Sitting of 24 April 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the City and South London Railway Bill to consider whether any, and, if any, what provisions can reasonably be made for the preservation of the church of St. Mary Woolnoth, without preventing the construction of the railway and station.—(Mr. H. C. Richards.)

  LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon) moved:—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee to provide that the rates and tolls charged on the Chester and Holyhead branch of the London and North-Western Railway Company's line of railway shall be no higher than those charged on any other branch of their railway system."
  He said that the traders and others interested could not afford to fight the Company in the Committee, and the Instruction gave them the only opportunity of ventilating their grievances. The preferential charges levied by the Company on the Chester and Holyhead line could not be disputed. A conference of the agricultural societies of North Wales was held on the subject at Bangor a short time ago. It was non-political, the President of the Board of Agriculture was present, and most of the speakers belonged to the Ministerial Party. A farmer of Anglesey stated at that conference that he had to pay 7s. per head for the conveyance of his fat beasts to Chester. Cattle were sent all the way from Dublin over the same line to Chester at 7s. 6d. per head, with a deduction of 2s. per head. The same
  1616
  farmer pointed out that for the carriage of grain produce the Company received about 12s. 6d. an acre, while the landowner received about £1; and when grain and straw were taken together the Company got more than the landowner. For the conveyance of one horse from Valli, in Anglesey, to Liverpool, the charge was £2; while from Dublin, through Holyhead to Liverpool, the charge was only 25s., and a free return for the groom. This was grossly unfair. Liverpool was the market for the agricultural produce of North Wales, and yet the farmers were handicapped in every way. Straw was worth 30s. a ton; and the rate from Festiniog to Liverpool was 21s. 6d. per ton. At that rate it was impossible to compete with foreign producers. For the carriage of food stuffs and manure to the farmer in these small towns in Anglesey the same excessive charges were made. The carriage from Bangor to a small village in the middle of Anglesey was 9¼d. per ton per mile; the charge from Liverpool to the same town was 1¾d. per ton per mile. If the same rate were charged in both cases the farmer would save 6s. a ton. As to the conveyance of slates, minerals and coal, the rates were tolerably fair to the large towns; and he asked that the same rates should be charged for conveyance to the small agricultural towns on the Chester and Holyhead line. By a Bill passed in 1891 the Company was entitled to charge 1¼d. per mile for slates on this line; but for a much greater distance the charge was much less, and the Company exercised their power to charge the maximum rates to these small agricultural centres. It was time that the rates were reduced when the railway came into competition with sea-carriage. But if they could carry goods to Cardiff, Swansea and Liverpool at the reduced rate and make a profit, the inland rates must be excessive. And if there was no profit, then it was evident that the small inland towns paid excessively to make up for the loss on the seaport rates. The farmer, landowner, and rural trader had to make up the loss, and they were practically taxed in order to enable the Company to crush out the sea competition with other towns. This was grossly unfair, and the House ought to put an

  1617
  end to the injustice. For the conveyance of slates from Nantyglo to Carnarvon the Company charged the maximum rate of 1s. 7d. per ton, but if it was assumed that the slates would not be discharged at Carnarvon for the purpose of being conveyed by sea and would be sent along the London and North-Western Railway, the charge was reduced by one shilling. What was the object of that? It was simply in order to crush the sea trade of Carnarvon. He thought that he had made out a case proving that along this line of railway, wherever the Company had a monopoly, the farmers, landowners, and small traders were being charged excessive rates, and where there was sea competition they were cutting down rates to the finest point and making them up at. the expense of other trades who had no sea competition. He appealed to the. House to protect the small farmers and traders.
  MR. W. T. HOWELLseconded the Motion, remarking that his constituency felt strongly on this matter of railway rates as exacted by the London and North-Western Railway Company. He protested against the principle which was applied by the London and North-Western Company, in common with other railways, of making non-competitive areas pay for the cutting of rates at other points of competition between the railway systems.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue the general principle.
  MR. HOWELLprotested as regarded this piece of line, because it was an application of the general principle which had been explained. In North Wales the railway company which had the largest monopoly of railway carriage was the London and North-Western Company, and there were many instances quite as startling as those which had been quoted in connection with the other parts of the system. They were justified, therefore, in ventilating this question, because it was vain to tell the small farmers in that part of the country either that they should go before the Railway Commissioners, or when the Company had a Bill before Parliament to go before a Parliamentary Committee, and be represented by counsel.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITHsupported the Motion. He was convinced that an injustice was being done to North Wales, and that the charges in many cases were four times as high as were charged elsewhere in England. Excessive rates like these were really strangling, to a great extent, the trade of North Wales, which depended almost entirely on minerals and farming. The condition of farming in North Wales at present was most miserable, and it was cruel to charge the poor farmers for the carriage of their produce a sum which almost, in many cases, was equal to the rate paid to the landlord. The question of rates was becoming most urgent. While the price obtained for farming produce and minerals had fallen about 50 per cent. in the last 20 years, the rates charged by the railways for their carriage were just the same.
  MR. C. T. MURDOCHmaintained that there was no necessity whatever for this discussion. The whole of this question was fully discussed when the Bill of the London and North-Western Company was before the House a few days ago. The same arguments were used on that occasion as the House had heard to-day. The House was really asked to decide a most intricate question without having the necessary evidence before it. They were asked to say, without having the evidence for and against particular rates, whether or not a Committee upstairs should be bound to carry out a particular suggestion. Such a proceeding was quite contrary to the usages of the House. Matters of detail were always left to the Committee, which could sift the evidence necessary to come to a decision. He thought that on this occasion the House would not depart from its usual practice, and would delegate its authority to those who could look carefully into the matter and sift it thoroughly and then come to a decision which no doubt would be ratified by the House. This question of rates had been directly before the Board of Trade and other authorities, and he was surprised at the statements made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon that it was impossible for farmers and traders to put their views before a Committee of the House of Commons.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never said a word to that effect.
  MR. MURDOCHsaid, that as far as his experience went there had not been any difficulty as to any class having some one to advocate their views before a Committee of the House of Commons if the occasion needed it. The whole question of rates were constantly undergoing the attention of the railway authorities. It was only two or three days ago that a Conference was held.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot go into the general question.
  MR. MURDOCHreminded the House that this very question of rates had most carefully been considered both by the Board of Trade and by a former Parliament. The rate fixed as a maximum was done after due consideration, and all that was asked for by the Company in this Bill was that the same maximum approved by the Board of Trade should be the maximum to be enforced by the terms of this Measure. In any case, the House was not the tribunal to decide the question. A Committee upstairs was the proper tribunal, and there, he had no doubt, both the arguments for and against it would be amply put.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the speech of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Murdoch) who had spoken on behalf of the Company was so uncompromising in character that it demanded an immediate reply. The hon. Member had stated that the question had received due consideration by the Parliamentary Committee appointed in 1891. Having regard to the fact that only one trader from the North Wales district was represented before that Committee, and the greater part of the discussion had turned upon the rates to and from one station on a branch railway in North Wales, the hon. Member's assertion was hardly borne out by the facts. The traffic of the Company had increased to such an extent on their Chester and Holyhead line that, in order to provide some relief for its congested condition, they had come to Parliament to seek for powers to enable them to widen the line. He was very glad that their traffic had increased, and he made no objection to the provision of facilities to remove the congestion of traffic, but the Bill involved one question of principle so important in its character and affecting so profoundly the circumstances of the agricultural and trading community in
  1620
  Flintshire, Denbighshire, Carnarvonshire, and Anglesey, namely—the question of exceptional rates, that it was necessary to obtain, before the Bill went into Committee, a clear understanding as to whether or not the Committee intended to take into consideration the question of exceptional rates, and the lines upon which it ought to be settled. This was not the first time that the question had been before the House. In 1891 a Committee sat to consider the whole question of railway rates and charges in England and Wales. At that time the rates were much higher on the Chester and Holy-head than on other sections of the line; partly in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee and partly in consequence of the action of Parliament those exceptional rates had been reduced, but not to the level of rates charged on other parts of the Company's system. The reasons given to the Committee for higher rates on the Chester and Holy-head section would not, he thought, bear examination for a moment. Unfortunately, no one had appeared before the Committee of 1891 to combat those reasons, and the Committee, therefore, made their Report in ignorance of the actual facts of the case. The first reason was that the Chester and Holyhead section of the railway cost a considerable amount to construct. That argument might have applied 50 years ago, when the railway was constructed through a sparsely populated district and before the Irish traffic had time to develop, but it did not apply now. The London and North Western Railway had bought the line from the Chester and Holyhead Company at a low price, but the rates should be charged not on the basis of the cost of the line to the Chester and Holyhead Company, but its cost to the North Western Company. Since its construction the Irish traffic had increased enormously, and the greater part of the traffic between England and Ireland passed over this route. The local traffic too had developed very largely. There was, therefore, no reason whatever on this score why higher rates should be charged on the Chester and Holyhead section. The second reason given for the maintenance of these high rates was that the line was costly to maintain owing to its position on the coast. He replied that the exceptional position of the

  1621
  London and North Western Railway on the coast gave it a practical monopoly. If another Company attempted to construct a line on the coast it would probably have to do twice the amount of tunnelling, and the price of the land acquired for the construction of the line would be much higher. But, in any event it was worth the Company's while to maintain the line for the sake of the through traffic. If there were not a passenger or a ton of goods to be carried between Chester and Holyhead it would still be worth the Company's while to maintain the line as a connecting link between England and Ireland. But so far from the line being unremunerative, he ventured to say it was the most remunerative portion of the Company's system. The third argument used in support of exceptional rates was that the line had only one side from which it could draw traffic instead of running through the country and being able to draw traffic from both sides. That was a most extraordinary argument to use, because facilities of water carriage had brought large works to the banks of the Dee, and this had added considerably to the traffic of the Company, while such seaside resorts as Rhyl, Prestatyn, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno, and Penmaenmawr, which would not be in existence but for the presence of the sea, had enabled the Company to develop its traffic enormously. If he were told that the coast owed much to the Company he would not deny it, but other great railway companies would only have been too glad to have the opportunities on the North Wales coast, of which the London and North Western Company had enjoyed a monopoly. The Company were further disentitled to charge exceptional rates on this line because they had joined other companies in constructing an obstructive line, the object of which was to prevent another company from constructing a competing line to North Wales. It had also purchased lines which it had not opened for passenger traffic. Not only was the main line in the hands of the North Western, but the adjoining branch lines as well, and this placed a large part of North Wales under the exclusive control of the Company. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to take care that the monopoly should not be injuriously exercised. What were the
  1622
  exceptional rates of which they complained? The Act of 1891 empowered the Company to charge for the first 20 miles 25 per cent. more for goods carried on the Chester and Holyhead than on the other main portions of the line. For the next 50 miles the charge was 32 per cent. higher, and for distances beyond the charge was 60 per cent. higher. And these rates were charged upon a railway on which the traffic had increased to such an extent as to become unmanageable and to necessitate the doubling of the line. But it was said "these are only maximum rates, and we seldom charge the maximum." If that was so why should there be any objection on the part of the Company to the reduction of the maximum? As a matter of principle they asked that no exceptional scale of charges should be allowed on a line so highly remunerative as the Chester and Holyhead Railway. He quoted figures from local stations in Flintshire to show how the actual rates had been increased since the passing of the Act of 1891, and appealed to the President of the Board of Trade, who occupied the position of an intermediary between the great railway companies and the public, to consider this question in the interests of small farmers and traders who could not afford the great expense of appealing to the Railway Commission, and who could only make an effectual protest against the exceptional scale sanctioned by the Act of 1891 through their representatives in Parliament.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,)observed that the hon. Member who had proposed the Resolution had said that this Bill proposed to permit an extension of the Chester and Holyhead line, and that upon that extension the heavy rates of which he complained were going to be charged. No doubt there was an extension proposed in the Bill, but it was not an extension in the sense of a prolongation of the line. It was merely an extension in the sense of widening the line-tin order to accommodate the public, and if the Bill passed without the Instruction, the Company would have no power to make these so-called exceptional charges over any greater distance. The hon. Members who brought forward the Motion

  1623
  made two complaints; first, that there were exceptionally heavy charges with regard to certain agricultural produce; and, second, that the maximum charges, especially in connection with Class A, were too high. It was perfectly true that the North-Western Company did make considerable concessions in order to obtain traffic where there was water competition; but that was by no means confined to the North-Western. It was done by all companies, and it was clear that unless they were able to make these concessions when exposed to water competition, they would get no portion of the traffic. So far as the public was concerned, there was no injury, because the traffic would be brought into the country all the same. Assuming, for the moment, that the rates charged by the Companies were fair rates, he contended that they were perfectly justified, where they thought it was to their interest, to reduce their rates when they came into competition with water traffic.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My contention was that the reduction is made at the expense of the inland traffic.
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes, that was the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but he gave us no proof of it. It was incapable of proof. He was informed that so far as the London and North-Western Company was concerned, the amount of traffic they had gained in this way from Dublin to Liverpool was infinitesimally small. The hon. Gentleman also complained that apart from sea competition, there was undue preference on this railway. All he had to say about that was that if there was a case of undue preference with regard to any one person or class of persons as compared with others, that was a case with which the Railway Commissioners would be bound to deal. The hon. Gentleman said that the Board of Trade occupied an intermediary position. So they did, and if the hon. Gentleman went to the Board of Trade, and they considered that there was an undue preference, it would be their duty to negotiate with the Railway Company, with a view to correcting it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Complaints have been made.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that if anyone laid a complaint, and brought evidence before the Board of Trade to show that
  1624
  there was an undue preference, the Board of Trade, if they were satisfied that a case was made out, had the power to approach the Railway Company with a view to getting the grievance remedied, and if it was not done, there was an appeal to the Railway Commissioners, who were bound to deal with it judicially. With regard to the question of the maximum rate what was the history of the 1¼d. rate? The whole question of the arrangement of rates was left in the hands of the Board of Trade, and they appointed a small Committee—Lord Balfour and Sir Courtenay Boyle—who spent many laborious days going through an enormous number of rates. It was a recognised principle that where a railway company could show that a particular section of their line was exceptionally costly to work, a higher maximum should be allowed in respect of that section.
  MR. LEWIS: The North-Western bought this line at a low price.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid it was not only a question of purchase, but also of working, and he was told that in consequence of this line being cut out of the rock, keeping it up was a very costly matter: but he was not there to assert that, but to say that it was one of the conditions which were taken into account in fixing the rates, and exceptional rates were accorded to companies which could show either that their lines were exceptionally costly to construct or to maintain. When the rates were settled in 1891, the maximum charge under Class A was 2d. per ton for 15 miles, and 1½d. beyond that distance. Under the Board of Trade revision, the maximum was reduced to 1½d., and that schedule of charges having been referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, that Committee confirmed both the principle of those exceptional charges, and the rate of 1½d. fixed by the Board of Trade. Then" the House of Commons, on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the present Motion, reduced the maximum to ·95, but that was again raised by the House of Lords to the rate fixed by the Board of Trade and the Joint Committee. Finally, a compromise was arrived at, and the rate of 1¼d. was fixed, and he believed the hon. Gentleman then expressed himself satisfied with it That was the history

  1625
  of the transaction, and he would ask the House to consider very carefully, before they consented to the proposition now before them, whether they were in a position to decide this complicated question and to raise again and settle matters which had been discussed before the Board of Trade and a Joint Committee, and settled, after due deliberation, only four or five years ago. What was the House asked to do? Not to instruct the Committee to consider this question because they had the power to consider it. The hon. Gentleman said that the people interested were not sufficiently powerful to put their view before the Committee. Perhaps they were not, individually, but it was impossible to say that they could not combine to do so. It was not a question of the Committee being unable to consider these rates. That they were able to do; but the House was called upon, after ex parte statement, without the railway company having the slightest chance of answering the allegations made, to give a mandatory Instruction to the Committee to reduce these rates to the level suggested by the hon. Gentleman. He was bound to say that he considered that that would be a most unwise and most unfair proceeding on the part of the House of Commons. He himself was expressing no opinion in reference to this question of exceptional rates, but he should be glad if the Committee to which the Bill was referred would give full consideration to the questions with regard to them which had been brought foward by the hon. Gentleman. He thought that exceptional rates required a great deal of argument in their support. ["Hear, hear!"] That was even more true now than it was before, not only because of the state of agriculture, but because the railways themselves, in nine cases out of ten were trying to see what they could do to assist trade and industry, and were endeavouring to meet the demands of traffic by a reduction of their rates. He thought that the London and North-Western Railway Company would be taking upon themselves a great responsibility if they did not direct their attention to these exceptional rates charged upon this branch of their line. He was frequently in personal communication with the directors of the line, and he would lose no opportunity of impressing upon them
  1626
  the duty that rested upon them of giving full consideration to the statements which had been made on that occasion by hon. Gentlemen, and of seeing whether the time had not arrived when they could, with full justice to their shareholders, do away with these exceptional rates of which complaint was made. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought, however, that the House of Commons would be taking upon themselves an undue share of responsibility if, after having heard statements on one side only, they judged between the parties instead of relegating to the Committee both cases. He hoped that, now that the hon. Gentlemen had laid their application before the House, they would consider that they had discharged their duty, and would allow the Bill to go before the Committee upstairs, when they would have every opportunity afforded them of proving their case. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent that the necessary steps should be taken to enable traders and others to give evidence before the Committee, as he understood that unless the Standing Order was dispensed with, they could not be represented before the Committee.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that it was impossible for him to answer the hon. Gentleman's Question off-hand. He understood that colliery or slate quarry companies, or similar associations, could be heard before the Committee.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 118; Noes, 177.—(Division List, No. 114.)

  EAST INDIA (KYTHAL).
  Return [presented 11th February] to be printed.—[No. 148.]
  PETTY SESSIONS COURT (CLARE).
  Return [presented 20th April] to be printed.—[No. 149.]
  FISHERMEN'S (SCOTLAND) DISASTERS FUND (UNEXPENDED BALANCES).
  Return [presented 23rd April] to be printed.—[No. 150.]
  EAST INDIA (CONTRIBUTIONS BY INDIA TO THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE).
  Return [presented 23rd April] to be printed.—[No. 151.]
  THAMES CONSERVANCY.
  Paper [presented 23rd April] to be printed.—[No. 152.]
  TRAMWAY BILLS.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,said, he had a Motion on the. Paper with regard to this subject of rather an important character, but as it had been brought to his notice that objection was taken to it, he would postpone it until Monday. The Motion on the Paper was as follows:—"That Standing Order 171, relating to Tramway Bills be suspended for the remainder of the Session."
  NEW WRIT.
  For the Burgh of Aberdeen (Northern Division) v. William Alexander Hunter, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)
QUESTIONS.

  ADULTERATED BUTTER.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case which came before the Borough Bench of Bury, on the 6th March, in which the Bench refused to grant a summons to the purchaser of adulterated butter on the ground that the samples had not been submitted to the borough analyst but to the; county analyst; whether he is aware that the town clerk of Bury appeared before the Borough Bench to oppose the granting of such summons on the above ground; whether the action of the purchaser in relying on the analysis of a county analyst was regular; and, whether a Borough Bench is justified in
  1628
  refusing to deal with a case of adulteration merely on the ground that the analysis had not been made by their borough analyst?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): My attention was first called to this case by the Question, but I have communicated with the Borough Justices, and understand that the facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs. The purchaser subsequently produced a certificate from the borough analyst, and obtained the summons. Whether the magistrates were justified in their action depends on the construction which should be placed on certain sections of "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875." That is a question which can only be authoritatively decided by the Courts, and on which, therefore, I must decline to express an opinion.

  MINES IN MADAGASCAR.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of the French Republic has cancelled the authorisation to British subjects to work mines in Madagascar lately given by the French authorities on the spot?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF ST ATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): We are making inquiries on the subject, but have not as yet received a reply.

  TELEGRAMS UNDELIVERED.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the rule in the telegraph department to return telegrams to the sender when the addressee cannot be found; and, whether he can explain why a telegram sent on the 5th of February last from Mr. Joseph R. McCarthy, of Kilkenny, to Mr. William Crowley, 67, South Main Street, Cork, was neither delivered at the house of the addressee nor returned to Mr. McCarthy?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HABURY,): Telegrams which cannot be delivered are not returned to the senders, but in all cases where the sender has furnished his name and address, a notice explaining the cause of the non-delivery is sent him at once by wire. The telegram sent from Kilkenny on 5th February last to Mr. William Crowley, 67, South Main Street, Cork, could not be delivered, because, I understand, it was stated at the address that Mr. Crowley had left. Mr. McCarthy, the sender, could not be advised of the non-delivery as he had left Kilkenny.

  TRANSVAAL NEWSPAPERS (POSTAGE).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that large numbers of newspapers have lately been received in this country from Johannesburg, and that each of them has been surcharged on delivery through the rate being raised from 1d. per four ounces to 1d. per two ounces; whether representations have been made to the Government of the Transvaal on the subject, with a view to their assimilation of their postage on newspapers sent abroad to the British rate; and, whether he will meanwhile direct that Transvaal newspapers shall not be surcharged on delivery?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that newspapers from the Transvaal have lately been received in this country and surcharged on delivery. They have been so charged because the Post Office of the Transvaal has raised from 1d. per four ounces to 1d. per two ounces, the postage on newspapers posted in that country, not only for the United Kingdom, but for all other countries outside South Africa. No representation has been made to the Transvaal Post Office on the subject, as that Office has acted within its rights in raising the postage, and has duly notified the change in its Postal Guide for January. In these circumstances the Postmaster General has no right to interfere; nor can he direct that the newspapers shall not be surcharged, as the charge is in accordance with the stipulations of the Postal Union Convention.

  TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. S. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether complaints have reached him of the abseence of telegraphic communication between Carrickmacross and Slier-cock, in County Cavan, a distance of six miles; and whether, considering that Shercock is a good business town, having its regular fairs and markets, and is also the residence of the County Coroner, he will inquire as to the desirability of establishing a telegraphic office there in the interests of the public?
  MR. HANBURY: No recent complaints have reached the Postmaster General. The hon. Member was informed in 1893 that the telegraphs could not be extended to Shercock except under a guarantee. The Postmaster General will make inquiry to see whether circumstances have changed, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (NEWPORT, COUNTY MAYO).
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that in the town of Newport, County Mayo, which has a mainly Roman Catholic population, the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary (including the District Inspector, the Head Constable, and two sergeants) are Protestants; and whether it is in accordance with the usage of the Royal Irish Constabulary to select officers who are Protestants for Roman Catholic Districts like Newport?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The allocation of the officer and men to Newport, as to other stations, was not regulated by their religious persuasions, but by the requirements of the service, and it would be impossible, as well as inexpedient, to create religious tests in the selection of officers for districts which may be considered either mainly Protestant or Catholic.

  LAND IN WALES (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. J. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of

  1631
  State for the Home Department, whether, in the cases submitted to him by the Royal Commissioners on Land in Wales of the punishment of witnesses, he caused special inquiries to be made in the locality where the alleged offences were committed; and whether he will state the number of oases in which such inquiries were made, by whom the inquiries were conducted, and the nature of the inquiries?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I can add little to the information which I gave to the hon. Member when he raised the question of the intimidation of witnesses who gave evidence before the Welsh Land Commission on the Vote on Account. Three cases were brought to my notice by the Commissioners, and the Treasury Solicitor, to whom I referred them, was of opinion that on the evidence before him proceedings could not be taken with any chance of success. In one case, however, as I informed the House, further inquiry seemed to me to be desirable with a view to see whether further evidence might be forthcoming which would justify proceedings, and inquiry was accordingly made on the spot, at ray request, by the Treasury Solicitor's Agent. In the result I was advised both by the Treasury Solicitor and by the Attorney-General, to whom the Agent's Report was referred for consideration, that the evidence did not furnish sufficient ground for a prosecution.
  MR. LLOYD MORGANasked whether the inquiries which were made on the spot were made by someone who resided at or near the place, or who was instructed by the Home Office or the Treasury?
  MR. W. REES DAVIESasked who was the Agent of the Treasury Solicitor?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the Agent was a solicitor sent down by the Treasury Solicitors and the Crown to make inquiry into the allegations.

  COUNTY CESS (IRELAND).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consent to give a Return of the
  1632
  amount of county cess paid in Ireland annually, setting forth the amount collected per county and barony, and the approximate amount paid by landlords as distinct from tenants; and, if so, will he state if such a Return can be procured before 12th May?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Government have no information respecting the amount of county cess collected in each barony, or the amount of cess paid by landlords as distinct from tenants; nor have the Government any moans at its disposal of obtaining such information. Even were it otherwise, I fear the value of the Return would not be commensurate with the labour involved in its preparation.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return that will show the amount collected in each county?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is already a Return showing the amount in each county, but not the amount to each individual. The Government have; no means at their disposal in regard to the latter.

  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to apply the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Bill, if passed, to Ireland; and, in case of such application, will he take care that the proposed superannuation allowances are not made chargeable on the local rates, which at present are pressing as a sufficiently heavy burden on the Irish people?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Bill in question is not a Government Measure. The Irish Government does not object to the principle of the Bill, and its application to Ireland will not, I understand, be opposed by hon. Members opposite. So far as superannuation allowances under the Bill are not covered by the contributions of the officers, I presume there would be a charge, as heretofore, on local rates.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: On the Third Reading of the Bill I shall beg to move its rejection.

  BELFAST WORKHOUSE (DEATH OF INMATE).
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-land, whether his attention has been called to the death of an old woman named Mary Moore in the workhouse at Belfast; on the 15th instant; whether he is aware that the friends of deceased, on making application for a certificate of death, were informed that such certificate would be given to them on the 21st instant; and whether, considering that such delay in obtaining certificates in case of death of poor people causes great inconvenience where they are depending for funds to bury them on what is joining to them out of burial societies, he will now consider the desirability of having one central registry established in the city of Belfast?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed by the Registrar General that the person who made application to have the registry effected in this case was not a properly qualified informant, and her information could not, therefore, be accepted. This person was told that a certificate would be granted on the 21st instant, when the necessary information to enable the completion of the registration would be supplied by the master of the workhouse. The delay in the case was entirely due to the fact that the person who attended to register the death was not a properly qualified informant, and, therefore, it in no way affects the question of the establishment of a central office, as to which I have already replied to a Question put by the hon. Member.
  MR. M. McCARTANasked, whether as a matter of fact there had not been a delay of nearly a week?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, that apparently there had boon, as the death took place on the 13th instant and the certificate was promised for the 21st.

  AMERICAN NEWSPAPER MAILS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRITEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is yet in a position to inform the House of the result of his communications with the postal authorities of the United States of America concerning
  1634
  the new arrangements for the transmission of newspaper mails from America to Great Britain, Ireland, and the Continent?
  MR. HANBURY: A reply has just been received from the Postmaster-General of the United States, who explains that the transmission of newspapers for the United Kingdom without special superscription will not, as supposed, be restricted to the packets of the American Line, but that all newspapers for this country that are not specially addressed for other steamers will be despatched by American packet every Wednesday and by Cunard packet every Saturday.

  CYCLING ACCIDENTS (LONDON).
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has any objection to supplementing the Return he presented to the House on Thursday with another showing the number of fatal and serious accidents to members of the general public caused by cyclists in the streets of London during the first quarter of the present year; whether any special arrangements have been made by the police authorities to check and cope with the growing evil and danger of reckless riding by cyclists; and, whether he has any reason to presume that a considerable number of cycling accidents during the past three | months have not come under the official cognisance of the police?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The Return which the police have prepared for me shows that the number of serious accidents caused by cyclists during the first quarter of this year was ten, and the number of slight accidents not requiring treatment, or at any rate detention, at a hospital, 174. In no case had the accident, a fatal result. No special arrangements have been made by the police, but they use to the full the special powers which they possess under i the Metropolitan Police Act, Section 54 of that Act providing that every person who shall ride or drive furiously, or so as to endanger the life or limb of any person, or to the common danger of the passengers in any thoroughfare, shall be liable to a penalty, and may be taken into custody without warrant by any

  1635
  constable who sees the offence committed. So far as serious accidents are concerned, the figures I have given may be taken as accurate; it is unlikely that any such accidents have occurred without coming to the notice of the police.

  TRADE MARKS IN EGYPT.
  MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has observed in Mr. Rennell Rodd's recent Report on British Commercial Relations with Egypt [C. 7920 12] the statement at page 28, that Egypt is the happy hunting ground for that form of commercial brigandage which consists in the forgery of trade marks and the use of false trade descriptions in the sale of goods; that Sheffield cutlery comes here (to Egypt) from Austria, English pale ale from Germany and Belgium, hosiery with English trade marks is offered by German travellers, English whisky labels of known brands are made in the country by enterprising Levantines and affixed to the worst class of spirits, while English patent medicines closed with forged British Government labels are imported from Italy; whether Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to persuade the Egyptian Government to make illegal and proceed against the fraudulent practices described in Mr. Rodd's Report; whether the German Government has recently adopted stringent legislation against the forgery of trade marks and the use of false trade descriptions; and, whether the attention of the German Government will be called to Mr. Rodd's Report, so far as it relates to fraudulent trading by German subjects, with a view to enforcing as far as. may be practicable the recent German legislation in their case?
  MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir, I have seen the passage in question. Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government have considered the changes in the law that may be required to deal with such cases; and negotiations are proceeding with other Powers with a view to arriving at an agreement. We have no knowledge of any more recent changes in German legislation of the character referred to in paragraph 3 than the law of May 12th 1894, which was
  1636
  laid before the House in Commercial No. 5 of that year. The initiative in calling the attention of the German Government to the practices mentioned in Mr. Rodd's Report would appear to rest with the Egyptian rather than with the British Government.

  FALSE TRADE DESCRIPTIONS.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the statements on page 28 of Mr. Rennell Rodd's recent Report [C. 7920 12] as to the forgery of trade marks and the use of false trade descriptions in the sale of goods by Austrian, Italian, and Belgian traders in Egyptian markets, and the great injury thereby done to the reputation of British products and the legitimate interests of British traders, he will use his best efforts to bring about an early reassembling of the Conference of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the Repression of False Trade Descriptions; whether Italy and Belgium are members of that Union; whether Austria has as yet been persuaded to accede to the Union; and, whether the Egyptian Government has ever acceded or been invited to accede to the Union; if not, whether he will endeavour to cause Austria and Egypt so to accede, with a view to their being represented at the earliest Conference that may be assembled on Industrial Property and the Repression of False Trade Descriptions?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The initiative in convening the next Conference lies with the Belgian Government, assisted by the Central Office of the Union at Berne. I am not prepared to urge that a meeting should take place before the Belgian Government have made the necessary preparations and suggested a date. Italy and Belgium are original members of the Union, but Austria has not yet acceded, and it is doubtful whether representations could usefully be made to her to do so. There have been found to be difficulties in the way of Egypt becoming a party to the Union. It is open to countries which have not become members to be represented at the conferences by official delegates, who, however, have no power of voting.

  LICENSER OF PLAYS ("JOSEPH OF CANAAN").
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Licenser of Plays has refused to license a drama entitled "Joseph of Canaan," written by the Rev. George Walters and Mr. George Rignold; whether he is aware that this drama was played for several weeks in Her Majesty's Theatre, Sydney, and the Theatre Royal, Melbourne, and that no objection was raised by either the press or the public; is he aware that a religious drama, "The Sign of the Cross," has been licensed and performed for over 100 nights in a London theatre; and could he state to the House what is the principle that determines the action of the Licenser of Plays in connection with dramas based on religious motives or incidents?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I am informed by the Examiner of Plays that the Lord Chamberlain has refused to license for representation the play to which the hon. Member refers, and that it was rejected in accordance with the unvarying practice, which is to refuse to license any play avowedly adapted from Scripture. I understand that this reason would not apply to "The Sign of the Cross." I have no knowledge as to the reception of either play.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) whether he has received a Memorial from the Council of the Royal Colonial Institute inviting the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the hardship resulting from the operation of the In-come Tax in the Mother Country in conjunction with Acts recently passed by some of the self-governing colonies imposing an Income Tax; (2) whether he is aware that British subjects resident in the Australasian Colonies are not required to pay a double tax in respect of any income derived from the United Kingdom, whereas those resident in the United Kingdom are required to pay a double tax in respect of any income derived from any of the Australasian Colonies; (3) whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction has arisen from this
  1638
  state of things, which tends to discourage the investment of capital in the Colonies, and consequently to retard their development and restrict their trade; and (4) whether Her Majesty's Government will embrace the earliest opportunity of correcting the anomaly?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I have received the Memorial to which the hon. Member refers, and am considering it; but I must not be understood as assenting to the views expressed in the second and third paragraphs of his Question.

  NEEDLEWORK EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether, seeing that the payments to school managers in respect of fourth-year pupil teachers depend upon the results of the examination of female candidates in needlework, as provided by the Syllabus of Examination for Admission to Training Colleges, Art. 92 (6), Scotch Code, the Scotch Education Department will agree either to abolish the examination in needlework prescribed for these candidates at the annual inspection of their respective schools, or make the two examinations in needlework identical, and provide that, where fourth-year female pupil teachers are examined in needlework in their respective schools, the marks obtained should, as in reading, recitation, and teaching, be put to their credit in the admission examination?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): I understand that the arrangements with respect to examinations in sewing are not such as are indicated in the hon. Member's Question, and that they would not permit of the adoption of the plan which he suggests. But the matter is so much one of detail that it would perhaps be more convenient that the nature of the difficulty felt, and any suggestion for its removal should, in the first instance at least, be matter of correspondence with the Department.

  LABOURERS COTTAGES (OMAGH UNION).
  MR. C. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary

  1639
  to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that a considerable number of the dwellings of agricultural labourers in the Omagh Union contain only one apartment; whether he is aware that an Inspector of the Local Government Board was last year sent to examine into the claims of the labourers for better housing accommodation, their representations being rejected by a majority of the Guardians; and is he also aware that the Inspector found the housing accommodation insufficient, and recommended the building of a number of labourers' cottages; and will steps be taken to carry out that recommendation with as little delay as possible?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: An Inspector of the Local Government Board held an Inquiry, as stated, and recommended that the Guardians should make a Scheme for the erection of 37 labourers' cottages in this Union. The Inspector's report was communicated to the Guardians, who, I understand, have adjourned the further consideration of the matter until the 2nd May. The Board have written to the Guardians stating that they trust that the Scheme, with the necessary maps, etc., will be ready for execution on the date mentioned.

  CLASSIFICATION OF WORKHOUSE INMATES (IRELAND).
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant off Ireland, if he is aware that a very general desire exists among those interested in the welfare of the destitute poor in Ireland that a scheme of classification of the inmates of workhouses should be provided for; and will he consider this phase of the subject with a view to give it effect in the Bill for the Amalgation of Poor Law Unions in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: One of the chief objects of the Poor Relief Bill is to enable a better system of classification to be adopted for all classes of indoor poor in Ireland.

  SUB-POSTMASTERS.
  MR. JAMES HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether arrangements can be
  1640
  made to enable sub-postmasters to have some fixed period of leave in the course of the year without having to supply a substitute at their own expense?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General regrets that the concession suggested by the hon. Member cannot be granted. The sub-postmasters of the kingdom are nearly 20,000 in number, and, as a rule, they have some other trade or occupation to which the Post Office business is, often, altogether subsidiary. Leave would never be refused them on their making arrangements to carry on their post office duties during their absence; but in no case in the Post Office—and I believe in no other Department of the State—is an officer allowed leave at the public expense whose whole time is not given to the public service.

  FEE GRANT (SCOTLAND).
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Treasury have made arrangements for handing over to the Scottish Education Department the arrears due to Scotland in respect of unpaid fee grant?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Treasury have consented to admit the claim of Scotland to a proportion of the Supplementary Fee Grant for England in respect of the financial year 1895–6, and to ask Parliament to make provision accordingly, but they decline to re-open the accounts for earlier years.
  MR. HOZIER: Are we to lose all the money due to Scotland during the time the late Government was in power?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: I must refer my hon. Friend to the Treasury.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury?
  [No answer was given.]

  PAUPER LUNATICS (IRELAND).
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he has yet considered the question of removing pauper lunatics in workhouses in Ireland to properly-equipped asylums, where their condition may be alleviated by their special treatment and suitable surroundings; and whether, considering the illegality of the present mode of admitting them to the lunatic wards of

  1641
  workhouses, and also of detaining them and keeping them there under restraint without the colour of legal sanction, he will have inquiry made into the whole system, with the view to relieve the afflicted and to have this illegal system discontinued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The removal of pauper lunatics from workhouses to asylums has engaged my careful attention in connection with the general question of workhouse administration in Ireland, and it will he found that the Poor Relief Bill, which I hope shortly to be able to introduce, will deal with the existing procedure connected with the detention of the insane poor in workhouses.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state the number of lunatics transferred from the county Antrim asylum to the union workhouse at Belfast since 1st January 1892; whether any, and if so how many of them, have been received unconditionally; and, what are the terms of agreement as to maintenance which were required by the Board of Guardians from the governors or superintendent of the asylum?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of lunatics transferred from the asylum to the union workhouse since the date mentioned in the Question was 65, all of whom have been received into the workhouse unconditionally, and no agreement was required by the Guardians of the nature indicated at the end of the Question.

  CUSTOMS OUTDOOR OFFICERS.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can now state what progress has been made in the adjustment of the claims of the Outdoor Officers of Her Majesty's Customs, as set forth in a petition presented to the Treasury on the 8th February 1895?
  MR. HANBURY: The Treasury directions on the recommendations of the Board of Customs on the subject of this Question were issued by the Customs Department on the 25th November last. The necessary steps for carrying these directions into effect were at once taken
  1642
  in hand, but as they involved, amongst many other details, an examination, in communication with the Civil Service Commissioners, of nearly the whole of the existing class of Outdoor Officers, numbering over 600, the final adjustments have not yet been completed. It is expected, however, that the result of the examination will be known in a few days, and the Board of Customs will then be in a position to proceed with final arrangements for the introduction of the new conditions for this class of officer as sanctioned by the Treasury. I may add that, so far as the new scheme will result in change of pay or position to any officer, such change will be antedated to 1st January last.

  BELFAST RECORDER'S COURT (COUNTY BUSINESS).
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, if, when a vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of county Down, he will consider and give effect to the desire of the merchants and citizens of Belfast that the Recorder of that city should be relieved of county business, whereby he would be enabled to hold a monthly Court for civil and criminal business; this, and the ordinary business of Local Bankruptcy Court and Admiralty, would occupy his entire time, and the counties of Down and Antrim could he administered by one chairman?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,): It is in contemplation to make arrangements, when a vacancy in the office of Chairman of the county Down shall have occurred, to relieve the Recorder of Belfast of some of his most onerous duties, and enable him, if need be. to sit more frequently for the discharge of business, but without legislation the entire of the county of Antrim cannot be withdrawn from his jurisdiction, nor do I think it necessary or desirable that it should be.
  In reply to Mr. M. MCCARTAN,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, there was no inconvenience in the present arrangement.

  ARMENIAN RELIEF FUND.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will state the specific charges made against Mr. Knapp, lately residing in Bitlis; whether Mr. Knapp has been the local almoner of the Armenian Relief Fund, and an active distributor of money, bread, and clothing to the destitute Armenians at Bitlis; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or will take, either alone or in conjunction with the United States Government, to secure the recovery of the relief funds found in Mr. Knapp's possession, and confiscated by the Turkish authorities, and his release from custody at Diarbekir?
  *MR. CURZON: Mr. Knapp was called upon by the authorities at Bitlis to answer a charge of breaking the peace and of stirring up the Armenians against the Turks, who had thereby been moved to reprisals. He was engaged with other missionaries in the distribution of relief, but the United States Legation at Constantinople considered that it would be best to arrange the difficulty by withdrawing him, and it was agreed with the Porte that he should leave Bitlis when the weather and the state of the roads permitted. According to telegrams recently published in the newspapers, Mr. Knapp was on his way to Alexandretta. There is no information that any funds in his possession were seized by the Turkish authorities.
  MR. J. BRYCEasked if relief was being distributed?
  *MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir. Relief is being distributed at Bitlis under the supervision of the British Consul, who has expressed himself as satisfied with the arrangements that have been made. ["Hear, hear!"]

  SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he will state the names of the monitors and teachers who were paid the sum of £800 that appeared on the Estimates for 1895-6, under Public Education, Ireland; (2) who are the organising teachers that £650 was paid to under Public Education, Ireland, 1895–6; and
  1644
  (3), if any of above sums were expended in South Monaghan; and, if so, how much?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The payments out of the sum of £800 men-in the first paragraph were made to some 1,800 individuals. It could not be stated, without an examination of the district returns, which would occupy many days, whether any portion of this sum was expended in South Monaghan, but in any case I decline to read the names of the individuals, and no public interest would be served by their publication otherwise. It does not appear that either of the two ladies, to whom payment was made out of the sum mentioned in the second paragraph, was employed in South Monaghan.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that National School teachers have out of their own pockets to supply maps, tablets, school pictures and charts; and, if he will in the future supply these requisites free, if reported to be required by the inspector?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The requisites referred to are supplied by the Commissioners of National Education at cost price on application, accompanied by remittances, from the managers of schools. Inquiry is never made as to the sources from which the money remitted may have been obtained, but in any case it is the managers who are responsible. When new National Schools commence operations, or when existing schools are first recognised as National Schools, a free grant is made of the requisites in question, but the Commissioners have no power to supply these requisites except under the circumstances stated.

  SOUDAN.
  MR. R. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not make any alteration in their decision not to send British troops to the Soudan without due notice to the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): A pledge such as that the hon. Member demands would be unusual and, I think, inconvenient. ["Hear, hear!"]

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will communicate with the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations of Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to arranging for the publication and issue to Members at an early day of the Draft Report of the late Mr. Childers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no power over the action of the Commission, nor can I require it to make arrangements for the publication of Mr. Childers' Report. In my own opinion piecemeal reports are likely to prove inconvenient.
  MR. LOUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commission have decided to publish the Report immediately?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not aware of that.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) VOTE.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the, First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will postpone the Education (Scotland) Vote until the Report of the Committee of Council for the year ending 30th September last shall be in the hands of the Scotch Members, and when the Report may be expected to be in the hands of Members?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have made inquiries, and I find that the Report referred to is not usually issued until August. This might give no opportunity to Debate the Vote. Probably the most convenient course would be to take advantage of the opportunity given to discuss the Vote in Committee to-night, and to defer the Report for the present. I will endeavour to find out whether the Education Report can be prepared at an earlier date than usual.

  AFFAIRS AT BULAWAYO AND PRETORIA.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I wish to ask the Secretary for the Colonies whether he can confirm or contradict the report of the operations at Bulawayo which appears in the evening papers; and
  1646
  whether he is in a position to inform the House if telegraphic communication has been re-established with that place?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have received a telegram from Sir Hercules Robinson containing a message from Bulawayo, from which I gather that telegraphic communication is again in working order. This telegram is from Captain Nicholson, Bulawayo, dated April 23:—
  "Action on Umgaza river yesterday. Rebels in considerable force were driven up the river and must have lost heavily. Our casualties;— Frank William Baxter, killed; following wounded, none seriously—Captain Grey, Lieutenant S. M. Hook, Lieutenant F. S. Crewe, and Corporal Wise. Some cattle were driven off by the raiders from three miles west of this while we were out."
  I have also got, another telegram from Sir Hercules Robinson containing information which may be interesting to the House. It is from Mr. Rose-Innes, who, as the House will remember, was appointed by the Government to represent them at the Trials at Pretoria: —
  "Pretoria, April 24. — Rhodes, Phillips, Farrer pleaded guilty high treason on first count in indictment. Other prisoners pleaded guilty lese majeste, but without hostile intent against independence of Republic. Four of the accused unavoidably absent, but will he present Monday. Case adjourned till then, when written statement will be handed in by Phillips, Rhodes, and Farrer. Counsel will address Court and sentence given."

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It may be for the convenience of the House I should state that on Monday I mean to move a Motion for securing further Parliamentary time for Government business. The exact practical scope and the reasons for the Motion, of course, I shall give when I bring it on on Monday. The terms are as follows:—
  "That for the remainder of the Session the House do meet on Tuesdays at 3 o'clock, that Government business have priority over all other Bills and Notices of Motion on any day upon which it is put down, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 he extended to every day of the week."
  That is the formal Order with regard to Supply.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (HARBOURS AND PIERS).
  Bill to authorise County Councils to raise money on the security of the rates for the purpose of constructing and improving Harbours and Piers; ordered to be brought in by Sir Cameron Gull, Mr. Bolitho, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Captain Phillpotts, and Mr. Lucas-Shadwell; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 10th June, and to be printed.—[Bill 190.]
  SMALL LOANS (INTEREST).
  Bill to restrict the amount of Interest chargeable on small Loans; ordered to be brought in by Mr. Marks, Mr. Ernest Gray, Mr. Macdona, Mr. William Abraham, Mr. Byron Reed, and Mr. Drucker; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 191.]
  MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) ACTS (1887 AND 1891) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, 1887 and 1891; ordered to be brought in by Sir John Kennaway, Sir A. F. Acland-Hood, Sir John Dorington, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Round, Lord Edmund Talbot, and Mr. Wharton; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 8th May, and to be printed.—[Bill 192.]
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.
    1. £7,850, to complete the sum for Secretary for Scotland's Office,—
    MR. T. R. BUCHANANdesired to ask a question of the Lord Advocate with regard to the
    1648
    progress of the negotiations with Foreign Powers in the matter of the territorial fishery limit. In the month of December last the Secretary for Scotland, in a speech at Edinburgh, stated that he was taking steps to induce the Foreign Office to enter into negotiations with other Powers with a view to coming to some international agreement with regard to the extension of such territorial limit. He would like to know what progress had been made with the negotiations, and whether it was likely at an early date that a result would be arrived at. He would like to deal with a couple of the objections which might be urged on behalf of the Admiralty or authorities of that sort. It might be said that, if the territorial limit was extended for the one purpose, it would also have to be extended for the purpose of defence, which would involve them in national complications. He did not think that a substantial objection, as it was possible to alter the limit for fishery purposes without altering it for the purposes of defence. As to the question of reciprocity and the possibility that their interests might be damnified supposing that other Powers extended their territorial limit, he did not see any danger to their interests.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. PEARSON,)was not in a position to make any definite pronouncement to the hon. Member on this topic further than to say that the matter had not gone beyond the departmental stage. The Act which brought the question into prominence only came into law in the course of last year. The questions raised by anything which touched the territorial limit were extremely grave. It was found that difficulties arose even between England and Scotland, and these were now under the careful consideration of the Scotch Office, together with the English Department. The other difficulties surrounding the matter had been very accurately summarised by the hon. Member. They were, in the first place, the difficulty of saying to what effect and purpose they were to negotiate with other Powers in reference to this most difficult question. In the second place, there was the difficulty as regarded the more limited use which might be put on the extended

    1649
    area. Such a negotiation on their part, would certainly open up claims, which it would be, very difficult to resist, for reciprocity in that matter. This was a question which affected largely the fishing industries both of England and of Scotland, in so far as it would close to their fishermen certain waters which were at present open to them, and as to which —he was not prepared to say aye or no—It would, at all events, be a question not easily determined off-hand whether their fishermen might not be greatly the losers.
    MR. BUCHANAN: It would apply all round.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, not all round, but on both sides. He had spoken of reciprocity. It would mean all round the North Sea or even something a little more extensive, and therefore, the moment they raised the question with other nations they raised the question as to what was best on the whole for their own fishermen. These questions had been, and were being, very carefully considered, and he was perfectly certain that his hon. Friend would be satisfied if he knew that the consideration had been most careful and favourable in order to do their utmost for their fishermen. He might add that he was not himself so impressed with the great importance of this limit as a matter of tactical protection for the fishermen. Provided only that they could get the regulations laid down and observed between their different classes of fishermen at home, he thought they had ample fishing grounds for all. The difficulties that had emerged during the past year were of a very different sort, and these, he hoped, were now practically at an end.
    DR. CLARKregretted to hear the condition of the negotiations. The Bill as to this subject had been so modified in another place that they could not control their own fishermen until these international negotiations had taken place, and other countries agreed not to fish in their waters. The Bill had thus became practically null and void, and would be so until these negotiations were carried out. The other Foreign Power's were in exactly the same position as themselves, and were finding that their fishing beds were being destroyed. They had passed legislation limiting the size of
    1650
    the mesh and the size of the fish that could be brought into the country and sold, and so far as the information given to the Committee on this subject went, it showed that foreign countries would gladly welcome something of this kind to prevent the great North Sea fisheries from being entirely destroyed. Even the great trawling industry, which was now becoming a non-paying kind of business, and which until the last four or five years was strongly opposed to anything of the kind, had now fallen into line, and were agreed that something should be done. As to the question of whether they might not lose by it, he did not think Parliament ought to consider that. The interests on the other side of the German Ocean could be looked after by those countries. They here wished to prevent their own beds from being destroyed, and he hoped that, as by the content of the Government the change was made in another place which prevented them applying the law to their own subjects until it was generally agreed upon, some steps would be taken to meet the difficulty that had thus arisen. So far as other Powers were concerned, they were all equally working on the same lines. It was very desirable that this should take place, and that their fishing beds should be preserved.
    MR. J. H. DALZIELasked the Lord Advocate whether he was now able to give them any definite answer with regard to the Inquiry which was promised by the late and by the present Government into the financial relations between England and Scotland. They had been informed previously that the Irish Inquiry so monopolised the attention of the Treasury officials that it was quite impossible at that time to appoint a Committee for i his suggested Inquiry. The Irish Inquiry was now practically complete, and probably the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give them some assurance that the Inquiry as to Scotland would at no distant date be ordered.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could give no such assurance as that on the part of the Government. Until the Commission which was considering the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland had actually reported, and until there had been time to consider the Report, it seemed to him to be quite

    1651
    premature to make any declaration on the subject of the financial relations as between Scotland on the one hand and England and Ireland on the other hand. He did not think the deliberations of the Commission were so far advanced as the hon. Member seemed to think, and he thought it would be time enough to consider the matter, with a view to giving undertakings, when the Commission had finally reported to the House. When that was done, he had not the least doubt that the hon. Member and other Scottish Members on both sides of the House who felt an interest in this question would press the Government sufficiently to insure that it should not be lost sight of. Further than that he could not go.
    MR. DALZIELsaid, the Lord Advocate's statement was a little step in a backward direction from the position taken up some time ago by the First Lord of the Treasury. That right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question addressed to him from the other side of the House, he thought, said their position in this matter was precisely that of the previous Administration—that the officials were so occupied in the present Inquiry, which dealt practically with Ireland only, that they had not sufficient time to deal with the Scottish view of the question, and that, the moment the burden of that work was taken off their shoulders, the Scottish Committee or Commission would be appointed. It was not a question of waiting for the complete Report of the present Commission at all. It was a question of appointing a Commission at the earliest possible date, to make the Inquiry, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the promise he had given, and that he would at a future time be able to say that the Commission or Committee had been ordered. It was a very pressing matter.
    DR. FARQUHARSONdesired to know whether he was in order in asking the Lord Advocate what he was going to do with the Public Health Bill when it came down from another place—whether it was to be referred to a Committee of Scotch Members or to a Grand Committee.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: It will be time enough to raise that question when the Bill comes down to this House.
    DR. FARQUHARSONasked whether the Lord Advocate could give them any information as to what the programme of Scotch legislation was likely to be for the future?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: These matters cannot be discussed in Supply.
    *MR. PROVANDsaid, the whole of the evidence had been completed by the Commission considering the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. There was, therefore, no further work to be done for them by the Treasury officials, and they might commence as soon as possible the preliminary work there was to be done in connection with the forthcoming Scottish Inquiry. He hoped the Lord Advocate would undertake to see that that was done.
    DR. CLARKsaid, that when the present First Lord of the Admiralty brought in a Bill, under which certain moneys were to be given to England, Scotland, and Ireland, he gave a pledge that a Select Committee should be appointed to determine the proper proportion to be paid to each country and the proper proportion to be paid back again by each country. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer put down that Committee, but it was not appointed because Wales was not included in the scope of the Inquiry. A similar state of things occurred the year after, and in the following year was the General Election, so that nothing was done then. When the next Government came into power, they were pressed to appoint a Committee, but various excuses were made, and so matters had gone on for six years up to the present time without satisfactory arrangements being made. No Committee had been appointed, though both the late and the present Governments had given pledges that one should be appointed. Yet, for the third time, under this unsatisfactory state of things, fresh legislation was being proposed in Parliament closely affecting Scotland. He referred to the Local Rates Bill and the Education Bill, under which Measures a certain proportion of money would go to Scotland. That money would be paid under the same old lines of the Probate Duty, and therefore the arrangement could not be a satisfactory one. If the money was to be apportioned on those lines, it could

    1653
    only be fairly and accurately done after full and complete inquiry, and the necessary information to guide them could only be obtained by means of a Royal Commission or a Select Commit-tee. At present they did not know what was the exact sum which should be paid to Scotland. All they know was that Scotland received less than she ought to get. The amount that she ought to receive would depend upon several considerations and among them the quantity of Scotch whisky consumed in England. But at present they had no trustworthy information on the point. The Lord Advocate had told them that nothing was being done, and yet a pledge had been given that something should be done.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: What I said was that I could give no undertaking.
    DR. CLARK: Then all we can do is to prevent legislation, and to prevent England getting any money until we have some definite understanding. He could only hope the Government would carry out the pledges which had been repeatedly given during the last six years—bv the last Parliament and by the, First Lord of the Treasury in the present Parliament.
    MR. J. BRYCEsaid, he shared the feeling which had been expressed that the distribution of the money between the various parts of the United Kingdom was unsatisfactory, and he was sorry that the Lord Advocate had been unable to give a more favourable reply in regard to the matter. it was desirable, in view of the legislation affecting Scotland before the House, that that question of the financial relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom should be put on a permanent basis. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would earnestly address himself to the matter, and would shortly i be able to make a definite announcement in respect to it. With regard to the territorial limit for trawling, a question which had been raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, he hoped that those who were responsible for dealing with the matter would give, it the most careful consideration, for it was one which required a great deal of circumspection. There were difficulties
    1654
    surrounding it, and it had never been thoroughly investigated. As to the suggested extension of the three-mile limit, he would point out that England being the strongest maritime power in the world, it was more important to her than to any other country that the territorial limit should be as small as possible. If, therefore, any proposal was entertained for extending the three-mile territorial limit, they would be embarking on a policy which would have no general advantage for this country. He hoped the Lord Advocate would not fail to give the question close and serious consideration. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not appoint another Commission until the one now sitting had reported, and there had been an opportunity of considering both the results and the principles on which such an Inquiry could be carried out. The hon. Member for Caithness assumed that Scotland would have a right to receive grants in proportion to the amount she contributed for whisky and other similar taxes. He entirely failed to see any connection between the two. Why should the proportion of Probate Duties received by Scotland depend upon the amount of intoxicating liquors and tobacco consumed? Moreover, he doubted whether it was possible to arrive at any exact figures. it was important that the taxes should be the same for the whole kingdom, and then the amount contributed would depend upon the consumption. Moreover, if they entered on such an Inquiry for Scotland, why not for Wales, and why not for parts of England? The great object should be to weld both countries into one whole, and to have one system of taxation fair to the inhabitants of both countries as a whole.
    SIR MARK STEWARTsaid, he would impress on the, Government the importance of having this question speedily settled. It had been before the House a very long time something like six years, and they had had repeated declarations from Ministers that the Inquiry should be brought about. But they had not had a settlement yet, and, as had teen pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, there

    1655
    were pressing and important questions coming before the House affecting Scotland, and therefore it was necessary that it should be decided what proportion of money was really due to Scotland. The matter was one which the Scottish Members thought should be settled, and quickly too, on grounds of justice. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted therefore, that the Lord Advocate would take steps to bring about an immediate Inquiry. ['' Hear, hear!"]
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANwas glad the First Lord of the Treasury, who had been absent during the Debate up to this point, had now returned to the House, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would understand the great importance of this question. The approaching Report of the Irish Commission made it very much more necessary they should know how Scotland stood in this matter. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some assurance, carrying a little further the assurance he gave last Session, which would satisfy hon. Members on this point.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he had not intended to intervene in the Debate, but he understood the right hon. Gentleman desired to have the opinion of the Government as to the propriety of appointing a Commission to inquire into the financial relations between England and Scotland. As such a Commission had been granted in the case of Ireland, he did not see how a Commission could be denied in the case of Scotland, but he thought they ought to see the method of working of the Irish Commission before they finally decided to appoint one for Scotland. He would like to know on what principles the Irish Commission had proceeded and what results they had arrived at before he, on behalf of the Government, made any general statement on the question.
    SIR HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that had not the First Lord of the Treasury been absent during the earlier part of the Debate, he would have known that the particular reason given for delaying the appointment of a Scotch Commission was that the amount of work that such an Inquiry would entail on the Treasury could not possibly be undertaken at a
    1656
    time when a similar Inquiry was proceeding in the case of Ireland. The point was not that there should be a Commission appointed immediately, but that no time should be lost in the matter; but it was quite possible that, although, of course, the Irish Report might not be received for some time, yet all the preliminary part of the Inquiry in regard to Scotland might now be conducted by the Treasury officials who were released from the work in connection with the Irish Commission.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought it would be better to wait for the Report of the Irish Commission. It was just conceivable—he did not say it was likely—that principles might be laid down in that Report which would be generally accepted and make it hardly necessary to appoint a Commission to investigate the financial relations between Scotland and England. If they waited for the Report of the Irish Commissioners they would be able to approach the consideration of a delicate question with a great fund of useful information.
    DR. CLARKsaid, that all hon. Members wanted to know was what proportion of taxation was actually paid by Scotland and England in order that Scotland might get in return her fair share of the Probate Duties and other grants.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid, he rose to call attention to the following Motion standing in his name:—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty's praying Her to withhold Her assent to the Minutes of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated the 27th day of March 1896, providing for the Distribution of the sum available for Secondary Education, under Section 2 (1) (b) of the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland Act, 1892."
    He had placed the Motion on the Paper in the belief that it was one of those Motions which might be discussed and divided upon after 12 o'clock at night, but he found it would be impossible to take a Division on the Motion after 12 o'clock. The Motion was necessarily one which would be opposed, and as it did not, as he understood, come within the rules of exemption, it could not be discussed after midnight. He thought

    1657
    he would be in order in raising the question now. He had moved in the matter at the instance of the School Boards of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, and Leith, and he believed the parish of Govan had joined in the opposition. Those districts were dealt with exceptionally under the Minute of the Scottish Education Department, a Minute which was issued for the purpose of calling into existence a new Committee under the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892. There was to be a Committee for each county, consisting of such members as should be elected by the County Council and certain members of the School Board, together with representatives of certain specified local educational trusts in the locality. He gathered from the instructions sent to him that the main point to which the School Boards of the important districts he had named objected was the association with the elected representatives of the ratepayers of persons representing private educational bodies. They believed that the introduction of those bodies, winch they regarded as alien bodies, weakened the power of the representatives of the ratepayers on the Committee. Further, they took this objection, that whereas in the counties and in all burghs falling within the counties the rule prevailed that local committees should consist partly of representatives of the School Boards and the County Councils without any admixture of this foreign element, that rule did not apply to their districts. His second point related to Article 13 of the Minute. After the subsidy had been paid to each school, the remainder of the money was to be distributed in such proportion as the Department might determine, having regard to the population of the districts. The Government School Boards, on whose behalf he spoke, objected that this provision gave to the Education Department almost complete control over the distribution of the local grant; and he understood that they would prefer a reversion to the capitation system of some years ago. In the secondary school of the Dundee School Board, for example, there were 262 pupils who did not belong to Dundee or to the county at all. Dundee received no corresponding share of the grant on account of those pupils, while they were
    1658
    reckoned to the credit of other counties. He hoped that some consideration would be shown to the representations of such important bodies as those to which he had referred, though certainly they had allowed the matter to slide till the last moment. But he believed that no Parliamentary action was necessary, and that the Department could meet the difficulty. He suggested that the operation of the Minute should be postponed as long as possible, in order that the members of the protesting school hoards might have an opportunity of laying the case in person before the Scotch Office. Of course, if the Minute could be withdrawn for alterations in the points of which he had spoken, he should be better pleased.
    MR. J. B. BALFOURsaid, that this Minute affected an important institution in his constituency. It contained no provision for any representation of the Dollar Institution, or of similar institutions not situated in urban localities, on the Committee. Another point arose under Article 13 of the Minute. The provision allocated a grant of £200 to each Committee which provided a higher class school "as defined in the Act of 1872." Now, the Dollar Institution would not answer to that description. In the analogous article of the Minute of 1892 a greater latitude was given, by demanding a higher class school such as the Department might recognise. As to the grant, at one time there the proposal was made that reference should only be made to the question of population; but it was found that this would bear hardly on the smaller counties. But perhaps this point had been provided for.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, it has.
    MR. C. B. RENSHAWsaid, there was no doubt whatever that if county and burghal authorities could be induced to act together in order to secure joint expenditure in schemes connected with secondary and technical education, it would tend very much to promote economy and produce better results. In the Minute, provision was made by which additional representation was given to county and burghal authorities in the event of either of them, or both, agreeing with the county to devote the money which comes to them under the

    1659
    Acts already referred to for the purpose of educational schemes, but there were certain difficulties in the matter. In the latter part of Sub-section D, it was provided that where these additional members are given, they are to be elected by the County Council, or the local authorities, or may be determined by the Scotch Education Department, but there was no provision in the sub-section for the method by which these burghal authorities are to appoint their representatives. How could they induce the burghs to agree together unless they adopted some means by which representatives of the burghs could be brought together, and then choose the persons who should represent their interests on the Committee?
    *SIR JOHN LENGrose to support the appeal of his hon. colleague (Mr. Robertson), and said that both his hon. colleague and himself were surprised to find that the Minute in question was only laid before Parliament for its information, and not, as was usually the case, for revision by this House. Therefore they were very much at the mercy of the Lord Advocate and the Department in this matter. It was quite probable that the right hon. Gentleman would vindicate the action of the Department by saying that he was proceeding on the lines laid down by the former Secretary for Scotland, but he would venture to point out that there was strong exception taken to this scheme. The School Boards of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Dundee, had strongly protested against it. On the 29th of March of last year, when the plan came before them at a conference held in Edinburgh, the School Boards of these large cities unanimously resolved that the proposals were unjust and inequitable, and their proposition was that one half the members of each burgh committee should be elected by the School Board of each burgh. What they complained of was that quite a different mode of treatment had been adopted with regard to the burghs to that which was laid down for the counties. In the counties the burghs would have one-half the representation on the committee, but in the great cities, where the School Boards were specially elected for dealing with education, they were practically
    1660
    to be swamped by having a considerable majority not returned from the School Board. He could not believe that there was any intention on the part of the Department to depreciate the School Boards in the large cities in this matter; and if the right hon. Gentleman could possibly delay bringing into action the Minute now before the Committee, he would give great satisfaction to those whom he represented.
    MR. BRYCEjoined in the appeal made to the Lord Advocate that the operation of the Minute should be delayed for a short time in order to allow School Boards interested in its provisions to make representations to the Department, especially on the point of giving them larger representation on the county committee. Aberdeen School Board also asked that the time of election should be so fixed as not to clash with the School Board elections, and to make it possible that persons returned to the School Board might also serve as elected members of the committee.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would look further into the last point and see whether there was any ground, though he did not think there was, for dealing in the Minute with the day of the election. With reference to the request of the right hon. Gentleman, he regretted that he could not consent to postpone action under the Minute, because the Department, as in duty bound, had made all their preparations for bringing it into practical immediate effect. He was quite sure, however, that any representations made to the Department from the School Boards in question would be carefully considered. With regard to the complaint about the representation of different bodies upon the committees, what did the case come to? Equal representation was given to the county or burgh and a similar number of representatives from the School Board, and then in the case of the larger burghs, Dundee being one, additional representatives were allowed to go on the committee in respect of two or three great institutions of a distinctly municipal class which were found within that burgh. It would be a very difficult thing to exclude these institutions from representation. It was altogether a different thing in the counties, because

    1661
    where they got an important school like Dollar Institution in a non-urban district, apart altogether from any municipal management, then he agreed that the representation of such an isolated institution would tend to weaken the committee. The question was, were they to give the municipal side a preponderance over the purely educational side represented by the School Board? Those municipalites were themselves contributing to the money which Parliament had intrusted to their distribution, and could anyone expect a body in the position either of a county or burgh to consent to contribute that money to education instead of relieving the rates with out stipulating that they should get a large representation for so doing. The School Boards said that they were entitled to equal representation. But the discussion on this part of the question turned on the point of municipalities as being interested in education versus the School Board, as the, purely educational authority. There was no case at all for the School Board maintaining that they were entitled either to a preponderating or equal share on the committee along with the municipality on the mere argument that they ought not to be in the minority. As to the question of distribution, he said that the original proposal was that it should be something in the nature of a capitation grant. Instead of the basis of the present Minute following the original in that respect, there had been a reversion to the original payment of 1893. He was in favour of that mode of distributing the grant. After it was embodied in a Minute, the Minute was withdrawn after communication with the local body, and another Minute was tabled. Both hon. Members for Dundee supported the right hon. Member for Bridgeton on that occasion, though now they said that they were wrong then and that they would like to revert to the original state, of matters. Whatever view might be taken of the propriety of the original basis on which the Minute was founded, he submitted that it had been right in adhering to the main lines, and in recognising the value in such matters of continuity of policy.
    SIR GEORGE TREVELYANthought that time had justified the manner in which this question was dealt with by the late Government, with full
    1662
    concurrence of the House. The county committees had worked extremely well. Out of 39 county and burgh committees, in no case had any objection been taken to their constitution, except in the case of five great urban communities, in which objection had been taken by the School Board. That was a large measure of success, and he was bound to recognise the manner in which the present Government had continued the system, and to say that they had acted wisely and in a public spirited manner by so doing. The only exception he took to what they had done was whether they were right in the addition to the members of the municipality in cases where the money which they had at their command was made over for the purposes of secondary education to be used by the committee. Some observations were made two or three years ago about the tentative manner in which the Government and the House of Commons proceeded. In such a matter as this it was necessary to proceed tentatively, and he thought that the success had been considerable; and he should be sorry to discourage the Government in working it out in a continuous manner. He was not certain also, whether they had not been hard on some of the counties. The plan which pleased the House was that each county and burgh should have £200 to begin with, and after that the division of the money in proportion to the numbers should begin. In this Minute the Government had introduced what appeared to be a condition. He should be sorry if the poor and thinly-populated counties suffered from this condition. He hoped, however, that the plan for giving additional representation to municipalities and county councils would be carefully considered in the light of its practical working during the coming year.
    MR. E. ROBERTSONwished to make it quite clear that he did not represent any feeling of opposition between the School Boards and the councils. The complaint of the School Boards was that they were not treated in the great urban communities as they were in the counties. They did not complain specifically that county councils were to receive a larger share of representation, and he had no authority to object to that arrangement. With reference to

    1663
    the Minute, they had all been misled by its terms. One paragraph of it said, "no action shall be taken in this Minute until it was laid on the Tables of both Houses for at least one month." But now they were informed that practical action had been taken upon the Minute before the month had expired, and the Lord Advocate had told them that the Board of Education had all arrangements ready for an election in May under this Minute. Having regard to the misunderstanding as to the terms of the Minute, he thought the right hon. Gentleman should have provided a locus pœnitentiœ, and he still hoped that he would not meet all the representations of School Boards with the argument that the action of the Government was determined by what had already been done. He was strongly of opinion that great discontent would be felt in Scotland tomorrow when the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the representations which had been made to him became known.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSSwished to draw attention to the position, status, and pay of the police force in Scotland. Under a recent Act no policeman could get a pension until he reached the age of 55 years, or 60 years if he held a higher position. This rule insured men to remain in the service until they had arrived at a comparatively advanced period of life. Under the same Act a man must serve 34 years before he could obtain a pension, and the result was that a man was generally 59 or 64 years of age before he became entitled to his pension. Now, 34 years was too long a time to ask a policeman to serve before giving him a pension. In the police force, men who were physically strong were wanted, and a man 64 years of age was, therefore, not the best constable from the point of view of the public safety.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That question cannot be raised upon this Vote. It is a matter of legislation. The question of superannuation allowances for the police in Scotland depends upon legislation and not upon any administrative act of the Secretary of State, and therefore it cannot be raised upon this Vote.
    MR. A. CROSS: That may be so; but there is no other opportunity, as far
    1664
    as I know, when attention can be called to the question.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must find an opportunity himself. My only duty is to say that the discussion is not in order upon this Vote.
    MR. A. CROSS: The administration of this money is in the hands of the Scotch Secretary, and we are discussing that official's salary.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: No; I am informed that the administration of this money does not rest with the Secretary for Scotland in any way, and that it depends upon legislation.
    MR. CALDWELLobserved that the Secretary for Scotland was the official responsible for the administration of and supervision over justice matters in Scotland.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Yes; but he is not responsible for these superannuation allowances.
    *MR. J. G. WEIRsaid, that he was disappointed because the Lord Advocate had sent no message of hope to the Scotch line fishermen. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to look into the future more closely. More attention ought to be given to the negotiations with Foreign Powers as to the 13-mile limit in connection with trawling. The subject had been under discussion for months, but no progress appeared to have been made. It was a serious matter for the line fishermen of Scotland. He also wanted to know how matters stood with respect to the Garve and Ullapool Railway scheme, and what harbour works were to be proceeded with. The people of Scotland were rapidly getting tired of having the questions in which they were interested perpetually shunted.
    SIR. W. WEDDERBURNsaid, he wished to ask the Government what steps, whether administrative or otherwise, they propose to take to deal with some very serious and admitted grievances which affected the agricultural population in the north of Scotland. He did not know exactly what the powers of the Secretary for Scotland were in these matters, but he must look to him to deal, as far as his powers went, with these grievances. The two particular matters he wished to inquire about were the housing of farm servants and the protection of the improvements

    1665
    made by small tenants. The houses of the farm labourers in his constituency and in many others of the north-east of Scotland were in a very insanitary condition. When a medical sanitary officer examined those houses, he found in a large number of cases that they were quite unfit to live in; but if he took action things were made worse, because the result was that they were pulled down and the occupants were left without any houses to live in. Figures had been supplied by the sanitary officer in East Aberdeenshire. He stated that he had made objection to 115 houses, 31 of which were renewed or repaired according to plans of the local authority, 36 were found to be altogether uninhabitable, and 37 insanitary owing to structural defects. The result of all this was that the medical officer was afraid to take measures because the landlords could not be compelled to improve them. It might be said that they were not able in some places to do the necessary repairs, but probably money might be lent to them on easy terms. The condemnation of houses in thickly populated towns looked very well, because if an owner was compelled to pull his house down, he was also compelled to build another in its place or lose his site; whereas in the country it was actually an advantage to the owner to get rid of these houses. With regard to the protection of tenants' improvements, he was glad to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had already admitted that as a great grievance, and even spoke of the use of public funds in connection with it. Indeed, the, right hon. Gentleman rebuked the late Government because the late Secretary for Scotland had not proposed that public funds should be used in this direction.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That would have to be done by legislation of some sort, and possible legislation cannot be discussed on this Vote. Criticism on administration may be made, but no discussion can take place-on Bills which may be introduced.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I was asking, Sir, what were the measures, administrative or otherwise, the Government proposed to take to deal with this question.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: My ruling was that it would require legislation to deal
    1666
    with the matter raised by the hon. Member, and that such legislation could not be discussed on this Vote.
    MR. CALDWELL: On a point of order, Sir, may I point out that in the year 1888, a most ample discussion went on for a whole evening with regard to the question of legislation by the Secretary for Scotland. It seems to have been held then and on all previous occasions that the Secretary for Scotland receives his salary first in respect of his administrative duties, and secondly in respect of the duty imposed upon him of bringing in Bills in the interest of Scotland. Discussion has been repeatedly allowed in connection with complaints against the Secretary for Scotland and the Government for not legislating in the interests of Scotland. That has been the whole tenour of Parliament up to the present moment, and we are a little anxious now to have the point determined, because it will make a very considerable modification in the rights of Members in discussing the policy of the Government.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The policy of the Government in carrying out its administrative duties, is open to discussion; but the question whether the Government should or should not bring in some Bill which hon. Members may consider in the interests of Scotland cannot be discussed. It is a well established rule in Committee of Supply that the administrative action or any failure in administration by Members of the Government is open to discussion. The hon. Member will see that if the discussion of possible legislative proposals were allowed, any subject might be opened up—Home Rule for Scotland, for instance, or any matter of that sort.
    *MR. CALDWELL*MR. CALDWELL, who was received with cries of ''Order!" again rose and said: May I point out that in 1888, in the discussion on the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow said:—
    "It was quite impossible that any Minister could keep himself an courant with the feeling of the country which he was supposed to govern unless he was in constant daily and friendly intercourse with the representatives of that country in the House of Commons."
    Another point is that during the same discussion my hon. Friend the Member

    1667
    for Aberdeen was interrupted by the Chairman who said he must point out to the hon. Member that he could not discuss the details of a Bill. Of course we did not do that, but we discussed the general tenour and position in the House of the University Bill and other Bills then before the House. I may also refer to the speech of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs, on the same occasion, as showing the latitude taken with regard to criticism of legislation and the demand to introduce legislation. I am only referring to the fact that those opportunities were afforded to us on all previous occasions during the last 10 years, and that this is the first time such an objection has been taken. ["Order, order!"]
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in disputing my ruling. It has been repeatedly laid down by my predecessors that only administrative action is open to discussion. It is perfectly obvious that legislation cannot be discussed.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN (continuing)said, he was not proposing any legislation. He was only asking what the Government proposed to do if they did not accept the legislation proposed from his side of the House. He supposed they had their remedy, because the Leader of the House informed him that he fully sympathised with his desire to give protection to the improvements of tenants. The right hon. Gentleman said it did not need to be discussed because it was so completely admitted. Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues meant to deal with the subject, he asked them to be so good as to state how they meant to meet the grievance.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that the first grievance mentioned by his hon. Friend prevailed particularly in Aberdeenshire and Banffshire. The figures quoted by his hon. Friend only referred to one district in Aberdeenshire, the district of Elton; but what was true of that district was true of most of the other districts of Aberdeenshire. The condition of things was this. If the sanitary inspector condemned all the houses which in his opinion were unfit for habitation, the occupiers of those houses, who only held from year to year, as soon as the houses were condemned received
    1668
    notice to quit from the landlord or his factor. That was a substantial grievance, and, meanwhile, the Sanitary Regulations Act could not be properly carried out. He, therefore, wanted to know what steps the Government proposed to take to see that the law was properly carried out. He hoped that by the administrative action of the Department, and by legislation if that were necessary, this grievance would be done away with. In Harris and in Inverness-shire similar conditions prevailed.
    *MR. J. MCLEODcalled attention to the subject of the promised Inquiry with regard to the small leaseholders in the Highlands of Scotland. That there was a considerable grievance in their case there could be no doubt. Every single candidate for Parliament in the north of Scotland at the last General Election had pledged himself to endeavour to get the Government to act in this matter, and it had given great satisfaction to the people in those counties that the Secretary for Scotland had addressed himself to getting information as to their condition. He hoped that the Secretary for Scotland had now concluded his Inquiry, and that the Lord Advocate would be able to announce that night what the Government proposed to do. He feared that if action were not taken soon in the matter the Lord Advocate might shortly be called upon in another capacity to exercise powers which they should regret to see exercised.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that he was afraid that he could do no more upon that occasion than refer the hon. Member who had last addressed the House to the answer he gave him to a question on the subject the other night. It was a subject which the Secretary for Scotland could not touch through any of his administrative functions. It was impossible to enter upon it on any other footing than by legislation. The same answer must be given to one of the points raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire. By no administrative action could the Secretary for Scotland do anything further than had been done for the protection of the tenants in their improvements. With regard to farm servants that subject fell under administration only in so far as it affected the existing law of

    1669
    Public Health, and he did not gather from hon. Members who had spoken, that they found any fault with the law or the statement made in which it was administered. On the contrary, he gathered that these laws were a little too stringent, and that they required the pulling down of houses. He would not go further into the matter lest he should transgress the ruling of the Chair.
    MR. BUCHANANrose to Order. He did not understand the Chairman's; ruling to imply that they were unable to discuss grievances to remedy which might possibly entail legislation.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not want to repeat my ruling. It is open to any hon. Gentlemen to introduce a Bill to remedy grievances. A Minister cannot by simply introducing a Bill make it become an Act. An Act is an Act of Parliament and not of a Minister and hon. Members cannot criticise the action of a Minister because he introduces or does not introduce a Bill. There are other opportunities of doing that. The opportunities of Supply were never meant to be used for that purpose except in order to bring home to the Department the failure to administer an Act of Parliament.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEresuming, said that he was disappointed that an hon. Member opposite had thought that there had been a failure of interest on the part of the Scotch Office with regard to the line fishermen. That was a matter not of legislation against either the line or the trawl fishing industry, and he need only point out the causes from which the difficulty arose. It arose in connection with the Moray Firth, and the action which was taken was properly taken and resulted in a vindication of the bye-laws which had been challenged; given loyalty on the part of the trawlers in the observance of the law, he did not believe they7 would have much more difficulty in that direction. With regard to the Ullapool Railway, it was not vet a realised fact. The Government had chosen one line, and a Resolution regarding it was only the other day on the Order Paper. The line to Mallaig was likely, he hoped, to prove a great advantage and boon to the district it served. He did not say
    1670
    that there were not advantages in forming lines in other parts of the country, and it might be that light railways might be constructed in some of the districts which the hon. Member had in his mind, but he would be a little too sanguine if he thought that the Treasury would, immediately after passing a substantial amount for one of the best Highland lines, proceed to undertake another railway equally important. As to the harbour of Portnagool, that subject had been raised without notice, but he would undertake to specially look after the matter.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that, with regard to trawling, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman had not been quite satisfactory. He did not gather from the right hon. Gentleman whether the negotiations with Foreign Powers regarding a 13 -mile limit were to be undertaken at all.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: What I said was that, as far as I know, they had not yet been undertaken.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid, that he had expected that these negotiations would have been undertaken and vigorously pursued; if not, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would press on the Scotch Office the desirability of considering an alternative system, because in the, case of the Moray Firth there would be stringent dosing of the area. An alternative system was proposed in a Bill introduced in another place by Lord Tweedmouth; but Lord Salisbury carried an Amendment, by which the Bill was considerably modified, on the direct ground that negotiations were necessary with Foreign Powers before a larger limit could be adopted; and it was understood from that that those negotiations would be undertaken. The trawling question might be the question in Aberdeen and one or two other centres; but undoubtedly the great question in Scotland was the line-fishing question, and those who followed the industry would be disappointed by the statement of the Lord Advocate.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid the question of house accommodation was a very serious, and might become a very threatening, question. He represented a part of Aberdeenshire in which the houses

    1671
    were very bad, and in which the people suffered in consequence. But, in justice to the landlords—a class to which he belonged—he should say that they were placed in a position of great difficulty, and were not altogether to blame. The sanitary inspectors, too, were doing their work with skill and energy and resource; but he thought that it would be impossible to get the unsanitary houses into a proper state through the agency of the local authorities. The local authorities were doing good work gradually, and they were resisting the temptation— which was a great one, indeed—of running the small crofts into large holdings, and thus abolishing the small holdings of which they were so proud in the North of Scotland. He thought that if some financial assistance could be given to the landlords—who were really trying to do their best to put their houses in order—a great difficulty would be removed.
    MR. JAMES DALYdrew attention to the deportation of paupers from Scotland to Ireland. He thought it was a monstrous thing that paupers, after spending 40 or 50 years in Scotland, should be deported to Ireland, to end their days in Irish workhouses, a burden on ratepayers to whom they had never been of any assistance.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that question can be raised on this Vote. It would be more in order on the Vote for the Poor Law Board of Scotland.
    MR. DALYsaid, he of course did not want to contest that ruling, but he had understood that almost every grievance could be discussed on this Vote. He would raise the question on the Poor Law Vote, and would only say now that the people of Ireland felt it a great grievance.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid it was difficult to find any grievance which might not be said to be removable by legislation, and therefore not entitled to be discussed in Committee of Supply. But he thought he would be in order in discussing the inconvenience caused to Scotch Members in not having the Secretary for Scotland in the House of Commons. The duties of the Secretary for Scotland were not merely to administer the public Departments of Scotland of which he was the head, but also to introduce in Parliament and steer through Parliament the whole of the legislation required for Scotland;
    1672
    and, as it often happened during the consideration of Bills that points arose on which it might be necessary to make compromises, the absence of the Secretary for Scotland from the House of Commons rendered it impossible for Scotch Members to bring the influence of their arguments to bear upon him. The other night the House had an illustration of the advantage of having such a Member of the Government in the House of Commons. A Bill of an Irish Member, which came on after 12 o'clock, was blocked by a Member on the other side of the House; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland advised that the block should be withdrawn, and, as a consequence, the Bill was allowed to be passed. He had introduced the Law Agents (Scotland) Bill, which had received the assent of the late Government and the present Government, and the assent of every Scotch Member in the House; and yet it could not pass through the House because an English Member chose to block it, and the Secretary for Scotland was not in the House to ask his Friend not to proceed with his opposition. Then there was the question of the right of fishermen to use the foreshore. Fishermen had the right, not only by Common Law, but by the Statute, to the use of one hundred yards of the foreshore for mending their nets and other work of the kind, and it was the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to see that the right was not interfered with by the landed proprietors. The question of the tenure by which some fishermen held their houses also came under the purview of the Secretary for Scotland. These men built their houses, but they had no title to them, and were liable to be evicted. He had also to complain of the method by which the police of Scotland were being turned more and more every year into a military force. What was wanted in the case of a police force was not a military force, but a civilian force —men who were known to the people, who would be able to act for the protection of the people, and who would have the people at their backs in a time of riot. It was impossible for the police force of the country to act effectively if it had not the public feeling at its back. There was a great difference between the police force in Scotland and that in London, and the reason was that in London the

    1673
    police did not act towards the public as if they were military, but as civilians. Consequently in London the police were looked upon as the protectors of the people's rights. In Scotland, the system of military drill which was in vogue was being pushed on so that the police were becoming similar in their methods to the Irish constabulary. The police should be a civilian force, and should be kept in touch with public sentiment. It was pointed out that sheriff officers were employed in criminal prosecutions of the police in a number of instances, instead of the detective officers properly attached to the Department. Another matter referred to in the Report was the desirability of a Police Gazette for the information of the police in Scotland, which was necessary for the efficiency of the police administration. It was of no use for the Chief Constable to make recommendations in his report to the Secretary for Scotland if nothing was to take place, and therefore it was their duty to ask the Government what they intended to do in regard to these matters. The establishment of a Police Gazette was not a matter which required legislation, it was a matter between the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury. Another point was the question of receipt stamps. It seemed that in the case of some counties the policemen had to give a receipt for their salaries, and had to provide the stamps for those receipts. It might be thought that it was a small matter, but surely, if the receipts were required, the stamps might be supplied by the Treasury. Another point was the stoppage of the pay of the police when on sick leave. The policemen were practically engaged for their whole lifetime, until they got a superannuation allowance, and this deduction therefore ought not, he thought, to be made. He contended that the allowance should be given, not for an inordinate period of sick leave, but for a reasonable time when the case was certified by the surgeon. When a man was sick he had extra expenses, and therefore needed the money more than when he was in health. They wanted discretionary powers to be given to the Chief Constable to allow pay where he thought the circumstances demanded it. In the case of some of the police on night duty they were only given anew uniform once
    1674
    every second year, and the result was that when they were brought on day duty their appearance was not all that could be desired. The contention was that the men should have a new uniform every year, and that no force should be certified as efficient which did not give uniform and clothing at least once a year. He thought it was of great importance that the police force should all be trained to a proper ambulance drill. This was especially necessary in the case of country districts, and every facility ought to be given for this purpose. He had no doubt the men themselves would willingly undergo the requisite study and examination to enable them to acquire so useful a qualification. In these days of telegraphs and telephones the police system of communication ought to be thoroughly efficient. In Glasgow there were a number of signal cabins connected with the central office, so that communications might be made almost instantaneous from every part of Glasgow and from the outskirts. In the large districts these stations should be spread as much as possible. It had also been pointed out that where the men had a considerable distance to go to their beats they ought to be taken there by vans. Another thing that was recommended was that the men should be instructed as regarded their duties, and that there should be a practical examination now and again to see how far each man understood the duties appertaining to a policeman. Another point was in regard to the closing of public-houses in Scotland. That was a matter which could hardly fail to be of considerable interest to the Government The hour for closing public-houses in Scotland was 11 o'clock, but a discretionary power to close earlier was given to the authorities except in the five larger boroughs. This discretionary power had been exercised in some instances with such beneficial results in the diminution of crime and the improved behaviour of the people, that it became a question whether the Government would extend those discretionary powers. There were a few policemen who were employed and paid by coal and mineral owners, and complaints were made that they were employed in extraneous duties, such as factoring the property they were supposed to guard.

    1675
    Another allegation was that these officers were used to serve ejectment notices and the like.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had answered a question on the subject, and had been waiting for the hon. Member to furnish him with particulars.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, there was a misunderstanding, for he had been waiting for the Lord Advocate to get the particulars. At any rate, it was felt that these private policemen, although under the Chief Constable, were not as free to act impartially, only they were independent members of the constabulary. They occupied a dubious position, and were sometimes tempted to be overawed by those in whose private interests they were acting. When a Chief Constable went to the trouble of making an elaborate report on a matter of this kind it ought to receive attention. Such a report was made in 1885, and there had been time for the Government to obtain and consider the facts. He should be glad to know to what extent they had done so.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would notice one or two of the more important matters the hon. Member had mentioned in the many administrative details he had gone into. He did not know how far certain remarks of the hon. Member were intended to reflect on the whole body of police, or how far they were limited to the police of one locality; but, as regarded the forces with which he had been brought into contact, the imputations were absolutely unfounded.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, he had made the statements in an address which he had delivered to constables in Glasgow.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the hon. Member's remarks really meant that the police were being drilled and organised until they were becoming military and uncivil, and that, in fact, they were being too well drilled and organised. It might be that there were faults, but complaints of this kind would not have the smallest weight with the Committee. He would not discuss the question raised as to the military or civil character of the force, but it had always been the desire of successive Governments to keep the police force strictly to civil duties, and there was not the smallest foundation for the fears the hon. Member professed to entertain.
    1676
    He had not heard of one instance of a sheriffs officer being employed in criminal investigation, and if a case was laid before him in which it was alleged there had been any excess or lack of zeal, he should be happy to investigate it. He was entitled to something more than a statement that a complaint had been made in the report of a Chief Constable. As to the complaint that the pay of the police was stopped for sickness or absence for a certain period, this really was due to obviate the distressful alternative of dismissal; otherwise the pension funds would be in an insolvent condition. The employment of police by coal owners was authorised by express statutory provisions; and any complaints should be made to the local authority, the Joint Standing Committee. The hon. Member had raised two difficulties. One he had dealt with; the other, owing, apparently, to some misunderstanding, he had not had an opportunity of investigating, but if the hon. Member would supply him now with information as to these particular police acting as house factors, he would see whether there was anything in the circumstances which called for the interference of the Department.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid, he should leave the matter where it was for the Lord Advocate to deal with.
    SIR MARK STEWARTsaid, the hon. Member had referred to the clothing not being renewed every year. There was an inspection every year and it was the duty of the County Council to see that what was right was done. He had never heard of an instance of a grumble of this sort. The men generally presented a smart appearance. He must protest against the assumption that the police in Scotland were not all that they should be in the way of civility. He had a long experience, and he knew that many would bear him out in this with regard to the policemen of the whole of Scotland, excepting Lanarkshire and Glasgow, for which he could not speak. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course, he could not speak for their perfect civility.
    *MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, he had frequent occasion to be in Glasgow, and he had always the pleasure of receiving great politeness from the police, when he made an inquiry.
    MR. CALDWELLdenied that he had said anything about civility. What he had said was, that the military formation and discipline were detrimental to the police as a citizen force. He did not say that the police in Scotland were uncivil, but they were far more civil in London.
    *MR. WEIRwas glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman had not broken down in health under the pressure of his work, seeing that he had not the assistance of the Secretary for Scotland. They ought to have the Secretary for Scotland there. They all knew what was the result with regard to the Under Secretary for War having his Chief elsewhere. He answered Questions as far as his knowledge went, but that did not amount to much.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing the War Office Estimates.
    *MR. WEIR: I was only pointing out that the Secretary for Scotland was not here. The Postmaster General is not here, and the Secretary for War is not here. The hon. Member complained that the miners had been brutally treated by the police and that his complaints were not attended to. He would next refer to roads in the Highlands.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The proper place for discussing that is when we reach Vote 3 in Clause 7.
    *MR. WEIRsaid, then as to telegraph extension to the Highlands. This was of very great importance to the fisheries, In many places fishing could not be carried on without the wire.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: That also is a question which properly comes on on Vote 3, Clause 7.
    *MR. WEIR: May I refer to mussel cultivation?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: That will properly arise on the Fisheries Vote.
    *MR. WEIRsaid, then he should move a reduction on the Lord Advocate's salary by £100, so that he might get some information as to the Inspector of the Constabulary. He begged to move——
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid it was not necessary to move a reduction to ask the Question or to call attention to the matter.
    *MR. WEIR: I have called attention to it for years and I never get any information.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the hon. Member merely asked him why the Inspector of Constabulary received £800 a year. If a more specific question were put to him he would endeavour to answer it.
    *MR. WEIRsaid, this official might be worth £1,800 a year, but he wanted to know what the, duties of the office were.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLANDsaid the Inspector was a roving official, who reported to the Crown Office.
    MR. CALDWELLcalled attention to the salary of the clerk in charge of the accounts and statistics who began at £200 a year, and whose salary rose by annual increments to £600. At the present moment he was getting the maximum salary. The senior clerk who, presumably, was a man of a superior stamp, as he commenced at the higher salary of £450, only rose to the same salary—£000. The salary of the clerk in charge of accounts rose from £200 to £600 merely by lapse of time, and not because of any increase in the duties. This was not in the public interest. The office keeper had a minimum salary of £120, rising to £150. But this official received at that moment an amount equal to £280 a year. Although he did not live on the premises, he received £40 a year in lieu of a servant, and there were six charwomen and an extra porter. The whole cost of keeping Dover House clean was thrown on the Estimates. These expenses were out of all proportion to the services of the office keeper. £600 a year was put down for travelling expenses against £700 last year, but the appropriation accounts showed they were really £256 10s. 2d. less than last year. £150 were put down for special inquiries against £200 last year. He hoped he should receive an explanation of these matters.
    *MR. WEIRsaid, the £600 for travelling expenses included £150 for an office. How on earth, if the official was travelling about, could he want an office.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid that he was not prepared to answer this question, but his impression was, that the

    1679
    travelling expenses were connected with the Scotch Office, which did not come under the head of the Inspector of Constabulary. With regard to the payments to the office keeper, reference to a note in the Estimates explained it. The amount of £600 for the salary of the clerk in charge of accounts, and the £150 for inquiries, were the estimates only, and any part of the money which was not wanted would fall into the Treasury Office. As to why a maximum of £600 should be fixed in the two cases, one clerk beginning at one minimum and the other at a different minimum, the explanation was, he believed, perfectly simple. The gentleman who got £450 as a minimum was a senior clerk, while the gentleman who got £250 as a minimum was a clerk in charge of the accounts. He appealed to the Committee to now allow the Vote to pass.
    MR. CALDWELLdid not admit that the answer of the Lord Advocate was satisfactory, and if such a state of affairs continued when the Estimates came on in another year, and no better explanations were given, steps would be taken to move a reduction of the Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    Motion made and Question proposed:—
    "That a sum not exceeding £16,666 he 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 Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
    *MR. BUCHANANremarked that he wished to say a few words upon this Vote, on the subjects of the Regulations affecting trawling, the sea police, and harbours. It had been stated in the course of the evening that there had been certain international negotiations with a view to a general extension of the territorial limit for fishery purposes. One hon. Member had suggested that it had not by any means been proved, or generally accepted, that trawling was detrimental to line-fishing and fishery in general. Against that he would quote the action of the trawlers themselves. A couple of months ago, when the Moray Firth was opened, the trawlers rushed in helter skelter from Aberdeen
    1680

    to secure the benefits which they believed to have arisen from the closing of that area for a number of years. He could cite a higher authority still—the Secretary for Scotland—who, in addressing a deputation of trawlers in Edinburgh two weeks ago, said that he himself had no doubt whatever from his own experience, that in-shore fisheries had thus been, in some cases at any rate, absolutely destroyed. No one, in fact, who had investigated the subject, could doubt that the continuous action of steam trawlers over certain areas was detrimental, if not destructive, to the fisheries. He wished to ask whether the present regulations laid down by the Fishery Board were sufficient, and in the second place whether the regulations that had been laid down were duly observed. With regard to the sufficiency of the regulations, he could only say that there was an increasing opinion among those interested in the question, that those restrictions and regulations were not sufficient. There was not merely a desire for an international extension of the territorial limit for fishing purposes, but a very strong desire was expressed by fishermen in Scotland, and also in England and abroad, that for fishery purposes, the Board, or whatever other department had authority in fishery matters, should have power over a wider limit than three miles, for the protection of fisheries. What they wanted to secure was that the in-shore waters should be properly protected for the prosecution of the line-fishing industry. The Lord Advocate, no doubt, had read the account of the deputation of fishermen at Edinburgh a fortnight ago, and he would there see that representations were made from all parts of the coasts of Scotland strongly urging on the Secretary of State and the Fishery Boards, not only the desirability, but the necessity of due protection of their interests; and of a considerable extension of the territorial limit for fishery purposes. Whether that limit was made 13 miles, six miles, or any other distance, above the present limit, there could be no doubt that the three mile limit was not sufficient. What they wanted to do was to secure that the line-fishermen, whose possibilities and powers of getting out to sea were more limited than those of the

    1681
    trawlers, should be protected in the inshore waters. With regard to the second point, as to whether the present provisions and regulations were enforced and observed, he might say that the Lord Advocate had himself admitted early in the evening that they were not adequately enforced. As to the way in which the regulations were enforced, the Secretary for Scotland told the deputation which waited upon him that during the past year there had come up 10 cases where trawlers had been convicted of going within the three mile limit without lights, and he drew the conclusion that if there had been 10 cases in which convictions had been obtained, there must have been many other cases. Hon. Gentlemen must know there were constant complaints of infringements of the regulations. There was no part of the United Kingdom which suffered more from this grievance than the east coast near Aberdeen. There were more infringements there of the Fishery Board's regulations than anywhere else. It had been constantly urged on Government after Government that the provision in this Vote for sea police was quite inadequate. In 1893 a Committee inquired into the question, and the present First Lord of the Admiralty strongly advocated the dispatch by the Admiralty of vessels to be put under the control of the Fishery Board or the Secretary for Scotland. The Committee reported in favour of such a plan. Nothing, however, had been done, and apparently there was very little prospect of anything being done. An extra vessel, the new Vigilant, was bought three years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) when he was Secretary for Scotland. She was a second-hand yacht, and did not steam fast enough to enable her to discharge efficiently police duties. She was still totally incapable of performing the duties required of her on the west coast. But what about the east coast, where the fisheries were much more valuable and important? There they had practically only got the old Jackal. She was not very seaworthy, and was totally inadequate for police duties. Time after time the Government had had impressed upon them the necessity of providing other ships, and from time to time the Admiralty had
    1682
    supplied other ships. They had had the Niger. She was a swift ship, and on occasions had done good work. But what had been the Niger' s performances lately? She was sent up to the east coast of Scotland in November last. She arrived in Aberdeen harbour on the 19th of that month, and started from there on the 25th. She returned on the 2nd of December, and spent 12 days in harbour. She went on duty again and returned on the 23rd. From the 23rd of December to the 21st of January she was in harbour. In all, of the 109 days she was detailed off for sea police duties on the north east of Scotland she had been 79 days in Aberdeen harbour, during 10 of which she was in dry dock. That was not an adequate discharge of sea police work, particularly at a time when feeling was greatly stirred owing to the opening of the Moray Firth. He did not blame the officers of the ship. He was aware they did not like the duties they had to perform. They did the duty to the best of their ability, but it was to them irksome work. What he now wished to impress on the Government was that it was their duty to see that the regulations passed under Statute by the Fishery Board were adequately enforced, and that the Board had proper means of enforcing their regulations. The question had been trifled with for so long that it was really time some proper and satisfactory solution was arrived at. Either the Admiralty should provide proper and quick vessels, or such vessels should be supplied by the Treasury. In this matter he particularly appealed to the present Government, as the present Secretary for Scotland had undoubtedly led the people to believe he was exceedingly anxious to see their grievances were remedied. There was only one other subject he desired to refer to—namely, that of harbours. Three thousand pounds was totally inadequate for the construction of fishery harbours only, let alone commercial harbours and harbours of refuge. On page 20 of the last Re-port of the Fishery Board, the Lord Advocate would see that the number of cases reserved for the consideration of the Board was 13, and that the total sum asked for was £52,000. The Board had cut down their demands to the very lowest point, so that it was perfectly clear that a grant of £3,000 was utterly

    1683
    inadequate. It was very necessary that the question of harbour construction should be put upon some substantial and permanent foundation. No real good was done by a frittering away of small sums of money on a scheme here and a scheme there. The Board ought to be able to embark on a practical and well-considered scheme that would meet the most necessitous circumstances on the coast of Scotland. That was what was wanted by the fishermen, and that would be the most economic and satisfactory way of settling the question.
    *MR. J. W. CROMBIEsaid, that the illegal trawling was admitted to be a public scandal. As to the inefficiency of the sea police, that was not exaggerated. The movements of the vessels were published in the newspapers, so that the trawlers knew exactly where the vessels would be at any time. The easiest solution of the question would be to shift the punishment from the owners to the master's of the trawlers; because the former willingly paid the fine for so profitable a business. The Scotch Fishery Board administered very badly the money in their hands. A great deal of it was frittered away, and many deserving places were neglected. It was utter waste to give money for a harbour not properly served by railways. Then the harbour ought to be made large enough to take the large boats required by modern fishing and the geographical situation was a most important point. A great many harbours had received grants where none of these conditions were fulfilled; and in one case at least—Stonehaven—not a penny had been spent, though all the conditions were fulfilled. Only a small sum was needed; the harbour was served by two railways, and the geographical position was so good, that the neighbouring fishing villages had actually petitioned the Fishery Board to give a grant to Stone-haven instead of to themselves.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid that the fishermen were extremely grateful for the promptitude, energy, and success which the Secretary for Scotland had dealt with the troublesome crisis in the Moray Firth. Further, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the complaints of the fishermen's deputation to Edinburgh gave
    1684
    hope that their grievances would be dealt with. As to the sea police, the complaints were more against the system than the way in which the work was done. The remedy proposed was that instead of detailing ships of the Royal Navy for the work, there should be a regular police service. The boats should be built like trawlers, though swifter; they should be under the orders of the Fishery Board, and there should be on board of each a certain number of practical fishermen extensively interested in stopping these illegalities. The question of expense ought not to stand in the way of a proper enforcement of the law. The Secretary for Scotland had complained that the fishermen themselves did not exert themselves in helping to stop the trawling. But it was not wise to encourage these men to be too active or to take the law into their own hands. When the trawlers, on the strength of the supposed flaw in the Order, rushed helter-skelter into the Moray Firth, doing immense damage, the difficulty was to prevent the fishermen from interfering. As a matter of fact, they did remain absolutely quiet under great provocation. Of even greater importance was the question of harbour accommodation. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire had found fault with the method in which the present small grant had been administered. Of course, the Fishery Board could not please everybody, and he could only say for his own constituency that the Fishery Board and its chairman appeared to have done their best to meet the wishes of the people. But there was one important point as regarded the way in which the grant was applied. The opinion of the Fishery Board had been that the preservation of life and property, not the provision of fishery harbours of refuge, was a national duty, and ought to be done from the Treasury. They drew a distinction between commercial harbours and harbours to preserve life and property. But to construct real harbours of refuge with the large boats now used for fishery purposes was quite beyond the means of the fishermen themselves, and therefore they called on the Government to provide the money. The Lord Advocate appeared to be under a little mistake in thinking that the Select Committee of 1884 did

    1685
    not distinctly recognise this national obligation. Now, the Committee, in their Report, said:
    "Your Committee believe that grants of public money may to a limited extent be made in aid of works which would provide purely refuge harbours chiefly for fishermen on certain portions of the coast to which a large number of the boats belong. … Your Committee have been much struck with the force of the evidence they received by the extraordinary number of dry-at-low-water fishing harbours that exist in certain parts of the coast and would really in the ease of boats belonging to them being caught in a storm become rather a some of danger than of safety, Your Committee believes that it falls entirely within the province of the Government to provide the much needed refuge in those districts, it being absolutely impossible that the fishermen themselves could raise sufficient funds for such works or find the security on which to borrow the money to carry them out."
    All that he asked was a sum of £20,000 to make a safe harbour for the Moray Firth. Another important point which tended to increase the danger was that the boats were much smaller, and if there was any risk of danger they could be beached. The need, therefore, was much greater, because the value of the property was much larger, and the number of boats was now greater. As long ago as 1848, Admiral Washington's Commission reported that £3,000 was quite inadequate. In 1857 a Special Commission, presided over by Mr. James Wilson, recommended that £9,300 should be given; and Admiral Washington's Commission £10,000. This point had been unceasingly pressed ever since by the Fishery Board and all those concerned with the industry. Every Government which failed to provide a remedy, incurred a very grave responsibility, because, when any storm arose, it invariably happened that a great disaster ensued, as well as loss of life. It was a very small amount which was asked for in order to give comparative safety to a large district. The, hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire referred to the great cost of Provisional Orders, even when unopposed, for building a harbour and carrying it through the House. He held in his hand an account numbering 14 folios of 6s. 4d.'s and 13s. 4d.'s from the Parliamentary agent, and another account from the local solicitor, amounting to £45 for carrying through purely formal business.
    1686
    There was no reason why there should not be printed forms and other assistance given to persons who wished a Provisional Order, so as to reduce the expenditure to something quite nominal. He had spoken to the Chairman of the Fishery Board on the subject, and he believed this Committee felt this waste of money very much. The sums were collected by the fishermen, with very great trouble, in sixpences and half-crowns, and he trusted that the Lord Advocate would give what assistance he could to the carrying through of a matter of this kind. It would be an encouragement to the fishermen in collecting their subscriptions if they knew that all the money collected would be employed in the improvement of the harbours.
    MR. J. PARKER SMITHreferred to an item of £3,000 as grant in aid of piers and quays, and commented on the very un-satisfactory method of having two independent sources of expenditure for this object.
    DR. CLARKcould not agree; with the suggestions of the hon. Baronet. He was a member of the Committee which dealt with this subject, and he agreed with the recommendation that the Scotch Fishery Board should have a cruiser for the purpose of doing this police work, The old boats, like the Lively, the Jackul, and the Garland were absolutely useless to go after steam trawlers steaming 15 and 16 knots. He reluctantly agreed to the experiment being tried. It had been carried out, and the Scotch Office had purchased a fine steam yacht. It was at first proposed to the Treasury to spend £10,000, but it being a Scotch proposal, of course, the Treasury refused, and screwed the amount down to £5,000. But the new cruiser was worse than the old Jackul, and it was now compulsory to keep it in Oban Bay, through fear that the crew should be drowned if it ventured out in rough weather. As a matter of fact, the new cruiser was not worth fivepence as far as work was concerned. The intention surely was that the Admiralty should do all this police work. ft possessed the proper forces to do it. The Admiralty were now building torpedo destroyers; and he suggested that here was a class of work on which torpedo destroyers could be employed, inasmuch as in time

    1687
    of war they would be occupied in watching foreign cruisers and trawlers. He hoped the Lord Advocate would understand that upon this question the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen did not represent the views held by all the other Members of that House who represented Scotch fishery districts. The only exceptional views entertained on this subject was held by the Member who represented the one district where the trawling poacher lived and thrived. The trawlers were again destroying the fishery beds and carrying away the lines and nets of the fishermen, with the result that these honest men had lost thousands of pounds. It was to prevent this that an efficient police system was wanted. When complaints were made to the Scotch officials those who made them were referred to the Admiralty, and the Admiralty, when representations were made to it, laid the blame on the Scotch Office. The result was that nothing was done, and he hoped that this game of battledore and shuttlecock between the Departments would cease. They ought to use half-a-score torpedo catchers, 24 or 25-knot boats, that could easily run round any trawler. When these police boats were to go out in search of trawlers the fact ought not to be disclosed beforehand. At present it was generally known when they were going out. As it had become manifest that mere fines did not prevent trawlers from breaking the law, he agreed that there ought to be a power to imprison as well as to fine. As to the maintenance of harbours, that was one of the burdens taken over by the Parliament of Great Britain at the time of the Union, and that the sum devoted to the purpose had not been increased did not speak well for the generosity of the Treasury. The surplus Herring Brand fees, which were allocated to the purposes of piers and harbours, increased in 1895 by £700 or £800, and yet Scotland was to have apparently £1,000 less for her harbours. As far as the Brand fee was concerned, there was a very serious grievance. This tax was put upon Scotch herrings, and the proceeds of it were not given to fishing purposes. There was a large sum in respect of the past Brand fee, which they ought to get, but never have got, and probably never would get. The fees collected in 1895 amounted to
    1688
    £8,021, but of that amount £5,267 was taken away for expenses. If the development of the telegraph was necessary it ought not to come off the Brand fee. He thought it was very mean and contemptible, but it was just the kind of thing the Treasury had always done for Scotland. There was also a decrease of £500 in the Vote for Scientific Investigation and Marine Superintendence, though he had understood that what was taken from one Department was to be handed over to the other.
    *MR. J. E. GORDONthought the Government were to be congratulated on the fact that the whole night had been spent on Scotch business without any great grievance from North of the Tweed arising in any of the great centres of population. He represented a district where they had a few grievances, but he believed that in the hands of the Government they were easily capable of relief in the course of the next few years. They felt on his side of the House that they were addressing willing ears, and that their affairs were in safe hands. They had to thank the Government for the ready way in which they came to their aid when the trawlers recently invaded the Moray Firth. Speaking on behalf of the line fishermen, he said that all they asked for was protection in their great industry. This last winter for the first time the fishermen were really satisfied with their fishing, but when they saw the trawlers invading their fishing grounds they were naturally apprehensive. They, therefore, asked that they should be protected all along the coast, and allowed to develop the fishery for their own advantage and for the advantage of the country; and that the trawlers who were new comers and had steam at their disposal should spend an extra hour-and-a-half in proceeding to sea and not fish in the inner banks. With regard to the policing of the sea, he would like to see some of the swiftest vessels the Admiralty could spare put upon the work, but he would point out to the Lord Advocate that there was another method by which the law could be carried into effect. The fishermen now complained that when they had a case in Court the expenses allowed them were inadequate, and their loss of time very serious. Therefore, if the Law Officers

    1689
    could see their way to give them proper expenses, the fishermen would be more willing to take action and would thus form a detective police at sea all night and everywhere, and would do the work much more efficiently than could be done by a gunboat here and there. Another point which was worthy of attention was that the trawlers were now accused of covering up their distinctive marks. He would suggest that vessels of that class should be forced, as could be seen sometimes on Scandinavian and Danish steamers, to have their names or numbers very large right in the middle of the hull, so that those at a distance could readily see them. He would urge Her Majesty's Government to take these matters into their consideration.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Government had no reason whatever to complain of the discussion, inasmuch as the two matters chiefly dealt with were both matters of high interest. One of them, however, had already been dealt with in the earlier part of the evening in such a way as to discharge him from saying anything more about if. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire began by asking first, whether the existing regulations were sufficient: and secondly, whether they were adequately enforced. As to sufficiency, the only observation his hon. Friend had made was that he thought there ought to be some extension of the limit of trawling waters. Everyone would desire to see this question settled favourably to the Scotch line fishermen, but the situation would become one of extreme difficulty and gravity if the Government were unduly pressed with regard to it. As to the question as to how far their obligations, such as they were, had been adequately enforced, all he could say was that the Government had been following the lines of policy which had been adopted by their predecessors in office. No one knew better than hon. Members opposite the difficulty of enforcing the law with regard to trawling in Scotch waters. In the first place, the ships used for the enforcement of the law were not built for that purpose. It was all very well to say that the "catch trawlers" ought to be of the same description as the torpedo-boat destroyers, but the truth was that there were any amount of difference between
    1690
    the two services. In the case of the torpedo-boat destroyers, they had the men in the Navy discharging their ordinary national duties which they were paid to discharge, but in the case of the ''catch trawlers" there was a suggestion of police about it, which was most distasteful to the officers and men employed on board such ships, and the result was that whatever Government was in power were prevented from unduly increasing the extent of the operations necessary to prevent illegal trawling. The Admiralty had done fairly well in the past by the Scotch Fishery Board in regard to this matter, and they had had more assistance from them during the last two year's than had been previously given. With regard to the old Jackal, he remembered not many years ago that that vessel was merely an old small paddle - wheel steamer, whereas the new Jackal had grown into a fine screw vessel of 700 horse-power and of 750 tons burden. That was the Jackal of the present day, and he thought it was a little more up-to-date than the hon. Gentleman opposite supposed it was. The proper form of "catch trawler" did not yet exist, but he hoped that eventually such a class of vessel would be at the disposal of the Scotch Fishery Board. He appreciated what the hon. Gentleman opposite had said with regard to the extension of the three-mile limit, but the hon. Gentleman must see that with the means at present at their disposal it would be extremely difficult to carry out such a proposal. It must be recollected that it was only a very few months ago that the Board had powers conferred upon them by Parliament to take the steps necessary to prevent illegal trawling. At that moment he was not prepared to give any further promise on this subject. Observations had been made that night with reference to the desirability of operating against illegal trawlers in other directions. He confessed that he had very considerable sympathy with the proposal to increase the penalties in oases where there were repeated convictions, and also with that which suggested the possibility of dividing a portion of the fines among the line fishermen who gave the information that led to those convictions. He did not complain of the action of the

    1691
    fishermen in that respect. They might, perhaps, do a little more than they were in the habit of doing in the way of collecting information, but to ask the line fishermen to take the trouble to collect that information without any reward and to throw upon them all the trouble of running in the illegal trawlers would be unjust. He had merely thrown out these observations for consideration, but he would give his full attention to the question and would not forget the points which had been brought under his notice. Turning to the subject of piers and harbours, he did not think that an amalgamation of the two sources from which the funds for the construction and maintenance of piers and harbours would have much effect in improving them. The hon. Member had said that only some £3,000 was applied for the purpose, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that that sum by no means represented the whole of the money appropriated to those constructions. During the last two years a large amount of work had been done on the coasts of the Highlands and Islands. Works of a larger nature had been carried out at a cost of £37,600, and of a minor nature at a cost of £26,000. There had been instances, undoubtedly, in regard to which it was difficult to say that the money had been well spent, but on the whole he thought the money for harbours had been spent to the best advantage. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire suggested that harbours ought to be selected with some regard, first, to the size of fishing boats, which were now being built with a larger draught; secondly, in connection with railway accommodation; and thirdly, to geographical considerations, in order to give service to the largest area. Those were useful and sensible suggestions. The most important of the three was that in regard to railway facilities. There was not much good in bringing fish to the shore unless it could be forwarded to market, and he could point to the Light Railways Bill of the Government as evidence of their desire to provide the fishermen with increased railway accommodation in that direction. He sympathised with the complaint of the hon. Member for Banffshire in regard to the cost of Provisional Orders. It must, however, be remembered that in matters
    1692
    of that sort Parliament had delegated its own powers to those local authorities which brought in Provisional Orders, so that the Provisional Order—expensive though it might seem at first sight—was really the cheapest form of legislation. But when that was said, the fact remained that a great deal of expense was incurred, especially in lawyers' fees; and while he could not shadow forth any scheme by which the Departments might perform some of this work—in fact, he doubted whether it was feasible—he could assure hon. Members that their suggestions in that direction would receive the careful attention of the Secretary for Scotland.
    *MR. MCLEODpointed out that the Lord Advocate had said nothing in regard to the reduced surplus of the Herring Brand fees. He thought the time had come when the Committee should insist upon getting the total sum received in fees for the purpose of harbour extension.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he had inadvertently neglected to refer to the Herring Brand fees. In 1889 or 1890 a Committee sat and investigated this extremely complex question in the fullest possible manner, and they made representations which resulted in the charges—of which complaint had been made—being fixed as essential. It should be remembered, also, that, rightly or wrongly, the Herring Brand fees had been pledged to certain trusts, and that all that was available for the purposes of harbour extension was the surplus. For instance, in 1892 the Eyemouth Harbour Trustees received £10,000, and the Herring Brand fees were assigned by the Secretary for Scotland to the Loan Commissioners as a security for the repayment of the grant. He hoped that explanation would be accepted, and that the Committee would consider that the matter had been sufficiently dicussed.
    MR. J. M. WHITEsaid, that it was of great importance that railway stations should be near to harbours. He was interested in one harbour, which at the present time was in a very incomplete and unsatisfactory state, although a considerable sum of money had been spent on it. It was three or four miles from a railway. The fishermen from the neighbouring villages had contributed a sum towards its com-

    1693
    pletion. The state of the harbours was a public scandal. There was not nearly the accommodation that there used to he, and yet the fishermen were compelled to pay dues for a harbour which was worse than useless.
    MR. A. CROSSsaid, that as an hon. Member had pointed out that no Scotch Member for a great Scotch constituency had intruded in the Debate, he would say that, as representing one of the great centres of population in Scotland, there were two questions in which he was intimately concerned. These were the questions of trawling and of harbours. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench was always extremely pleasant, but he had heard this Debate on the Scotch Estimates more than once, and he must tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had answered admirably in the language of successive Administrations. They wished that trawling should be carried on in a business-like style. The Fishery Board had a number of vessels of an antiquated style, and their attempt to deal with trawling he must characterise as absurd and antiquated. He wished to ask whether it was the intention of the Fishery Board to put down trawling. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of what he hoped to live to see, and as they wished him long life, it might be 30 or 40 years before they saw any change with regard to trawling. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the force of all their arguments, and gave them lavish promises such as in the past had yielded no satisfaction. If the construction of harbours was to be encouraged, more money must be provided: but the Vote was being reduced this year. He submitted that the proper course would be to press the Front Bench a little more firmly. There was a strong opinion that the west coast fisheries had not received the attention which was their due. There was no reason why there should not be as valuable fisheries on the west coast as on the east coast. He did not believe that much would be achieved unless more pressure was put on the Department in order to obtain something more than kind words and lavish promises. They might well begrudge the spending of £1,000 upon elaborate scientific investigation when so much was needed for more practical purposes. To develop
    1694

    the fisheries, trawling must be kept within proper limits, and carried on under effective supervision; and for these purposes money was required. From a business point of view and in the interests of the great centres of population, the proper course would be to divide the Committee, and he strongly recommended that course as the only way of obtaining immediate attention to their requirements.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid he wished to say a weird in appreciation of the increase of the Vote for scientific investigation, the results of which would be felt in the future, if not immediately. He was glad to see that the Vote had been raised to £970.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid there had been a transfer from that Vote to another Vote, which had resulted in an apparent augmentation larger than the very slight increase.
    DR. FARQUHARSONsaid he was sorry to hear that was so. He thought that it was only right that someone should bear testimony to the work done by the Fishery Hoard. Inquiries had been made all over the Continent, and a great deal had been done; but the fishermen, like the farmers, were carrying on their work with a little impatience as to scientific methods, but in the end it would be found that these scientific methods would do an enormous amount of good. He was sorry to find that this increase of £970 was not an increase in reality. He did not think that money could be better expended.
    MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid, before the hon. Gentleman considered the questions put to him, he should like to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member opposite. Before the late Government went out of office, it was admitted that the south-east coast of Scotland was in an unsatisfactory state as regasds the protection given to the fisheries. There was only a sailing vessel to look after the steam trawlers. Nothing could be got out of the Scotch Office. He had been engaged in some negotiations and after these it had been intimated that the Admiralty were prepared to take some steps. They did not pledge themselves to what they would provide as to policing the south-east coast. These negotiations were still in the Scotch Office, and what he should like to know

    1695
    was whether they were being continued with particular reference to the southeast coast? The thing amounted simply to enforcing the laws of the land, and whether the Admiralty were taking any steps to carry out the understanding arrived at. They hoped and believed that they would lead to some efficient result, and that the duties would be satisfactorily discharged. If the Government would not undertake it—and he should have thought that would have been the speediest way to carry out the intentions of their predecessors in office— they must take some steps. It was said there was a great difficulty about a gunboat, but he had satisfied himself that that was not so. The entertainments given were most hospitable, and the business was found to be a pleasant one. He trusted the First Lord of the Admiralty would find no objection to undertaking those duties; or, if so, that someone else would be put in a position to discharge them. Until the Government provided the Scotch Fishery Board with some adequate means it would be well that they should carry out that which certainly it was understood should be carried out.
    *MR. WEIRurged that Her Majesty's ships, instead of doing little at Chatham, Portsmouth, or in the Mediterranean, should be off the coast of the Highlands of Scotland protecting the fishing industries. At the time Lord Spencer was at the Admiralty a gunboat was placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board, but it never went round the west coast at all.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-IURYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put":—
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 64.—(Division List, No. 115.)
    The House was cleared for a Division on the Question that the Vote be agreed to.
    *MR. WEIR*MR. WEIR, seated and with his hat on, said he desired to raise a point of order. He had moved the reduction of the Vote by £100, and he claimed to have that reduction put from the Chair.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did not make any Motion.
    *MR. WEIR: Pardon me, Sir, I did. [Cries of "Yes" and "Order!"] I said, at the opening of my observations, that I rose for the purpose of moving a reduction of £100, and I ask for a vote to be taken on that.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: No Amendment had been put from the Chair when the Question was put.
    *MR. WEIR: No, Sir, because the Leader of the House—
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    Question put accordingly:—
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 56.—(Division List, No. 116.)
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) [EXPENSES.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question again proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the acquisition of a Site for Public Offices in Westminster, and for purposes connected therewith. —(Mr. Hanbury.)
  MR. T. LOUGHasked that some explanation should be given of the Vote.
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said, this was a money Resolution securing the payment of money for the purchase of the Westminster site for public offices. The Bill was read a Second time the other night and this was simply a Resolution authorising the expenditure of the money which was provided by an Act of last Session.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that last night they were asked to vote £300,000 without any explanation, and now they were asked to vote a sum of which they had had no

  1697
  previous knowledge. There was nothing on the Paper to indicate what the; amount was.
  And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL,
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  TELEGRAPHS (ADVANCES).
  Resolution reported;
  "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 sums 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."
  Resolution read a Second time:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. DALZIELsaid, that the House was entitled to a detailed statement as to the way in which the money was being spent. It was impossible to tell how much of the public money the National Telephone Company had got. If this Report were agreed to, would the right hon. Gentleman promise that the Bill should be brought on at a time when the subject could be properly discussed? [Cheers.]
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that he could not give a guarantee of that kind. No portion of this money would go to the National Telephone Company, which had already received about £450,000 out of the £1,000,000 provided in the former Bill. The rest of that sum had gone to purchase wires for the main trunk lines. The additional sum asked for was in order to complete the purchase of the wires.
  MR. A. CROSSsaid, that the topic was of the greatest importance to the
  1698
  commercial community, and, unless the Government could give the assurance asked for, he should feel compelled to proceed with the discussion at once. He desired to raise the question of the facilities given by the Telephone Company.
  Mr. J. COLVILLE Mr. J. COLVILLE (Lanark, N.E.) moved the Adjournment of the Debate. [Cheers,]
  MR. HERBERT LEWISseconded the Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Motion would not be pressed. There would be an ample opportunity of discussion on the Second Reading of the Rill. This Resolution was merely necessary to the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. W. ALLEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite pledge that the Bill will come on before 12 o'clock?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; I cannot promise that.
  MR. DALZIEL: I am sorry that the Leadership has got to such a state— [Ministerial cries of "Order!"]— that we should be receiving pledges privately which are repudiated publicly. [Opposition cries, and persistent Ministerial cries of "Withdraw!"] I shall not withdraw. The hon. Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow had assured him that he had obtained a definite pledge from the Secretary to the Treasury, or some other representative of the Government—[Ministerial laughter]—that, if this Resolution were allowed to go through, the Bill should be brought on before 12 o'clock. ["Hear, hear!" from Mr. PROVAND.] The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division agreed with that statement. [''No!" from Mr. A. CROSS and Ministerial laughter.] If the hon. Member was satisfied with the assurance he would not countenance any further continuance of the Debate. [Ironical laughter.] But, whether a pledge had been given or not, he appealed to the Leader of the House to say whether there was not some reason in hon. Members at the present time protesting against a Government which scarcely allowed a week to pass without asking for some alteration in the procedure of the House, without making some further incursion on the time of

  1699
  private Members, and which asked the House after midnight to consent to the passing of Government Business. It was absolutely unprecedented. The Government had suspended the 12 o'clock Rule more frequently this Session than any Government in any preceding Session up to the present time. ["No, no!"]
  *MR. PROVANDsaid that he and the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division met the Secretary to the Treasury in his room the previous night. In speaking about passing this Resolution, the Secretary to the Treasury was asked whether they would have the opportunity to discuss the question at a later period if they allowed the Resolution to pass without objection. The right hon. Gentleman said "Yes." ["Hear, hear!" from Mr. HANBURY.] He was asked further whether a Bill would be brought in to give an opportunity for discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman said "Yes." Then the right hon. Gentleman was asked, "In plenty of time?" "Yes," said the right hon. Gentleman— ["No, no! "from Mr. HANBURY]—and with that promise in his mind he did not oppose the Resolution, which otherwise he would have done had he not received the assurance just described.
  MR. A. CROSShad no intention of doubting the perfect good faith of the Secretary to the Treasury. It was true that he and his hon. Friend put the points mentioned, but the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was qualified; he said it would be done "as far as was in his power." [Laughter.] He certainly understood that the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's reply was that reasonable facilities for discussion would be given. ["Hear, hear!"] In his opinion the Debate ought to be adjourned because a suitable opportunity ought to be provided for a discussion of the relations between the Government and the telephone companies. There was no more important commercial question than this now before the House of Commons, and the adoption of the principle involved would vitally affect the policy of the Government in regard to future transactions of a similar nature. ["Hear."]
  MR. HANBURYwas glad that the hon. Member who had just sat down had done him the justice to admit that he
  1700
  gave no such pledge as the hon. Members opposite suggested that he did give. [Opposition cries of "No!"] The hon. Member had stated very accurately what really did take place. He did say that he should be glad if the subject could come on before 12 o'clock, but he added that he had no power whatever to bring it on then. [Opposition cries of " Oh!"] It was not in consequence of any pledge given by him that either of the hon. Members opposite withdrew their opposition last night, and the conversation that took place referred to last night, and not to-night. What did weigh with the hon. Members was the following consideration. The hon Member for Glasgow was most anxious to bring forward certain matters relating to this Bill, but it was pointed out to him that if this Resolution came on after midnight, and he rose to speak upon it, it would at once become opposed business, and would not be proceeded with, and it was agreed that the hon. Member should make his speech not on the Resolution, but on the Second Reading. As regarded the Second Reading he gave no pledge, except so far as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Camlachie. As to what had been said by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, there was absolutely no foundation for it.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid this appeared to him to be a somewhat important matter. It affected the general trade of the country, and Glasgow and other Scotch towns in particular. It appeared that an understanding had been arrived at last night, in consideration of certain hon. Gentlemen abstaining from speaking on the Resolution, that full opportunity for discussion should be given. Those Gentlemen did abstain from speaking last night, on the understanding that some time or other a full opportunity would be given to them of discussing this question. That night, owing to the forms of the House, they were precluded from getting that opportunity. He therefore submitted to the Leader of the House that in these circumstances, and in the interests of the conduct of public business, he might very reasonably give an undertaking that an opportunity would be afforded at a reasonable hour when the Second Reading came on to raise this important question in all its bearings. If such an undertaking were

  1701
  given he thought this Debate might very well come to an end. ["Hear hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that if he rightly understood what had occurred, their present position might thus be stated. Last night they discussed one of the two formal stages which precede the Second Reading of the Bill. To-night the House was asked to pass the second of these purely formal stages. It was perfectly true that it was not consistent with the practice of the House that these formal stages should be used for substantial Debate, but he understood that the right hon. Gentleman opposite desired that when the natural and proper period for discussing the Bill- the Second Reading—came on, an opportunity should be given hon. Gentlemen opposite of laying their views before the House. It appeared to him that hon. Gentlemen opposite had complete command of the situation. It was true that the Report stage of this Resolution was not subject to the Twelve o'clock Rule, but the Second Reading was, and, therefore, any Gentleman by objecting could absolutely prevent the Hill from being taken after twelve o'clock.
  MR. DALZIEL: You have power to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule. [Cheers.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYcould not help thinking that that had only just occurred to the hon. Gentleman's mind. He was quite ready to promise that the Twelve o'clock Rule should not be suspended in reference to this Bill specially. He pledged the Government not to use the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule in order to pass the Second Reading of this Bill. If hon. Gentlemen were ready in the interest of public business to do their best to restrict the Debate within comparatively narrow limits, he would agree to take this Bill at eleven o'clock on the night it was put down, which he hoped would meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen. If, however, hon. Gentlemen tried to drive the Bill off to the fag end of the Session it might not be possible to afford those facilities. He hoped his proposal would satisfy both sides of the House that the Government had no desire unduly to restrict Debate of this subject. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PROVANDcontended that the understanding come to on the previous night was that this matter would be taken at a period of the evening when a Debate could be taken with reasonable fulness. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would say 10 o'clock they would be willing to accept that. ("No, no!")
  MR. LOUGHdid not think they could find fault with the tone in which the Leader of the House had put his proposition. If the right hon. Gentleman were willing to interpret the hour he had mentioned in a liberal spirit he thought they might accept his suggestion.
  MR. ASQUITHalso wished to enforce that view. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not object to giving a reasonable time for Debate.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA-SURYsaid he would do his best to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  TELEGRAPHS (ADVANCES).
    TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
    "To provide for raiding further Money for the purpose of the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1892," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—(No. 194.)

  DERELECT VESSELS (RETORT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  MR. HALDANEasked for some explanation as to the object of this Bill.
  MR. J. C. MACDONAsaid, this was a simple Measure, which had for its object that masters of ships crossing the Atlantic should, if they came across derelict vessels, report them to the next port they came to. It was a Bill which, if passed, would save human life and property.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he should like to know what view the Government took of this Bill.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he was doubtful if the Bill would be of very great utility, but, at any rate, it would be harmless.
  MR. W. ALLANappealed to the Committee to allow the Bill to proceed.
  DR. TANNERasked if there was any case where injury to life or property could be given.
  MR. M. MCCAETANsaid, two years ago two steamers had been lost, and their loss was generally ascribed to derelict vessels.
  Reported without amendment. Bill read 3°, and passed.

  DISPENSARY COMMITTEES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMAN CAPTAIN PRETYMAN (Suffolk, Woodbridge) moved to report progress.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the Government was in favour of the Bill.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid he should be quite willing to withdraw his objection to the Bill when his own Bill had arrived at the same stage.
  MR. J. DILLONappealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,)said the Bill was approved by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his opposition.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, if this system of reprisals was carried out, it would be absolutely impossible for any private Member to pass a Bill.
  CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid, the hon. Member for Mid Cork had an objection to non-contentious Bills, and he must persist in his present objection to show the uselessness of this system of reprisals, which was not begun on the Conservative side of the House.
  Objection being taken to further proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  CORONERS INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [4th March] further adjourned till Wednesday next.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND).
  Bill to remove certain doubts with respect the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, so far as it applies to Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour. Presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed—[Bill 195.]

  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
  Bill to explain the meaning of the expression "Stipendiary Magistrate" in Acts relating to Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour; presented, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 196.]
  Adjourned at Ten minutes before One o'clock till Monday next.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Monday the 4th of May next.

RETIREMENT OF VESTRYMEN AND AUDITORS (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
Clause 1,—
[SHORT TITLE.]
This Act may be cited as the Retirement of Vestrymen (London) Act 1896.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved to insert after "vestrymen" the words "and auditor." He said that at present auditors were elected in the same way as vestrymen, and, as he understood, one of the objects of the noble Lord (Lord Monkswell) in promoting the Bill was to reduce expense, it was obviously desirable that auditors should be included in the Bill; otherwise expense would have to be incurred in separate elections.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid he had no objection to the alteration.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
Clause 2,—
[DEFINITIONS.]
In this Act,—

(1.) The expression "the Council" means the London County Council.

(2.) The expression "vestry" means a vestry elected under the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, and any Act amending the same.

LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS moved that "vestry" should include "the Woolwich Local Board of Health, as if the members
1610
thereof were vestrymen." He said the Local Board at Woolwich retired annually by thirds. Woolwich was within the Metropolitan area, and the Local Board discharged many of the duties of the London vestries, being for example the sanitary authority; and it seemed desirable that the Bill should extend to the governing body of the parish of Woolwich, in the same way as to other parts of the Metropolis.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he entirely concurred with the noble Lord.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4,—

ELECTIONS TO BE TRIENNIAL, AND FULL NUMBER OF VESTRYMEN CHOSEN.
When the Council has made an Order under the last preceding section, the first election of vestrymen of the vestry on whose application such Order was made shall take place on such day in the month of May next after the making of such order as the vestry appoint, and every subseqent election shall take place in every third year, on such day in the month of May as the vestry appoint, and at such first and every such subsequent triennial election the full number of vestrymen of which such vestry is to consist under the provisions of the Metropolis Management Act 1855, shall be elected.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH THE EARL OF DENBIGH moved to insert before "the month of May next" the word "third." He said that when the Bill was read a Second time, he expressed a doubt whether it was required; but the House had decided that question in the affirmative. Therefore, as a matter of public convenience, it was highly desirable that the Bill should be taken advantage of by every vestry in London. It would be inconvenient that some should continue to be elected on the present system, and others should adopt the triennial system. As the Bill stood, the London Vestries were asked to adopt the triennial system in the month of May next after the passing of the Bill. In other words, two-thirds of the members elected were asked to commit a kind of official suicide. Those who were elected last May were asked to run the risk of a contested election in the following May, while, if

1611
they adhered to the present system, they would be safe in their seats for three years. In the same way another third of the vestrymen would have to run the risk of a contested election at the end of two years, instead of remaining three years in their present security. Thus, two-thirds of each vestry would be practically against the adoption of this Act. He had put down the Amendment on behalf of several persons who were keenly interested in municipal politics in London, and who had practical experience of the working of London Vestries. He was assured that there was a strong feeling on this point, and that the Bill would be rendered nugatory without the Amendment he proposed. The object of the Bill was to assimilate the election of vestrymen to the election of boards of guardians, under the Act passed three years ago; by which boards of guardians were given the option of adopting the triennial system. They had adopted it because the effect with them was exactly the contrary of what it would be with vestries under this Bill. He understood the proposal was somewhat distasteful to the Local Government Board, because some members who had been elected for three years would be allowed to sit for five years. He was aware that the effect of the Amendment would be that members would retire by thirds at the end of three, four, and five years. The guardians were elected for three years, with the knowledge that those lowest on the poll would retire one-third in one year, and another third in two years. Yet the guardians were given the option of practically prolonging their existence, and all he asked was that the same option should be given to vestrymen in order that, as a matter of public convenience, we might have a uniform system among the Metropolitan Vestries, and we should be subjected to the inconvenience of seeing the Measure adopted by some and rejected by others.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, the logical outcome of the noble Lord's speech would be that the Bill should be compulsorily applied to the vestries, and it should compel all the members of a vestry to retire every three years. It was proposed to leave the matter to the option of the vestries, and it was thought the best plan would be to give them no personal inducement to adopt or not to
1612
adopt the Act, and to leave them free from any bias, except considerations of public convenience. No doubt, as the Bill was framed, it offered a slight personal inducement to some not to adopt it; they might have some slight bias against it; but under the Amendment, if they consulted only their own personal convenience, they would be desirous to adopt the Bill. He thought it undesirable that vestries should be put in such a position that the members should have a strong personal inducement to vote one way or the other. He would suggest as a compromise, the insertion of the "second" month of May, and then the personal inclinations of the members would be more equally divided. His own feeling was that the vestries should not be put under a personal bias but should be left to vote according to their views of the public convenience.
LORD HARRISsaid he could not contest the fact that under the Bill there would be some who would not enjoy the delights of office for as long as they had anticipated when they were originally elected, but from the point of view of a Government Department, it appeared that that was more desirable than that the Government should, by its own action, ensure a certain number of members remaining in office for two years and longer than they were originally elected for, and in certain other proportions for one year longer. If the Amendment was pressed to a Division, he must, on behalf of the Local Government Board, ask their Lordships not to accept it; but he would mention to the President the suggested middle course, and ask him to consider that as well as the Amendment. As at present advised, he must oppose the Amendment.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid he was willing to accept the compromise, and would now withdraw the proposed Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

ACT TO HAVE EFFECT NOTWITHSTANDING PROVISIONS OF METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS.
The provisions of this Act shall have full effect notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, or any Acts amending the same.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL moved to add to the Clause—
"And after the passing of this Act every vestry, whether it comes under the provisions of this Act as to retirement or not, shall be entitled to fix the date in the month of May on which the election of vestrymen shall take place."
He said this was a question on which there had been a good deal of feeling. The vestries had contended that they were legally entitled to fix the date of their own election; and the Local Government Board had had a legal opinion that they were entitled to do it. At first the Local Government Board were determined to abide by their view; but he was happy to find that the Local Government Board had said they would give way if the vestries would adopt this Bill; but there was no reason why a vestry which did not adopt it should be placed in this matter in a different position from one that adopted it. The two classes ought not to be put in a different position; and if the Local Government Board surrendered their claim in one case they should do so in the other. As a matter of drafting, he understood the Local Government Board thought the Amendment might be improved, and he was, therefore, willing to leave the drafting of it to them.
LORD HARRISsaid, the Local Government Board were willing that this power should be given to the vestry. There was no objection to the principle of the Amendment, but he asked the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment now, and at a subsequent stage he would bring up a new clause more in conformity with the ideas of the Local Government Board as to wording, and also some consequential Amendment in the preceding clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause 5 added to the Bill.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH THE EARL OF DENBIGH, in order to give the vestries a little more time, moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new clause:—
"6. That this Act shall come into operation on the first day of October in the year One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six."
1614
No time being mentioned in the Bill, it would not otherwise come into force until the following January.
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, that in the absence of words to the contrary, the Bill would come into force when it received the Royal Assent. The vestry should be allowed to consider the matter whenever they liked, and pass a resolution when the Act was passed.
LORD HARRISsaid there was no objection to a date being fixed.
LORD MONKSWELLsuggested that the usual course should be followed, and as soon as the Bill was passed, the vestry should have an opportunity of passing a resolution. It was simply a vexatious and harassing condition to delay the power of the vestries.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked what possible reason could there be for delay. The Bill was an optional and not a compulsory Measure. The vestries were enabled to make application to the Local Government Board, but they were not compelled to do so immediately. He did not see the object of fixing a date in these circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.—[No 60.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
To be read 2a on Friday the 8th of May next.— (The Lord Harris.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DETERMINATION OF DIFFERENCES) BILL.
To be read 2a on Friday next —(The Lord Harris.)
House adjourned at Five minutes before Five o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.