potato crops, and also to provide seed for next year. As to the sum of £5,500, it was to be thus divided:—£4,000 was allotted for the salary and expenses of 15 seed inspectors, who would hold office for a limited period. They were each allowed Three Guineas a day while at work, including hotel expenses; and on Sundays the payment was reduced to One Guinea. Then three temporary inspectors were provided for at the rate of £300 a year each, 15s. a night being allowed for hotel expenses. These gentlemen would not remain for the whole year, but only as long as they were required for the expenditure of the money. Contingencies were reckoned at £300, and thus produced a total of £5,500. With the money which had been already granted, there were now 64 relief works in actual operation in the northwest and west of Ireland, distributed over the unions of County Mayo,
    608
    County Galway, and County Donegal. There were none at present in the Kil-larney district. The number of families benefited by employment on these works was 3,500, representing 17,500 individuals. The earliest works were begun on January 28, in Ballinrobe union, and were followed at intervals by the others. Additional works would be opened in four other unions in Counties Mayo, Donegal, Cavan, and Galway. The works now in progress consisted of the repairing and fencing of public roads, and, in some cases, of the making of new roads. The reports furnished to the Government were those on which the different relief works were based, and showed the unions where the relief was most needed. On the information at present before the Government there seemed to be no sufficient reason for anticipating the occurrence of abnormal distress in Clare, Limerick, Kerry, and West Cork, and at present works there had not been begun. So far, the measures adopted by the Government were intended to afford relief to the class of small farmers who had been deprived of their means of subsistence by the failure of the potato crop. It was not intended that the works should deal with chronic distress. He had shown that the money asked for was likely to be properly spent; and for his own part, he did not in the least object to having a large staff to supervise the expenditure of the money. Where public money was being spent, such supervision was necessary, because the experience of the past showed that money spent in relief works had been wasted right and left. Though £5,500 seemed a large sum for the management of the relief works, he believed that it was a wise expenditure, and that it would lead to economic results.
    Amendment negatived.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, that he had given notice, earlier in the Sitting, that he should move a reduction on this Vote, but he hoped hon. Members for Ireland would not think that in so doing he was showing hostility to the Vote. He was aware that the distress in certain districts of the west of Ireland was chronic, and that as long as Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom, the one country would have to

    609
    help the other. But he represented an agricultural constituency, which was almost as much in need of extraneous help as any part of Ireland, and he wished the Government to remember that there were distressed districts outside of Clare, Kerry, and Donegal. What his constituents resented was not that this money should be granted to Irishmen, but that a distinction should be made by the Government between Ireland and other agricultural districts. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. The Government neglected what opportunities they had of assisting Essex last Session.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going further than the lines which I indicated. The discussion must be confined to this Vote.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, that if the Government would take the condition of his constituents into consideration in the future he would be satisfied.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, that the argument of his hon. Friend applied also to the town population in England. He did not for a moment grudge this relief to Ireland, and he had no doubt that the money would be well spent. But it did strike him that the claims which Ireland had upon the Ipmerial Parliament for relief works was considerably lessened by the fact that the Government now in power was pledged to remove the Parliamentary connection between the two countries. The claim did not stand on so good a foundation as that for relief works in England, Scotland, and Wales. How was it, when there was distress both in Ireland and England, that means were found of relieving that distress in Ireland, and of finding work for the unemployed, while it was constantly declared that such relief would not be afforded to the unemployed in England? The Committee was entitled to some information from the Government as to the precise nature of these works. In this Vote there was no precise information. They were told as to roads; but what were the other works that were indicated? The statement was a great deal too general; and he complained strongly of the way in which these Supplementary Estimates were drawn up. The information given was of the most meagre description. A long list of
    610
    names of places had been read; but as he did not know the places the names did not convey any definite idea to his mind. They had not before them a fairly sufficient statement of what the works were to be. He wanted to know the nature of the works precisely, so that if an emergency of the same kind arose in England or Scotland, we might know what kind of work we should be able to provide for Scotch or English unemployed. Parliament was fairly entitled to know how far experiments in Ireland might be made applicable to the other two countries. He did not expect from the right hon. Gentleman the same information that might be given by the Chief Secretary if he were present. It was candidly admitted that the sum allotted to management was a very large proportion of the whole; and, owing to the technical form in which the Vote was presented, there was no reason why a much larger proportion should not be taken for management without the consent of the Treasury. The rule in these cases was to divide a Vote by sub-heads, and then, with the consent of the Treasury, money could be transferred from one sub-head to another; but in this case there were no sub-heads, and, therefore, double the sum stated could be spent on management, without obtaining sanction from the Treasury.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYthought that this Vote required a good deal of consideration, in as much as so large a proportion of the money was to be taken for salaries £35,000 was asked for in one sum for the relief of distress in Ireland, yet no less than £5,500 was to be expended in salaries. In this case the Treasury had gone out of their way to put the items in one lump sum. Of course they were willing to do anything they could for the relief of the distress in Ireland, but to spend 20 per cent. of the Vote in salaries seemed to the ordinary business man somewhat peculiar. He was a member of the Committee which was sitting to consider the question of the relief of the distress in this country, and one of their chief difficulties was to find some means by which that distress might be relieved; but here, without any Committee or any investigation at all, this very large sum was being voted by the Government for the relief of distress in Ireland. He had always heard that one of the main principles insisted on was

    611
    that Ireland should be governed in exactly the same way as England, but here they had a very large Vote for the relief of distress in Ireland, while, although there was an immense amount of distress in England, no Vote was proposed to be given for its relief. This money was to be supplied by those in England and Scotland who were at the present time in extreme distress owing to the condition of trade, and he considered it a serious question whether these large Votes should not be considered on the principle that the United Kingdom was one country, and whether large measures of relief should be granted to Ireland when they are not granted to England? Those who represented English constituencies had a right to say that, as the money had to be raised by public taxation, the same principle ought to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. He was not himself an advocate of large relief works. He thought that the result of them was extremely doubtful. Anybody who had had to do with charitable work could say that there was nothing in the world more difficult than to apply large sums of money wisely and well. The Committee ought, therefore, to have some definite idea of how this money was going to be expended. Having made charitable relief a study for a long time, he could say that one of the great difficulties in Ireland at the present time was that the people had come to depend on outside assistance on every occasion on which distress arose. The Committee ought, in his opinion, to require from the Government absolute and precise information as to the way in which this money had been expended, and whether it had been expended in such a way as would tend to foster habits of thrift and industry, rather than to make the inhabitants of Ireland more and more dependent on relief.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsuggested that as this money was advanced proportionably by the United Kingdom, some consideration ought to be given to the question of how the finding of the money would affect the industries of the country, which at the present time were so very much depressed. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that part of the money would be devoted to providing seed potatoes. He would put it to the right hon.
    612
    Gentleman whether the distress which existed in agriculture in Ireland was comparable with the distress in Lancashire or in the tin-plate trade in South Wales?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes.
    MR. G. WHTELEYwas surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman, as a Lancashire Member, say that. At any rate, this money had been found proportionally by the United Kingdom, and such a vote had indeed the most peculiar significance at the present time. One had heard recently the vote of money advocated to assist distress in this country. Many had declared that such votes were a financial failure, but now the position was being given away. A precedent was being set up which might have to be followed in this country. This sum of £70,000 was to be given to Ireland, a country very much smaller than Great Britain, and which contributed a comparatively small sum to the national Exchequer. With reference to the amount to be paid for the supervision of the works undertaken, he asked whether in any private business the expenses of the management of an undertaking would be between 16 and 20 per cent. It was monstrous that the cost of the supervision of these works and of the disbursement of this money should be anything like 20 per cent. of the sum of money voted. Over £1,000 a year, besides travelling expenses, was being paid to the inspectors engaged in administering this fund. Their work was not comparable with that of a borough surveyor in a provincial town, who obtained for his services only £600 a year. The Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to consider seriously whether so very costly a staff was necessary for the distribution of this Irish distress grant. It had often been urged by Committees of that House that sums of money ought only to be advanced to relieve distress when they were met by equivalent grants from the local authorities or the Unions of the districts in which the money was to be spent. The voting of this money would benefit local authorities throughout Ireland, for road-making would be undertaken at the expense of the taxpayer instead of at the expense of the local ratepayer. If the local authorities had to contribute themselves a sum equal to that obtained from this grant they would

    613
    be interested in seeing how the work was done, find in all probability the improvements would be affected at a more moderate cost for supervision than was at present contemplated.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, they were all ready to treat Ireland with generosity and kindness. [An Irish MEMBER: "Oh!"] They were not at all disposed to refuse money for the relief of the Irish distress, but they could not shut their eyes to the fact that this was a very large sum that was asked for, and that the cost of distributing it was to be extraordinarily large. He wished to contrast the conduct of the Government in dealing with Ireland with their conduct in dealing with England. There was distress in England, but instead of proposing to give England £70,000, the sum ultimately to be given to the Sister island, the Government only gave us a Select Committee. That was not a just distribution of benefits between the two islands. He wished to know how much of this money was to be expended on road works and how much on other works. Fishing was one of the most important industries in which Irishmen could engage, and in following that industry they had sometimes suffered through the want of adequate harbours—no doubt also sometimes through want of assiduity. Was any portion of the sum to be voted to be applied to the maintenance and repairs of fishing ports? Unless a fisherman could go to a suitable port with his catch, all his labour was thrown away.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTexplained that a great portion of the works undertaken were road works, but there were also cases of work on piers. For example, in the Clifden Union a protection wall was being built against the sea, and a pier was being repaired.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether these were piers or harbours?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTNo; small piers for fishermen.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Landing places?
    Sir J. T. HIBBERT: Yes. A great deal had been said about the form of the Estimate and about the sum which was put down for expenses and the salaries of officers. The Estimate was based upon a Supplementary Estimate laid before the House by the right hon. Member for
    614
    Leeds (Mr. Jackson) when the late Government was in Office. If the Estimate was good in those days it ought to be good in these, although he admitted that they ought to improve upon the methods of the late Government. He would therefore take care that there should be no risk of further increased amounts being put down for salaries or for the payment of additional inspectors without the authority of the Treasury. He would do his best to protect the interests of the taxpayers. Generally, he might say that the question whether it was desirable to spend money on relief works in England and Scotland was not now before the Committee; the question was as to spending money for relief works in Ireland. These works were pressing, urgent, and necessary. Large masses of people, through the unfortunate weather of last year, had lost the whole of their potato crop, and had nothing to depend upon, and they must either starve or get relief from the State. Of course they might go to the workhouse, where they would be provided for, but he thought all parties desired to treat Ireland in a sympathetic way, whether they had Home Rule or not. And he should say that those who opposed Rome Rule ought to be the first not only in voting this money but even in giving a larger grant than was proposed by the present Government.
    MR. J. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINconcurred entirely with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman as to the duty of Unionists, in connection with Votes of this kind, to deal not only justly but even generously with any demands that were made upon Parliament from Ireland. But the position of English Members was not made easier for them by the action of the Government or even of hon. Members from Ireland, for when the hon. Member for King's Lynn began his speech with a remark in a similar sense, it called forth no recognition from Irish Members of the spirit in which it was made, but a jibe and a jeer from one of their number.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Oh, nobody minds him!
    MR. J. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwent on to observe that English and Scottish Members, who were conscious there was much and bitter

    615
    distress among their own constituents, had a hard ease to answer when they were asked to vote public money, to which their constituents had to contribute, for the relief of distress in Ireland, whilst at the same time it was declared that this House could and would do nothing for the relief of distress in this country. The only protest made against the Vote had come—not from a Unionist, but from a supporter of the Government. For the Government's own justification, as well as for that of hon. Members, he wanted to know what was the distinction they drew between distress in England and distress in Ireland. Why was there to be £70,000 voted for Irish distress whilst no Englishman need apply for any? The Government said these people for whom this money was to be voted had exhausted their supplies, and were in a state of destitution. Why, in his own constituency he knew of people who had never been fortunate enough to have any supplies against bad times, who were absolutely dependent from week to week on what work they could get, and who, owing to the frost, had been out of work and in a state of destitution for weeks past. He asked for information to assist him to explain to these men, when he met them again, why this exception was made in favour of Ireland.
    SIR J. LENGsaid, one would suppose, to hear the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down and others, that the House of Commons was about to embark upon a new departure in dealing with distress in Ireland. It seemed a little inconsistent, and not a little strange, that they would not give to Ireland the management of her own finance and would not intrust Irishmen with the power to deal with their own distress. In this matter the Government was only doing what previous Governments had done and what hon. Gentlemen in former years had supported. Legislation for Ireland would continue to be exceptional, whatever Government might be in power, until they confided to Irishmen themselves the control of their own government, and the power to meet such claims as were now made upon the Imperial Parliament.
    MR. T. SEXTONdeclared that the question of the hon. Member for East Worcestershire was so much in
    616
    the nature of a challenge that it was hard for Irishmen to sit silent. The hon. Member, who was but a young Member of the House, and probably not, a very experienced student of politics, seemed to consider there was a prima facie case for considering Great Britain and Ireland on a common level, in regard to their claims for the mitigation of distress, by subvention from the public purse. He wished to tell the hon. Member with all respect that the reason why Ireland stood in a different position was because Ireland, which, when she was left to her own guidance, was a tolerably prosperous country, was plundered by England, which took upon itself the management of Ireland's affairs and the expenditure of her money. And he wished to remind the House that the ordinary public revenue of Ireland before the Union was 5s.; now it was 34s. The result of the Union had been to increase fourfold the burden upon Ireland. Taxation, Imperial and local, exhausted the resources of Ireland, left the people no means of accumulation and no means of dealing with her own distress; and it was because of the system which had been imposed on Ireland, against the will of her people, that Irishmen were obliged to come here, and, in the guise of beggars, ask for a miserable dole out of their own money for the relief of their own distress.
    Vote agreed to.
    On the Vote for £10 for Salaries and Expenses in connection with the County Courts,
    MR. R. W. HANBURYexpressed his satisfaction at seeing, by the mere fact that a Supplemental Estimate was required, that these Courts were being used more and more every year. He would urge upon the Government the desirability of moderately increasing the jurisdiction of such Courts. He did not think that at the present moment the number of persons who had the opportunity of obtaining redress in them was anything like as large as it ought to be, and if their jurisdiction was extended cases could be then tried of much greater importance, as far as the money value was concerned, than it was possible to try in the County Courts now. He

    617
    hoped it was the intention of the Government to add to the efficiency of these very valuable Courts, which were much resorted to by smaller suitors, and whilst increasing the jurisdiction enjoyed by the County Court, Judges, their Courts might be made the stepping-stones to their filling higher places on the Judicial Bench.
    MR. CYRIL DODDon a point of Order, desired to know if it was competent for the hon. Member to raise the question of the whole policy of the County Courts on a Supplementary Vote for £10? It was an important question, and one which, he agreed, ought to be raised at whatever was the proper time for raising it.
    MR. HANBURY: May I ask whether it is not the fact that not only on the Supplemental Vote, but on the main Vote on the Estimates, we only vote a small surplus amount like this? I contend, therefore, that if we cannot discuss this on a supplemental we cannot discuss it on the main Vote.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: May I also point out that, although we are only voting £10, yet the increase of expenditure during the year has been no less than £20,000?
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. H. J. ROBY): I think on a Supplemental Vote merely for paying a small amount, in excess of the amount, already provided, that this matter ought not to be raised. The general question should be raised on the main, and not on supplemental Estimates.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYdesired to raise the point as to whether the charges in these Courts were not very excessive. The Vote was for £10 to meet an expenditure of £20,010, and they had £20,000 received as fees. The whole Estimate for the year was £444,030, and no less than £430,000, or nearly half a million of money were received, in fees. That being so, were not the real costs to those who had to use the County Courts very excessive as compared with the costs incurred by litigants in the other Courts? Small litigants had frequently complained to him that the expenses of the County Courts were very large in proportion to the money services rendered. A great many of the plaints in County
    618
    Courts were for small debts, and it was worthy the consideration of the Committee whether they were justified in making these small litigants pay practically the whole cost of the law charges which had to be defrayed in carrying on these Courts. He would ask whether some plan could not be adopted by which the excessive number of little charges would be relieved, so that the costs to smaller litigants might be lessened?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. Member for Preston asked whether increased jurisdiction should not be conferred on the County Courts. He did not say that was not a question to be discussed and considered in that House, but it was, he thought, too large a question to raise on a Supplemental Estimate for such a small sum. With regard to the complaint by the hon. Member for Islington, he quite agreed that a large amount was received as fees for suitors in the County Courts, but great advantage and economy had been derived by small suitors from the establishment of the County Court system. Previously they were obliged to pay much greater expenses in their suits than was the case now; and though he would not say there were not cases amongst small suitors in regard to fees which were not worthy of consideration, still this was a matter for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor rather than of the Treasury. It was a legal, involving a financial, point. Without saying it was not a matter which should not be considered, he did not think that at the present time any very great grievance existed with respect to the amount of fees, because for 1894 there was an increase of 17,000 plaints as compared with 1893. That did not look as if the fees prevented people having recourse to the County Courts. This large increase might have occurred to a great extent owing to the depressed state of agriculture and trade all over the country. In depressed times people were more pressed for money, and the result was that more County Court suits were instituted for enforcing the payment of outstanding debts. There was no doubt the people liked the County Court system, and they took advantage of it to a very large extent.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYwas much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for

    619
    his explanation. He had told them that it was owing to the general depression that there had been so many more suits. Hut inasmuch as the expenses were paid by these people upon the one side or the other, one side must lose and pay them, so that it really meant that very small suitors were paying nearly £500,000 a year for the collection of small debts. That raised the question whether, in regard to the smaller plaints especially, some relaxation might not be made in the matter of fees, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman rather agreed with him upon the subject.
    MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether it was not time to put a stop to this system of paying Officers by fees, and pay them by salary instead?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTreplied that, as far as was possible, the Officers of those Courts had been placed on salaries. But it was not found possible to do so in all cases, and that was why the fee system was, to some extent, still retained.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that in the City of London, where the Municipality managed the Court, and did not pay its Officers by fees, there was a large profit out of the Court, whereas there was a loss on all the Courts controlled by the Crown. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to place all those Courts under the charge of the Municipalities?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he thought not.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, that, undoubtedly, the salary system was much the better. He would like to know whether the fee system prevailed to any considerable extent, and why it was thought necessary to continue it?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTreplied, that the matter was entirely under the control of the Lord Chancellor, and not under the control of the Treasury. He had no objection to drawing the attention of the Lord Chancellor to what had been said on the subject.
    Vote agreed to.

    SCOTCH LAW CHARGES.
    On the Vote for a supplementary sum of £5,125 for Law Charges and Courts of Law in Scotland,
    SiR F. S. POWELLsaid, a Supplementary Estimate was a disagreeable necessity, and all Governments desired to avoid it as much as possible. But he noticed that there was an increase in the remuneration of the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General, and the Clerk to the Solicitor General; and he desired to know what was the reason that this increase was not foreseen during last Session, and included in the ordinary Estimate?
    MR. W. BROMLEY-DAVENPORTalso asked for an explanation of one of the items of the Vote—for a sum of £3,000, which, it was said, was required owing to a change in the system of accounting?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Wigan, I have to state that it has been, for a long time, felt that the remuneration of the Law Officers of Scotland has been entirely inadequate. It was strongly pressed upon me, naturally by the late Law Officers more than by the present Law Officers, that the inequality of the remuneration of gentlemen who had given up their private practice, and had necessarily to reside in London, as compared with the remuneration of the Irish Law Officers, should be redressed. The matter was brought to my consideration towards the end of last Session, when I felt that the salaries of the Law Officers of Scotland should be placed on their present footing, and that is why a Supplementary Estimate is necessary.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he was not disposed to quarrel with the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived. Indeed, he thought the inequality should have been long since redressed. Until recently the Lord Advocate was the sole Representative of Scotland in the House; but, having been relegated to a secondary position in the House, he thought the Lord Advocate should be allowed to retain his position at the Scottish Bar.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES,referring to the extra sum of £3,000 rendered necessary in the office of the Procurator Fiscal, owing to a change in the system of accounting, said, he noticed that it was for one quarter of the year the sum was claimed. But he found, on referring to another part of the Paper, that the

    621
    original Estimate was £18,500 for the whole year, and he was unable to see how anyone could have arrived at £3,000 as the quarter of that amount. It seemed to him that £4,625 should be the sum.
    SIR J. T. HTBBERTsaid, the change in the accounting was made on the suggestion of the Auditor General, who wished to bring all the accounts in question within the year. It appeared that those accounts were always a quarter in arrear, and, therefore, in order to bring them within the year, it was necessary to provide for five quarters' payments in the current financial year in which the change had been introduced.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: My point is not that the sum represents five quarters, but that it is considerably less than a quarter.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: That is a matter of accounting.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: It seems to be the same as Mr. Lowe's Income Tax, who got five quarters out of the year.
    SIR F. S. POWELLasked whether the regulations affecting the Scotch Law Officers allowed them to take private practice?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan and Kinross): They are entitled to take such private business as they can attend to without in any way interfering with the performance of their public duties, as the Irish Law Officers are.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not object to the increase in the remuneration of the Scotch Law Officers, as he had no doubt they were better men than the English Law Officers. But, looking at the matter from an economical point of view, he should rather have seen the salaries of the English and the Irish Law Officers reduced to the scale of the Scotch Law Officers.
    SIR F. S. POWELLasked whether "the duties to the public" referred to by the Lord Advocate were supposed to be discharged in London or in Edinburgh?
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. O. TREVELYAN,)said, it had been the custom in past years for the Scotch Law Officers to take what private practice they thought it right to take. He certainly
    622
    did not make any criticism in regard to any of the Scotch Law Officers of the past; but he thought it right to say what his right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate could not say, perhaps, that when his right hon. Friend came into Office, on the very meagre salary which he received, he gave up a splendid practice in Scotland, to spend day after day, week after week, month after month, at the Scotch Office, attending to his business as closely as in the days when the Lord Advocate was the sole administrator of Scotch affairs. He was quite certain that his hon. and learned Friend would not, in accordance with the Treasury Minute, go to Scotland during the Session to take private business. Any business which, during the Recess, fell to the lot of the Scottish Law Officers they would be allowed to take. But they might be quite sure that under the new dispensation the Lord Advocate would give the whole of his time to Parliamentary work. With regard to the Solicitor General, the Treasury Minute had been drawn up with a little greater latitude for obvious reasons, as he had to attend to the Government law business in Edinburgh, for which there were no fees whatever. The Solicitor General was frequently obliged, therefore, to go up to Edinburgh. He hoped this explanation would be satisfactory.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, that on some points the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were satisfactory. In former days, when the Lord Advocate was the only representative, so far as the House was concerned, of the Scotch Executive, his continuous attendance in Parliament was a necessity, in order that questions might be addressed to him, but he failed entirely to see why the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland should, under the present arrangements, need the attendance of the Law Officers on either side of him. He would ask if it was likely that in future the Government would get the best members of the Scotch Bar to devote themselves to the public service when they were practically precluded from following up their private practice. He spoke as a layman in regard to the matter, but he did not think it likely that the best interests of the public service would be secured by such an arrangement. As he understood it,

    623
    one of the Law Officers had to go backwards and forwards to Edinburgh during the Session, not to keep himself in touch with the Scotch Bar, nor with his ordinary practice, but for Government business, for which he received nothing at all. That was to say, that for his fixed salary he had to do whatever he was told, either to remain in London, or go back to Scotland, as circumstances might dictate. That seemed to him to be a very one-sided arrangement. It might answer on the present occasion, but he did not think it was an arrangement likely to secure the best legal talent in the future. He could not subscribe to the doctrine that the Secretary for Scotland laid down, that he ought to have two Law Officers in attendance upon him. [Several hon MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If the hon. Member for Somersetshire had any articulate observation to make, no doubt the House would be glad to receive it.
    MR. T. C. T. WARNERsaid, he had made no observation, articulate or inarticulate, since he came into the House.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, that as to the first category named by the hon. Member, he could confirm his statement from his own knowledge; as to the latter, he readily accepted his assurance, but when he was interrupted he only wished to point out that if an arrangement of this kind had been assented to by the Committee generally, it might have been considered as having received the assent of the House.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland came as a surprise to many Members on that side of the House. When they saw this increased vote on the Paper for the Scottish Law Officers they naturally assumed that it was conceded to them on the same terms on which an increased salary had been also conceded to the English Law Officers—namely, that they should not in future privately practice. This was not merely a question as to their Parliamentary work, or their not practising during the Session; it was a question of principle, and he thought the same principle ought to apply in both cases. It was an unsound principle to pay certain Officers of the Crown high salaries, and at the same time allow them to carry on their private
    624
    professional business. They had carried their protest in the case of England to a successful issue, and he hoped any future Government would adhere to it. But the same rule ought to be applied to the Scottish Law Officers, and he would therefore move to reduce the Vote by £100.
    MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Preston that it was a sound principle to lay down, that the Law Officers of the Crown ought not to carry on private practice while in Office. But if they insisted on this condition being observed, they should, in fairness, make the position of Law Officer sufficiently remunerative as not only to get the best talent, but to induce the leaders of the Bar to abandon private practice on entering the service of the Crown. The condition was made in the case of the English Law Officers—["No, no!"]—except in relation to such exceptional cases as those in which they held briefs at the time of their appointment. Practically, therefore, they abandoned private practice while in Office, and when the condition was made, their salaries were increased considerably. What was the case with regard to Scotland? The salaries of the Scotch Law Officers were miserably low compared with those of the English Law Officers—in one case £2,000 a year as compared with £9,000 a year a least. The predecessor of the hon. and learned Member who now occupied the Office of Solicitor General for Scotland, received the miserable salary of £900 a year, and the holding of the Office involved so great a sacrifice to him that he felt bound to give it up. He would give one fact by way of illustration. In the recent well-known case of Monson, who was charged with murder, the Solicitor General for Scotland prosecuted for the Government. Now, it was a fact that the gentleman who defended Monson got more on his brief for that trial, which lasted a week, than the Solicitor General would get as a Law Officer for the whole year. Was he to understand that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House would be prepared to make it worth the while of the Law Officers to give up private practice? [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear."] Then, if that were so, he only hoped the Government would note this expression

    625
    of opinion by the Committee, and consider the matter in framing the next Estimates. It was well worth consideration whether an arrangement could not be carried out to meet the case which would be satisfactory to all parts of the House.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (Wigton)hoped that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member for Preston would not press his Amendment. Surely the hon. Member did not desire to put himself in an ungenerous position with regard to the Scottish Bar. It might be urged that the salaries of the Law Officers of Scotland should be much less than those of England because Scotland was much smaller than England, but surely they should be paid at the same rate. The present salaries of the Scotch Law Officers were generally admitted to be on an extremely moderate scale, and, for his own part, he would much rather further increase than reduce them. He was sure the Secretary for Scotland must have carried with him the sense of the Committee in the most lucid explanation he had given with reference to the position of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland, and he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    SIR. J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. Member for Preston had said that those Estimates had taken him by surprise. He could only state that the Minute dealing with this matter was laid on the Table at the end of last Session.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, he had moved the reduction of the Vote in order to assert a principle, and with a view to getting, if possible, the salaries of the Law Officers of England, Ireland and Scotland placed on a sound and permanent basis. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy that if the Law Officers of Scotland were to be denied the right to private practice while in Office, their salaries should be increased in fair proportion. Their present salaries, enlarged as they were, were not by any means adequate if they were to be denied the right to take private practice. He could not allow, however, that the Law Officers of Scotland should be paid at the same rate as the Law Officers of England. [An hon. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Scotch talent
    626
    was, no doubt, as great as English talent, but the Scotch Law Officers had not as many opportunities of exercising their legal talent as the English Law Officers had. No one could contend that private practice was as valuable in Scotland as in England, and therefore the salaries of the Law Officers should not be so high in Scotland as in England. But a proportionate salary ought to be agreed upon His object was to place the salaries of the Law Officers on a permanent basis.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he had heard the reply of the Government in great surprise, because he naturally thought this increase of salary was to be accompanied by the same conditions that attached in the case of England. He believed that private practice interfered with the discharge of public duties.
    SIR E. CLARKE: No, it does not.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, that was his opinion.
    MR. M. H. SHAW-STEWARThoped the hon. Member for Preston would not press his Amendment to a Division. If he did he would have all the Scotch Members on both sides against him. It might be true that the Law Officers in Scotland had less practice than the Law Officers in England, but the Solicitor General for Scotland was very often a young rising lawyer, and a prospective Lord Advocate, and it was in the interests of the Scotch Law business that the Solicitor General, whose presence was not always required in the House, should keep in touch, by private practice, with the Courts in Edinburgh.
    MR. CYRIL DODDalso hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division. He thought they were all agreed that the Law Officers in England should not take private practice, and that if the Scotch Law Officers were as amply remunerated as the Law Officers in England they should be placed under the same restriction. But they were not so well paid, and they were obliged to be in England during the Sitting of Parliament, and consequently would not take, private practice in Scotland. The private practice they had hitherto taken had generally been of a kind which did not clash with their public duties—private practice in the House of Lords. While in favour of the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Preston, he suggested that this was

    627
    not a favourable opportunity of raising the question.
    SIR J. JOICEYsaid, he had some hesitation in intervening in the Debate, because this was peculiarly a Scotch question. He thought the Scotch Law Officers were paid very much less than the English Law Officers in proportion to the duties they performed. It was quite impossible to expect to get members of the Bar to give the best advice to the Government unless the Government was prepared to pay for it. When they considered the great disadvantages under which the Law Officers would be placed if they were prevented from taking private practice he thought it was absolutely necessary if they were to get the best talent to advise the Government that they must pay, at all events, a fair and reasonable equivalent. He had always been astonished that the Scotch Law Officers should be content to go on with the miserable pittance, they had received up to the present time for the duties that they had to perform. The only reason that he could find why these gentlemen had been content to accept the small salary they had hitherto received was that they believed that the position they occupied was a stepping-stone to something better. Take the late Solicitor General for Scotland, who had been receiving something like £900 a year for the last 13 years. He had been deprived to a large extent, owing to particular circumstances, of promotion, and no one would persuade him (Sir James Joicey) that the £900 a year he had received was a fit and proper compensation for what that gentlemen had sacrificed. He was no great friend of Scotchmen, particularly after the Question that was asked to-day with regard to Mining Inspectors in Scotland. The Home Secretary was asked whether he would insist upon the appointment of more Mining Inspectors for Scotland, and that Scotchmen alone should fill these positions.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Question before the Committee.
    SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid, he was giving this as an illustration, and he thought it was a fair illustration of the question they had to deal with. He was no friend of Scotchmen in this matter, but he must say that the Law Officers
    628
    for Scotland had not been fairly treated. He hoped the Government would reconsider this question. He believed that it was often a very great disadvantage to the Government that the Law Officers should be allowed to take private practice. But, if private practice was prohibited, he trusted that the Government would compensate the Law Officers in such a way that they would, at all events, have to submit to no real financial sacrifice. He believed that in giving a good salary to the Law Officers they would get the best men to advise the Government.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, that, rightly or wrongly, pluralism was becoming very unpopular with public bodies throughout the country, and he trusted that the hon. Member for Preston would press his Amendment to a Division unless the Government gave a practical pledge that they would take this matter into their consideration before the next Estimates were presented. The Government had already affirmed the principle of "One man one job." It was a very good principle, not only for the employer, but for those barristers who were now unable to get briefs, simply because the star artistes at the Bar, especially at the Parliamentary Bar, had five or six jobs in one afternoon, with the result that they were unable to fulfil any one of them. He trusted they would see their way to follow the example of what had been done in the case of the English Law Officers—namely, that no private practice should prevail. They had no right to have Law Officers to look after the business of the country, when perhaps there might be some fat briefs to pay them better, and then of course there would be a deputy to do the Government business. While some 80 per cent. of barristers were unemployed he did not think they should assent to dual salaries or incomes, and he should vote for the Amendment unless the Government gave a pledge to rearrange this matter in next year's Estimates.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, there was evidently a feeling in the Committee that the principle which had been applied to the English Law Officers should be applied to those of Scotland, and it was a curious thing that the only way in which they could assent to an increase in the

    629
    salaries was to vote for the reduction of the Vote. That was a rather curious anomaly, and he hoped the Government would save them from it. An hon. Member had said that they could not expect distinguished lawyers to make sacrifices in undertaking Government work, but, as a matter of fact, they knew of several cases where distinguished lawyers had accepted Judgeships at considerable pecuniary loss. He should like, however, to see the same principle applied to the Law Officers in both countries, and hoped the Government would make some such declaration in the matter as would save the Committee going to a Division.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, a statement made by the hon. Member for Battersea obliged him to take part in the discussion, which otherwise he had not intended doing. That hon. Member had suggested that the Law Officers had, by the attraction of fat briefs in private practice, neglected the interests of the public, and the due performance of public work. He wished to say at once, both on his own behalf and on that of the right hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight—with whom he had served in the law offices of the Crown for a longer period than any other Law Officers for the last 100 years—that such an accusation, if applied to them, was absolutely without foundation.
    MR. J. BURNS: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that the right hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, whilst a Law Officer of the Crown, took up a brief for The Times? Did he do his best for the public then?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEsaid, that with both his right hon. Friend and himself it was an unbroken rule during their term of Office that public work should come first, and no public work was ever neglected for the sake of private practice. If the attraction of private work had ever disturbed him in the course of public duty, he should have dismissed it unhesitatingly, and have devoted himself to that work for which the country paid him. But such a thing never occurred, and on no occasion during the history of those six years could it be said that either in opinions given to the Government on important questions which arose for the Law Officers to deal with, or in the matter of the representation of the
    630
    Government in trials in Court, had there been any failing whatever on the part of his colleague or himself in their duty to the Government. To his mind, the remark of the hon. Member for Batter sea was a personal imputation.
    THE CHAIRMANthought the hon. and learned Member need not assume that imputations had been made; and, although he did not wish to interrupt him, was obliged to point out that he must confine himself to the question before the Committee.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKEthought that, under the circumstances, he might claim the indulgence of the Committee. With regard to the Law Officers for Scotland, he thought they were inadequately paid; but there was no occasion for them to surrender their private practice. They were compelled to be in London for the purpose of discharging their Parliamentary duties, and most of the work which came to them while Parliament was sitting was in connection with cases heard in the House of Lords, where their appearance involved no interference with the proper discharge of their public duties. He had not intended to take part in the discussion, but it was impossible for him to remain silent while imputations had been cast upon the conduct of his right hon. and learned Friend and that of himself during their term of Office.
    MR. H. T. ANSTRUTHERsupported the appeal not to press this question to a Division. It appeared to him that the Motion of the hon. Member opposite was made on somewhat inconsistent grounds, because the increase of the salaries was made and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend on the express understanding, under the Treasury Minute of last August, that they should not engage in private practice if it prejudiced the public service. He should support the Vote as it stood, and he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, his one object in moving a reduction was what happened as to the practice of allowing Law Officers of the Crown not only to draw large salaries, but to engage in private practice. If the House abolished the private practice of the Law Officers, then their salaries should be increased.

    631
    He fully saw the difficulty there was in raising the question by moving a reduction. In spite of the support, then, that he had got, he thought he might prejudice the case by going to a Division. He should like to have some promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the matter would be considered by the Government, and that the same conditions would be enforced as to the Law Officers of Scotland and Ireland which were enforced as to the Law Officers of England. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them some hope, at any rate, that this sound principle would be applied all round.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn, and Vote agreed to.
    The following Votes were also agreed to:—A sum of£5,125 for Law Charges and Courts of Law in Scotland; £500 for the Register House, Edinburgh.
    On the latter Vote,
    MR. J. H. DALZIELhoped that clerks from the outside would be employed rather than overwork the staff.
    SIR G. O. TREVELYANsaid, sometimes the clerks were harder worked than at other times, but he should see that there was no abuse.

    PUBLIC EDUCATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
    On the Vote for£136,199 for Public Education in England and Wales,
    MR. CYRIL DODDsaid, he desired to move a reduction of this Vote, in order to call attention to what was, he thought, a real grievance. They would see that the first item of this Vote was for an additional sum in respect of the annual grant for the day scholars. The annual grant was nearly 4 millions, so that the total amount of this grant was very large indeed. Now this grant was paid to the voluntary as well as to the Board Schools. In many places there were only voluntary schools, and many of these, to the credit of the Church of England be it said, were voluntary schools of the Church of England. Nonconformist children had to attend these voluntary schools, but they were protected by the Education Act of 1870.
    632
    But when any of these children from time to time desired to become pupil teachers, there was no protection in the shape of a conscience clause, and they were obliged to conform. They were selected by the managers, and in many instances a candidate was not chosen if he did not conform. The practical result was that if they wanted to become pupil teachers they must, at least for the time, give up their Nonconformity. This, it had been represented to him by many Nonconformists, was a real grievance. It was represented to him that this grievance had a bad effect on the younger people whom it concerned. He was told that in order to become pupil teachers some Nonconformist children affected to give up their Nonconformity and affected to conform to the Church of England, though in many instances he was told that this was not by any means a real conformity. But whether it was so or not he thought the Committee would agree that the State, which was giving to the Voluntary Schools those large grants for day scholars, should see that there was no injustice inflicted on any of the children of the State, whether Church of England or Nonconformist. He concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote by£189, in order to call attention to the reality of this grievance.
    MR. ALBERT SPICER, said, on behalf of his fellow Nonconformists throughout the country, this was really a larger question than he thought his hon. Friend had realised. There were 10,000 parishes in the country where only Voluntary Schools existed, and where therefore it was practically said to every Nonconformist at the present time, "you are debarred from looking to education as one of the means of earning your livelihood." He thought that this was a great injustice to the Nonconformists of the country. It was besides inimical to the best interests of education. There were in a large proportion of those 10,000 parishes young men and women growing up who would be glad to serve the Voluntary Schools loyally under a Conscience Clause in connection with the education of those schools. There were many young persons of good education who would be glad to have the opportunity of employment in their own districts. Having served in a district of

    633
    Essex for 12 years on a School Board, where they had taken over in a perfectly friendly way, several Voluntary Schools, he knew some of the difficulties which Voluntary Schools suffered in obtaining the services in many country districts of sufficient teaching power, If they could allow the Nonconformists to have a Conscience Clause with regard to teaching, not only would a great injustice be removed but it would be a distinct benefit to the educational system of the country.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that in one respect he agreed with the hon. Member. No doubt there was some difficulty on the part of the Voluntary Schools of the country obtaining sufficient teaching power; but this defect was due rather to the want of money, which was so lavishly squandered on the Board Schools, and with which the Voluntary Schools competed. He acknowledged, however, that the Vice President had done them a good turn in the Code with regard to tests. But he contended that the remedy was not to be sought in the direction which the hon. Member had indicated. The hon. Member pleaded that the Nonconformist children were not protected by a Conscience Clause. The great mass of the children in country Voluntary Schools, however, were Church of England children. ["No, no."] He would leave Wales aside, but, taking England as a whole, he asserted that the vast mass of the children attending country Voluntary Schools belonged to the Church of England. The schools existed for the children, not for the teachers. The teachers were there to bring up the children, the most important part of whose education, as every one admitted, was the religious education. This being so, it naturally followed that the teaching staff should belong to the same denomination as the children who were taught; and that was the system on which they had hitherto proceeded in their schools. He desired at the same time to extend the same measure
    634
    of justice to the schools of every other denomination. Take the Roman Catholics, for example. Did anyone believe that any hon. Member from Ireland would allow the Roman Catholic children to be taught in the Irish schools by anyone but Roman Catholic teachers? No; they would resent it in the highest degree. What, therefore, was true of the Roman Catholic Church was also true, though not to the same extent, of the Church of England schools. So long as Church of England schools taught Church of England children, so long ought the teachers to belong to the same faith. If there was any large portion of Nonconformist children in those districts by all means let them have schools of their own. Indeed, he would be prepared to advocate an advance of public money being granted in order to assist the Nonconformists to build their own schools.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he had only to deal with the law as it stood—which was that if in any given school district, where there was a single, or a couple of schools belonging to the same denomination which were sufficient for the wants of the district, practically there could be no other schools. He reminded the hon. Member for Monmouth that the whole of the arrangements of the Education Department were based on the condition that the managers, whether of Voluntary or Board Schools had still power to appoint teachers. It would be almost impossible to carry on our educational system if that were altered, because it would it would involve the Education Department stepping in and saying that a certain class of teachers should be forced on the managers. Although he fully sympathised with the difficulty, everyone would regret that any promising boy or girl who wanted to enter the teaching profession should be prevented from doing so, and staying at home, which was what they desired in the earlier stages. Still he was afraid the difficulty was almost inevitable however regrettable under the present law and arrangements in regard to the schools.
    MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid, he did not know where the noble Lord obtained the statistics on which he based the statement that the vast majority of the children attending the schools belonged to the Church of England. He forgot that the schools existed in 10,000 parishes where there were no other schools and where Nonconformist children had to attend. It did not follow that the vast majority of the children belonged to the Church of England and not to the Nonconformist bodies. But he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the extremely sectarian view which the noble Lord took of the functions of the Voluntary Schools. They had been led to suppose that they existed for the benefit of the villages in which they were provided. Instead of that it was now asserted that they had been erected simply for the benefit of the Church of England.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I expressly said these schools did not exist for the Church of England, but for the children belonging to them.
    MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: But it had always been supposed that these schools existed for the benefit of all the children of the village. If not, how was it they had to deal with the fact that there were no other schools in the village? The root of the evil lay in the fact that the Education Department would not recognise the existence of any other school in a parish in which there was a denominational school. The object of the hon. Member for Maldon Division could not be secured until this monopoly for the benefit of the Church of England had been, abolished, and the right of all classes in the villages was recognised to have schools provided for them by the State in which their conscientious convictions would be respected.
    MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, that if he understood the hon. Member correctly he said that if Nonconformists desired to build Voluntary Schools where Nonconformist
    636
    children were to be taught they would be unable to get a site, would the Minister for Education tell the Committee whether this was so? He himself believed it was the direct reverse of the case. He did not know why the hon. Member for Mansfield should attack the sectarian views of his noble Friend. He put forward the natural and common sense view that the schools existed not for the benefit of the teachers but of the children. It was a most ludicrous idea that these schools should be looked upon as primarily for the purpose of raising teachers. They were primarily for the teaching of children. He should like to have an answer from the Minister for Education as to whether the statement of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division was correct—that Nonconformists, if they desired to build a voluntary school in a parish, could not obtain the same facilities from the Department as could the Church of England.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, that that the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division had argued that the real root of the grievance was that in districts where there were voluntary schools the Department would not recognise additional school accommodation. The fact was the other way about. All Governments, in administering the Education Act—and particularly Sections 18 and 98—interpreted it to mean that in a School Board area no additional accommodation could be recognised, though it were provided by a voluntary school, unless it were sanctioned by the School Board. Therefore, the grievance was in the other direction to that asserted by the hon. Member.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, that he had found the Article in the Code which bore on the question. It stated that in a district not under the School Board a school was not deemed to be unnecessary if, during the twelve months preceding the date of its application for an annual grant, it could show an average attendance of not less than

    637
    30 scholars. The only exception was with respect to a special grant. Therefore, in a voluntary school district any denomination could set up a school if they could get 30 scholars.
    MR. CYRIL DODDsaid, he understood that, as the law stood, the managers had the absolute right to appoint the teachers. It was obvious, therefore, that on his present motion he could effect no useful purpose, and he begged leave to withdraw it.
    SIR W. HART DYKEsaid, that lie was rather astonished at the attack which the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division had made on his noble Friend, Viscount Cranborne. The hon. Member seemed to have sadly forgotten the whole history of this great educational question. When he complained of the existing system, the hon. Member forgot that the whole elementary education of this country from 1808 to 1870 was carried on solely and entirely by those who introduced the voluntary system at immense cost and sacrifice. In this, the eleventh hour of the educational system, the hon. Member made a violent attack on the noble Lord because he had stated his view of the present state of affairs As to the grievance in regard to pupil teachers, many would be glad to find some solution to the difficulty. If there were a good pupil teacher in any village or town it was a great pity that by a technical objection his services were rendered unavailable. But it was not for the Department to interfere, and if it were to begin taking such action in the appointment of teachers, &c., the gravest difficulties would arise. Having said so much, however, he must add that he regretted the tone of the hon. Member's speech. He forgot the sacrifices which had been made in the past—sacrifices of money, lands, and church buildings—to keep up the voluntary schools; and he forgot that the change, made by Mr. Forster s Act of 1870 was to supplement voluntary effort by the Board schools.
    638
    With regard to these educational questions, whatever difficulties might arise, he hoped that for the future they would he discussed in the House without Party heat and feeling.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER MR. H. S. FOSTER moved a reduction of the vote by£500. He wished to enter a protest against the system of pressure which had been adopted by the Department under the administration of the present Vice-President towards the largest and most important branch of elementary education—that which was in the hands of the voluntary schools.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the annual grants for the day schools and day scholars. The general policy and administration of the Department will not come under the Vote.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid that the Education Vote was generally put off till the end of the Session, and passed absolutely sub silentio. As he understood that he was precluded from discussing the general policy of the Department, he would content himself by saying that on every occasion that the forms of the House would allow he and his friends intended to raise these questions. There had been the deepest interest excited by this particular Vote, which was the largest in the Supplementary Estimates. An original Estimate of "£5,900,000 had been exceeded by£136,000, and he should like to know what proportions of the excess were on account of payments to Voluntary Schools and Board Schools respectively, and how far the excess in the expenditure over the Estimates was on account of grants due to schools withheld from them, kept out of the original Estimate, and which it had not been possible any longer to withhold. That some of the excess had arisen under this head he was certain; and he would adduce facts

    639
    which would show it. According to a statement published in The Times, the federation of Voluntary Schools for Northumberland had recovered£900 which had been improperly withheld from 28 schools in 1894; and he should be glad to have official information of the circumstances under which it had been possible to recover£900 that had been improperly withheld.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was going into questions that were beyond the Vote. It was concerned with the annual grant for the average attendance and the fee grant for day scholars.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid the action he was speaking of, was that grants earned had been withheld and subsequently paid. He had no doubt that the Supplementary Estimate was in no small measure due to the withholding of grants which had been ultimately paid through the increased activity of the supporters of Voluntary Schools. By exerting pressure in and out of Parliament, they had recovered grants which had been wrongly withheld. Two or three cases had occurred in the Lowestoft Division. [Cries of "Order."]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid the policy and action of the Administration were not under discussion.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid he felt the great difficulty of discussing a single topic without dealing in some measure with the policy involved in particular acts. He was speaking of the money grants to these schools. They were asked to vote a further£136,000, spent by the Department in grants to schools. [Cries of "Order."]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid the Supplementary Estimate was due to an under estimate of average attendance and of the rate of grant payable thereon.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid he was discussing the rate of grant and that was just where he submitted he was in order. The grant earned by sume schools had been improperly withhold from them.
    640
    These were inconvenient facts for hon. Gentlemen opposite who desired to avoid discussing them, as they had shown by closuring an Amendment to the Address and secondly by failing to keep a House. The cases he was going to cite, and which he submitted to the Chairman was absolutely in Order upon this Vote, included instances in which the grant was earned and would have appeared in the original Estimate if the Department had sanctioned it; but sanction was refused. It had relation to schools at Lowestoft, and feeling it his duty to bring the circumstances under the notice of the House, the present offered the most fitting opportunity for doing so. The first instance was that of the Christ-church Infant School, at Lowestoft. This school down to the time of the accession of the present Vice-president to Office had always been regarded as an excellent school——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must request the hon. Member not to continue that line of argument.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, of course, he was bound by the Chairman's ruling. If it was the ruling that he would not be in order in alluding in any way to the policy of the Department—[Cries of "Order "]. Hon. Members would, perhaps, allow him to finish his remarks. He ventured to say that hon. Members who continually shouted "Order" were themselves most disorderly. If he was not in order in alluding to the policy of the Department, then there would be no failure of duty on his part if he merely protested against the injustice meted out to Voluntary Schools—[Cries of "Order"]—while he was denied the opportunity of raising a discussion. [Cries of "Order, order."] Labouring under the difficulty of being pulled up at every sentence—[Cries of "Order" and counter cries of "Progress."] For the purpose of putting himself in order, and as he did not wish to place himself in the slightest degree in antagonism to the Chair, he Moved to Report Progress.
    Motion made, and question proposed "That the Chairman do Report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, on this Motion it would seem to him very difficult for Members to discuss the Education Votes if they were not allowed to consider any question concerning the policy of the Department. For two years there had not been a proper discussion of the Education Estimates. Last year these Estimates were put off to the month of August. Several points of great interest arose, and it did not seem unreasonable that this, the only opportunity that had arisen for a long time, should be used to discuss the policy of the Department in connection with education. [Cries of "Order."] Of course, he would not attempt to discuss that policy now; but inasmuch as the Estimates were brought on last Session at a time when there was not the opportunity for considering them, it might be fairly asked that some attention should be given to matters that had throughout the country caused considerable excitement. (Cries of "Order.")
    MR. W. P. BYLES: On a point of Order, Sir, may I ask what is the Question before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I report Progress, and the hon. Member will confine his remarks to that.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, he was endeavouring to show that it was important now to report Progress in order that fair opportunity should be given for proper discussion. [Cries of "Order," and a hon. Member asked: "Is this not disputing the ruling from the Chair?"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member meant to do that.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, certainly not, but inasmuch as the House of Commons in Committee of Supply afforded the means for discussing the grievances of the people, those who were interested in the national education
    642
    desired this opportunity of raising questions of administration connected with this expenditure of ten millions, affecting vast numbers of the population. With this object in view he strongly supported the motion.
    MR. A. H. D. ACLANDassured hon. Members that neither now or at any time was he unwilling to defend the policy of the Education Department and he did not think that the Committee could charge him with having shown any reluctance in this direction. He would not enter upon that now. This Supplementary Vote arose out of the fact that the attendance of children had improved beyond expectation. He only wished to say that he had no desire to shirk a fair, full and free discussion of the Estimates for the year. He, reminded hon. Members that in the first year after he entered office there was a whole night's discussion, and, though subsequently the Debate was closured, there were several other opportunities for discussion availed of. If last year a fuller opportunity was not given, it was through no fault of his, and he reminded hon. Members of the subsidiary Debates on the Vote on Account. He only wished to assure the Committee that, on his part, there was not the slightest intention or wish to evade discussion.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he had no intention to discuss the ruling for which, no doubt, the Chairman had good reason, that discussion on this Vote must be limited. What was now best for the Committee to do? No doubt, in recent years, they had been very severely treated by the Government upon Educational Questions, and he certainly had the hope that hon. Gentlemen would have given some little indulgence which, then, the Chairman would have been not unwilling to recognise. Of course, there would be another opportunity on the Vote on Account, and if the Government wished them to use that opportunity they would do so; but

    643
    he should have thought the better plan would be to use the present opportunity, hon. Gentlemen putting some restraint on their impatience and allowing others a little latitude. Under the circumstances, if his right hon. Friend went to a Division, he should not vote with him. If, on other hand, they did not succeed reporting Progress, they would, of course, carry on the discussion, but they would be obliged to raise all the points over again.
    MR. C. DIAMONDsaid, hon. Members had an opportunity of raising the question of Voluntary Schools at a recent evening Sitting, which was counted out. On that occasion, the Opposition Benches were singularly deserted, and hon. Members could not complain now, seeing they had failed to take advantage of their opportunity.
    SIR W. HART-DYKEasked whether any hon. Member would be out of Order if he referred to any matter which had not strict reference to an increase in average attendance or to an increase of grant for scholars?
    THE CHAIRMANin reply, laid it down that the Estimate being a Supplementary Estimate, the discussion must be confined to certain definite points.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYasked whether the Chairman's rulings came to this, that because this happened to be a Supplementary Vote, the rule was more strict?
    THE CHAIRMANthought there was a broad distinction between an ordinary and a Supplementary Estimate. As a rule, unless a Supplementary Estimate was of an extraordinary or excessive character, the general discussion of policy should be confined to the first and main Vote. The present Supplementary Estimate was not of such a character, and accordingly it seemed to him a general discussion of policy would be entirely out of Order.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 46; Noes, 98.—[Division List, No. 23.]
    SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, he rose to ask a question. He need hardly say that he accepted loyally the ruling given by the Chairman, and the object of his question was to ask to what extent discussion within the ruling might proceed? He understood the ruling to be that in a Supplementary Estimate it was not open to hon. Members to discuss the main question or the main policy of the Education Department, but must confine themselves to the discussion of all the causes which had lead the Department to come to the Committee to ask for an increased Vote. Anything which had given rise to the necessity of asking for more money would be germane to the discussion. The grounds stated in the Paper for the necessity of asking for more money were three: The first, that there had been an excess in the average attendance of day scholars; the second, that the scholars who had attended had earned a larger grant than was expected: and the third, that there had been a greater claim for free places than was expected when the original Estimate was prepared. What he wished to ask was, would it be in Order, in discussing these Supplementary Estimates, to discuss all the causes and circumstances which had either given rise to the increase in the nnmber of scholars who had attended schools, or to the capacity of those scholars to earn a larger grant? He——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. If the right hon. Gentleman will proceed with his argument on the subject, I will endeavour to put him right if he exceeds the ruling I have given. But I decline to give any further explanation.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNEdesired to continue to discuss the Vote within the limits of the Chairman's ruling. It was said on the. Paper that the reason for asking for this extra money was the excess of

    645
    the average attendance over what was expected. That question raised a very important point. Article 73 of the Code defined the number of children for whom one teacher would he considered sufficient by the Department for the purposes of the efficiency of the school. That number of children was described in a very ambiguous phrase to which he desired to call the attention of the Committee. The average attendance had been miscalculated by the Government. That might happen every year, and whenever it was miscalculated it might appear that the teaching staff was below the proper standard. In these circumstances if the average attendance was larger than the Government expected, and thereupon the teaching staff dropped below the standard, it might be necessary for the Government to increase the grant. Therefore, it became very important to know exactly what Article 73 meant. Every teacher on the staff was considered efficient to teach a certain number of children. Last year it was found that the number of children for which every teacher had been so considered efficient had been largely diminished. That was looked upon as a hardship by the Voluntary Schools, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council agreed to modify the Article. In accordance with this promise he replaced the Article which had been originally laid upon the Table by a new Article, in which a most peculiar phrase occurred. It was stated that the number of children in one class must not exceed by more than 15 per cent. "the number of children habitually present at any one time." A number of questions were put in this and the other House, on the subject. He understood the Vice President to say last year that by this particular phrase he meant something different to average attendance. But he found that in another place Lord Playfair stated that the expression "habitually present at any one time"
    646
    probably meant average attendance. Thus the responsible Minister of the Crown, speaking for the Government in the House of Lords, did not know what the Article did mean, but said that it probably meant average attendance, which was exactly what the right hon. Gentleman opposite had denied in this House. Were they to understand the Department did not really know what the Article did mean? Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat Lord Playfair's words and say "it probably meant average attendance?" It was important that an undiminished number of children should be allowed each teacher in struggling Voluntary Schools. They had great difficulty at present in making the two ends meet; and if they found that a smaller number of children was allowed per teacher than they expected, they would be placed in a very extremely difficult position. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman, since he had been Vice President, had done his best to meet the difficulties and questions put to him in that House, and he would now ask him to give them a definite explanation as to what "habitually present at any one time" meant? They understood what average attendance meant, and if habitually present at any one time meant the same as average attendance, they should know where they were, but the expression was perfectly new to the Code. It was absolutely necessary in this matter to be explicit, and he would, therefore, urge that a full explanation should be given by the right hon. Gentleman of the meaning of Article 73.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    The House resumed.

    AUSTRALIAN COLONIES CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)in moving the Second Reading of the above Bill, said it was originally introduced in the House of Lords, but as the Bill had relation to the question of the imposition of Customs Duties that had been found to be a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, and the Bill was therefore withdrawn from the Upper Chamber. It was a simple Bill, of only one Clause. At the Ottawa Conference last year the different representatives of the Australian Colonies desired that the restriction on their freedom to make Customs arrangements between themselves and other Colonies should be removed; and that they should have the same liberty in that respect as was enjoyed by the Canadian Colonies. The object of the Bill was to remove those restrictions. The Bill did not affect Free Trade or Imperial Customs or Tariffs, and every proposal made under the Bill by any Colony would eventually have to come before the Secretary of State for the Colonies for his assent or veto if it were thought that Imperial interests were imperilled or injured. He therefore hoped the House would allow the Second Reading.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTdid not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but was sorry his hon. Friend had not introduced it at a time when some discussion could take place on the general question of Colonial trade. He hoped the Government would soon make some definite statement as to the removal of the Treaties which prevented the Australian Colonies from giving the Mother Country preferential terms in trade tariffs.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether there was any clause in the Bill to prevent the sale in Melbourne of goods made in prison in Adelaide and vice versa?
    The Bill was then read 2°

    MORTGAGEES' COSTS BILL.
    MR. R. B. HALDANEmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. He believed the Bill had been substantially agreed to. As the law stood at present, the costs fell upon the wrong person, and the Bill simply got rid of the technical rule.
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYasked if the Government approved the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. T. REID, Dumfries Burgh)said, the only purport of the Bill was to make the mortgagor instead of the plaintiff liable for costs, and under these circumstances the Government saw no objection to the Bill.
    Bill read 2°.

    BOARDS OF CONCILIATION BILL.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, the Bill was supported by the London Chamber of Commerce, and he hoped it would be read a second time.
    Order for Second Reading postponed till next day.

    SHOP HOURS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. George Russell, Bill "To Amend the Shop Hours Act, 1892."
    Bill presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

    ORDER OF BUSINESS.
    MR. R. W. HANBURYasked what would be the Order of Business tomorrow?
    MR. T. E. ELLISsaid the Supplementary Estimates would be the first order.
    House adjourned at Fifteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

ST. ANDREWS UNIVERSITY.
THE LORD STEWARD OF HOUSEHOLD (The Marquess of BREADALBANE)brought up the following reply from Her Majesty to the Address voted by their Lordships, relative to the University of St. Andrews;—
"I have received your Address praying that the reference to the Duncan Burseries in the University of St. Andrews may be omitted from the Schedule to the Ordinance No.57 (General 19 Regulations as to Bursaries, Scholarships, and Fellowships), made by the Scotch University Commissioners on July 30, 1894. In conformity with your advice I will withhold my assent from that part of the Ordinance to which your Address relates."

EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
Bill to amend the Law of by Evidence, presented by Lord Halsbury; read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 32.]
SCHOOL BOARD RATE.
VISCOUNT CROSSpresented a petition, which, he said, was of some importance, as it came from the Manchester School Board, to the effect that, in the interests of education and economy, and more especially in the interests of justice and religious freedom, the School Board rate, which was collected from all citizens, without distinction, should be shared in by all alike, and that the benefits of the rate should be enjoyed equally in all schools, whether Board or voluntary schools, suitable arrangements being made for the inspection of voluntary schools as to the secular part of the education given by the representatives of the ratepayers.

SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
LORD RIBBLESDALE, in moving that this Bill be read a Second time, said that the Bill was drafted in almost the same words as the Acts of 1880 and 1890, and it bore the same title. There was, however, this difference: that in the Act of 1890 there was a clause giving the Local Government Board the power to carry out the Bill in the event of
526
default on the part of poor law guardians, and that clause was not in this Bill. The object of the Bill was to give the guardians in the poor law unions power to apply to the Local Government Board for a sum of money out of the Local Loans Fund, out of which to make advances to small occupiers and cultivators for the purpose of purchasing seed potatoes in the event of those individuals not being able to find the money owing to the failure of their crops or their own poverty. Summarising the provisions of the Bill his Lordship remarked that it was important to notice that the Local Government Board might nominate persons to satisfy themselves that the land into which the seed potatoes were to be put had been properly prepared, and was ready for sowing; and was an inducement to a cultivator to pay ready money an abatement of one-fifth was to be made in the price of the seed potatoes, which however, were to be sold on terms that would cover the cost including carriage and storage. The Lord Lieutenant had power to postpone the repayment of instalments by guardians, and also to appoint inspectors to see that the conditions on which the loans were made were satisfactorily carried out.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he did not think their Lordships would have any difficulty in readily assenting to the Motion. Their Lordships were always anxious to deal expeditiously with any measure for the relief of distress. It was obvious that the success of this measure would largely depend upon its careful administration, on seeing that nothing was done to discourage thrift, and that everything was done to ensure caution, care, and economy. He was sure that these objects were present to the minds of the Government, and that they were most anxious to see that the measure should be carefully, wisely, and prudently administered. He noticed that by Clause 8 provision was made for the appointment of officers who, he supposed, would be seed distributors. It was obvious that they would play a great part in the administration of this money. He should like to know from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill how many inspectors it was contemplated to appoint, also what remuneration it was intended to give them; and further,

527
whether there would be any objection to laying on the Table or publishing in the Dublin Gazette, or in the Press, the names and previous occupations of those who were selected to fulfil these duties.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, he quite agreed that the whole efficacy of the Bill would depend upon its careful administration; and he could hardly assume that it would be brought forward at all unless every care were going to be taken that it should be properly administered. As to the specific question asked he was not able to say how many officers would be appointed, and he thought that in this respect the Bill was framed with some latitude so as not unnecessarily to tie the hands of the Irish Office, and to leave them at liberty to appoint as many as might be necessary.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, it was openly stated that a number of inspectors had been already selected, and that their names were known to many people, and that was the reason why he asked the question.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, he had no personal knowledge that that was so, but he would make a representation to Mr. Morley of what the noble and learned Lord had said.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he hoped measures would be taken to avoid difficulties which occurred on the occasion of the last distribution of seed potatoes, when no proper lists were kept of those who received them, when some of the seed potatoes were nearly useless from; alleged want of care in the carriage, wherefore there was great difficulty in collecting the rates from those who had been supplied.
Bill then read 2a.

RICHMOND LUNATIC ASYLUM, DUBLIN.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I beg to ask whether there are now in the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, Dublin, nearly 400 inmates in excess of the nominal limits of legitimate accommodation; whether it has been arranged to build a new asylum at Portrame, which will accommodate about half the inmates now at Richmond; if it is under consideration to provide for the residue of the inmates, either by altering and re-constructing
528
the existing asylum, or seeking a new site; what has been the medical history of the existing asylum; is the soil in a healthy state; are the grounds sufficient for the needs of an asylum; and what would be the estimated cost of altering or re-constructing the existing asylum, so as to satisfy modern requirements?
LORD RIBBLESDALE: It is, substantially, as the noble Lord states in his first question. The number of patients at present resident in Richmond Asylum is 1486. There is provision in the permanent buildings for about 1100. Arrangements have been made to provide commodious and suitable temporary buildings for the residue. Portions of these buildings have been completed, and are in occupation, and the remaining portions will be handed over immediately. It has been decided to build a new asylum at Portrane for at least 1,000 patients. This will provide accommodation for about half the insane of the district. It has been decided to re-model, improve, and enlarge the existing buildings at Richmond so as to accommodate the residue of the insane population. Owing to overcrowding, the medical history of the existing asylum has not been favourable. It has been unfavourably reported four times, in 1887, 1888, 1890, and 1891. There is no reason, however, to suppose that the soil is in an unhealthy state, except to a very limited extent in the immediate vicinity of old sewers, and this it is proposed to remedy by execution of suitable, works. The grounds are not at present sufficient in extent for the needs of the asylum, but it is contemplated to increase the area by the purchase of additional land. The estimated cost of altering and re-modelling the existing asylum, so as to satisfy modern requirements, is about £60,000.
THE EARL OF ERNEsaid, it was a matter of notoriety that the asylum was built on an extremely unhealthy site, which was saturated with sewage, and he would put it to the Government whether it would not be better and cheaper in the long run to abandon the site altogether, and to build a new asylum on a more healthy site.
House adjourned at Fifteen Minutes to Five o'clock.