Sitting of 17 April 1896

METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER.
Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, under the Metropolitan Police Act 1886, relating to lands in the parishes of St. John the Evangelist, Westminster, and All Saints, Poplar, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley; presented accordingly, and Read 1° Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed.—[Bill 179.]

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
*MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received from the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions, the following Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the St. George's Division of the Borough of the Tower Hamlets:—
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868,
and
The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1883, and 1895.
To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
We, the Honourable Sir Charles Edward Pollock, Knight, Baron of the Exchequer, and the Honourable Sir Gainsford Bruce, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that upon the 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th days of February, and upon the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 30th, and 31st days of March, and upon the 1st and 14th days of April 1896, we duly held a Court in the Royal Courts of Justice, London, and did try the Election Petition for the St. George Division of the Borough of the Tower Hamlets between John Williams Benn, Petitioner, and Harry Hananel Marks, Respondent, and that,
1150
at the conclusion of the said trial, we determined that the said Harry Hananel Marks, being the Member whose Election and return were complained of, was duly elected and returned, and that his Election was not void.
And whereas charges wore made of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election for the St. George Division of the Borough of the Tower Hamlets, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:

(a.) That no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the said Harry Hananel Marks, and also that the said Harry Hananel Marks has not been guilty by his agents of any corrupt or illegal practice;

(b.) That the said John Williams Benn was proved guilty of illegal practices in having made payment, for the purpose of promoting and procuring his election at the said Election, on account of banners; and also on the ground that certain election expenses were omitted from the Return of Expenses remitted to the Returning Officer in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883, and without such authorised excuse as in such Act mentioned.

And we further report:—
(c.) That, save as aforesaid, no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at the said Election.
We have given a Certificate of Indemnity to the said John Williams Benn.
And we also report:—
(d.) That there is no reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the Election for the St. George Division of the Borough of the Tower Hamlets, to which the said Petition relates. Dated this 16th day of April 1896.
C. E. POLLOCK.
GAINSFORD BRUCE.

INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 29th April, and to printed.—[Bill 180.]
LIBEL BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Tuesday next till Tuesday, 5th May.
QUESTIONS.

  RECRUITMENT FOR CONGO STATE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, by a Dispatch annexed to and published with the Agreement between Great Britain and King Leopold, Soverign of the Congo State, presented to Parliament in "Africa, No. 4, of 1894," and also in the Treaty Series, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the late Administration undertook to recommend to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that facilities should be given for recruitment in the British Colonies on the West Coast of Africa, in order to facilitate the prompt and complete occupation by His Majesty King Leopold II. of the territories in the western basin of the Nile, known as the western watershed of the Nile, comprised in the leases from Great Britain to King Leopold, being the territories running from Lake Albert, near Wadelai, northwards to the 10th parallel of north latitude, and north-east to the intersection of that parallel with the 25th meridian east of Greenwich; (2) whether, since the Congo State withdrew at the suggestion of France from occupation of by far the greater portion of these territories in the British sphere, and withdrew in fact from the whole of them, the recruitment facilities have continued to be given, and whether any other purposes have been specified; (3) whether the forces now serving on the Welle were so recruited; and, (4) whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that recruits drawn from the British West Coast Colonies have been well treated by the officials of the Congo State?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The Dispatch of May 12th 1894, referred to conveys an assurance of the character mentioned in the first paragraph, though its terms have not been fully or textually quoted by the right hon. Baronet. In view of the altered conditions no recommendation was made to the Secretary of State for the Colonies;
  1152
  and consequently no recruitment has resulted from the Dispatch. The Question in the concluding paragraph was answered in the negative by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 12th of March.

  GLEBE TENANTS (IRELAND).
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that the glebe tenants purchased their holdings under the Irish Church Disestablishment Act at about 23 years' purchase of the then rents, which included their own improvements and tenant right; and (2) whether, as many of these tenants, owing to the high instalments which they have to pay and to the low price of farm produce, are now quite unable to fulfil their contract with the State, he will introduce some provision into the Land Bill with a view to redress their grievances in common with the rest of the tenants of Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The first paragraph appears to state the fact with substantial accuracy. For further information in the matter I would refer the hon. Member to page 5 of the Report of the Irish Church Temporalities Commission for the year 1876, and to page 15 of the same Commission for the period 1869 to 1880, both of which Reports have been presented to Parliament. As to the second paragraph, the Bill contains a provision extending to purchasers under the Church Act the advantages which, when introducing the Bill, I explained it was proposed to confer on all purchasers under the Land Purchase Acts.

  ARMY PENSIONS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he is prepared to consider further medical evidence in the cases of John Hynes and Joseph Demston, both of whom were discharged from the Army, the former after ten years' service, and the latter six years', without a pension; or will he direct a medical examination of these men by the military surgeon in Longford Military Station?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): In order to entitle them to further consideration the men referred to in the Question of the hon. Member would have to show that the physical disability from which they now suffer was caused by military service. Any further medical or other evidence tending to sustain that view will be carefully examined and weighed by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, whose present opinion, however, is as stated in previous answers given to the hon. Member.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS (CROSHEA, COUNTY LONGFORD).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what has been done by the Postmaster General in response to the petition of the inhabitants of Croshea and district, Longford, relative to the establishment of a post office there?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster General has had pleasure in sanctioning the re-establishment of the post office at Croshea. The delay has arisen from the difficulty of finding suitable accommodation at Croshea.

  ST. MELS CATHEDRAL (COUNTY LONGFORD).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the ruins of St. Mels Cathedral, parish of Ardagh, county Longford, have by resolution of the Longford Board of Guardians been vested in the Board of Works; and will that Department now undertake the preservation of those ruins?
  MR. HANBURY: The Guardians of the Longford Union have expressed a desire to have this structure vested in the Board of Works, and the Board are willing to become custodians for the purpose of preservation under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Protection Acts, as soon as the requisite legal formalities with reference to vesting are complied with.

  EJECTMENT DECREES (COUNTY DOWN).
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he could state to the House the number of Civil Bill processes of ejectment for nonpayment of rent entered for hearing at the sittings of the County Court for Down recently held at Downpatrick, Newtownards, Banbridge, Lisburn, and Newry; also the number of ejectment decrees obtained at these sittings where only one year's rent was due?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of Civil Bill processes in ejectment for nonpayment of rent entered for hearing at the recent sittings of the County Court of Down, held at Downpatrick, Newtownards, Lisburn and Banbridge, was 103, and the number of decrees obtained where only one year's rent was due was 15. The County Court does not sit at Newry until Saturday next; but I understand the number of ejectments entered for hearing there is 43, of which only one case is in respect of one year's rent.

  POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
  MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the managers of the Poor Law Schools and certified homes have been allowed by the Local Government Board to break the law concerning half-time for the last 19 years, although such a practice is, in the opinion of the Inspector General of the Board, a serious evil; and whether the fact has ever been submitted to the Permanent Secretary of the Board?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The Question suggests that, with the knowledge and concurrence of the Local Government Board, it has been the practice of guardians to disregard the requirements of the law as to half-time children in Poor Law schools. This is not in accordance with the facts. The responsibility for complying with the law in this matter rests with the guardians. There have, no doubt, been instances where the law has been disregarded; but the Board have always held that the byelaws are binding on

  1155
  guardians as regards school attendance. This view has been expressed by the Permanent Secretary, as well as by the Assistant Secretary, who is also chief general inspector; and guardians have been informed accordingly when the attention of the Board has been drawn to failure on the part of guardians in this matter.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board—(1) what are the duties of the medical inspectors of the Poor Law schools; (2) what is the number of beds for the inspection of which the general inspector is responsible; (3) what means have they to communicate their Report to the managers of the schools; and whether the Local Government Board has any power of enforcing suggestions made in such reports?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The staff of inspectors of Poor Law establishments in the metropolitan district, exclusive of the educational inspector, comprises one general inspector, one medical inspector, and one assistant inspector. There are no officers, with the exception of the educational inspection, whose duties apply exclusively to the schools. The duties of the inspectors are to inspect from time to time workhouses and other establishments; to attend meetings of the guardians and managers; to report to the Board matters which they consider should be the subject of communication with those authorities; and to advise the Board generally on questions arising in connection with those establishments and the proceedings of the local authorities. The duty of the assistant inspector is to visit the establishments and report through the inspectors to the Board. The number of beds in separate and certified schools is about 17,000; the total number of indoor poor other than those in the schools referred to, including the inmates of the asylums for infectious cases and imbeciles, is about 57,000. The practice of the Local Government Board is to communicate with the managers as to those matters referred to in the reports of their inspectors with respect to schools which appear to require their attention; or, where it is thought preferable, the inspectors confer with the managers on the subject. Certain powers are conferred on the
  1156
  Local Government Board which enable them to withhold repayment from the common poor fund when a board of guardians or managers of an asylum district make default in complying with an order as regards certain specified matters; but it is very doubtful whether these powers extend to district schools.
  MR. SPEAKER: I ought to call the attention of the hon. Member to the first paragraph of his Question as being one of an irregular kind which ought not to be put on the Paper. The duties of the medical inspectors of Poor Law schools are to be found in the statute and orders which prescribe those duties; and to ask a Minister to give a treatise on the duties of those officers is not, I think, one of the purposes for which it is intended Questions should be put. [Cheers.]
  MR. DRAGE: May I say that I consulted the usual authorities. I am sorry if I transgressed.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I rather think that the usual authorities may have given some advice which was not taken by the hon. Member. [Laughter.]
  MR. EDWARD MOON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, how many boarding-out inspectors are employed by the Local Government Board for Poor Law children; how are these duties carried out; whether in 1894 only 377 children out of 1,798 were visited; and, whether any change in the system can be made?
  MR. CHAPLIN: There is one inspector of boarding-out, namely, Miss Mason. Her duties are carried out by conferring with, advising, and otherwise assisting boarding-out committees and inspecting children boarded out and their homes. Miss Mason states that the number mentioned does not correctly represent the number of children visited by her in 1894. As the Board stated in their 19th Annual Report, the responsibility for the care of the children boarded out must rest entirely with the boarding-out committees; and the inspections of the children which are made by the Board's inspector are for the purpose of ascertaining how the duties of the committees are discharged, and cannot be regarded as in any way relieving the committees of their responsibility. If

  1157
  there should be a more extensive adoption of the boarding-out system, the appointment of an additional inspector would be necessary.
  MR. W. W. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Chief Inspector-General of Poor Law Schools was unacquainted with much of the information laid before the Poor Law School Committee, and whether this accounts for the delay in obtaining replies and redress from the Local Government Board; and, what reason can be given for the delay of seven years complained of by the managers of the Central London district in replying to a communication addressed by them to the Board with regard to the regulations as to apprenticeship which have been in force since 1847?
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is no part of the duty of the Assistant Secretary, who is also Chief Inspector-General, to visit Poor Law Schools, and he would not have information laid before the Committee which had not been communicated to the Board, but I am not aware what difficulties as regards obtaining replies and redress are regarded as attributable to this. As regards the case mentioned, the facts are these:—The Guardians of the City of London Union addressed to the Board a communication as to a difficulty which had arisen in providing for the apprenticeship of children in the City of London, where persons to whom they were to be apprenticed were unwilling to provide for the lodging of the apprentices. The letter of the Guardians was received on. July 2, 1887, and on July 9, 1887, the Board replied, promising that their communication should receive attention, and the representations of the Guardians in the matter were considered, although no new regulations on the subject were issued. In the course of the same year an Act (Local Authorities (Expenses) Act 1887) was passed, under which exceptional cases of difficulty as regards apprenticeship might be, and have since been, met.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) of the
  1158
  50 sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary who passed an examination before the Civil Service Commissioners in June 1895 for the rank of head constable, how many were allowed to compete in professional subjects in January 1896; (2) were 13 of those sergeants informed in November 1895 to hold themselves in readiness for the latter examination; and, if so, by what process was the number increased to 27 on the 7th January; (3) how long were those 27 in the service and in the rank of sergeant; (4) were they taken from the top of the list, and were they senior to other sergeants who had passed; (5) are Roman Catholic head constables and sergeants only allowed to remain four years at the depot, and does this rule apply to other denominations; (6) who is responsible for the classification of recruits for the Royal Irish Constabulary, and how many of the staff in the Commandant's Office are Roman Catholic; and (7) what is the proportion of Roman Catholic to Protestant recruits appointed since this Government took office and for the same period in the late Administration?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is 24. Selections were not confined to the men who had passed the qualifying examination in June 1895, as other sergeants in. the force were similarly qualified. In November 1895, 22 sergeants (not 13, as stated) were informed of their selection for competitive examination in professional subjects. The additional five men were selected in. the same manner as the others. The period of service of these 27 men in the force ranged from 13 to 25 years, and in the rank of sergeant from 3 to 12 years. The men were selected from the list, which was an alphabetical one, solely on the ground of merit as policemen. Seniority was not an element in the selection. The rule as regards the term of service at the depot is applied irrespective of the question of religion. The Commandant is the officer responsible for recruiting; one of his clerical staff is a Roman Catholic Since the present Government acceded to Office the ratio of Roman Catholics to Protestant recruits appointed has been 4.66 to 1; and during the corresponding period in the late Administration the ratio was 4.78 Roman Catholics to 1 Protestant.

  ARMY RETURNS.
  MR. A. F. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the War Office, why the Return of "Army (Average Numbers at Home and Abroad)," ordered to be printed and circulated by the House on 21st June 1895, has not yet been printed; and, whether he will grant a similar Return for the past year?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Order of the 21st June last was merely for an Address for the Return. This lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament, but the Return is ready for presentation whenever my hon. Friend moves for it. As regards the statistics for the year 1895, the Returns are only beginning to come in from foreign stations, and it would be some months before a complete Return could be given.

  IRVINESTOWN UNION (CHARGE AGAINST OFFICIAL).
  MR. R. M. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Irish Local Government Board, as the result of a sworn Inquiry recently held by their inspector, Mr. Richard Kelly, has decided that no grounds existed for the charge preferred against John R. M'Gahey, the porter of the Irvinestown Union, by one Edward M'Elroy; and, if so, will the report of the Inquiry be placed before the Irish Law Officers with a view to the prosecution of M'Elroy for giving false evidence?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The only evidence adduced at the investigation held in this case was that given by the complainant on the one side and by the porter and a female inmate on the other side. The evidence being contradictory and there being no corroboration of the charge preferred, the Local Government Board held that it had not been proved. Under these circumstances my hon. and learned Friend will perceive that no useful object could be gained by laying the papers before the Law Officers, as suggested, with a view to criminal proceedings. If the porter feels himself aggrieved he can, of course, take proceedings for libel against the complainant.

  ENNISKILLEN POST OFFICE.
  MR. J. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the post office in Enniskillen is a small house, into which are crowded the post office, the telegraph office, the parcel post, and the postmaster and his family; that there is but one small and ill-fitted office for the receipt and delivery of letters, the sale of stamps, the transmission of telegrams, the savings bank, the receipt of and delivery of parcels, and the payment of public money to pensioners; that the offices are badly lit and ventilated; that there is general complaint in reference to the thick and suffocating atmosphere in the office on busy days; that there is but one small door for the ingress and egress of the public and employés, and for the transaction of all the business of the office; that there is no accommodation for postmen and telegraphic messengers other than the public street, even in winter weather; that even the postmaster's office is but a dark and dismal small apartment; and that 21 employés, male and female, and eight members of the postmaster's family, with servants, 29 to 31 in all, are compelled daily to occupy this house; and is it the intention of the Postmaster General and Department, in view of the well-being of their employés and the accommodation of the public, still to continue these premises as a post office?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member's Question is an exact repetition of one that he put to me on the 25th of February last, and I must refer him to my answer on that occasion.

  FRENCH FISHING VESSELS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that French fishing vessels now make a practice of visiting certain harbours on the south coast of Ireland for the purpose of selling their fish, to the detriment of the local fishermen; and whether British or Irish fishing boats possess the privilege of selling their fish in French ports; and, if not, will steps be taken to put a stop to this practice?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I am informed that French fishing vessels do in some cases visit harbours on the south coast of Ireland for the purpose of selling their fish. Most of the French-caught fish is, however, salted on board and conveyed to Franco. The British law permits French, in common with other foreign boats, to sell their fish in ports of the United Kingdom, but I regret to say that a like freedom is not extended to our boats in France.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaint made in the Question is by no means confined to Ireland, and that the hardship is very much felt in English ports as well? Will he consider the expediency of placing a duty on foreign fish?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not doubt that what the right hon. Gentleman states is true. We have made representations to France on more than one occasion, but we have not been able to obtain the facilities we wish for our own boats in France I am afraid that the question as to a duty is one which the right hon. Gentleman must address to another Minister.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Considering that this grievance has lasted for a generation, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirableness and the propriety of withdrawing from French fishermen the privilege refused to English fishermen?
  MR. RITCHIE: That would be a policy of retaliation, and that is a policy which I understand this country is not prepared to adopt at present.

  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, what increase in the number of children in average attendance in elementary schools in England and Wales would result from raising the compulsory school attendance age from 11 to 12 years or from 11 to 13 years, and what increase, if any, in the number of places available in such schools would be rendered necessary by raising the age from 11 to 12 years or from 11 to 13 years?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Committee of Council have no information which would enable them to answer the first part of the Question. There is no reason to suppose that any increase in the; num-of places will be necessary, as provision has always been made for children up to 13.

  CANADIAN MAIL SERVICE.
  *GENERAL LAURTE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the sum shown as Item F, Vote 4, for Post Office Packet Service, and given in detail as between Great Britain, Canada, Japan and Hong Kong, is really a payment for the carriage of Mails solely between Vancouver on the Pacific Coast of Canada and Japan and China; and, if so, what payment is made for the carriage of the mails from Great Britain to the eastern ports of Canada, and for the land carriage from Halifax or Quebec respectively across Canada to Vancouver; and, where the sum so provided is shown in the Estimates?
  MR. HANBURY: The contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company provides for the conveyance of mails, etc., between Halifax and Quebec and Japan and Hong Kong, and not merely between Vancouver and those countries. From Great Britain to Canada the mails are conveyed by Canadian Packet with Mails for Canada itself, payment being made by the British Post Office, through the accounts with the Canadian Post Office, at the rate prescribed in the Postal Union Convention, namely, five francs per kilogramme of letters and postcards, and 50 centimes per kilogramme of other articles. The amount for 1894–5 is included at page 23 of the Finance Accounts in the total of £98,591 for Postage collected for the credit of Colonial Offices.
  *GENERAL LAURIE: It does not appear as a separate item.
  MR. HANBURY: No, it does not.

  BELFAST LOUGH.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the erection of the proposed new siren on Mew Island, Belfast Lough, whether he can state what progress has been made with the erection, and if he can say about what date it will be completed?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the contractor promised to dispatch the new siren from London yesterday (Thursday). The Commissioners add that immediately on receipt the siren will be forwarded to the Mew Island and erected without delay.

  BELFAST BARRACKS.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether inquiries have been made with regard to the case of the alleged contravention of the Fair Wages Resolution in respect to the painting at the barracks at Belfast; and if he can state what has been the result of such inquiries; and whether, in the event of the Resolution having been departed from as alleged, he proposes to take any, and what, steps to guard against the recurrence of such an event?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir. Strict inquiry has been made into the matter referred to by the hon. Member, and as the result the Secretary of State is satisfied that the contractor has not paid the current rate of wages to some of the workmen employed. It has, therefore, been decided to give him notice to terminate the contract, the conditions of which he has broken.

  ASHANTI EXPEDITION.
  MR. WILLIAM AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with regard to the promotion of commissioned officers recently engaged in the Ashanti Expedition, which has been announced in the Gazette, whether it is intended to extend the promotion given to the commissioned officers to the non-commissioned officers and men especially in Departmental Corps, who bore the heat and burden of the expedition equally with their superiors who have obtained promotion.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The hon. Member is probably aware that the cases of officers and non-commissioned officers are not analogous. When regimental officers receive Army promotion they do not change their position in their regiments, while there is no system of promoting regimental non-commissioned officers except in their regiments, and, therefore, over the heads of their comrades. For this reason promotion within the non-commissioned ranks is, under ordinary circumstances, an inconvenient reward for military services. The question of giving appointments in warrant and commissioned ranks to certain noncommissioned officers of the Departmental Corps engaged in the expedition is under consideration.
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if District Inspector Bain, Newcastle West, has resumed his duties; how long was he away in Ashanti; if he received any pay, or only his salary as a police officer; and, if so, how much; if he got any of the spoil captured in Ashanti, and the amount; and, will he also state how many days' leave of absence did District Inspector Bain get in 1894, and how many in 1895 previous to his going to Ashanti?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Bain, who has resumed his duties, was absent from Ireland from the 14th December last until the 4th March, and during his absence he received no pay whatever except his ordinary pay as an Officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He states that the Articles taken at Ashanti were sold by public auction, and that he has secured several of the things so disposed of. In 1894 he obtained 25 days leave of absence, and in 1895, prior to his departure in December for Ashanti, he had been granted 45 days leave of absence.
  *GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War with regard to the promotion and the conferring of honours upon officers of the staff and of the Special Service Corps, recently engaged in the Ashanti Expedition, as announced in the London Gazette, whether it is proposed to confer any corresponding promotion or honours on the reigmental officers of the West

  1165
  Yorkshire and the West India Regiments?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I beg to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the London Gazettes of the 7th and 10th instant, in which honours were gazetted to two officers of these regiments.
  *GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask whether one of the officers of the West India Regiment is not Major Bailey, and whether the two colonels were employed extra-regimentally?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I cannot answer that Question without notice.

  BELFAST EXCURSION TRAFFIC.
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway of Ireland have a tariff of preferential rates to Belfast for excursions and other traffic, and that they give greater facilities to Belfast than to Dublin or Drogheda for live stock traffic; and, whether he will use his influence to obtain through rates to Scotland viâ Drogheda from Navan, Kells, and other places requiring such accommodation?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have communicated with the railway company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and they inform me that they have no preferential rates to Belfast for excursion traffic; also that equal facilities under like conditions are given for the conveyance of live stock traffic to Belfast, Dublin, and Drogheda. If the hon. Member will refer to the letter addressed to him by the Board of Trade on the 11th instant, he will find that information as to the procedure to be adopted on an application for through rates is given him. It would be useless for me to make a general appeal to the company to give such rates.
  MR. W. FIELD: If I place the information in the right hon. Gentleman's hands would he give me assistance to obtain fair play?
  MR. RITCHIE: If the hon. Member will make complaint to the Board of Trade alleging that preferential rates are given, or through rates are not given, it will be the duty of the Board of Trade to approach the railway companies with a view to endeavouring to bring about
  1166
  an amicable arrangement. If no arrangement can be brought about, the hon. Member and his friends will have to find recourse to the Railway Commissioners.
  MR. J. DALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that on Easter Monday last an excursion——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Obviously the hon. Member must give notice of that Question.
  MR. J. DALY: I put down the Question and it was ruled out of order at the Table. [Laughter.]

  CIVIL SERVICE ABSTRACTORS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the members of the existing class of abstractors in the Civil Service, recruited from the ranks of men copyists, are eligible for promotion to the limited class of abstractors at salaries rising from £100 per annum by £5 a year to £150?
  MR. HANBURY: The new class of abstractors is recruited from boy clerks or boy copyists. They commence at £55 a year, and no one will reach the limited class referred to for the next 12 years. It is because of the lower pay of their early service that, after reaching £70, their increment is raised to £5. The moribund class of abstractors recruited from men copyists commenced as a rule at £91 or upwards, and reached £100 in four years or sooner. The reason for giving them an increased increment on reaching £100 does not, therefore, exist. The maximum of both classes is £150, and it is reached by both in about the same time.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can say at what time the Bill for the construction of Light Railways in Ireland is likely to be introduced; and, whether a decision has been come to by the Government as to the route to be adopted for a Light Railway in the Western Division of Donegal?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not yet in a position to fix a date for the introduction of this Bill. Before

  1167
  introducing it I wish to have the advantage of the advice of the new Chairman of the Board of Works in respect to certain provisions of the Bill.

  FAIR RENT CASES (IRELAND).
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the fair rent cases on the Anthony estate heard before His Honour Judge David Fitzgerald last week; (2) whether he is aware that in the case of Patrick Morrissey, where the old rent of £130 had been reduced by the judicial rent for the first term to £103, his Honour further reduced the rent for the second judicial term to £66, and in the case of Ellen Ryan reduced the judicial rent of £6 for the first term to £3 10s. for the second term; and, (3) whether, under the circumstances, he will provide in his proposed purchase scheme that, in order to ascertain the value of the landlord's property, the rents be revised in such cases up to the date of sale?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has not been drawn to the cases referred to in the first and second paragraphs. As to the third pargraph, the Land Bill has been circulated this morning.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the report of the case of Mr. John Weathered, a tenant farmer, of Derryland, Portadown, heard before Mr. Justice Gibson at last Armagh Assizes, and published in the Northern Whig of 15th March, from which it appears that Mr. Weathered had been for 70 years tenant of a farm, one-third of which had been reclaimed and then under cultivation, and the remainder turbary; that, in November 1894, the tenant applied to have a fair rent fixed; that in December 1894, the landlady leased a portion of bog, including Weathered's, for the purpose of making "peat litter," that the lessee then brought an action against the tenant for recovery of the land before County Court Judge Kisbey, who gave a decree for possession; and that on appeal before Judge Gibson evidence was given that the tenant had spent a considerable amount of money in reclamation, and
  1168
  the Judge expressed his sympathy with the tenant, but felt himself compelled by the present law to confirm the decree of the County Court Judge; (2) whether he is aware that a large number of tenants in county Armagh are similarly situated; and (3) whether the Land Bill will contain a provision to protect such tenants in the enjoyment of their rights?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statements in the first paragraph are substantially borne out by the newspaper report referred to, though I cannot say whether this latter report is accurate I have no information as to the statement in the second paragraph, nor do I know the grounds on which the decision of Mr. Justice Gibson was based, and I could not say, therefore, how far the provisions of the Land Bill are applicable to the case in question.

  CRIMINAL STATISTICS (LONDON).
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of burglaries, housebreakings, and shopbreakings committed in the Metropolitan Police District, and in England and Wales respectively, during the year 1895?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I am unable at present to give the hon. Member the information he asks for. All possible expedition is used in the preparation of the Returns for the Metropolitan Police District, but they will not, I am afraid, be completed before the end of July.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been given to the repeated representations of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and of many chief constables, that the present mode of dealing with the large class of professional and dangerous criminals is totally inadequate; and whether he is prepared to attempt to give early effect to the recommendation of the recent Departmental Committee on Prisons that a new form of sentence should be placed at the disposal of the Judges, by which prisoners of this class should be segregated under

  1169
  special conditions for long periods of detention?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am aware of the views expressed on the present mode of dealing with the large class of professional and dangerous criminals in the recent reports of the Commissioner of Police. The treatment of the habitual criminal is a question of the greatest importance, and I recently stated, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Darlington, that I concurred in the view which is taken by the Prison Commissioners, and which I have laid before the House, of the recommendation of the Prison Committee on the point. As I informed the House yesterday, a Bill which deals with the treatment of one class of habitual criminals, the habitual criminal drunkard, is at present under my consideration, and I can promise the hon. Member that the whole question shall have my careful attention with the view to possible legislation in a subsequent Session in the direction indicated by the Prison Committee.

  DEPORTATION OF PAUPERS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will bring in a Bill this Session to discontinue the deportation of paupers from Great Britain to Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The matter referred to is still the subject of communications between the authorities in Ireland, England and Scotland. I may observe, however, that to afford any substantial relief in this direction, in the interests of Ireland, legislation would be required relating to England and Scotland rather than to Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many unions in Ireland resolutions have been passed drawing attention to hardships caused to the ratepayers by this deportation of paupers from Great Britain, and cannot something be done immediately to put a stop to it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am aware that ever since I have become Chief Secretary I have been paying attention to this subject. The difficulties in the way of a settlement of this question are enormous.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that the paupers deported into Ireland be sent back?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That would be contrary to the law. We have no power to do that, even if we wanted to.
  MR. FIELD: Then have the law changed.

  HORSE BREEDING (IRELAND).
  MR. R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on whose advice or recommendation a class of animal called the Hackney Stallion has been sent over to improve the breed of horses in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that before introducing stallions of the Hackney or any other class into Ireland the Congested Districts Board made exhaustive inquiries from very many authorities on horse-breeding as to the best breeds of animals to place in the several congested areas in Ireland. It is undesirable to give the names of these authorities, but I shall be happy to give my right hon. Friend the information privately if he should desire it. I may add that the demand, at much increased prices, for the animals bred under the Board's scheme has, so far, fully justified their choice of horses.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Arising out of that answer, I beg to ask the right Gentleman whether he is aware that the Grand Jury of Cork have passed a resolution disapproving the step taken by the Board?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! That does not arise out of the Question. The practice, when a Question has been asked and answered, of asking the Minister whether he is aware that certain representations have been made by certain persons upon the subject is inadmissible. A question of this kind does not really arise out of the Question on the Paper. If asked at all it ought to be included in the original Question. [Cheers.]
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I only wished to point out that great objection has been taken to the importation of Hackney sires into Ireland.
  *MR. SPEAKER: As I have said, Questions of this kind are inadmissible. They are really intended, as the observation of the hon. Member shows, as replies to the Answers of Ministers. [Cheers.]

  MEDICAL WITNESSES.
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the serious loss of time and money incurred by medical witnesses, who are compelled to leave their practices in order to give evidence at sessions and assizes in England and Wales, for which no adequate remuneration is given them; and, if so, whether he is prepared to provide a remedy by assimilating the fees to those paid in Scotland?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The question of the remuneration of medical witnesses has received the consideration both of my predecessors and myself. It forms a part only of the question of remuneration of witnesses generally, and I should not feel justified in altering the amounts to be paid to one class of witnesses alone. I am disposed to think that the revision of the present general scale, which was fixed so long ago as 1858, will require to be undertaken sooner or later, but any such general alteration would be attended by a large increase of expenditure falling on county funds.

  DEFENCE OF LONDON.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what opportunity Parliament will have of considering the policy of the fortification of London, commenced under the late Government by the erection of a fort in the neighbourhood of Guildford, and now being continued, it is understood, in the erection of two forts in the neighbourhood of Dorking, and in the suggestion of the erection of forts at Betchworth and elsewhere?
  *ME. BRODRICK: The scheme for the defence of London was laid before Parliament on the introduction of the Army Estimates for 1889–90, and the work now in progress is in continuance of the policy then announced. As
  1172
  certain sums will be included in the Loan Bill, the question can be further discussed when it comes before Parliament.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA.
  MR. R. J. PRICE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has any information that the Swedish Chamber of Commerce, on the 11th instant, declared portions of Essex and the adjacent counties of Suffolk, Cambridge, Hertford, Middlesex, and Kent to be infected with a maligant form of pneumonia; and, whether, considering the fact that such a condition of things will probably lead to a still greater restriction of the supply of store cattle, the Government will again consider the question not only of postponing the Diseases of Animals Bill, but of allowing the importation of Canadian store cattle under whatever regulations the Board of Agriculture may think proper?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I have seen Reuter's telegram as to the declaration of the Swedish Chamber of Commerce, but I have no other information respecting the matter. The declaration is presumably based upon the fact that two outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia, one at Canewdon in Essex, and another at Mile End, have recently occurred, but there is no ground for the suggestion that these outbreaks will have any effect whatever upon the supply of store cattle, and I cannot consent to adopt the course proposed by the hon. Member.
  In answer to Dr. FARQUHARSON,
  *MR. LONGsaid, that the outbreaks in Essex had been traced to animals bought in the London market. He presumed they were home-bred animals. [Opposition cheers].
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that an outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia has occurred at Sixteen Acre Marsh, Barking, Essex, some week since, and that another outbreak has since taken place in a White-chapel dairy yard: and, whether the Government will, with due precautions, institute scientific experiments as to the system of inoculation practised in the Colonies as a preventive of pleuro-pneumonia?
  *MR. LONG: I regret to say that two outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia have recently occurred, one near Rochford in Essex, and another at Mile End. In the latter case, which is that to which the hon. Member specially refers, the diseased animal had been purchased at the Islington Market and sent to a marsh at Barking and from thence to the slaughter-house at Mile End, where it was discovered. My veterinary advisers are well acquainted with the system of inoculation as practised in the colonies, and I do not think that any further inquiries respecting it are necessary.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his scientific advisers have endeavoured to trace the source of infection, and whether he will communicate the result of their inquiries to the House?
  *MR. LONG: Certainly, we have instituted the most careful inquiries in connection with the outbreak, and have endeavoured to trace the source of the infection. I shall be perfectly prepared to give the information asked for when the inquiries are completed.
  MAJOR RASCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in Essex, he will accelerate the Diseases of Animals Bill so as to minimise the risk of further infection?
  *MR. LONG: Certainly, I will do my best to accelerate the passage of that Bill, because agriculturists in this country will resent the severe, restrictions placed on them unless they are permanently protected from risk from outside.
  SIR J. KINLOCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to have all animals suspected of having come within the infection slaughtered?
  *MR. LONG: All the animals which could be discovered as having been in contact, so far, had been slaughtered.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLA: Is there any ground for the suggestion that in this case contagion came from outside?
  *MR. LONG: If the right hon. Gentleman had informed himself of the facts he would have known that that could not be so.

  TRUNK TELEPHONE WIRES.
  MR. A. D. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the accounts relating to the Post Office Trunk Telephone wires will be kept separate, and regular Returns issued showing the amounts expended on construction, on maintenance, for working expenses, and the gross and net earnings, with statistics of the business done?
  MR. HANBURY: A separate account is kept of the money advanced in respect of trunk telephone wires under the Telegraph Act, 1892, and the account for the year 1894–5 will be found on page 583 of the Appropriation Accounts. The maintenance and working expenses cannot be separated from those of the telegraph service, but a statement of the gross earnings and statistics of the business done can at any time be given if necessary.

  MATABELELAND.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the villages of the natives of Matabeleland are being burnt by the forces of the Chartered Company, and that a farmer, on quitting his homestead, left a considerable amount of dynamite, with fuses attached, which exploded when the homestead was filled with natives, killing about 100; whether such proceedings are in accordance with the usages of war; and, if not, whether he will take steps to prevent their recurrence; whether any steps have been taken, either by communication with the chiefs of the natives remaining on friendly terms with the officials of the Company, or with those in arms against the Company, to ascertain what is the object of the present rising, and what alteration in the relations between the Company and the natives would lead to a modus vivendi between both; whether he is aware how many Martini-Henry rifles are in the possession of the natives, and how these were obtained; and, whether there was any importation of such rifles into Matabeleland, in connection with the Jameson raid, which have fallen into the hands of the natives?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The burning of the kraals of a native enemy is in accordance with the usages of South African warfare. I have no information of the reported explosion of dynamite in a farmhouse, but, if true, it does not differ materially from mining operations in a siege or the use of a torpedo in naval warfare. The Company's officers and a courageous Catholic clergyman, who is mentioned in this morning's papers, have been in communication with those of the Matabele who are friendly or inclined to submit; but the moment seems premature or unfavourable for a general parley with those who are determinedly hostile. At all events, it is a matter which must be left to those on the spot. I do not know what number of Martini-Henry rifles the Matabele possess. They probably obtained the bulk of them by barter or purchase in former years, when they were regarded as friendly to the British. I have no reason to believe that any such rifles were imported into Matabele-land in connection with the Jameson raid, or that, if such were the case, any of them fell into the hands of the Matabele. I may add that the arms of the Chartered Company are Lee-Metford rifles, and it appears that the rifles in the hands of the Matabele are not of that kind.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether Her Majesty's Government had decided to send an additional military force to South Africa, and, if so, what troops were to go?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Her Majesty's Government have decided to replace the troops which Sir H. Robinson has withdrawn from the seaboard colonies and ordered into the interior. Accordingly a battalion of the Line—the 1st Battalion Middlesex Regiment—and a body of cavalry or mounted infantry will be dispatched to South Africa as soon as possible. This movement is connected with the decision of the Government to make a permanent increase in the garrison of the Cape, a step which has been urged upon them by the Military authorities, who are of opinion that the present garrison is not adequate to the defence of the dockyard and coaling stations. To prevent the possibility of
  1176
  misapprehension, I may add that Her Majesty's Government are decidedly of opinion that, except in a case of the greatest emergency, Imperial troops are not the best suited to put down a native insurrection, which can be most promptly dealt with by local forces. This opinion has been confirmed by past experience in South Africa, and is held universally by all the most competent authorities in South Africa and this country. There is an ample supply of men and arms at present in South Africa, and the only difficulty is in connection with transport and the provision of horses.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: In reference to the latter portion of that answer, connected with the ability of the colonial troops for the purpose of dealing with the rising in Matabeleland, I should like to ask whether the Government have authorised the recruitment of an additional number of Colonial troops for that purpose—additional to the amount stated by the right hon. Gentleman the other day?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; we have not been asked by the local authorities to authorise any additional number to those already announced. We are perfectly prepared to do so if in the opinion of the local authorities such an increase is necessary.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: At the cost, I suppose, of the Chartered Company?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, undoubtedly.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: May I ask whether an offer has been received from our Australian colonists——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of this Question.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: On a point of order I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it would not be in order upon this Question to ask whether an offer has been made on the part of the Australian colonists in the Transvaal to go to the assistance of the colonists in Matabeleland?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Of course such a question with proper notice is perfectly in order. The objection I took just now was that it does not arise out of this Question.

  CARRICKMACROSS UNION.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that the relieving officer of Carrickmacross Union reported to the guardians of that union that a case, in which he represented the guardians under the Public Health Act, was dismissed by the magistrates at Petty Sessions, Carrickmacross, on 20th March 1896, on the ground that the guardians should be represented by a solicitor; (2) will he state who was the chairman on that occasion; and, (3) if no solicitor is needed in such cases, will he call the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. The Chairman on the occasion was Mr. Gibbings, a local magistrate. I understand that it is not necessary under the 257th Section of the Public Health Act that the guardians should be represented by a solicitor in such cases, but I am making further inquiries into the matter and have also asked to be informed whether the Relieving Officer had been authorised to represent the Guardians in the manner prescribed by the Section of the Act referred to.

  MARYBOROUGH PRISON.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, considering that the boy James Morry, confined in Maryborough Prison, has been so long in hospital, and is in a dying state, he will allow of his removal to the county infirmary, where he could be visited by his aged mother?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have again communicated with the authorities in Dublin in reference to the case of this convict, and have nothing to add to the reply given by me to the similar question put to me yesterday to the effect that his life is not, at present, considered to be in danger. The condition of this prisoner will continue to be very closely watched by both the Medical Member of the Prisons Board and by the Local Medical Officer.
  *MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar reports were made about the condition
  1178
  of health of Patrick Nalty and Michael Walsh, and that one of these men died in gaol and the other a fortnight before his release was due?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

  AFFAIRS AT ANTIOCH.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can confirm the report that Turkish troops have surrounded the Irish Mission and native Christians at Antioch; whether a massacre is apprehended; whether any British war ships are in the Gulf of Antioch; and, whether, in the event of massacres, they are at liberty to take on board refugees?
  MR. CURZON: Reinforcements of Turkish troops were recently sent to the Antioch district for the purpose of arresting certain agitators who were said to be exciting the villagers to rise against the Government. Information has since been received that about 15 revolutionists have been surrendered to the Turkish authorities by the Armenian villagers without resistance, and that the difficulty was almost settled. There appears to be no reason to apprehend a massacre. One of Her Majesty's vessels was stationed for a short time in the Gulf of Antioch, and arrangements have been made for occasional visits. With regard to taking refugees on board Her Majesty's ships, the Commanding Officers are guided by Rules laid down in the "Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions." These are, however, I am afraid, too long to admit of being fairly summarised in reply to a Question.

  REGISTRATION OF TITLES (IRELAND).
  MR. N. K. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether the Irish Land Commission, in pursuance of a circular issued to that effect in December 1892, has completed or is in course of completing the registration of the title of all purchasers, under the Land Purchase Acts, who applied to the Commission direct for the purpose; and (2) whether, in the cases where purchasers employed legal assistance to

  1179
  lodge similar applications at the same time, the Land Commission will complete the registration of the titles if so requested by such purchasers, without expense to them, in the same way as has been done for those purchasers who threw the entire onus of the registration of their titles on the Land Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Owing to the difficulty of obtaining information from the parties, the Land Commissioners, up to the present, have only been able to perfect the registration in some 3,500 of the cases referred to in the first paragraph. In about 1,500 cases the forms of application prepared and sent to the parties have not been returned to the Commissioners, although they have repeatedly applied for them. In the remaining cases the Commissioners are proceeding with all possible expedition. The inquiry in the second paragraph is properly one for the consideration of the Treasury, and should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of that Department, but I may observe that the Commissioners are not authorised to take up registration proceedings in the cases referred to.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the promised Bill for the amendment of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts is yet ready for introduction; and, if so, when it will be introduced?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot at present add anything to the reply given by me on the 20th March to the hon. Member for West Cavan on this subject.

  RABIES.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the prevalence of rabies and of the frequent cases of hydrophobia in various parts of Ireland, he will urge upon the Lord Lieutenant the necessity of issuing a general muzzling order for the whole of Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The prevalence of rabies has engaged, for some time past, the serious attention of
  1180
  the Veterinary Department. The local authorities are empowered by an Order in Council to make regulations for the muzzling of dogs in their respective districts, and the Veterinary Department has used every effort to induce the local authorities to exercise their powers. Circulars were issued to the local authorities in July and September 1895, and again in February last, pressing them to adopt a Uniform Code of Muzzling Regulations, and a specimen set of Regulations was sent for their guidance. Regulations are at present in force in 83 Unions. It is hoped that the remaining local authorities may be induced to make similar regulations, and thus secure, by their voluntary action, the desired result.

  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Her Majesty's Government will invite Her Majesty's Judges, at their approaching annual council, to consider the alterations of the Law proposed in the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, and report thereon to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, as provided by the Judicature Act?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Lord Chancellor; but even if the Act provided for alterations in the Law being referred by the Government to the Council of the Judges, which it does not do, I can hardly think it possible, or desirable, that a Government Measure which has already passed one House of Parliament should be so referred.

  TROOPS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BART-LETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Her Majesty's Government have decided to send an additional Military force to South Africa; and, if so, what troops are to go?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Her Majesty's Government have decided to replace the troops which Sir H. Robinson has withdrawn from the seaboard Colonies and ordered into the interior.

  1181
  Accordingly, a battalion of the Line and a body of Mounted Infantry will be dispatched to South Africa as soon as possible. This movement is connected with the decision of the Government to make a permanent increase in the garrison of the Cape, a step which has been urged upon them by the Military Authorities, who are of opinion that the present garrison is not adequate to the defences of the Dockyard and Coaling Stations. To prevent the possibility of misapprehension, I may add that Her Majesty's Government are decidedly of opinion that, except in a case of the greatest emergency, Imperial troops are not the best suited to put down a native insurrection, which can be most promptly-dealt with by local forces. This opinion has been confirmed by past experience in South Africa, and is held universally by all the most competent authorities in South Africa and this country. There is an ample supply of men and arms at present in South Africa, and the only difficulty is in connection with transport and the provision of horses.

  MAIL CONTRACTS.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, the date on which the notice asking for tenders for the East India, China, and Australia mail contracts was circulated, to whom it was sent, and whether it was advertised in any newspapers; and, if so, in which?
  MR. HANBURY: A notice inviting tenders for the East India, China, and Australia mail contracts was circulated on the 8th instant for exhibition at the principal outports. It has also been inserted day after day in the Post Office Daily List, and it was advertised in the undermentioned Newspapers:—Times, Standard, Daily News, Shipping and Mercantile Gazette and Lloyd's List, Liverpool Courier, Scotsman, Glasgow Herald, Dundee Advertiser, Southampton Times, Greenock Herald, and the Contract Journal.

  ELECTION PETITIONS (COSTS)
  MR. J. A. RENTOUL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Judges in the latest Election
  1182
  Petition case as to their want of power to require extra security for costs when, in their opinion, a case has been unduly prolonged; and, whether in view of these remarks and in view of the length of the proceedings in the case of the St. George's Election Petition, he can see his way to propose some remedial legislation by which any proceeding of similar or undue length can be prevented in future cases, and some legislation to modify the Law relating to Elections?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): I am communicating with the learned Judges upon the subject of the recent Election Petitions, and as to possible amendments of the law in the direction indicated by the hon. and learned Member and by other hon. Members in previous questions which have been addressed to me.

  MAJOR LOTHAIRE.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can give the House any information with regard to the statement which has appeared in the papers that Major Lothaire, the murderer of the Irishman Stokes ["Oh, oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] has been tried and acquitted at Boma?
  MR. CURZON: We have received no telegraphic Dispatch from our Vice-Consul at Boma, who is taking an official part in the proceedings. I can, therefore, only conclude that the information in the newspaper, if not incorrect, is at any rate premature.

  CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.
  MR. J. DILLON: I want to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question in connection with the Votes on the Paper to-night—namely, whether he will consent to adjourn the Debate on the Vote for the Chief Secretary after an hour or so of Debate, to another day later in the Session; or if the right hon. Gentleman cannot consent to that, whether he will put off the Vote for the Irish Chief Secretary and proceed with the other Votes?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): If the hon. Gentleman can give us something in the nature of an undertaking that if we agree to what he asks, reasonable progress will be made with the other Votes, I should be disposed to meet him.
  MR. DILLON: I do not think that that is a reasonable request to make. The First Lord of the Treasury in opening the Debate on his new procedure proposals stated that he would always be anxious to consult the convenience of every section of the House. It can make no difference to the right hon. Gentleman what Irish Votes are taken to-night, and if it is convenient to us that the Vote for the Irish Chief Secretary should be put off to a later day, it can make no difference to the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that I announced my intention to adopt and carry out the policy of meeting the convenience of all sections of the House as far as I could; and if the hon. Gentleman had on behalf of the Irish Members given me earlier notice that it was not convenient to take the Vote, I should not have put it down. However, perhaps the better plan would be to postpone it altogether.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

      CLASS II.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      1."That a sum, not exceeding £2,771, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid, that the Vote for the Chief Secretary having been postponed, they were about to enjoy a preliminary canter and would see how the right hon. Gentleman could stand fire. He would commence with the private secretaries to the Lord Lieutenant. He did not think that any official had so many secretaries as the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He had a Chief Secretary and an Under Secretary and a secretary to that secretary and then he also had private secretaries. The theme was the State Steward—what were his duties? It was his duty to introduce partners to each other at dances, and to do that rightly was a very difficult thing in Dublin. Then there was the Master of the Horse. His position was an anomaly because he was master of nothing, there being no horses at the Viceregal Lodge. Then there was the Surgeon of the Household. The Attorney General for Ireland laughed—but he ought rather to weep at this waste of public money. What were the duties of this Surgeon of the Household? Why, he felt the pulses of the young ladies after they had been kissed by the Lord Lieutenant. Then came the Sergeant of the Riding House, and what did he do? who was he to teach riding? Was he to teach the castle clerks or the smart Under Secretaries how to ride their bicycles? Then there was the telegraphist at the Vice-Regal Lodge, who got 5s. a day. But the Lord Lieutenant spent very little time there, and therefore what was the use of this telegraphist, who had nothing to do. The fact was, that, taking most of these posts together, the inference was irresistible that this contempible gingerbread Court was simply an impoverished landlords' asylum. Then the Lord Lieutenant had a Chaplain, so that the State had not only to provide for the Lord Lieutenant's body but for his soul. Fancy, £769 a year being paid to supply the Lord Lieutenant with the means of grace. He was sure that every official in the castle needed the means of grace more than ordinary persons did, and of course the Lord Lieutenant's soul was more important than those of the rest of the officials. He should always continue to denounce the establishment of a Castle Chaplain. The Lord Lieutenant did not use the Chapel Royal at all—when he went to

      1185
      church he went as he himself did, to St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, and he was very glad to meet him there. Then there was the Castle Dean, and he should be very pleased to see him treated as an evicted tenant was. If public money were to be spent in this manner, he should like to see a Poet Laureate set up for Dublin. The whole thing was part of a vile system of corruption. Not one of the gentlemen to whom he had referred could state honestly that they did a day's work. The money which was paid in this way was absolutely thrown away on unproductive labours. It was rather a remarkable fact, and one that should be recollected, that although they were popularly supposed to give their sanction to every farthing of money spent on the public service, if Parliament did not meet next year or the year after two-thirds of the revenue would be collected by different Acts of Parliament, and one of the anomalies of the system was that they were discussing the retinue and service of a gentleman whose position they could not themselves discuss. He thought, however, that he knew a way of discussing it when the Chief Secretary's salary came before them. The Comptroller of the Household did not differ from the 17 other potentates; he did nothing, and got a salary for doing it. But there was a certain matter of a most shocking nature connected with the appointment of the present Comptroller which he wished to bring to the notice of the Committee. Although the Comptroller of the Household was practically appointed at pleasure, it was a well recognised fact that he was a fixture so long as he discharged his little duties with propriety. The late Comptroller, Colonel Caulfield, now Lord Charlemont, had discharged his duties with the utmost propriety and ability, and was extremely and deservedly popular. He had been Comptroller of Dublin Castle since 1868, and had held the office under no fewer than 12 Vice-Royalties. Lord Charlemont, although pressed to do so by certain persons, did not resign his Comptrollership; when Lord Crewe became Lord Lieutenant. When he refused to do so he was on the eve of being elected an Irish representative Peer, but his name was then withdrawn from the election. When the present Lord Lieutenant came into
      1186
      office, Lord Charlemont thought, naturally, that he would be retained in his position. He did not wish to say one word against Lord Cadogan—but when he came into office, Lord Charlemont was told that other arrangements had been made. When this became known at Dublin Castle, he was asked if he had resigned. "Oh, no!" said Lord Charlemont, "I was dismissed because I was too much of a Home Ruler to satisfy them.'' [Cries of "Oh!"] Of course Lord Charlemont was a genuine Tory, but he had been too much of a gentleman to embarrass Lord Crewe, and he had, for this reason, he maintained, been dismissed as an act of vengeance. He begged, therefore, to move the reduction of the Vote by £413 13s. 4d., the amount of the Comptroller's salary.
      *MR. MICHAEL DAVITTasked what service the present Comptroller had rendered to justify his salary being increased this year by 8d.
      MR. FLYNNsaid the Comptroller's salary under Sub-head A was £413 13s. 4d., but it was worked out as £414.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, there was no increase, £414 was the sum in both years.
      MR. JOHN DILLONasked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to tell them why Lord Charlemont had been dismissed from his position. By the Amendment they desired to call attention to this question, and to ascertain whether it was the fact that these offices, which ought to be entirely removed from Party feeling, had been, in the present instance, dragged into Party feeling in a most disgraceful way.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the hon. Member for South Donegal had twice quoted the maxim, De minimis non curat lex; but if the law did not care about small things, the hon. Members from Ireland did when they called attention to a discrepancy of 6s. 8d. between the Estimate and the actual salary of the Comptroller. They moved a reduction in the salary of the Comptroller on the ground that Lord Charlemont no longer held the office. As far as he was aware, Lord Charlemont never was Comptroller, but was State Steward. ["No, no!"] Well, this was a small matter. The real charge was that Lord Charlemont

      1187
      was dismissed from his post on political grounds; and to that operation he gave an emphatic contradiction. Of four officers of the Household before Lord Cadogan became Viceroy, three had been retained. The offices were entirely in the gift of the Lord Lieutenant, and when he went the Household officers went with him. They might be reap-pointed, and all that Lord Cadogan had done was that he had not reappointed Lord Charlemont. He would state unhesitatingly that the non-reappointment had absolutely nothing to do with any political question whatsoever; and he must ask the hon. Member for South Donegal, unless he produced some evidence to the contrary, to accept that assurance. He did not understand where political motive could come in. The services of three gentlemen had been continued. In the fourth case the charge made was absolutely unfounded.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid, he would accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman; of whom he believed that he knew very little about the transaction; but he could not withdraw one word of what he had said. The appointment was technically made by the Lord Lieutenant, but practically by the Government, and, having discharged the duties efficiently since 1868, Lord Charlemont first heard that he was superseded from a letter read out to him by Lord Crewe on board ship. Efforts had previously been made to induce him to vacate the place, in order the more effectually to carry out the boycott against Lord Crewe. To a reporter who interviewed his Lordship at his residence in Tyrone, he said, "It is ridiculous to say I am a Home Ruler,'' because he did not and he would not have been Comptroller of Dublin Castle if he had been a Home Ruler; and his Lordship added, ''I am too much of a Home Ruler to suit them," meaning, of course, that he was too much of a gentleman. [Laughter.]
      MR. DILLONsaid, it would not be a matter to be much ashamed of if Irish Members did not know or care who was Comptroller at Dublin Castle, but it was amusing that the Chief Secretary had been mistaken, as he was on the evidence of "Thorn's Directory for 1895," which gave Viscount Charlemont as Comptroller of Dublin Castle. What
      1188
      they did care about was that the House and the public should understand the. game that was played during the Vice-royalty of Lord Crewe. It was. notorious that there was organised against the representative of the Queen a" system of boycott which would have led to representation if it had been organised against a landgrabber. The object was to induce him to resign, which he refused to do. Such proceedings were inconsistent with the Lord Lieutenant being the representative of the Queen. For one, he was opposed to the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, because it was a mark and sign of the independence of Ireland, although, under the Lord Lieutenancy it had at present the worst government in Europe. So long as there was a Lord Lieutenant it was admitted that Ireland was entitled to separate Government from Great Britain. But measures ought to be taken to secure that the Lord Lieutenant was a true representative of the Queen, and not a Party politician and a Party hack. Nothing, however, was to be gained by continuing the Debate, and he would suggest that they should now come to a Division.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that Lord Crewe signalised his arrival by refusing to receive two deputations.
      *THE CHAIRMANsaid, that question could not be discussed on an Amendment to the Vote for the salary of the Comptroller.
      MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid, that while he was prepared to accept the statement of the Chief Secretary, it must be obvious that there was some reason why Lord Charlemont was not reappointed. The most likely one was that he accepted the position of Comptroller under the late Liberal Government, that he had been to some extent boycotted by the ascendancy party in Ireland, and when they came back to power they knew at Dublin Castle that things would not work smoothly if Lord Charlemont were reappointed.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was obviously unreasonable that they should be asked to state why Lord Charlemont was not reappointed. There might have been a thousand reasons. But he could assure the Committee that

      1189
      it was not because he had served under Lord Crewe. He gave the hon. Menu her his positive assurance that that was not the motive, and asked him to accept it.
      *SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid, it was conceded that Lord Charlemont was Comptroller under successive Lord Lieutenants, representing different shades of politics, from 1868. He might be permitted to say that Lord Charlemont never allowed his politics to interfere with his duty, and discharged the functions of his office in a manner which gave general satisfaction to Dublin society. There was an old saving post hoc ergo propter hoc. It might he that it applied in this ease. To the amazement of all who had lived in Dublin for years, and knew how popular Lord Charlemont had been, when Lord Cadogan became Viceroy, Lord Charlemont suddenly disappeared, and was not re appointed. Technically he might not have been dismissed, but did the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University doubt that Lord Charlemont was not reappointed or was dismissed because he had not led the way in refusing to serve under Lord Houghton?
      MR. E. CARSON: I am certain he was not.
      *SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid, it was a matter of genera) observation that, to "squelch" Home Rule, those bitterly opposed to it, abstained from paying to Lord Houghton the respect which had always hitherto been paid to the representative of the Queen. [Nationalist cheers.] Because Lord Charlemont, who was a northern landlord and Peer, did not follow the example of other landlords and bigoted Tory politicians, Lord Cadogan did not reappoint him. He himself would oppose, if it ever cropped up, the abolition of the office of Viceroy in Ireland, because the existence of that office was essential to working out the principle of Home Rule and the establishment of an independent Legislature for Ireland. The discussion of the Vote might, perhaps, be a hardship to the present Comptroller at Dublin Castle, but principle must be regarded, and the House had no other way of; marking its disapproval of the want of respect shown to the late Viceroy, not only by the landlords, but every section of the Tory Party in Ireland.
      MR. DUNBAR BARTONbelieved that, if Lord Charlemont were consulted, he would contradict every one of the reasons suggested by hon. Members opposite for his not being reappointed. Other members of Lord Crewe's household had been reappointed, and why should it be said that Lord Charlemont was not reappointed because he served under Lord Crewe? Hitherto Nationalist Members had complained of the absence of change in the staff at Dublin Castle, and the reappointment of "the old gang." The hon. Member for South Donegal was mistaken in the reasons he had suggested for Lord Charlemont's being no longer Comptroller, and he believed that would be the opinion of every one in Ireland acquainted with the matter.
      MR. J. C. FLYNNregretted that he could not accept the disclaimer of the Chief Secretary about Lord Charlemont. The circumstantial evidence in the matter was too strong, though they could not furnish actual proof. Lord Charlemont was "sent to Coventry." Nine-tenths of the people in Ireland were persuaded of two things—that Lord Crewe was socially boycotted because of his Home Rule opinions, and Lord Charlemont was dismissed because he refused to take part in the boycott.
      Question put, "That Item A (Salaries), be reduced by £413 13s. 4d., the amount of the salary of the Comptroller of the Household."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 125; Noes, 200. (Division List, No. 102.)
      *MR. DAVITTfelt it his duty to lodge a protest against further waste of public money upon the household of the Lord Lieutenant. He failed to see where his constituents or the people of Ireland derived any benefit from the continued existence of this household. [Hear, hear!"]. From his point of view it was an institution for the breeding of flunkeyism in the public life of Ireland, and he should be going contrary to the wishes of his constituents and his own sense of public duty if he assisted in voting money for any such institution. If they added the salary of the Lord Lieutenant to the expenses of his household, close upon

      1191
      £40,000 a year was thrown away in this manner, which might be much better spent if placed at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board to be used for carrying out works that would benefit the people. ["Hear, hear!"] Again, the existence of this household constituted a standing stigma upon the religion of the majority of the people of Ireland, for to-day, 70 years after the passing of the Emancipation Act, the law forbade any man holding the religious views of the majority of the Irish people to be Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not contend that a Catholic Lord Lieutenant would be any better than a Protestant, nor was he objecting to a Protestant holding that or any other public position in Ireland. But what he had a right as a Catholic to protest against was, that this office should be continued and should represent a stigma and an insult to the religious convictions of the mass of the Irish people. For these two reasons he should not only vote against the grant of this money, but he would divide the Committee upon it as a protest against the continued existence of an institution which was neither useful nor ornamental, and which he thought ought to be abolished.
      MR. G. MURNAGHANsaid, he rose to join in the protest, and he did so because of the action of the Protestant occupant of that office during the last nine months. The £40,000 spent on that institution would be much better utilised in helping the industrious people of the country. Their country was not in a position to throw away any money; their people were in a most depressed condition, and they had stretched over Ulster miserable houses not fit for cattle, and yet they could not get any assistance to have them put in some presentable shape for human beings. He would invite the Government to give this matter their serious attention. It was rather a disgrace to the liberality of the British Government that, at this time of day, they should allow to remain upon the Statute-book an enactment which deprived the Catholic people of Ireland of the right to hold any office that might be held by any man.
      MR. DOUGLAS COGHILLsaid, he was one of those
      1192
      who thought there ought not to be a Lord Lieutenant. If they could not get rid of the Lord Lieutenant directly, they might do so indirectly, and one step towards that would be to get rid of his salary and household. He therefore proposed to do himself the pleasure of voting with hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Irish cheers.]
      MR. FLYNNsaid, he entirely agreed with his hon. Friends in deprecating the enormous expense of this household, and in deprecating the waste of public money which was involved in its up-keep. He should be sorry to see the office of Lord Lieutenant abolished under present circumstances. He looked upon it as a sign and symbol of the separate Government in Ireland——
      *THE CHAIRMANsaid, the salary of the Lord Lieutenant was not on this Vote, and therefore the hon. Member could not go into that matter.
      MR. FLYNNsaid, he found in the Vote a sum of £800 for the salary and allowances of the chaplain. He considered that this was not only a waste of public money, but also an anachronism, because nearly 30 years after the disestablishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland they had here a survival of it in an official form. It was most inconsistent with the Disestablishment Act that this office should be maintained. Supposing a Lord Lieutenant was appointed who was not a member of the Anglican form of worship. Supposing a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a Methodist were appointed. It was intolerable enough that a Roman Catholic should be debarred from the office of Lord Lieutenant, but it became a much more intolerable condition of things if they found that it would be practically impossible for any gentleman to be appointed who did not belong to the Anglican form of worship. If such a gentleman were appointed this office would be entirely useless. He would not make use of the services of the Protestant chaplain to the country, or the reading clerk, or the organ blower, nor of any of the officials connected with the official form of worship. That portion of the Vote ought certainly to be dispensed with. If there were vested interests in connection with this appointment, he contended it would be quite easy to buy off the chaplain and the

      1193
      other officials. He protested, in the name of religious liberty, against this Vote being allowed to remain. He thought the Government would be very well advised in dropping this item, or at least in giving an intimation that it would appear when the Estimates were again presented to the House.
      MR. DILLONsaid, he was perfectly aware that they were not entitled to discuss on this Vote the question of whether the office of Lord Lieutenant ought to be maintained or not. But he regarded it as an anomalous and monstrous state of things that the salary of the official should be placed upon the Consolidated Fund and thereby withdrawn from the criticism of Parliament. On what ground was it withdrawn? Because he went to Ireland as a representative of the Throne, and not as a party politician. But they found that, while his salary was not voted by Parliament because it was supposed he ought to be above and apart from party politics, in reality he was always a partisan, and therefore he said his position was most anomalous and most inconsistent. One of the most necessary reforms in connection with this Vote was that either the Lord Lieutenant's salary should be put on the Estimates in order that his conduct might be subject, as a party man, to the criticism of Parliament, or else that he should go to Ireland honestly as a representative of Her Majesty, as the Governor-General of India did, and he ought to carry out in his administration of Ireland the principle which had induced the Government to remove his salary from this Vote. It was because he objected to the administration in all its details that he should vote against this sum. He would like to say a word upon the religious question. Ireland was a Catholic country, but they did not claim, as they might be entitled to claim, a Catholic Establishment for Ireland. At the same time he regarded it as an outrage and an insult to fix a permanent Protestant Establishment to the representative of Her Majesty in a Catholic country. There were ample facilities for religious worship in Dublin to whatever persuasion the Lord Lieutenant might belong, and he protested against the maintenance of one particular form of religion—the Church of England—at Dublin Castle.
      1194
      It was an insult to the people of Ireland, a Catholic people, that a permanent Protestant establishment should be maintained for the representative of Her Majesty in that country. This, indeed, was one of the last remnants of the abominable system of Protestant ascendancy which once universally prevailed in Ireland. The office, in regard of religion, ought to be thrown open; considerations of sect or of religion ought not to be allowed to affect it, and the Lord Lieutenant should be perfectly free to follow his convictions, to whatever church he might be attached. He would suggest to this strong Unionist Government, which had professed the desire to do everything possible to remove the grievances of the people of Ireland, that one means of conciliating a large portion of the people of that country, would be to remove this remnant of an old, a hateful and a bigoted system, and free the office of Lord Lieutenant from the odium of this restriction. No such provision was attached to the Government of any of our self-governing colonies or India, and in consideration for the feelings of the majority of the people of Ireland it should be abolished in connection with the Lord Lieutenancy of that country. ["Hear, hear!"]
      MR. P. J. POWERsaid he agreed with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mayo, and, with him, desired to enter his protest against a system which was a slur and an insult on the Irish people.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that it seemed there was a consensus of opinion among hon. Members on the Irish Benches against this Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. But the reasons adduced for this had been very different on the part of different Members. The hon. Member for South Donegal objected to various items; the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone thought the money might be spent in other ways, the hon. Member for South Mayo thought the whole institution of the Lord Lieutenant and everything connected with it should be swept away, while the hon. Member for East Mayo, taking a quite different view, considered that the office should be maintained, but objected to the form of administration. ["Hear, hear!"] Now as to the Chaplain of Dublin Castle,

      1195
      that officer was like any other officer of the Lord Lieutenant's household, and each Viceroy had the appointment in his own hands. If a Lord Lieutenant who was a Presbyterian was appointed, it would, he conceived, be in his power to appoint a Presbyterian as chaplain. In the proper sense of the term there was really no Protestant establishment in connection with Dublin Castle. The question to be considered was this: everyone would agree that as long as a Lord Lieutenancy and a Court were maintained in Ireland there must be many accessories of expenditure connected with the office; and while the existence of the office was not directly challenged, it was too much to expect the Committee to go closely into details if the expenditure charged was not excessive. ["Hear, hear!"] There had been much talk about the continuance of the office of Lord Lieutenant, and about the money of the office being spent in other ways. Hon. Members opposite might be reminded that if the office were abolished Ireland would not have much to gain by the change; for a large amount of money now spent in connection with the office would not then be spent in the country at all. ["Hear, hear!"] The expenses of the office of Lord Lieutenant were by no means wholly met by public funds. The pecuniary demands of the office involved not only the salary and allowances of the Lord Lieutenant, but they exacted a large amount from the private sources of the nobleman who filled the position. ["Hear, hear!"] If hon. Members on the Irish Benches would only give the Government clearly to understand that they were agreed among themselves on the point that the Lord Lieutenant and his Household were institutions which ought no longer to exist, he would undertake, on the part of the Government, to seriously consider the matter. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that when a Member of the English Government promised, with a bland smile and an appearance of assent, to seriously consider any proposition from a Member on the Irish Benches, he would advise the hon. Member for East Mayo should look out. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman
      1196
      that if he was under the impression that there was any united desire in the Irish Benches to get rid of the Viceroyalty in Ireland, he was very much mistaken. He, for instance, would most strongly and vehemently oppose any such proposition, because he regarded the Vice-royalty as one of the distinct marks of Irish nationality, which Irish Nationalists would be very foolish indeed to surrender. He quite agreed with the Chief Secretary that most Lord Lieutenants were unable to carry out their functions within the limits of the salary they received from the State, but at the same time he had heard of instances—they were not those of the present Lord Lieutenant or of his predecessor—where English Lord Lieutenants had gone over to Ireland and made a jolly good thing out of the office. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to make any reply with regard to the religious question. He could have done so, and still kept himself within the bounds of order, because, after all, the discussion of the question of the chaplaincy involved the whole question of the religious disability which was imposed upon the Viceroyalty. After all, if there be only an Episcopalian chaplain, which he believed to be the case, paid for by the State in connection with the Viceregal Court, it must be because the Viceroy was usually a member of the Established Church, but if, as the Chief Secretary argued, with what accuracy of statement he did not know, that it was possible for a Presbyterian Lord Lieutenant to have a Presbyterian chaplain, that did not meet the argument that there was no provision for a Catholic chaplain, for the good reason that there was no provision for a Catholic Viceroy. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he did away with this odious remnant of Catholic disability in Ireland.
      *MR. DAVITTsaid, he was not at all alarmed at the smile of the Chief Secretary, or at his promise to consider the suggestion for the abolition of the Viceregal Court.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I said I would consider the question if ever I found Gentlemen opposite were unanimous.
      *MR. DAVITTwished to be perfectly candid. Amongst the reasons which would induce him to support a Measure

      1197
      such as the Chief Secretary might possibly bring in was, that he was a republican and opposed to sham monarchies in Ireland or elsewhere.
      MR. MACNEILLsaid, the Chief Secretary had not satisfied him on the religious question. Did not the right hon. Gentleman see that Catholics had the deepest objection to their exclusion, because they regarded it as a remnant of the odious system of oppression in the past? The Dean of the Chapel Royal was chiefly a political agent of the Government, and he suggested that as a compromise the Chief Secretary should consent to abolish the office.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURasked what was the good of niggling over details. The fact of the matter was hon. Gentlemen opposite objected on broad grounds or not at all to the Lord Lieutenant's Household. On broad grounds he was prepared to meet them. He maintained that they could not have a Court without expenditure more or less of this description, and he was not going to haggle with hon. Gentlemen over particular items. If they were not prepared to abolish the whole Court in Dublin, it was unworthy of the hon. Gentlemen to object to this or that charge.
      MR. FLYNNhoped that when the Irish Members were united on other subjects, they would find the Chief Secretary prepared to give fair and favourable consideration to their representations.
      MR. ALEXANDER CROSSagreed with the Irish Secretary in the view that this was not a subject to be dealt with by wrangling over details. But there were two important points really involved in the Debate. The one was the continuation of the office of the Lord Lieutenancy in Ireland. Regarding that he shared the views already expressed by another Member of the Unionist Party. He thought the office was an anachronism. Its existence put Ireland on a different basis of government from that of the sister countries, and he thought such a difference was one which a Unionist Government ought not to maintain. The three countries should be all governed on the same lines. The other point was the religious disabilities attachable to that office which had been complained of by the
      1198
      Irish Members. It might be a sentimental matter. It was so probaby to a large extent, but it deserves consideration. He hoped the Chief Secretary would frankly give it that. This disability against Catholics was one of the very last remaining. The day had gone past for all such. It was not in sympathy with the opinion of these times that any man should be excluded from any office in the State on account of his religious belief. And this disability ought to be removed. ["Hear, hear!"] Its removal would remove a cause of offence to a large section of the Irish, and be grateful to the sentiments of the people in the other sections of the Kingdom. He had spoken because he thought it proper that the existence of these views amongst Unionist Members should be expressed, and in the hope the present strong Government would take an early opportunity of favourably considering them.
      Original Question put:—
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 210; Noes. 115.—(Division List, No. 103.)
      2. £1,181, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland—agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question proposed:
      3. "That a sum, not exceeding £113,458, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland, including certain Grants in aid of Local Taxation"
      MR. ELYNNsaid, the Chief Secretary, who had expressed his desire to kill Home Rule with kindness, had commenced his career as President of the Local Government Board of Ireland with a most unhappy experiment, namely, the suspension of the Board of Guardians of the Athlone Union and the appointment of two Vice-guardians in their place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh stated, in the course of his speech on Wednesday, that the appointment of those Vice-guardians was a saving to the ratepayers.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I only advocated the appointment of paid guardians when the ordinary guardians failed to do their duty.
      MR. FLYNNcontended that it was only in cases of extreme necessity that these extreme powers of the Local Government Board should be put into operation; and he was certain that if that Board was controlled by Irish public opinion these suspensions of Boards of Guardians would rarely occur indeed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to the case of Cork, and the large reduction in the amount of outdoor relief which was made by the Vice-guardians in that case. But those reductions were easily made. All that was necessary to be done was to refuse out-door relief in necessitous cases, or at any rate to cut it down largely—which elected guardians could not do, being responsible to popular control—and the whole thing was done. What were the facts in regard to the case of the Athlone Guardians? That Board had admittedly managed their affairs well. The Union was not in debt; its finances were not maladministered; there was a balance to its credit. The Local Government Board had no complaint to make against the Athlone Board, excepting on one knotty point of the house administration. Last August and September the guardians, in accordance with the order of the Local Government Board, advertised for a trained nurse for the infirmary. Out of the applicants for the post the Guardians selected was a Sister of Mercy, Sister Mary de Sales, and the Local Government Board objected to the appointment on the ground that she was not a trained nurse. It was true that this nun did not hold a certificate as a nurse, but she was better trained and skilled in the care of the sick, by many years' practical experience by the bedside, than a young nurse who got a certificate from some institution in Dublin. He did not defend the employment in every case of nuns in hospitals in preference to certificated nurses, but in this particular case the Athlone Guardians had acted with a full sense of their responsibility, and after they had thoroughly acquainted themselves with the capabilities of Sister Mary de Sales; and he thought it was a monstrous thing for the Local Government Board sitting up
      1200
      in Dublin, and ignorant of local needs, to suspend the Board of Guardians for the mere appointment of one officer. The Local Government Board wrote to the guardians that they were unable to approve of the appointment of the Sister of Mercy unless she consented to undergo a training in an institution in Dublin. The guardians passed, by a majority of 25 votes to seven votes, a strong resolution declining to require the Sister to proceed to Dublin for training, or to make another appointment, and for this they were suspended by the Local Government Board. Where there were no charges of corruption or maladministration, and the locally-elected body were discharging their duties with efficiency, the Local Government Board ought not to suspend the Guardians and put paid officials in their place, to act with an official tyranny which would not be tolerated for 24 hours in England.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that he knew nothing about the case mentioned by the hon. Member, and he did not wish to suggest that the lady to whom the hon. Member referred was not all that he had stated. But the contention of the hon. Member amounted to an abrogation of the established rule in Ireland that Boards of Guardians must appoint none but certificated nurses to the workhouses.
      MR. FLYNNsaid that there was no such rule. It might be a Local Government Board Order.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that it was one of the best Orders of the Local Government Board, and it was absolutely necessary in Ireland to see that the nurse in the poor-house should have every qualification. It was the preeminent duty of the Local Government Board to see this Order carried out, which had been found to work well all over Ireland.
      MR. J. DALYsaid that the Local Government Board, in supplanting the elected Guardians, usually appointed people who were strangers to the duties, and quite unsympathetic with the people of Ireland. This action of the Local Government Board, complained of by his hon. Friend, was a blot on the Administration of the Chief Secretary which would not soon be forgotten in Ireland. It showed the domineering manner in which the Local Government Board

      1201
      discharged the functions. The vast majority of the Guardians believed that this nun was capable of making a good nurse, and that opinion was fortified by the testimony of the doctor under whom she worked. He said that the lady was quite competent to discharge the duties of nurse to his satisfaction, and no better testimony to her efficiency than that gentleman's opinion. In many instances the Local Government Board carried out the duties quite inefficiently. For instance, in one workhouse 2s. 7d. per inmate was allowed for drink, and in another workhouse only one penny per inmate. If the Local Government Board were doing their duty, they would not allow such glaring disparities. He urged that the qualification for Members on the Dispensary Committees should be reduced. In some of the poorer districts it was extremely difficult to obtain men who possessed the necessary property qualification. The right hon. Gentleman ought to make Ulster unions adopt the Labourers' Cottages Acts. When some of those unions had received requisitions from the Local Government Board to erect cottages, they had coolly flouted them, and nothing more was said. But when a union not in Ulster wished to appoint a nun as nurse, they were dissolved. The Inspectors of the Local Government Board were appointed from a class of men who had no knowledge of their duties when appointed, and much friction resulted. He suggested that clerks of unions and workhouse masters, when found competent, should be promoted.
      MR. MICHAEL AUSTINcalled attention to the peculiar position occupied by the Chief Secretary in holding both that office and the Presidency of the Local Government Board of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, as Chief Secretary, must first have regard to the political necessities of the day, and he could not, therefore, devote proper attention to the administration of the poor, which, as President of the Local Government Board, devolved upon him.
      MR. T. LOUGHasked the Chief Secretary for information with regard to the auditing of Grand Jury accounts throughout Ireland. There was a Blue-book issued by the Local Government Board showing what the
      1202
      local taxation of Ireland was, and it appeared that there was a steady increase of local taxation. It appeared also from this Blue-book that the largest spending body in Ireland was the Grand Jury, but with the exception of the summaries therein contained, there was no account at all of the vast sums levied and spent by the Grand Juries throughout the Irish counties.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR, on a point of order, asked whether this matter properly arose under the Local Government Board Vote, seeing that the auditors of the Board did not audit the accounts of the Grand Juries, in the sense that they had no power to enforce their recommendations.
      MR. LOUGHpointed out that there was an item in this Vote for the salaries of these auditors.
      *THE CHAIRMANsaid, that if the Chief Secretary stated that the auditors did not audit the accounts of the Grand Juries, he must accept his statement.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURbelieved the auditors audited the accounts, but there was absolutely no power to enforce their recommendations. He presumed, too, they superintended the publication of the accounts.
      MR. LOUGHsaid that was the very point he wanted to set out. They had no power to surcharge, and therefore there was no way of reaching these extraordinary local authorities in Ireland. There was an item in the accounts of some £7,000 for auditing the accounts of the Grand Juries and treasurers of counties throughout Ireland. He wished to know what work was done for the money, how the audit was accomplished, and the precise responsibility of the auditors for the publication of the Grand Jury accounts. He desired a fuller statement from the Local Government Board. He wanted to know how the money was spent in the different counties and the rates at which wards were made throughout Ireland. Not only did the auditors audit the Grand Jury accounts, but also those of the Dublin Dock Board and other harbour accounts throughout the country. There was a sum of £367,000 a year received by the harbour authorities, and they had most incomplete accounts of how the money was expended. Was there an effective audit of the accounts of the

      1203
      various harbour authorities? If there was, could the Chief Secretary tell him where to get fuller details. His belief was, that under the sanction of the audit of the Local Government Board, there was the greatest extravagance on the part of these local authorities, and they could not trace that extravagance because the auditors did not furnish them with proper accounts.
      MR. J. P. FARRELLwished to set the House right as to the circumstances attending the suspension of the Athlone Board of Guardians by the Local Government Board. He believed he was within the fact in stating that the suspension of this body originated in a dispute which was created in the Athlone Union by the Rev. Dr. Campbell. A lady had acted as nurse for a period of five years, and it was not until there was a dispute got up by the Rev. Dr. Campbell on a charge of proselytising against the nuns that the Local Government Board thought fit to send down and hold an Inquiry on the subject. This was in August 1895. The Local Government Board took objection to the lady acting as a night nurse in the institution, and they ordered the substitution of a properly trained and certificated nurse. In response to the advertisement Sister Mary was appointed, but the Local Government Board having had their bigoted feelings on the question aroused, objected to the appointment. The Board of Guardians were steadfast, and the result was that the Board of Guardians had been suspended for eight months by a mandatory order of the Local Government Board. The words "certificated trained nurse" did not occur in connection with the English Poor Law system. If the practice was a proper one in Athlone it was also proper in other Unions in Ireland. But what was now taking place? Within two months a nurse had been appointed at Granard, for instance, who was neither certificated nor trained. The same thing had occurred in the city of Derry, and in the Union of Longford. He maintained, therefore, that this question of trained night nurses, to which he personally had no objection so long as it was confined within the limits of justice and reason, and so long as the religious test was not
      1204
      applied, was one wholly for the consideration of the local authorities. He should be glad to see a return prepared of the northern unions, showing in how many cases in the different unions in the north, the Guardians were in the possession of the services of certificated trained night nurses. In reviewing the chief defects of the present Local Government Board administration, he said that the Irish Poor Law system was originally designed to carry out two important works in Ireland—to afford relief to the poor, and relief to the sick poor. But since that time many other functions had been conferred on the Board. It was utterly impossible for one small central system of government to efficiently discharge its duties under the cumbrous Public Health Act, under the long tedious work connected with the Labourers' Act, and the Franchise Act. One of the most important Acts to which the Board had to pay attention was the Irish Public Health Act; but the present system was inefficient and absurd. The Labourers' Act was designed to relieve a great deal of the sufferings of the poor labourers, and to put them in better houses, as well as to create a spirit of independence among them. The Act, however, had been scandalously neglected by the Local Government Board, which had done its best in every instance, as far as he was aware, to aid in the obstruction of carrying out this Act. They neglected to push forward schemes adopted by the Guardians in a degree which was almost criminal; and whereas, at this time there should be 120,000 labourers' houses erected throughout Ireland, there were only 12,000 cottages erected after 13 years experience of the Act. The inefficiency of the Department in respect of the Franchise Act was also positively glaring. There were no service franchise forms, neither was there a proper revision of the voters' lists. A number of lists were at present in force where the name of a man appeared who had been dead 10 years. In fact, the duties of this Department should be separated. Either there should be another Board, or the local authorities should be given more direct control of their own affairs. The carrying out of the Labourers' Act should be simplified, and until this was

      1205
      done progress could not be expected. A sum of £1,300,000 was collected annually in Ireland for the purposes to winch the various Acts administered by the Local Government Board referred. Of this sum £700,000 was expended in the actual relief of the poor, and the balance—namely, £600,000—went in fees and salaries to officials. That was surely an excessive amount. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would make an effort to improve the present system of Poor Law administration in Ireland.
      DR. TANNER DR. TANNER (Cork, Mid) moved the reduction of the item set down for the Medical Commission by the sum of £1,000. He did this as a protest against the suspension of the Athlone Board of Guardians and the dismissal of Sister Mary.
      MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The lady has not been dismissed. ["Hear, hear!"]
      DR. TANNERsaid, that the Board, at any rate, had been suspended in consequence of the action taken in the case of this lady. He detested bigotry. Sisters of Mercy and of the Bon Secours were the best nurses for the sick poor. It was a fact that some of the best nurses in London at the present time were not certificated. They had lacked the necessary means to enable them to complete the full course of training. The value of a certificate could be overrated. In his opinion the action of the. Local Government Board in this case amounted to an outrage.
      MR. MURNAGHANsaid, that in his opinion the action of the Local Government Board in this matter had been somewhat unwise; and he thought that they might very well make an exception to this stringent rule in this case.
      On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that in view of the reduction of the particular item of this Vote which had been moved, he should confine his remarks entirely to the action of the Local Government Board in suspending the Guardians of the Athlone Union. The hon. Member for North Cork observed, he thought with justice, that the Local Government Board would not be justified in suspending the Boards of Guardians except in
      1206
      cases of great and urgent necessity. Certainly the general policy of the Local Government Board in Ireland, so far as he could understand it, was not to suspend the Boards of Guardians except in cases of urgent necessity, and the particular case of the Athlone Board of Guardians, he did not hesitate to say, came within that description. The hon. Member for North Cork described the action of the Local Government Board as an intolerable piece of petty official tyranny. The language used by the hon. Member for West Cavan attributed to them a certain element of religious bigotry in the action they had taken.
      MR. J. P. EARRELLwas understood to say that it was not until a dispute was got up in regard to proselytising that anything was heard about the night nursing business.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURreferred to the language used by the hon. Member for Mid Cork, who spoke of this being a dirty little piece of bigotry, and pointed out that on a previous occasion the hon. Member for Louth had attributed the suspension of the Board of Guardians to their narrow sectarian feeling. Nothing could be further than this from their thoughts or their intention. As a matter of fact, the nuns had never left the workhouse, and continued to live there.
      MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if they continued in their original capacity.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he thought so, and he believed the general management of the nursing was in the hands of one of the nuns at the present time.
      MR. J. P. FARRELLasked if it was not the fact that the Local Government Board insisted on a trained night nurse being put there.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that was perfectly true. The Local Government Board insisted upon the appointment of a trained nurse to do night work, but that was not in any sense ousting the nuns from their functions, which, as a matter of fact, they performed up to the present time. There seemed to be an impression among hon. Members opposite that this question had arisen only since the present Government entered upon its tenure of office, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be more correctly acquainted with the

      1207
      facts of the case. The question arose during the tenure of office of his predecessor, and it was only due to the fact that the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs left office when he did that this action was not taken by him. He would give the Committee a short account of these transactions. For some years past there had been a serious deficiency in connection with the arrangements for night nursing in the Athlone Workhouse, and several cases had, in consequence, come prominently before the public. On the 15th of November another child died under a similar set of circumstances. On both occasions the coroner's jury called attention to the necessity for the appointment of a night nurse for the infirmary. The nursing of the hospital by day was then and still remained in the hands of the Sisters of Mercy. He agreed in what had been said as to the excellent qualities of the nuns as nurses. As a matter of fact, they had not been permitted to undertake and had never done the night nursing, and it was in the hands of paupers—persons who, as a rule, had little knowledge of nursing, and were incapable of discharging duties of that kind in a proper manner. When the coroner's verdict on the first child was made known, the Local Government Board directed a medical inspector to report. As far back as 1892, he ascertained that the nuns did not perform the duties of night nursing, that they retired early and left the work to pauper attendants. The inspector had no hesitation in supporting the recommendation of the medical officer that the appointment of a trained nurse was necessary. A considerable correspondence ensued. It was renewed on the death of another child in 1894; and this death was followed by another case which created considerable scandal. A Dublin hospital received a woman who had been in the workhouse infirmary five months, and she was suffering from a dislocation of the hip which must have occurred two months before she left Athlone, and yet the nurses had not discovered her injury, so that the attention of the doctor was not called to her case; and, as the result of the delay in discovering the dislocation, she would probably be lame for life. This case following the others provoked much

      1208
      indignation; and on the 3rd of May of last year, the Chief Secretary approved of an intimation being conveyed to the Guardians that they must appoint a trained night nurse, and, if they did not, the management would be placed in the hands of paid officers. Advertisements were issued, and several trained nurses applied; but the Guardians appointed a nun—Sister de Sales—who had had no training outside the Athlone workhouse. They proposed to send her to Dublin for training, and to defray the cost. It was pointed out that this was illegal, and they proposed to let her be trained at her own cost. This, it was objected, would involve delay, during which it would be necessary to appoint someone in her place. Then the Bishop of Ardagh threatened, if a trained nurse were insisted upon, to withdraw the nuns altogether; and, thereupon, the Guardians declared that Sister de Sales was fully qualified without any further training. On the 19th of June 1895, while the late Government was still in Office, an ultimatum was sent to the Guardians declaring that the appointment would not be sanctioned unless she went to Dublin to be trained, and unless a trained nurse were appointed in her absence. An inspector attended a meeting of the Guardians to induce them to change their last decision; and, as they would not do so, the Board was reluctantly dissolved by himself, as it would have been by his predecessor had he remained Chief Secretary. It was explained to the inspector by the Superioress that it was not contemplated that Sister de Sales should undertake night duty, but that the Sisters were to obtain the services of a lay night nurse, although Sister de Sales was to be ostensibly appointed; and on that undertaking a payment of £50 a year was to be sanctioned. Thus, there was in contemplation what was not straightforward. He did not suggest that the sisters wanted to do anything otherwise than what was straightforward; but he could not acquit the Chairman, who could not have been ignorant of the nature of the transaction. He reluctantly concluded that he could not do otherwise than act as the late Chief Secretary would have done. The Local Government Board had absolutely no alternative but to take the course they did.
      DR. TANNERsaid he was surprised that the Chief Secretary should have found fault with the nurses, because the case at Athlone turned out to be one of dislocation of hip joint. Were, nurses to diagnose such cases? Because the case was transferred from the workhouse infirmary to the hospital in Dublin, and the doctor was failing in his duty, an attempt was made to throw the blame of a faulty diagnosis on the nurses. If such remissness were brought before the board of governors of any public hospital, the doctor would suffer for it. But for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to throw discredit on the nursing staff because the Lord Lieutenant was wanting in his duty, was ridiculous. To a certain extent he accepted what the right hon. gentleman had said. He depended on the information he received, and he might be led astray. Most Chief Secretaries were at times. There was a practical point. Every medical man at workhouse infirmaries had to sign the docket over the bed of every patient intrusted to their care, writing on the docket what the patient was suffering from. This was not the duty of the nurse, but of the doctor. About the duties of a night nurse. He was doctor in a public hospital for 11 years, and he knew something about those duties. There were generally some hopeless cases in every hospital, and, if there were several patients in extremis, how could one nurse attend to them all? There should be a head nurse—a nun—sand a couple of sub-nurses under her. In that way the wants of the sick would be better ministered to than they could otherwise be. In England, as well as in Ireland, he hoped that pauper nurses would be done away with in workhouse infirmaries, and suitable nurses would be substituted for them, who would have the best interests of the sufferers at heart.
      MR. J. P. FARRELLdisclaimed any desire to import bigotry into the matter. He was within his rights in drawing attention to the fact that the commencement of the whole quarrel in Athlone was a dispute which originated in the Inquiry instituted into the conduct of Dr. Cochrane. With regard to the action of the former Chief Secretary, he was not aware of the official intricacies of the case; but he still said it was a very
      1210
      strong step in a matter of this sort to suspend an elected Board of Guardians, against whose financial administration of the affairs of the union there was no complaint whatever. With regard to the employment of trained nurses, he might instance the action of the medical officer of the Longford Union, who was in favour of a complete system of trained nursing in that infirmary. He was confronted with the difficulty which cropped up in Athlone of having trained night nurses. There was a conflict with the Local Government Board, but the Board had not insisted on the attendance of trained night nurses in the infirmary. He believed that a great deal of the misunderstanding which arose, and which led to such disastrous results, was due to the action of the officials of the union. But, inasmuch as the matter was practically closed by the re-election of the Board of Guardians, he would appeal to the Member for Mid-Cork to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
      DR. TANNERconsented to the withdrawal of his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. DILLONsaid he desired to call attention to the administration of the Labourers' Act in Ireland. It was stated that the Government intended to introduce a Bill to simplify and cheapen the procedure under the Act. Such a Bill might be introduced forthwith. It might be passed after 12 o'clock, as it would be non-contentious. No one desired to obstruct a Bill having for its object an improvement of the working of the Labourers' Acts in Ireland. But, apart from the passing of a Bill, something might be done to meet the present situation by administrative Acts. In order to show the delay which the present procedure involved, the hon. Member mentioned the case of the Kilmallock Union in County Limerick, where, three years ago, the wretched condition of the dwellings of the labourers in the village of Hospital was brought under his notice, and where the Board of Guardians who, to their credit, had already done much to put these Acts in force, prepared a scheme for the erection of labourers' dwellings. But although he had himself, at the instance of the labourers in the locality, put a

      1211
      question in that House with a view of expediting the procedure, within the last fortnight he had received a letter stating that the labourers were still in their miserable hovels and imploring him to bring this matter before the Government. There must be something extremely wrong in the system under which, with the Local Government Board and the Board of Guardians anxious to have this state of things remedied, the labourers were still compelled to live in these hovels The hon. Member read an extract from a local paper, in which it was stated it often took six or seven years before the schemes for labourers' cottages were carried to completion, and pointing out the impossibility of one arbitrator performing the duties under these Acts. The suggestion that more than one arbitrator should be appointed was one which deserved the consideration of the Chief Secretary. He did not say that the Local Government Board had shown an illiberal spirit in the administration of these Acts—indeed, the very contrary was the case—but he desired to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the extreme desirability of expediting these schemes. He did not know that there had been any Act or Acts, with all their faults, which were enormous, passed by the House of Commons with regard to Ireland, which had done more, and which had struck one more, than the Labourers' Acts. The greatest observers were united in pressing this one point in their writings that the worst reproach of all the many things which existed in Ireland was the scandalous condition of the labouring poor. He did not know anything more striking than to see side by side the miserable hovels in which the labourer was compelled to live, and which were not fit for pigsties, and opposite to that the comfortable, respectable and really attractive house which had been built for him under the Labourers' Acts. He would conclude by urging upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should look personally into this matter and urge upon the Local Government Board that they should apply their energies to remove all obstacles, if necessary, by the appointment of fresh inspectors or by modification of the Acts; and further, that he would as soon as he could introduce the non-contentious Measure to which reference had been made, and which he
      1212
      believed could be passed almost immediately.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.), whilst agreeing that many boards of guardians had done their best to put the Labourers' Acts into operation, observed that they had not, however, met with the same reception in Ulster. In the case of Strabane, for example, the functions of the Board of Guardians had to be superseded and the working of the Labourers Acts in that district intrusted to the Local Government Board. What had been the result? Inspector after inspector of the Local Government Board had been down in Strabane, had viewed the cottages, had reported adversely, had described the habitations of men as almost unfit for the habitation of animals, and yet not one single building had been erected by the Local Government Board. He hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to give some explanation of this matter. He would also be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give some information as to the Stranorlar Union.
      *SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he did not think there was any question in which Ireland was more deeply interested than that of the labourers' cottages. Anyone who had travelled through Ireland must have seen the squalid and wretched condition in which the labourers lived, some time ago, at all events. The late Government were very anxious to grapple with this question, and he rather thought a Bill was actually in preparation with a view, if possible, to better this labourer cottages code. Undoubtedly there were great difficulties in dealing with this matter arising from the Acts of Parliament themselves. Under the existing law there were 14 stages to be gone through before the labourer had any chance of having his cottage even commenced. The consequence was that the expense and delay were so great as to defeat the intentions of the Legislature. These two defects, he had no doubt, could be met by legislation. These 14 stages could be well reduced, and one step towards that would be to leave the Local Government Board finally to decide whether a cottage should be built or not. As the law stood at present, after the Local Government Board had approved of the scheme, any one who had a locus standi might present

      1213
      a petition and might appeal to the Lord Lieutenant in Council. That in itself involved considerable delay and expense, which ultimately fell upon the ratepayers of the Union. If the Local Government Board were made the final authority, they would get rid of a portion of the delay and expense. Even from the financial point of view, it would be a public benefit that this Code should be amended. Some years ago there was a Commission directed to inquire into the whole question of labourers' cottages in the Nenagh Union in the county of Tipperary, and he had a distinct recollection that it was proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that a gentleman who happened to be a brother of one of the Members of the present Cabinet, and who was a large landholder in the neighbourhood of Nenagh, had, at his own expense, built several labourers' cottages on his estate and that those cottages were remunerative and recouped him for the expense incurred. There was recently a case, he thought, on the Earl of Clancarty's estate in Galway. A cottage had been approved of there, and the purchase money of the site was fixed at only £30, but in order to make out the Earl of Clancarty's title to the £30 site, the Guardians were informed by his lordship's solicitor that it would cost £200. That was not the fault of the Earl of Clancarty or of his solicitor. 11 was the fault of the law. That should be got rid of by some simple process, and by giving the Local Government Board the (lower of creating a Parliamentary title. Then there were other costs which would have brought up the sum to £430, which would have been payable out of the rates. That would be a prohibitory sum, and in this case the whole business fell through. He felt quite sure that if the House had an opportunity of knowing how vitally important it was to better the condition of the Irish labourer, quite apart from any political considerations. but merely on the grounds of humanity and civilisation, they would spare no effort and withhold no vote which would conduce to the expediting, facilitating and cheapening of this system, by which the poor labourers of Ireland could be properly housed, and without which that amount of self-respect which was essential to the good feeling of every community could not be expected to exist.
      MR. P. J. POWERsaid he gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill to which he had referred, and which, unless it was very much contrary to what they expected, would be treated as a non-contentious measure, was not altogether drafted at present. That being so he would take the liberty of suggesting that the Chief Secretary should use his influence to do away with the appeal to the Privy Council, which was very expensive and led to great delay; to lighten the heavy stamp duty which was at present attached to the contract, and also to consider whether it would not be possible to do something to enable the Act to be worked in districts where at present it was a dead letter. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the condition of some parts of Ulster and of Connaught, and he did not think the Treasury could better employ its capital than by giving facilities at a decreased rate of interest to those unions for the erection of these cottages. There had never been an expenditure productive of so much good and which had done so much to improve the general aspect of the country as the expenditure under the Labourers' Acts, and he thought it ought to be everybody's policy to encourage boards of guardians to erect better habitations for the poor. Though generally they had not much confidence in the Local Government Board, he was bound to confess, from some experience of the working of the Act, that the inspectors they had had in their district had given satisfaction to ratepapers, and had listened attentively to the statements of the labourers. He desired to say a word with reference to the audit of the accounts of the poor law boards and of the accounts connected with the county cess. They had in Ireland generally speaking, two local rates, the county rate and the poor rate. The poor rate was paid partly by the landlord and partly by the tenant, except in the case of holdings under £4, where the landlord paid the whole of it and where, as a rule, he exacted additional rent. But the county rate was paid altogether by the occupier, and was disbursed by the Grand Jury. An auditor was supposed to audit those accounts, but so far as the taxpayers were concerned they knew little or nothing of how this money was spent. They paid 3s. 4d. in the £ for the county

      1215
      rate and about 2s. in the £ for the poor rate, and notwithstanding the large amount collected on the former rate no audit was placed before the ratepayers, nor were they shown how the money was spent. This was scarcely fair, especially as those who disbursed the rate did not pay it. ["Hear, hear!"] Another subject to which he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had reference to a point in the working of the Poor Law as between England and Ireland, in relation to the powers of removal of paupers. He drew attention to the matter last year, and the Chief Secretary then admitted that Ireland had a distinct grievance in regard to it. He alluded to the deportation of paupers from England to Ireland, and he had no hesitation in saying that the present state of the law was monstrous. An aged Irishman on entering a union in England was forthwith sent by the local authorities over to the parish in Ireland in which he was born, but there was no similar power under the Poor Law in Ireland to send any Englishman or Scotchman back to his native parish. Now that was an injustice in itself, but the hardness and injustice were aggravated by the fact that many of the old Irish people to whom he referred had gone to England in their youth, and had laboured in the country nearly all their lives. At any rate, this power of removal should not be partial, and as the injustice of the present state of the law to Ireland had been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman, he hoped he would take steps as soon as possible to remedy it. Promises to do so had more than once been given, but nothing had come of them. It was no excuse to say that want of time had prevented anything being done. The Irish people did not ask that Parliament to legislate for them; but if it insisted on doing so, it ought to find time to do Ireland simple justice. ["Hear, hear!"] Last year he directed attention to yet another matter, and he regretted that he should be compelled to revert to it again this year. He referred to the case of the inspectors who were appointed some years ago by the Boards of Guardians under the provisions of the Contagious Diseases' (Animals) Act. Now, half the salaries of the inspectors appointed by the Local Government
      1216
      Board under the Public Health Act in Ireland was paid by the State, but that was not the case with the inspectors appointed by the Guardians under the other Acts. Since the appointments were made by the Guardians, however, the Local Government Board had declared that, in the interest of the public it was desirable that the appointment and control of all such officers should be in their hands, and they had consequently taken over the powers of appointment from the Guardians, and the control of the officers appointed by them, but up to the present time no portion of the salaries of those officers had been paid by the State as in the other cases. This, he contended, was an injustice to the ratepayers. The Local Government Board, having taken over the right of appointment and the control of the inspectors, surely it was only reasonable and fair that the same condition should be observed in regard to their salaries as in the cases of the inspectors appointed under the Public Health Act. He could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to give him an answer on the matter off-hand, but he did ask him to take the matter seriously into consideration. ["Hear, hear!"]
      MR. MURNAGHAN MR. MURNAGHAN, who was almost inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery, said that persistent opposition was shown in some parts of Ireland against giving facilities for the erection of labourers' cottages, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to give his special attention to this fact.
      MR. J. DALYhoped the Government would build labourers' cottages. He mentioned the fact that in the Carrickmacross Union, owing to the opposition of the landlords, the expenses and law costs on two plots, which the Government Arbitrator valued at £60, amounted to £57 10s. He asserted that the Act was never intended to be workable, or it would not have made opposition possible to such an extent on the part of the person from whom land is acquired for the purpose of labourers' cottages. The Act also encouraged litigation, because even if they were successful, the guardians had to pay not only their own costs, but the costs of the person from whom land was to be taken. He urged upon the Government the necessity of reducing the qualification of members of

      1217
      the Dispensary Committees from £30 to £8, so that it should be the same as the qualification for Poor Law Guardians. The hon. Member further expressed the hope that the Government would appoint workhouse masters and clerks of unions as inspectors, because such men, from their training and knowledge, would be much better able to discharge the duties of inspectors than men who joined the service raw, and who were promoted for political considerations rather than because of any special qualification which they possessed for the work.
      MR. LOUGHwas sorry he could not agree with all his hon. Friends below the Gangway had said about labourers' cottages. His hon. Friends wanted more cottages, and he thought they were quite right, because the dwellings of the poor people were a disgrace to any civilised country. But he thought they should get the cottages without the taxes that attached to them. There could be no greater argument against the misgovernment of Ireland than the system under which these cottages were built. In all, 12,000 cottages had been built, but each one meant the addition of £5 to the rates of the district in which it stood. In his—the Cavan—Union 21 cottages had been erected, and each of them cost £180, which meant a charge of £8 for each cottage. One hon. Member had said they wanted, not 12,000, but 120,000 houses. If they got 120,000 houses on the present terms they would have 120,000 taxes, amounting to £600,000, added to the already overburdened rates of the poorest country in Europe. That would be a national crime. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman knew the disgraceful state in which the people were with regard to house accommodation. The Government had to provide houses without adding to the taxes. The average rent of 12,000 houses was £2 9s. 0d., and half of that was paid by the labourers, but there would be still a loss of £5 on every house. He joined in the plea that the houses should be built, but he objected to the taxes. It would be asked, "How can you get the houses built without adding to the rates?" ["Hear, hear!"] The Government of Ireland was a very difficult thing, and those who undertook the responsibility of the Government had
      1218
      laid on their shoulders the duty of doing the work, and doing it well. These houses should be furnished on an economical basis. There was one municipal lodging-house in London, but the experiment would not be proceeded with until it could be shown that both ends met. Thus, in country districts the question of allotments had been dealt with. Where the cottages were most wanted there the rate fell heaviest. He was sure the Committee felt indebted to the hon. Member (Sergeant Hemphill) who had been the sole occupant of the front Opposition Bench all through the Debate. [Ministerial laughter.] He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, by cheapening the interest by consolidating the loans, he could not do something' What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say yesterday? He said that the Government was able to borrow £100 for 13s. for the whole year. Money was so cheap in London that nobody knew what to do with it. If the right hon. Gentleman desired any facility for consolidating the loans, if he said, "Sir, I shall be your broker," they demanded that he should be an honest broker. He asked that this work should he done without making this monstrous addition to the rates of the country. As to the limit of half an acre, he believed an acre would be safer. It was generally said that they could not make half an acre pay. If they gave an acre, it would become remunerative He hoped, when the right hon. Gentleman came to reply, he would make some practical suggestion as to meeting the difficulty without swelling the rates.
      MR. DENIS KILBRIDEcomplained that in some districts the contractors for the building of these cottages did not have their bonds properly perfected; and it appeared to him that the auditor who went down to audit the, accounts of the union performed his duties in a perfunctory way. It ought to be the duty of the auditors to see that the contractors had their bonds properly perfected. With regard to the remarks of his hon. Friend, he hoped he did not want the Irish people to understand that they should see no more cottages built until the financial relations were adjusted.
      MR. LOUGH: No, Sir; I did not say so.
      MR. KILBRIDEsaid the hon. Member wanted many cottages built without taxes. If they waited until they could build 112,000 cottages without taxes on the ratepayers, he thought they might as well move to have the Labourers Act altogether abolished. He did not think they would be able to build the necessary number of cottages without putting taxation on the local ratepayer. He did not follow his hon. Friend when he told them that these cottages would mean a charge to the ratepayers of £8 a year. The average amount expended on the construction of these cottages, including the rent payable to the landlord, was £150. The charge in such a case would be £7 10s. Deducting from this £7 10s., 49s. for rent, £5 and not £8 would remain as the cost per cottage to the ratepayers. The ratepayers of the rural districts of Ireland were now in a very serious condition, and he therefore agreed with his hon. Friend when he said that the increase of the rates by 50s. for each cottage, in respect of the rent to the occupier, was an enormous burden to the ratepayers, especially as the area of chargeability for rates in respect of labourers' cottages was the electoral division. He would suggest that, in any Bill introduced by the Government for the Amendment of the Labourers' Acts, the area of chargeability should be made the Union at large. Indeed, he would make the county the area of charge-ability. The poorer districts were the districts where the cottages were most required, and of course in those districts the ratepayers were less able to pay the additional rates imposed for the erection of cottages. In the large, rich grazing districts the Labourers' Acts were not required, because labourers did not exist there, the people having been removed from such districts to make room for flocks and herds; but, as the proper housing of the labourers was a matter not of local but of national importance, he thought those districts which now escaped all responsibility under the Labourers' Acts should be brought into the area of chargeability.
      MR. W. FIELDagreed with the hon. Member for North Galway as to the necessity of making the county the area of chargeability under the Labourers'
      1220
      Acts. But the point he wished to impress on the Chief Secretary was the necessity which existed for extending the Allotments Act, which had proved such a success in England, to Ireland. In the last Parliament he had seconded a Resolution to that effect, which had been moved by Colonel Nolan, and the House had unanimously adopted it. It was said that under the present system of Local Government in Ireland the Allotments Act could not be applied. That made it all the more necessary for the Government to take in hand without delay the question of Irish Local Government. One great objection to the Labourers' Acts was that it was altogether too dear. Lawyers and architects got too much money out of it. It was the first duty of the Government to preserve the people—the workers. This was a national question, but the right hon. Gentleman had such a formidable majority that he could settle it if he wished by a wave of his hand. Then there was the question of the deportation of Irish aged paupers from Great Britain be Ireland. It was a legislative scandal that men, who gave all their time and labour to England or Scotland until they were worn out, should be sent to die in an Irish workhouse, and become chargeable on a country already overtaxed. The question had produced much ill-feeling in many Unions. The Conservative Government had promised to convert Ireland from Home Rule by their goodwill. Let them give a proof of it.
      MR. J. CALDWELLsaid, that if the Government were to bring in a Bill to remedy the admitted grievance in respect of the deportation of Irish paupers, it could be passed without opposition after 12 o'clock. He wished to call attention to the extraordinary charge on the Imperial Exchequer for the system of local government in Ireland. The cost to the Exchequer was £138,458, while the cost to the Exchequer of local government in Scotland was only £11,591. The Government appointed the medical officers in Ireland, and the Exchequer was charged with half their cost. For 1,000 men the cost to the Exchequer was £55,000 a year. The analogous charge in Scotland was borne entirely by the ratepayers. Then one-half of the cost of the

      1221
      medicines was in Ireland paid by the Imperial Exchequer, and that came to £20,000 a year. One-half of the salaries of the sanitary inspectors also fell on the Imperial Exchequer, and that charge amounted to £16,000 a year. He might fairly ask the Chief Secretary when he was going to place Ireland as regarded local government on the same footing as Scotland possessed, giving her the same powers on the one hand and the same contribution out of the Imperial Exchequer on the other.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURdid not know whether the hon. Member for Mid Lanark thought he was recommending the cause of Home Rule or not, but he should advise him to go to hon. Members from Ireland, who sat on the same side with him, and suggest to them, even before the separation of the two Governments had taken place, the idea that the various items he referred to should no longer appear upon the Estimates.
      MR. CALDWELLwas quite prepared to do so if the right hon. Gentleman would say that he was prepared to give up the Government of Ireland. ["Nationalist cheers."]
      MR. GERALD BALFOURpointed out that in that case there would be no question of withdrawing these items from the Estimates, because if the Government of Ireland was separated the Estimates would be Irish Estimates settled in Dublin. In the meantime, hon. Members from Ireland would justly complain if, in order to carry out the hon. Member's ideas, the various subsidies now made from the Imperial Exchequer were withdrawn. (An IRISH MEMBER—("Irish money.") By far the most important of the points which had been raised in the general discussion were those relating to the administration of the Labourers' Acts and the Acts themselves. He would not enter into that futile field of inquiry; he would content himself with saying that the various suggestions made should have his careful consideration in the Bill which he hoped before the Session was over to introduce. With regard to the cost of labourers cottages—£5 annually per cottage—he could hardly agree that it was practicable to make the erection of these cottages a financially profitable transaction. So long as they could not ask from an Irish labourer a
      1222
      rent of more than 1s. a week, it was obvious that the cost must fall somewhere else than on the labourers. Considering that a cottage cost about £125 to build, and that there was the further expenditure in connection with the land, legal expenses in proving title, and so forth, it was obvious that it was not an easy matter to reduce the annual expenditure very much lower than £6 or £7. Therefore, on every cottage there would be a loss, and that loss must fall either on the taxpayers or else upon Imperial funds. He did not know if it was in the recollection of hon. Members that from this year onwards there would be available in respect of what was called the Exchequer contribution a sum of £40,000, which could first of all be used in the erection of labourers' cottages, and that would, he hoped, give some relief to those unions that had built, or were about to build, cottages. He had in the Land Bill introduced a provision by which those unions which had already taken steps in erecting cottages would be enabled to enjoy the benefits of this £40,000 a year contribution, which he thought was only fair, because otherwise they would be penalising those unions that had been quicker than others in putting the Acts in force Turning to the question of the deportation of paupers from England and Scotland into Ireland, the real difficulty was, not passing a Bill which would put Ireland on a footing of equality with England or with Scotland; it was inducing England and Scotland so far to modify the present Poor Law in those countries as to afford the relief which Ireland sought and, in his judgment, justly sought. He was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy say that a Bill dealing with the Poor Law in such a way as to remove these grievances would receive general support from the House, including the Scottish Members. He trusted that the hon. Member might prove to be a true prophet. He assured hon. Members from Ireland that he had been endeavouring to the utmost of his power since he became Chief Secretary to induce the Local Government Boards of Scotland and England to introduce some change in respect of the deportation of paupers to Ireland, and if he was unable to get all he should like, still he thought

      1223
      that there was some prospect that some relief would be given in the present condition of affairs, which bore very hardly on Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] Attention had been called to the qualification of dispensary committees. He agreed that the present qualification was unnecessarily high, and he would be ready, if possible, to include in one of the Bills in connection with Poor Law administration he had in preparation a provision dealing with that point. A question o£ some importance had been raised in connection with the audit of Grand Jury accounts. He agreed that there was a great deal to be said in favour of securing fuller and more detailed information on this subject; but how far that was in the power of the Local Government Board to secure by instruction to their auditors he was unable to say without further inquiry. At any rate, he would look into the subject, and what could be done by means of administrative action he would do. Loans for the purpose of building accommodation in Ireland and other similar objects of public utility did not concern that country alone. The rate at which loans were made by the Treasury in Ireland was at least as favourable as the rate of loans made in England and Scotland, and in some respects Ireland was at the present time more favoured than either of the two other countries. All his predecessors in office had done their best to get money from the Treasury for Ireland at as low a rate as possible; but everyone knew that the Treasury was not easily approached. At all events, the Treasury could not be expected to deal with this large and important question of the interest on loans in its bearing on the loans made to Ireland only.
      MR. FIELDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not touched on the question of allotments. The Treasury had a large and unexpected surplus this year, and some of it could be profitably applied to the purposes for which Ireland needed it.
      DR. TANNERargued that the rates would be saved if the application of the Allotments Bill was carried out more thoroughly. The labourers suffered from want of continuity of employment, and, as sometimes they were unable to pay the rents of their cottages, they had recourse to the rates. He hoped that the allotments system which he supported in 1888 would be introduced into Ireland without delay. The cottages erected for labourers were often faulty, and yet they were approved by the inspectors of the Local Government Board. They were mostly faulty in respect of chimneys, windows and altitude. The chimney was built in the centre of the cottage, with the result that there was leakage, causing damp and discomfort. The wood used for the window frames was seldom if ever seasoned. In the south of Ireland much more had been done for the labourers than in the north. In many parts of his own constituency, the Macroom Union for example, where formerly the dwellings were a disgrace to civilisation, good labourers' cottages had now been erected. He would like to point out what was actually being done in connection with the provinces of Ulster, Munster, and Leinster. It appeared, from the latest return he could get hold of, that in the province of Ulster 246 cottages had been authorised and 201 built at a cost of £25,553. In Munster, 7,528 cottages had been authorised and 6,192 built—in fact, there were more built in the constituency which he represented than in the whole province of Ulster—at a cost of £707,492 15s. 2d. In Leinster 4,596 cottages had been authorised and 3,615 built at a cost of £464,863 13s. 5d. In that great rich province of Ulster they must have labour. Then, why did they not pay attention to the poor labourers as they did in Munster? It was the usual thing. They would not do it because the labourers were Catholics. He would implore the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to pay attention to

      1225
      the prayer with which the House of Commons always commenced its proceedings, and, laying aside all violence, to try to enter into this matter.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that with regard to the question of cottages, under the present law it was possible for an allotment of an acre of ground to he attached to a labourer's cottage. He was of opinion that if the labourer was to remain a labourer he would not have time to cultivate more than one acre. When it was suggested that the Allotments Act should be applied in Ireland, and allotments there extended to two or three or even four acres, he did not think that would be at all desirable, inasmuch as the conditions of things in England and in Ireland were quite different. In England there was a system of large farms cultivated by hired labour. In Ireland, on the other hand, the farms were small, and were cultivated to a considerable extent by the tenants themselves. Thus, if a labourer in Ireland was really in a position to pay rent for an allotment, he was already on the way to taking the position of a tenant farmer. He appealed to the Committee to allow the Vote to pass, as he thought that the subject had been sufficiently discussed.
      MR. FIELDsaid that he had been over various parts of England which corresponded with Irish agricultural districts, and he found that whereas labourers' cottages were not wanted in this country they were much needed in Ireland.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that in his view the various questions which had been raised in the course of the discussion upon this Vote could not be passed over altogether without consideration. Year after year he had drawn the attention of the Ministry to certain of those questions because he thought that there was very little to show in return for the expenditure of the money that was connected with this Vote. It was perfectly clear that for
      1226
      many years the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland was not as satisfactory as it was in England. In fact, the administration of that law in the two countries was totally different. After visiting a number of workhouses in this country it was difficult for him to believe that the workhouses in Ireland were administered under the same law. In Ireland, those who, by no fault of their own, by age or by unavoidable misfortune were forced into the workhouses were compelled to associate with those from whom they were entitled to be protected. Another question of much importance was that which arose in connection with the scale of dietary in Irish workhouses. Last year he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to make inquiry into the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to do so. He now repeated his assertion that the chemical equivalents of the food supplied in the Irish workhouses were not sufficient, according to the lowest scale recognised by medical authorities, to support life, even where no labour was required. He did not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman, in fulfilment of his undertaking, had caused inquiries to be made into the subject of the dietary scale adopted in certain of the Irish workhouses, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would place before the Committee the result of those inquiries.
      *MR. MICHAEL DAVITTsaid, that the expenditure upon labourers' cottages in Ireland was money well spent, for which excellent value was obtained. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that it was wrong for a labourer in Ireland to aspire to cultivate three or four acres of land. The more labour there was put on the land in Ireland the better it was for the country and for everybody concerned. He hoped and trusted that a Bill similar to the Labourers (Ireland) Act, would shortly be introduced by some English Members to provide better dwellings for the

      1227
      agricultural labourers of England. He had listened with considerable satisfaction to the statement of the Chief Secretary, which had convinced him that the right hon. Gentleman was earnestly desirous of facilitating the working of this Act, and, if he would push forward the Bill to which he had referred, he felt certain that it would have the entire support of the House.
      MR. FIELDsaid, he desired complete equality as regarded the condition of labourers in England and Ireland.
      MR. DALYasked if the right hon. Gentleman saw any objection to the appointment of Inspectors from Clerks of the Union?
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he did not think it was desirable to make a regular practice of appointing Inspectors from Clerks of the Union, but of course, in the case of any clerk of the union who had special qualifications for the post of inspector, his position as clerk of the union should not stand in his way. The doctors had the power of requiring the guardians to supply proper food, and although the standard was not very high, yet it was not, he thought, quite as bad as it had been represented to be. He hoped to introduce a Bill to facilitate the amalgamation of the unions which would pave the way to a more satisfactory classification of paupers than that which at present existed. If that Bill, like the Bill dealing with the Labourers' Acts, would meet with a favourable reception from hon. Members opposite, he should be only too pleased to put it to the credit of the Irish Government in the present Session.
      DR. TANNERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman must clearly understand, in regard to the pauper lunatics, that it was the fact that the doctors in the various poor-houses in Ireland were frequently called upon to certify cases as violent in order to keep down the number of cases they had treated in the various lunatic wards in connection with the unions.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      4. £3,566, to complete the sum for Public Record Office, Ireland—agreed to.
      5. £10,280, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Ireland—agreed to.
      6. £6,316, to complete the sum for Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland,—
      MR. DILLONsaid, that a revaluation of Ireland was a matter that must seriously engage attention soon, and he was informed that it would cost not far short of a million. He believed that the assessment on the income-tax was calculated upon the valuation. If that was so it was a strong additional reason for their being anxious that the valuation should be brought down to the true value of the land, inasmuch as it would appear from the judicial rents which had been revised as 30 or 40 per cent. below Griffiths' valuation. A plan might be devised by which a process of fixing judicial rents should be made to serve as a county revaluation. When there was machinery for revising rents which cost from £80,000 to £100,000 a year, it appeared to be wasteful to have a parallel system of valuation for the purposes of taxation and assessment. Some provision might be ingrafted in the new Land Bill by means of which the revision of judicial rents would serve as a revaluation of Ireland.
      COLONEL WARINGsaid, the suggestion just made was putting the cart before the horse. What was wanted was a valuation by experts who understood the business, and not by Sub-commissioners, who do not secure anything like uniformity. Let there be some standard to go upon; at present there was none.
      MR. VESEY KNOXstrongly supported the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Mayo. He was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member should oppose it, seeing that no part of the country suffered more from over-assessment and over-valuation than did North Louth and Down.
      COLONEL WARING: I am not objecting to revaluation.
      MR. KNOX: But he wants it put off to Doomsday. ["No, no!"] If they were to wait till a million was voted for a completely new valuation they would have to wait for a long time. The hon. Member for East Mayo had suggested

      1229
      a practical way in which a remedy might be found for a grievance. He believed a serious grievance had been made out, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would be able to meet it in the way suggested by the Member for East Mayo.
      MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsupported the proposition that there should be some limited system of valuation. Griffiths' valuation commenced in 1853. Since then the whole social and economic condition of Ireland had changed at least twice. In 1853 the effect of the Repeal of the Corn Laws had not been ascertained. In 1863 Ireland was a pastoral country. Now there were further developments. If the Chief Secretary would allow the Commissioners to take the various machinery at the disposal of valuation officials, they would be able to work out a better and truer system of valuation for this country. Individuals got their property revalued for taxation purposes, and in 99 cases out of every 100 people were overtaxed.
      MR. LOUGHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what the valuers were now doing. There was a great deal of evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between England and Ireland of the overvaluation of Ireland, and it was proved that whereas in England and Scotland land was valued as the value of agricultural land had declined, no change had taken place in the valuation of land in Ireland. He should like to know, firstly, what the present valuers were doing—whether they were carrying on the work of Griffiths' valuation, or inaugurating a new valuation; and, secondly, when the Chief Secretary hoped the new valuation would be complete. He himself agreed with the hon. Member for East Mayo, that Ireland suffered in the Income Tax by the present over-valuation. He could not subscribe to the fear that landlords would lose anything by a reduction of the valuation; whilst the more they reduced the taxes the better able would the people be to pay their rents.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURobserved that, so far as he was able to do so before the Report stage, he would look into some of the questions that had been raised. They were important questions, which he was not ready to answer off-
      1230
      hand. There was no general scheme of valuation now in progress, and whether the first work in connection with such a scheme could be accomplished by the method suggested by the hon. Member for East Mayo was more than he should like to offer an opinion upon at the present stage.
      Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

      WAYS AND MEANS.
      Committee deferred till Monday next.

      PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
      (Considered in Committee.)
      [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
      Progress, Clause 1, (16th April.)

      AMENDMENT OF 38 AND 39 VICT. C. 55. SS. 130, 134, AS TO REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DISEASE.
      "(1.) Regulations of the Local Government Board made in pursuance of section one hundred and thirty or section one hundred and thirty-four of the Public Health Act 1875, or in pursuance of either of those sections, as extended to London by the Public Health (London) Act 1891, may provide for such regulations being enforced and executed by the officers of Customs and the officers and men employed in the Coastguard as well as by other authorities and officers, and without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by those sections may provide for—

      (a.) the signals to be hoisted by vessels having any case of epidemic, endemic, or infectious disease on board; and

      (b.) the questions to be answered by masters, pilots, and other persons on board any vessel as to cases of such disease on board during the voyage or on the arrival of the vessel; and

      (c.) the detention of vessels and of persons on board vessels; and

      (d.) the duties to be performed in cases of such disease by masters, pilots, and other persons on board vessels."

      MR. W. S. ROBSON MR. W. S. ROBSON (South Shields), moved to add at the end of the Clause the following Sub-Section:—
      "(e) the cleansing and disinfecting of any ship or part thereof, and of any articles therein likely to retain infection, by the owner or master or other person in charge thereof, or by the port sanitary authority, at the cost of such owner, master, or other person."
      He observed that the Amendment was designed to remedy a grievance under the Public Health Act of 1875. By that Act public authorities were empowered to cleanse and disinfect houses in their own jurisdiction, certified to have been infected by dangerous disease, and the same provision was extended to ships. All owners and local authorities, therefore, had power to cleanse houses and ships which had been infected with disease of a dangerous or infectious character. These powers were not found easy to work. The medical officer had first to certify to the disease, the local board had to meet, a few days' notice had then to be given to the owner of the house or ship, in order that he might cleanse the property himself, or if he failed to do so, then the local board was empowered to do it at his cost. This procedure had been found to be so cumbrous and tedious as to be practically valueless, and in 1890 another Act was passed which remedied this mischief so far as house property was concerned. It enabled urban and rural sanitary authorities to act by means of their clerk, so as to avoid the delay involved in calling a meeting and giving reasonable notice to the owner of the property. But unfortunately, in the drafting of the Act, its provisions were limited to urban, rural, and sanitary authorities, and by what must have been some inadvertence on the part of the draftsman, the same powers were not given to port sanitary authorities, who were obliged to act in the case of infectious disease, and they had been acting even though they did not possess the safeguards of the provisions of the Act of 1890. The unfortunate consequence had been that they had entered all the ships which required cleansing, had cleansed them, and then called upon the owner to pay the cost. In most cases the owner had paid, but in some cases, particularly where the owners were foreigners, it had been
      1232
      pointed out that the cost has been incurred without the preliminary condition having been fulfilled—of a meeting of the local board and so on, and the result had been that the port sanitary authorities had not in. these cases been able to recover the cost of this necessary operation from the owners of the ships. He had been in communication with the Secretary to the Local Government Board. He acknowledged the evil, and he believed he was prepared to deal with it in some other way than by this Amendment. He should, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on receiving from the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he was prepared to meet the object of his Amendment by legislation.
      *THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said, the hon. Member had accurately stated the position. A grievance undoubtedly existed, and he was glad to be able to say, after consultation with the President of the Local Government Board, that he hoped to be in a position to introduce a one clause non-contentious Bill to meet the object of the hon. Member.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; clause agreed to.
      Clause 2 agreed to.
      Clause 3,—

      APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.
      "(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:—

      (a) Reference to the Local Government Board shall be construed as references to the Local Government Board for Scotland, and references to the High Court as references to the Court of Session;

      (b) References to section one hundred and thirty and one hundred and thirty-four of the Public Health Act 1875, shall be construed as references to this section.

      (2) Whether any part of the United Kingdom appears to be threatened with or is affected by any epidemic, endemic, or infectious disease, the Local Government Board for Scotland shall, without the issue of an order by the Secretary for Scotland, have the powers set forth in section thirty-two of the Public Health (Scotland), Act 1867, and power to issue regulations under section thirty-three of that Act; and any such regulations shall, for the purposes of sections thirty-seven and thirty-eight of that Act, have the same effect as the Orders of Council referred to in those sections."
      MR. J. H. DALZIELasked the hon. Gentleman whether he had taken into account the bearing of the other Public Health Bill, which was introduced in another place? That Bill was of considerable bulk, and dealt with the public health of Scotland, and it seemed to him rather curious to have two Bills of the same subject dealing with Scotland at the same time.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid this Bill had been before the Scotch Department, and if it was necessary to deal with the point in the Bill which had been introduced in another place it would be done.
      Clause agreed to.
      Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to; Bill reported without Amendment. Read the Third time, and passed.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DETERMINATION OF DIFFERENCES) BILL.
      Considered in Committee and reported without Amendment.
      On the Question that the Bill be read a Third time,
      MR. LOUGHasked the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for a little light upon the subject with which it dealt.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he explained the Bill when it was read a Second time. It was simply to remedy a difficulty that had arisen owing to a decision in the High Court which obliged the Local Government Board to appoint an outside arbitrator in the settling of questions of main roads, the practice having been to have an Inquiry by an Inspector of the Board. Some of the settlements made in the old way were questionable in view of the legal decisions, and the Bill also legalised these.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL.
      Read a Second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the
      1234
      House and Two by the Committee of Selection.
      Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
      Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
      Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

      TELEGRAPHS (ADVANCES).
      Considered in Committee:—
      Motion made, and Question again proposed:—
      "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a sum not exceeding £300,000, for the purposes of the Telegraph Acts, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow such sum by means of terminable annuities, payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund,"—(Mr. Hanbury.)
      Debate arising; and, it being Mid night, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
      Read 2°, and committed for Monday next.
      MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
      Committee deferred till Monday next.
      PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
      Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [10th April] further adjourned till Friday next.
      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
      Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 28th April.
      TITHE REDEMPTION BILL.
      Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
      SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
      Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [14th April] further adjourned till Wednesday 6th May.

      DERELICT VESSELS REPORT BILL.
      Considered in Committee.
      Clause 1,—
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

      PUBLIC BUILDINGS (LONDON) (No. 2) BILL.
      Considered in Committee.
      Clause 1,—
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

      METROPOLITAN SEWERS AND DRAINS BILL.
      Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 29th April.
      REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
      Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
      BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
      Committee deferred till Monday next.
      PRISON-MADE GOODS IMPORTATION BILL.
      Second Reading deferred till Monday 27th April.
      LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
      PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND).
      Bill to amend the Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Field, Mr. Clancy, and Mr. Patrick O'Brien; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 10th June, and to be printed.—[Bill 181.]
      CABS (LONDON).
      Bill to amend the Law relating to Cabs in London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jesse Collings and Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley; presented and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 182.]

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
      On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and in reply to Mr. EDWARD MORTON (Devonport) and Mr. LOUGH,
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the introduction, by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, of the Rating Bill would be the first Order on Monday. The second Order would be the Telegraph Advances Bill, and the third Order would be the Military Manœuvres Bill.
      DR. TANNER: Will the Irish Land Bill be taken next week? ["Oh!"]
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, not next week. [Laughter.] With regard to Friday next, he could not give a definite answer until he was able to consult the general wishes of the House. If the hon. Member would put a Question on Monday or Tuesday, he hoped to be able to answer him.
      House adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.