Sitting of 13 August 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Motion made, by Order, and Question proposed—
  "That the Standing Orders he suspended, and that the Lords' reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Commons' Amendments to the Dublin Corporation Bill [H.L.]. be now considered."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYsubmitted reasons why the House should refuse to suspend the Standing Orders. The House of Lords had refused to suspend their Standing Orders, and this House should be equally emphatic in adhering to theirs. The House of Lords for the first time had taken the point that a franchise clause introduced into the Bill was against its Standing Orders; in other words, they had raised the grave constitutional question that the House of Commons was bound by the Standing Orders of the House of Lords. He asked the hon. Member for Mid Lanark to tell the House what were the Standing Orders which the House was asked to suspend. It was obnoxious that an

  717
  omnibus motion should be made to suspend the whole of the Standing Orders in order to oblige the other House, which declined to suspend a single Standing Order for the benefit of the House of Commons. He understood that there were no fewer than 150 Standing Orders in that House, and he asked whether it was not preposterous to be asked to do so. That comity which ought to prevail between the two branches of the Legislature was not always observed by the Upper Chamber, and he thought it was absolutely necessary that the Bill should be sent back to the House of Lords, and that their Lordships should be informed, with great and grave respect, that the House of Commons' Standing Orders were not matters to be juggled with at all. On the contrary, they were matters of serious and grave concern, which the House declined on a message from the Peers to set aside. This Bill was of grave importance. It affected the question of the supply of water to the townships around Dublin. If this were an ordinary case of promoters he should be happy to suspend any ordinary Standing Order, but what had been the action of the promoters of the Bill? The House of Commons unanimously, and two Committees with unanimity, passed certain franchise clauses in the Bill. They went up to the House of Lords Standing Orders Committee, and there the promoters of the Bill were represented by an eminent learned gentleman engaged by the Corporation to state their case on the question of the suspension of the Standing Orders. The Corporation of Dublin could easily have had this clause included in the Bill if they had taken the proper course in the House of Lords. The Corporation of Dublin appeared by counsel before the Committee, and they stated no objection whatever to the inclusion of the franchise clauses in the Bill. They were absolutely delighted at the prospect of having 20,000 citizens included, and were especially most anxious to do nothing to hurt the working men. But the working men had a different opinion about the Corporation of Dublin now from what they had on a previous occasion. He had received a telegram that day from the Trades Council of Dublin, representing 20,000 Dublin working men, urging him to stand by all the
  718
  franchise clauses in the Corporation Bill. He impeached the good faith of the Corporation of Dublin with regard to this Bill, and especially with regard to the franchise clauses. They were entitled to no consideration whatever from the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, Mr. Cameron, representing the Corporation, was reported to have said that the water part of the Bill had received the sanction of both Houses; but, on the Motion of himself and the hon. Member for North Monaghan, instructions were inserted in the Bill. As to Part III. of the Bill, Mr. Cameron said that the Corporation "assumed no paternity." He thought, however, that the Corporation were literally gasping to have the franchise, but from the start their action with regard to these franchise clauses had been hypocritical. [Cheers.] It was said:—
  "If your Lordships saw fit to extend the franchise in the manner proposed, the Corporation would accept it, but they were in no sense responsible for that part of the Bill,"
  and then the Corporation placed itself in the hands of their Lordships.
  "As to the clauses forming Part III. he was silent, and produced no evidence with regard to them."
  What effect did this declaration produce? The effect was most evident, because the Chairman made a remark of a pregnant character. Mr. Cameron once more intervened in the argument:—
  "Mr. Cameron: I am not supporting this clause; the Corporation of Dublin are not supporting this clause."
  Whereupon the Earl of Morley said "We understood you to say so." What had been the hypocritical action of the Corporation of Dublin with regard to this franchise question? When this Bill was first thought of last year they announced that they would put in the franchise clauses in order to satisfy the almost unanimous demand of the Dublin working classes.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is now going into a matter which may be more properly discussed if and when this question is decided in the affirmative, and when the question of the Lords' Amendment is before the House striking out Part III. The only

  719
  question now is whether the Lords' Amendment should be considered. Since the hon. Member referred to the Standing Orders I have made inquiry, and I find that, though the words "the Standing Order be suspended" were necessary at the time this Motion was set down, they are unnecessary now, and I shall therefore not put them to the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that if the Motion was unnecessary, it ought to be withdrawn. He submitted that the hon. Member for Mid Lanark should have stated what the reasons were for disagreement on the part of the Lords, and why they should now be considered. It was undesirable at this stage that further heat should be developed between the two Houses at a moment when the Irish Land Bill was trembling in the balance. When a public Bill was introduced last year, the Lords threw it out, and now, when a private Bill was brought in it was thrown out on the ground that it ought to have been a public Bill. As a whole he took the view that the Lords' reasons for disagreeing with the Commons on the question of the franchise ought not to be now considered. They would be told that this was a Bill of great importance to the Corporation of Dublin. The price they were charging the Corporation of Dublin for the sum of £9,000 a year, which they wanted for their water—the price that they asked was the admission of the citizens of Dublin as a whole to the franchise. The House had already passed franchise clauses this year in three Bills, the Corporation of Drogheda Bill, the Waterford Bill, and the Bill relating to Armagh. In the case of Drogheda the House inserted a franchise clause in a Provisional Order Bill, and the Lords actually swallowed it, and they would have swallowed this clause in the same way if any attempt had been made to induce them to do so. But they had not swallowed the franchise clauses in the case of this Bill because the Dublin Corporation were hostile to them. The Earl of Morley was not a greater Chairman of Committees than the late Lord Redesdale, and when the Rathmines Bill came before Lord Redesdale in 1885, that noble Lord made no difficulty about suspending the Standing Order.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not keeping to the question before the
  720
  House, which is that these Amendments be now considered.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he was arguing that the Bill ought not to have been sent down to them at all at this stage, but as the Corporation of Dublin had insisted upon its being sent down they must take the consequences. They had flouted the decision of the House of Commons, for the House had unanimously passed the franchise clauses.
  MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid he was glad to find himself for once in accord with the hon. and learned Member. He agreed that it would be impossible at this stage of the Session to consider properly the important questions that arose on the Lords' Amendments. He thought it, however, right to say, in justification of the course taken in another place, that no one appeared before the Standing Committee of the other House to support these franchise clauses.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he would gladly Lave attended to support them had he thought that he would be listened to.
  MR. CARSONsaid that the promoters of the Bill appeared and disclaimed practically all knowledge of these clauses. They disclaimed all desire to pass them, and no one said a word in their favour. In the circumstances he did not see how even the hon. and learned Member opposite could contend that the House of Lords could have done anything but what they did do. The hon. and learned Member said that they ought not to proceed to discuss these clauses, and he agreed with him. The hon. Member said that the question raised was of great constitutional importance, and that the conflict between the two Houses might become intensified if these clauses were proceeded with. If there was any probability of anything of that kind, it certainly appeared to him that it would be an absurd thing, when the House of Commons was about to disperse for the holidays, to enter into a conflict with the other House. The question which had been raised was merely a question of price between two different bodies, and it might well stand over until a more convenient time, and until they could find out what was the view of the Dublin Corporation and the view of the Irish Executive as to the

  721
  importance or necessity of having these franchise clauses tacked on to a simple Water Bill. They ought to hear from some member of the Government some reason for the proposal to suspend the Standing Orders. He took that opportunity of welcoming back to the Ministerialist side of the House the hon. Member for Mid Lanark, who seemed to have taken his seat on the Treasury Bench as if he knew that the Irish Executive were determined not to give the House any information on this subject.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETTsaid that the only question between the Dublin Corporation and the surrounding townships was a question as to the price which was to be paid for, and the amount of water which was to be given by the Corporation to those townships. His reasons for agreeing with the hon. and learned Member for North Louth were the following. It had been laid down in the House of Lords, and also in the House of Commons, that it was inexpedient that communities should be supplied with water by trading companies.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to argue that the Bill is in the main a Water Bill, and that it is important that the water clauses should be passed, and that opposition would result in destroying the Bill, but he is not entitled to pursue the line of argument upon which he is entering.
  MR. PLUNKETTasked whether he could argue that the water clauses ought not to be passed?
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member could not enter into that argument.
  MR. PLUNKETTsaid that a large principle was involved in the Bill which ought not to have been dealt with by a Private Committee, that principle being that communities ought to have some representation upon the bodies which supplied them with water.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that to argue the point would be out of order. It was not competent for the hon. Member to initiate a discussion as to the constitution of the Water Companies.
  MR. PLUNKETTsaid that in those circumstunces he must content himself with supporting the hon. and learned Member for North Louth in his opposition to the Motion before the House.
  722
  He might observe that a large number of Members had put down notices of opposition upon the Paper.
  MR. J. L. CAREWsaid that the hon. and learned Member for Louth had made a bitter attack on the Corporation of Dublin. He had described the action of the Corporation as hypocritical. He (Mr. Carew) thought that the hon. and learned Member's own action towards the working men of Dublin deserved that epithet to a greater degree. What were the facts? At the eleventh hour, on a Bill which was a Water Bill, the hon. and learned Member tabled two Instructions, one for the purpose of extending the franchise to the citizens of Dublin, and the other to take it away from them. The hon. and learned Member first appealed to the working men of Dublin, saying "we are going to extend the franchise to you," and now he appealed for support to Members on the other side of the House on the ground principally that he was going to increase the number of Conservatives on the Dublin Corporation from 11 to 20. The attitude of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth would be fatal to this Bill and to his own franchise clauses. He wanted the Corporation of Dublin either to lose the £12,000 which they had spent in promoting this Water Bill, or to accept franchise clauses which they did not approve. It should be borne in mind that the Corporation had spent £12,000, and if the Bill were defeated they would have to spend a similar sum next year in the promotion of another Bill. He trusted, therefore, that the Bill might be saved.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid that the epithet "hypocritical" applied to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin and to him alone. It was the hon. Member for the Harbour Division, and not the hon. Member for North Louth who was responsible for the position in which the Dublin Corporation found themselves. The hon. Member for North Louth put down certain Instructions on the Paper for the Committee that first considered the Bill. These Instructions had remained on the Paper for seven days because the hon. Member for Louth was not present to move them, and when at length they were brought forward there was nobody

  723
  there to oppose them on behalf of the Corporation of Dublin. The consequence was that, when the hon. Member for the Harbour Division arrived on the scene, all this trouble about the franchise arose, and he dragged the other Members for Dublin into opposing the extension of the franchise to the working men of Dublin. If anybody should be described as hypocritical in this matter, it was the hon. Member for the Harbour Division, and he regretted to say that he was not present now. The hon. Member professed the most intense anxiety to give his fellow cititens the franchise, and yet had taken every opportunity to defeat that object. He desired earnestly to support the hon. Member for Louth. The Corporation of Dublin professed to represent the citizens of Dublin, but yet they were afraid to give them those means of electing them, which were conferred on every other citizen in this kingdom.
  MR. J. J. CLANCYsaid he could not listen in silence to an attack on the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. The hon. Member had, he thought, chose a singularly unhappy moment for attacking his hon. Friend—namely, in his absence.
  MR. FARRELL: I said I regretted his absence.
  MR. CLANCYreplied that, at all events, when the hon. Member was present no attack was made upon him by the hon. Gentleman. He appealed to the Government for some direction in this matter. As for himself, he intended to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Louth, and did so on the grounds that this Bill had cost the citizens of Dublin £12,000, and another Bill next year would cost them £12,000 more probably. The franchise portion of the Bill would be killed by the kindly work of the hon. Member for Louth; but if his Motion were defeated, opportunity would arise to consider the franchise clauses. He appealed to the Government to give some direction and not to leave the House in the position it now was.
  *MR. JAMES O'CONNORmoved to omit the word "now," in order to insert "on this day three months." He opposed this Bill for reasons that had already been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member
  724
  for Trinity College. It was, as far as he was concerned as one of the Members for the County of Wicklow, a question of the price to be paid by the town of Bray for the water supplied by the Dublin Corporation. The price of water to them would be trebled. For that reason he was opposed to the consideration of these Amendments now. He heard hon. Members talk about the cost to the Corporation of Dublin, but what he thought about was the money the townships in Wicklow and South Dublin would have to pay under this Bill.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into a part of the Bill which is not affected by the Lords' Amendments.
  *MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I shall not further pursue that line of argument, so I will content myself by moving to omit "now," in order to insert "on this day three months."
  MR. VESEY KNOXseconded the Motion because he believed it was justified in precedent. On a previous occasion, when a Corporation representing a small fraction of the citizens, had asked for largely increased powers, the House of Commons had taken the line that increased powers should not be given until that small and narrow Corporation consented to extend the franchise. That was the course taken in the case of the Belfast Main Drainage Bill. This Bill was merely a question of money disputes between the Dublin Corporation on one side and the townships around on the other. If the Bill was lost it did not mean that any one within or without Dublin would be any the worse off for water; therefore, its rejection would not do any harm to any human being. The Belfast Bill was postponed from time to time until the Corporation of Belfast agreed to introduce clauses for the extension of the franchise. What was sauce for the goose in Belfast was sauce for the gander in Dublin, and the Corporation of Dublin ought to be made to take the same course if they wanted to get their Bill through the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he told the Dublin Corporation in the most straightforward manner that unless these franchise clauses were introduced by the House of Lords, he would do his best

  725
  to kill the Bill when it came before the Commons. He made no secret of that. What the House imposed upon Belfast it ought to impose also upon Dublin. They refused to allow the Belfast Improvement Bill to go through the House until the Corporation consented to extend the franchise. Why, then, should they allow a narrow oligarchy in Dublin to come to them for a Bill seeking to impose a charge of about £9,000 on the surrounding populations until that narrow oligarchy was content to do for its citizens what the Orangemen of Belfast consented to do for theirs? The action of the Corporation disentitled them to all claims for consideration in the House. The House of Commons unanimously passed the franchise clauses, and was he to be told that for the sake of £12,000, they were to give to the Corporation of Dublin what they asked for instead of delaying them for a single year. It was stated by a famous French monarch, "Paris is well worth a mass"; he thought the franchise was well worth £12,000 to Dublin. [Laughter.]
  MR. L. P. HAYDENreminded the hon. and learned Member for Louth that there was the strongest opposition to extend the franchise in Belfast on the occasion to which he had alluded.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to go into the question of Belfast.
  MR. HAYDEN (continuing)said he thought it was unfair that the Corporation of Dublin should be put to further expense when they were prepared to extend the franchise next year. He appealed to the House not to throw this money away.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENsaid the Corporation of Dublin were bound to supply water to the surrounding townships, and they asked the House of Commons to enable them to do it. He was quite as anxious as the hon. Member for Louth to extend the franchise in Dublin, but he was unwilling that this Bill should be lost because it did not extend the franchise. It was not the Corporation of Dublin who refused to extend the franchise, but the House of Lords. He hoped that the House would not reject the Bill merely to compel the Corporation of Dublin to come forward next year
  726
  with a Bill containing a franchise provision. Even if the Corporation did bring forward such a Bill next year what security had they that it would pass. In his opinion it was a monstrous injustice if all the money which the Corporation had spent on promoting this Bill were to be wasted. He urgently appealed to hon. Members opposite to allow the Measure to pass and to let the question relating to the franchise come up next year. Those who were opposing the Measure were not supported by a single member of the Dublin Corporation.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Corporation of Dublin were not supporting this clause.
  MR. CARSONasked whether he should be in order in moving the adjournment of the Debate.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The effect of such a Motion, if successful, would, at this period of the Session, be to destroy the Bill, and under the circumstances I ought not to accept it.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 62; Noes, 65.—(Division List, No. 415.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Consideration of Lords' Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Commons Amendments put off for three months.

QUESTIONS.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (INFECTIOUS DISEASE).
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he would consider the propriety of instructing the Medical Officer of Health, in cases where an elementary school has been closed by authority on account of the prevalence of infectious disease, to visit such schools and satisfy himself that the danger of

  727
  infection is passed before the schools are re-opened?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): In cases in which an elementary school has been closed by the District Council, acting under the Education Code, on the advice of the Medical Officer of Health, it is his duty, whenever he deems such action necessary, to cause the premises to be disinfected or cleansed: but, when this bas been done, a visit to a school which is closed would not add to his information. Before the expiration of the specified period for which a school has been closed the duty of advising the District Council whether the circumstances call for any further restrictions on school attendance already devolves on the Medical Officer of Health, and the Board consider that he should make such inquiries as will enable him to advise in the matter.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he has considered the pecuniary loss suffered by elementary schools when they are compulsorily closed in consequence of the prevalence of infectious disease; and, whether he will consider the possibility of giving extra grants in such cases to cover such extraordinary expenditure?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The cases mentioned in the question are already provided for by Articles 83 and 101 of the Code.
  MR. RAYMOND GREENE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, seeing that when a school has been closed on account of an epidemic or the like, an allowance for the unavoidable absence is made in calculating the average attendance for the annual grant, the Department will take into favourable consideration the assimilating of the method of calculating the average attendance for the fee grant to the method on which that for the annual grant is calculated, and so avoid depriving a number of schools of a portion of the fee grant through no fault of their own?
  SIR J. GORST: Legislation would be necessary to assimilate the methods of calculating average attendance for the purposes of the annual and fee grants.
  728
  A clause having this object was put into the late Education Bill.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the desirability of introducing next Session legislation to deal with the matter?
  SIR J. GORST: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say a deal about the legislation of next Session. [Laughter.]

  INTER-PARLIAMENTARY ARBITRATION CONFERENCE.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received from Le Chevalier Descamps, Belgian Senator and President of the Inter-Parliamentary Arbitration Conference, held in Brussels in 1895, official communication of the scheme adopted by that conference for the constitution of an International Arbitration Tribunal; whether there will be any objection to a copy of the communication and report of Senator Descamps being placed upon the Table of the House; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, in view of the interest at present taken in the question of international arbitration, and the fact that the Inter-Parliamentary Conference is about again to meet in Buda Pesth at the invitation of the Hungarian Parliament, will signify the interest and sympathy which Her Majesty's Government take in the progress of this question, and state the nature of the reply made to Senator Descamps' communication?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): A copy of Monsieur Descamps' pamphlet on the organisation of international arbitration, to which is annexed a copy of the scheme adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Conference at Brussels, was forwarded to Her Majesty's Minister at Brussels for presentation to Lord Salisbury, who requested that his thanks might be returned to the author. It would not be in accordance with usage either to present such papers to Parliament or to make any communication on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the Inter-Parliamentary conference at Buda-Pesth.

  ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any information is accessible to Members as to the expenditure of the £40,000 received for horse breeding by the Royal Dublin Society under the Probate Grant since 1888?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The grant of £5,000 received annually by the Royal Dublin Society under the Probate Duties Act of 1888 is applicable to the improvement of the breed of cattle as well as horses. The Comptroller and Auditor-General satisfies himself that the money has been rightly disposed of, but no report is made by him to Parliament on the subject. The Council of the Royal Dublin Society publish an annual report, which contains their audited accounts and gives information regarding the horse and cattle-breeding schemes. This report is on sale to the public. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. and learned Member with a copy of the last report of the Council if he should care to have one.
  MR. T. M. HEALYwas understood to ask whether the Auditor General could make a special Report to Parliament?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that to give such an undertaking would hardly be within his province. He should be glad to show a copy of the report of the Royal Dublin Society to the hon. and learned Member.

  TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway (Mr. JAMES ROCHE), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he will take any steps to give effect to the memorial recently presented to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant by the Grand Jury of the county of Kerry, in reference to the present state and working of the Tralee and Dingle Railway; and (2), whether the cost of maintenance of ways, works, and stations on this line amounted to £54 per mile for the last half-year, whilst similar lines in the county of Kerry, viz., the Kenmare and Headford and the Killorglin and Valencia Railway cost but £34 and £36 per mile respectively.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The memorial referred to contains statements to the effect mentioned in the second part of the question. I am not in a position to say whether it will be possible in any way to meet the representations of the memorialists, but the question will receive my consideration. The Railways (Ireland) Act of the present Session does not provide funds for giving assistance to any existing line.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. J. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Kilmallock Board of Guardians, County Limerick, has written to the Local Government Board suggesting that the present system of arbitration in the cases of lauds required under the Labourers' Acts leads to unnecessary expense, delay, and inconvenience; and requesting that the Board of Works should employ more than one arbitrator, as experience has shown that the work of arbitration cannot be carried out by one arbitrator with the expedition necessary to insure the successful working of the Acts; and will the Board be requested to accede to the request of the Guardians; and (2) what is the explanation of the delay which has taken place in bringing the arbitration in the Kilmallock Union to completion?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Labourers' Bill now before Parliament will enable the delay complained of to be avoided in all future cases. The delay referred to in the Kilmallock case arose through some misunderstanding between the Guardians' Solicitor and the Arbitrator, but the matter is now practically settled.

  POSTAL FACILITIES (BALLINCRANA, COUNTY LIMERICK.)
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities at Dublin have received a memorial, signed by over thirty ratepayers, requesting the establishment of a sub-post office at Ballincrana, or Gothoon, about midway between Kilfinnane and Kilmallock,

  731
  county Limerick; whether the memorialists have to send for their letters to a place over three miles distant; and, as the district is populous and the office certain to pay at least its expenses, will the prayer of the memorialists be granted?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): A memorial on this subject bearing seventeen signatures was received at the Dublin post office in May last. Gothoon is three miles distant from the nearest post office, but it has an official delivery and collection of letters. Correspondence for places in the neighbourhood at which no delivery is made is left at a shop in Gothoon. The Postmaster General regrets that, as the number of letters for the district in question is small, and as the post is already carried on at a loss to the revenue, the establishment of an office at Gothoon would not be justified.

  WORKHOUSE LUNATICS (IRELAND.)
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that the Limerick Board of Guardians elected, over four months since, a Mr. Stephens to the position of keeper over the lunatics; (2) whether all the lunatics in workhouses in Ireland are harmless; (3) if the Local Government Board has refused to sanction the appointment on the ground of inexperience; (4) whether the resident medical officer and master have stated that Mr. Stephens has given complete satisfaction during his term of probation; and (5) if the Local Government Board will sanction his appointment?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The fact is as stated in the first paragraph. The Local Government Board refused to sanction the appointment of Mr. Stephens on the ground of inexperience in the management of the insane; moreover, he was not eligible for the appointment under the terms of the advertisement issued by the Guardians, which stated that candidates must have had previous experience in the care of lunatics; and although qualified candidates presented themselves, yet the Guardians elected a person without experience. It is true that the Medical Officer stated that Mr.
  732
  Stephens had given satisfaction whilst acting as attendant, but he did not mean to convey by this statement that Stephens was a suitable person for the position. The Local Government Board are not prepared to sanction this appointment. As to the second paragraph, lunatics in workhouses are, as a rule, harmless, but they are extremely unmanageable at times, and harmless lunatics are always liable to become dangerous.

  LOUGH ERNE DRAINAGE BOARD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, on or about the 9th July, a very heavy rainfall occurred in County Cavan, which had the effect of raising the water in the upper part of Lough Erne a depth of two feet, resulting in the flooding of all low-lying meadows, corn and potato crops, about Belturbet, Ballyconnell, Bawnboy, and Swanlinbar; whether the flood gates at Belleek were kept closed from the 9th to the 27th July, thereby retaining the flood water, and adding to the grievous injury complained of; could he state in whose hands the management of these flood gates rests; and, is there no legal remedy against them at the hands of the farmers living along the lake and River Erne whose crops have been injured?
  MR. HANBURY: The management of the gates rests with the Lough Erne Drainage Board, from whose secretary the Board of Works have received the following telegram:—"All sluice gates at Belleek were closed from the 9th to the 18th July. The upper Lough Erne was one foot five inches below the ordnance level on the 9th July, gradually raising to seven inches below on the 18th, when the gates were opened. The ordnance level was only reached on the 28th. Sluice gates are worked by a competent engineer, under rules drawn up by the Drainage Maintenance Board. The Drainage Board has no record of the rainfall in the County Cavan." I understand that the ordnance level referred to in the telegram is the ordinary summer level, below which the Drainage Board try to keep the water. They have a telephone communication between the upper lake and the sluices at Belleek, so as to be able to report the state of the

  733
  water and take the necessary measures at Belleek. As regards the legal point, the Board of Works are advised that any person injured through negligence of the Drainage Board or their servants in charge of the sluices has a remedy at law against the Drainage Board.
  MR. VESEY KNOXwas understood to ask whether, during the Recess, the right hon. Gentleman would look into the management of the Drainage Board?
  MR. HANBURYasked the hon. Member to remind him of the subject.

  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY (DAMAGE TO PICTURES).
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether two pictures in the National Portrait Gallery have recently been wilfully injured; and whether, considering that there are only 10 attendants for the 33 rooms, and only one constable for the entire building, and that similar damage is likely to recur, steps can be taken to secure better protection for the pictures by appointing an adequate staff of attendants and police?
  MR. HANBURY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I understand that during the hours when the gallery is open to the public there are in attendance ten attendants, called curators, and three constables. The question whether this force is sufficient to safeguard the pictures is now engaging the attention of the Treasury.

  COLLISION (SHIP "SIREN" AND H.M. GUNBOAT "LANDRAIL.")
  *MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government will give any and what compensation to the crew of the Siren for the loss of their property on the occasion of that ship being negligently run into and sunk by Her Majesty's Gunboat Landrail last month, when making for Portland Harbour?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The Admiralty are in communication with the Solicitors representing the owners of the Siren, and have, whilst repudiating all legal liability, offered to consider any claim that may
  734
  be made to the extent of £8 a ton on the gross register tonnage of the Landrail. This compensation, which represents the maximum amount fixed by the Merchant Shipping Act, would be rateably distributed to meet all losses, whether hull, cargo, or the men's clothing. Great sympathy is naturally felt for the crew on the loss of all their clothing, but I find that, in a nearly parallel case in 1889, where the Admiralty paid £8 per register tonnage for the Surprise, it was held to be impossible, in view of the precedent which would be set, to go beyond the statutory limit of compensation.

  INDIAN TROOPS IN EGYPT.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a large portion of the Indian Contingent sent to garrison Suakin has been sent on to act as a convict guard at Tokar, an Egyptian convict station some 70 miles from Suakin, where the climate is intensely hot, water very scarce, and food indifferent, and whether the commanding officer and second in command of this force have both been invalided within a month; and, will he place before the House before it rises reports from the General commanding the Indian contingent and from the Chief Sanitary Authority under the Egyptian Government as to the general health and condition of Her Majesty's forces forming the Indian contingent?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): A battalion of native infantry and a squadron of native cavalry have been sent to Tokar, not as a guard for the convict prison, but to garrison that post, as the position is one of great strategical importance for the defence of the Suakin district, as was shown by the fighting in its vicinity in 1885. The climate is very hot, but the health of the troops and followers at Suakin and Tokar is reported to be very good, and that of the European officers generally good; but out of 70 officers at Suakin and Tokar four have been invalied, including the officer in command at Tokar. There is a sufficient supply of water at Tokar, and the food supplies are ample. Every precaution is being taken to make the condition of the troops holding this important position as comfortable as is possible

  SANITARY INSPECTORS (EXAMINING BOARD).
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Down (Mr. J. A. RENTOUL), I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing the formation of a conjoint Examining Board for Sanitary Inspectors has been under the consideration of the Local Government Board since 1892, he is now prepared to say when effect will be given to the recommendations of the Committee appointed by his predecessor?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: A decision as regards the questions arising in connection with the formation of a conjoint Examining Board for Sanitary Inspectors will be given very shortly.

  CHANNELSEA RIVER (WEST HAM).
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Channelsea River in the borough of West Ham; is he aware that it is stated that this river is little better than an open sewer; and will he, by inquiry or otherwise, cause such measures to be adopted as will re-remove the obvious danger to which the dense population of the district is subject if the allegation referred to be correct?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The Local Government Board received last month a petition signed by 74 ratepayers, in which they complained of the condition of the Channelsea River (the waters of which are tidal), and stated that the river was practically an open sewer. The Board are in communication with the Lea Conservancy Board on the subject, and have forwarded to them a copy of the petition referred to. The Board are desirous of rendering any assistance that is possible in the matter, but it is not a case in which they have any compulsory powers that can be exercised.

  DEANE NATIONAL SCHOOL (NEAR BOLTON.)
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division, as a Charity Commisioner, with regard to the Deane National School, near Bolton, which is under the management of trustees appointed under a scheme of the
  736
  Charity Commissioners providing that any vacancy on the board of management shall be filled within one month, is he aware that this provision has been neglected for a considerable time by the existing trustees; and, whether, having regard to the recent dismissal of the master of the school by the trustees contrary to the expressed wish of 166 out of the 170 parents of children attending the school, he will advise the Commissioners to refuse to sanction the appointment of any person nominated to the office of trustee unless and until the parents obtain some share in the selection of the trustees.
  SIR JOHN GORST (for Mr. GRANT LAWSON): The question is understood to refer to the National School at Rum-worth, in the Parish of Deane. The scheme by which the school is regulated provides that vacancies among the trustees shall be filled up at the first meeting of the trustees which shall be held after the lapse of one month from the occurrence of the vacancy. On the 28th July the Commissioners approved the appointment of two new trustees to fill vacancies. It appears from the date of the occurrence of these vacancies that the foregoing provision of the scheme has not been strictly complied with. The names of the trustees proposed for approval were duly published, and no objection was taken to their appointment. The Commissioners have no information of, or in relation to, the dismissal of the master of the school.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education—(1) whether he can state what portions of the income for the last school year of the Deane National School, near Bolton, were received from State grant, endowment, voluntary subscriptions, and other local sources, respectively; (2) is he aware that the head master of the Deane School has been recently dismissed as a result of incidents connected with his election to the office of churchwarden by the parishioners, and that this dismissal has been insisted on notwithstanding the written request to the contrary made by 166 out of 170 parents whose children attend the school, and notwithstanding the fact that the teacher can show excellent reports both for secular and religious teaching during the last 12

  737
  years in the same school; and, (3) can he state whether there are any means, other than the establishment of a school board for the district, whereby the parents may obtain some voice in the management of the school to which they are practically compelled to send their children?
  SIR J. GORST: The following sums were received:—State grant £339 2s. 1d., endowment £36 13s. 4d., voluntary subscriptions £32 14s. 5d., church collections £22 10s., other local sources £18 6s. 1d. The Committee of Council have no information as to the facts alleged in the second paragraph. They are not aware of any means by which the parents could secure some control over the management so long as it, is a Voluntary School.

  "TERRIBLE" (H.M.S.)
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the nature of the accident compelling Her Majesty's new cruiser the Terrible, to have to put back to Plymouth for repairs; and, whether it is true that there are no mechanical appliances either at Devonport or Plymouth sufficient to cope with the emergency?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No accident has occurred to Her Majesty's ship Terrible. During the run preliminary to the commencement of the second of the contractors' trials it became evident that certain adjustments were necessary to the slide valves of some of the cylinders. The contractors were in charge of the machinery, and at their request the vessel entered Plymouth Sound in order that an examination might be made. As the result of that examination, and at the request of the contractors, the Terrible has returned to Portsmouth, where the necessary defects will be made good by the contractors before the trials are resumed. Under the circumstances explained no question arose as to the sufficiency of the mechanical appliances at Devonport Dockyard; but I may state that they are ample for all the repairs required by Her Majesty's ships and their machinery, and no suggestion such as that in the hon. Member's second question ought to have been made.
  MR. J. CUMMING MACDONAasked whether there were any appliances on board the Terrible for picking up floating derelicts?
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked whether it had been decided to send this vessel and her sister ship on a longer voyage at full power for the purpose of fully testing the power of the water-tube boilers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYwas understood, in reply, to say that the Admiralty had no doubt whatever, from what had happened so far, as to the efficiency of these ships, and that until the completion of the trials it would be too soon to decide whether they should send them on a long voyage.

  SHANNON ESTUARY (WARSHIP).
  MAJOR EUSTACE JAMESON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can advise Her Majesty's Government to allow a man-of-war to be permanently stationed at Scattery Roads, in the estuary of the Shannon, as the anchorage is of the best description, and there is no warship in the Shannon?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Her Majesty's warships are stationed at certain places on the Irish coast in the general interests of the Service, and I cannot, as at present advised, meet the wishes of the hon. and gallant Member.

  NIGER COAST PROTECTORATE.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any reason, and, if so, what reason, why the accounts of the Niger Coast Protectorate and its yearly budget should not be published in like manner as those of the Protectorate of Zanzibar, and whether he will authorise such publication in future; and, whether he can state what may be the cost up to date of the Governor's chief residence and public offices, including their equipment, and if not yet completed, what further cost may be estimated to complete them?
  MR. CURZON: I have before stated that there are several reasons for which the accounts of the Niger Coast Protectorate are not laid before Parliament. Among

  739
  others, the fact that no money is asked for from Parliament for that Protectorate, as is done in the case of Zanzibar. The sum spent up to the end of the financial year 1895–6 on public buildings is £104,210. It is estimated that a further sum of £20,150 will be required to complete those now in hand.

  WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a notice in a recent number of the Dublin Gazette, of certain new Orders to be made by the Judges of the Court of Bankruptcy, under which the official assignees may be empowered to act as official liquidators in the winding up of companies; whether he is aware of the fact that when a Bill was introduced in the late Parliament to sanction that and other charges, the Measure was abandoned by the late Government owing to the strong opposition of the whole commercial public of Ireland, and especially of the north of Ireland; and, if so, whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will withhold his sanction from the Orders referred to; and, in view of the fact that an Act of Parliament was thought necessary by the late Government to enable the Bankruptcy Court to do what the Orders purport to effect, will he explain why the matter is being dealt with by Orders?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): These Rules are only published provisionally. Any person interested can object to them, and all objections will be carefully considered by the Lord Chancellor and the Judges in Bankruptcy before the Rules are approved of by them. The Rules do not require the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, but must be laid before Parliament before coming into force. The Bill referred to in the Question was much wider than these Rules in its scope, and sought to authorise the Official Assignees to act as administrators of deceased persons, managers of lunatics' estates, and in other matters. The objections to the Bill do not, therefore, apply.

  TRANSVAAL RAID.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what action the War Office is taking with regard to the Officers of Her Majesty's Army (other than those who have been tried with Dr. Jameson) who were concerned in the late raid in the Transvaal?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The case of these officers is still under consideration, and has been delayed by communications being necessary with certain individuals, the answers to which must be received before a final decision is arrived at.
  *SIR C. DILKE: Has the hon. Member not twice stated that he should make a statement before the close of the Session? Will he make it to-morrow?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid it will be impossible to make a statement to-morrow.
  *SIR C. DILKE: You stated twice that you would do so. ["Hear, hear."]

  SUPPLY OF ARMS AND AMMUNITION (SOUTH AFRICA).
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the authorities in South Africa have been able to ascertain from what sources and by what routes arms and ammunition have been supplied to the enemy; and, whether he can give an assurance that every possible precaution is being taken to stop such supplies of arms and ammunition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): As I informed the hon. Member for the Egremont Division of Cumberland on the 30th ultimo, inquiries are being made as to how the rebels have obtained their supplies of arms and ammunition, but no information has as yet reached me which would be worth communicating to the House.

  ESTATE DUTY.
  MR. J. G. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estate duty is claimed in the following case, namely, where a husband

  741
  predeceases his wife without leaving issue, and property passes on the death of the husband which has been settled on the husband for his life, then on the wife for her life, then (in default of issue) on the husband absolutely; and, whether the Revenue authorities are in such a case instructed to claim a double estate duty, viz., first, estate duty on the capital value of the settled property arising on the cesser of the husband's life interest; and, secondly, estate duty on the value of the husband's absolute reversionary interest in the settled property?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH): If the settlement was made by the husband, or by any person other than the wife, estate duty is claimed on the husband's death on the principal value of the settled fund, at a rate ascertained by aggregating with that fund the free estate of the husband, and any other property which, under Section 4 of the Finance Act of 1894, comes into the aggregation. Payment of this duty satisfies any claim for estate duty under the settlement on the wife's death, and the husband's reversionary interest is not regarded as liable to a further charge for estate duty as being property of which he was at the time of his death competent to dispose.

  CRETE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has he any information as to the statement of the Athens correspondent of the Daily News yesterday relative to the roasting of a priest in Crete by Turkish soldiers on a fire made from pictures pillaged from churches?
  *MR. CURZON: No information has been received beyond that which I have already given to the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had put a similar question on Monday. Had the hon. Member since asked for any information?
  *MR. CURZONsaid he had pointed out that no information had been received from their own Consul.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that was no answer to his question. Had the hon. Member since Monday asked for infor-
  742
  mation as to these abominable occurrences? ["Hear, hear."]
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir; nor do I feel any necessity to inquire.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he should call attention to the matter on the Appropriation Bill.
  In reply to Mr. PHILIP STANHOPE (Burnley),
  *MR. CURZONsaid he had received no appeal from Mr. Biliotti for assistance.
  *SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether from 10,000 to 15,000 Mussulman inhabitants of Crete have been driven from their homes by Christian insurgents, their villages and plantations destroyed, and numbers of them killed and maltreated; whether thousands of these refugees are now collected in and around Heraklion; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to obtain equal justice for the Mussulman as well as the Christian inhabitants of Crete?
  *MR. CURZON: It appears, from the official reports which have been received from Crete, that large numbers of the Mussulman inhabitants in the district of Candia have, in consequence of the general state of panic and disorder, migrated from their villages into the town, where their presence has been the cause of serious disturbances. There is no confirmation of the, reported ill-treatment of the Mussulman fugitives and destruction of their property. Both in their representations to the Porto, and in their instructions to Her Majesty's Consul in Crete, it has throughout been the object of Her Majesty's Government to secure equal justice to both sections of the population in the island.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Have not Her Majesty's Government received reports from their representatives in Crete that large numbers of the Mussulman inhabitants have been driven from their homes, and a considerable number killed and maltreated?
  *MR. CURZONsaid he had received reports in which mention was made of injuries to Mussulman inhabitants, but these injuries did not seem to have occurred to those who had left their homes in consequence of the prevailing disturbances. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Mr. J. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the massacres committed in Crete, the Government will consider the desirability of recognising the Christian insurgents as belligerents?
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take any such step.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES HOSPITAL (ARGYLL).
  MR. D. N. NICOL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Mid Argyll District Committee of the County Council of Argyll, in resolving to provide an infectious diseases hospital for the landward part of the district, selected, with the approval of the Local Government Board, a site adjoining to and only accessible through the Burgh of Lochgilphead and in the centre of a population exceeding 2,300; and whether, as four equally suitable and more favourably isolated sites were also obtainable in the vicinity of the burgh, he will meet the wishes of the ratepayers and institute an independent Inquiry, in order if possible to have the hospital (still unbuilt) erected on a site further away from the centre of population?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed that several sites had been selected by the Mid Argyll District Committee. Sir Henry Littlejohn, Medical Officer to the Local Government Board, visited the locality, heard parties on the spot, and, after careful personal inspection, recommended the site which is now the subject of complaint. The matter was subsequently brought before the Secretary for Scotland, who, after full reconsideration, saw no sufficient reason to dissent from the view expressed by the Medical Officer; under these circumstances he regrets that he is unable to comply with the suggestion of my hon. Friend to institute further inquiry. The site, I am informed, is an isolated one, and was selected not only for its special advantages as a hospital site, but also with reference to the requirements of the burgh and landward districts.

  PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
  MR. J. W. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will he explain why the small extra pensions, for which Chief Engineers and Superintending Engineers in the Public Works Department have hitherto been eligible, have been withdrawn by the orders of the India Office; whether any Dispatch ordering a curtailment of the privileges of officers of long service can have a retrospective effect, or can take effect before such Dispatch is publicly gazetted; and, if all the Correspondence on this subject can be laid upon the Table of the House?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The exceptional pensions, which were sanctioned in 1883, are not to be granted in the Public Works Department in future, because the special circumstances which were then held to justify them no longer exist. The Dispatch does not affect any officers who were already in the Service at the time when it was written; and the case of those who may have entered since that date, but before its publication, has been provided for. The correspondence relating to the discontinuance of further grants of these pensions is contained in the Return recently laid on the Table.

  SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC (GLOUCESTER).
  MR. C. J. MONK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give from official sources reassuring reports respecting the present state of health in Gloucester so far as the smallpox epidemic is concerned?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In Gloucester, during the 30 completed weeks of 1896, January 4th to July 25th, smallpox cases were notified every week, the total number of cases notified being 2,008. I am glad to say that during the two complete weeks ending respectively August 1st and August 8th no smallpox cases have been certified.

  TRINIDAD.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the island of Trinidad has been handed over to the Brazilian Government; if so, is this in

  745
  consequence of the island having been wrongly taken possession of by Great Britain, or because unfit for habitation, and also for the purposes of the Telegraph Company, to which the Government conceded the right of laying a cable en route for South America?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Government having accepted the good offices of the Portuguese Government, which were voluntarily tendered to them, and the latter having stated that in their opinion the island of Trinidad had been transferred to Brazil by Portugal in 1825, Her Majesty's Government have expressed their willingness to defer to this opinion, and have in consequence withdrawn their claim to the possession of the island.

  SOLWAY SALMON FISHERY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when the Report of the Royal Commission on Solway Salmon Fishings will be presented?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Report was presented on the 6th instant, but has not yet been circulated.

  TRANSMISSION OF MAILS (PNEUMATIC TITLE).
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a pneumatic tube exists between the General Post Office and Euston Station which was formerly used for conveying the mails, and is it still capable of being used for this purpose, or for the purpose of an electric railway, to convey the mails between the points mentioned; what the time occupied in this method of conveyance would be, and what time is necessary by the existing means of conveyance, and would it be possible at small expense to connect the existing tube with the St. Pancras and King's Cross Stations; what is the last hour for posting at London post offices for the night mail from Euston, St. Pancras, and King's Cross, and whether dispatch of letters by the tube in question would enable an additional half-hour for posting letters to be given; and, whether, in view of the fact that in
  746
  the cities of Paris and Berlin letters are conveyed by pneumatic tube, and that that method is also extensively used for the dispatch of telegrams in London, the Postmaster General will institute a departmental Inquiry as to the desirability of either again using the existing pneumatic tube, or converting it for an electric railway and connecting it with St. Pancras and King's Cross?
  MR. HANBURY: A Question on this subject was answered on the 19th of March last. A pneumatic tube belonging to a private company was used more than 20 years ago for the conveyance of mail bags between the General Post Office and Euston Station. Its use was experimental only, and the experiment was not a success. The time of transmission by tube was 17 minutes; by mail van it is only 19 minutes. It is believed that portions of the tube have been removed, and the communication with the General Post Office has long been cut off.

  EUROPEAN TROOPS IN INDIA.
  *SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the state of the British Army in India, as reported by The Times correspondent at Calcutta, in their issue of the 11th inst., wherein it is stated that nearly 4,000 men are in hospital from preventible contagious diseases, and that the state of the Army is getting worse day by day; whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government is to be seriously drawn to this matter during the coining Recess; and, whether he is now prepared to state to the House that during the coming Recess, in conjunction with Lord Lansdowne and the Governor General of India, stops will be taken for an Inquiry, either by Royal Commission or by Select Committee of this House, with a view to taking measures that may, once for all, as regards this painful matter, place the British Army in India in that state of efficiency in which the people of this country and of India desire to see it, and to bring about which they pay some 25 millions of money every year?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have seen the statement in The Times to which my hon. Friend refers. As stated

  747
  by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury on Friday last, in reply to Questions by the hon. Members for southeast Essex and Hoxton, Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of some Inquiry to decide whether the alleged increase of disease is correct.
  MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention had been called to the various memoranda of the Army Sanitary Commission, and to the following conclusions which they state:—
  "The facts, so far as we can ascertain them, lead us to the conclusion that a compulsory lock hospital system in India has proved a failure, and that its reinstitution cannot, consequently, he advocated on sanitary grounds. We believe that the best practicable means of diminishing the prevalence of these diseases is to he found in establishing a system of voluntary lock hospitals, and in providing the soldier, as far as possible, with healthy occupation and recreation; "
  and whether any steps had been recently taken to bring these views before the cantonment authorities, or to carry them into effect?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am aware of the opinions recorded by the Army Sanitary Commission on this subject; but what I want to ascertain is, not the opinion of individuals, even when acting officially, but the facts relating to the health of the Army.
  *SIR HENRY HAVELOCKALLAN: May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government propose to institute an Inquiry by Royal Commission or a Select Committee of this House?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I should not like to commit myself to the exact form which the Inquiry will take; what I think is an Inquiry by a small number of impartial persons would be best. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREEasked whether the Inquiry would be here or in India?
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Inquiry will take place here.

  WORCESTERSHIRE VOLUNTEER ENCAMPMENT.
  COLONEL LONG: On behalf of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. A. F. GODSON), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State
  748
  for War why the 1st Volunteer Battalion Worcestershire Regiment was not allowed to go into camp at Bournemouth, when the Worcestershire Militia was allowed to go to Aldershot amongst a large body of regular troops, and the Worcestershire Volunteer Artillery to Towyn; and why, when permission was given for the 1st Volunteer Battalion to go into camp at Bournemouth, when smallpox was raging at Gloucester, it should be withdrawn when it had practically died out there?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The 1st Volunteer Battalion of the Worcestershire Regiment formed part of a Volunteer Brigade which the General Officer commanding the north-western district intended to send to Bournemouth. The order for this whole brigade camp was cancelled because smallpox had broken out in districts occupied by some of the corps which would compose it. The General Officer then proposed a regimental camp at Malvern for this Volunteer battalion, which was approved.

  CYCLISTS (HYDE PARK).
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has come to any decision as to granting further facilities for cyclists in Hyde Park; and whether he will consider the advisability, before the conclusion of the Session, of making an exclusive track for cyclists during the autumn?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I have carefully considered the matter, and regret I do not see my way to carry out the suggestions contained in my hon. Friend's Question.

  CURRAGH CAMP (LAND COMPENSATION).
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether, in consequence of the great dissatisfaction which exists with Mr. Murphy's draft award on the claims of several of the parties for compensation in respect of the appropriation by the War Department of the road through Donnelly's Hollow, Curragh Camp, he will give the parties

  749
  aggrieved an opportunity of having their objections heard before this award is made final?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The arbitrator has fixed Friday the 4th September as the day for hearing objections to his award, and any persons who think themselves aggrieved can then submit their cases.

  SEIZURES BY ITALIAN CRUISERS IN THE RED SEA.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Stale for Foreign. Affairs whether a British ship carrying munition of war to the port of Zeila, and passing through the Red Sea, is subject to capture by Italian cruisers?
  MR. CURZON: If the hon. Member is alluding to the capture of the Doelwyk in the Red Sea by an Italian cruiser, I have to inform him that the Doelwyk is not a British vessel, and was not carrying munitions of war to Zeila. If, however, he is raising a hypothetical case, it is one to which I cannot, at such short notice, reply. It would depend largely upon the final destination to which the cargo was consigned.

  IRISH MAILS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has yet come to a conclusion as regards an improved method of transhipping the mails at Kingstown and Holyhead?
  MR. HANBURY: The question is occupying attention, but no decision has yet been arrived at upon it.

  TELEGRAMS (PREPAID FORMS).
  MR. RAWSON SHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the telegraph authorities decline to give more than one prepaid reply telegram form when payment has been made for two answers to be sent on the day of payment; and, whether this is in strict accordance with telegraph regulations.
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, I think it is in accordance with the regulations. But, if the hon. Member has reason to
  750
  believe that it causes inconvenience to the public, the Postmaster will be glad to hear from him.

  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (MEMORIAL).
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that all other Statesmen except Lord Randolph Churchill, who have led the House of Commons and who have died within recent years, have been commemorated by some memorial within the Palace of Westminster or its immediate neighbourhood, the Government are prepared to find a site for some memorial to the late Lord Randolph Churchill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that there will be no difficulty as regards a site, and if my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works is approached by a responsible Committee he will consider favourably any representation made to him.

  DISTRESS FROM WANT OF EMPLOYMENT (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  MR. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Select Committee on Distress from Want of Employment; and if he can promise any legislation next Session based on the recommendation contained in it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the Report of the Select Committee on Distress from Want of Employment had been called to the notice of the Government and would receive very careful consideration. He was unwilling to pledge himself, before such consideration was given, to anything in the nature of legislative action next Session, but his hon. Friend might rest assured that the matter would not be lost sight of.

  SUPPLY.
  MR. J. M. WHITE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability,

  751
  in making arrangements for next Session, of arranging at least two Fridays for Scotch Supply, and of devoting the weeks in which these Fridays occur to Scotch business and to Irish business respectively, giving several weeks' notice of the dates, arranged and adhering to these dates unless in cases of emergency?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he believed Scotland had two days devoted to its Supply this year, and Ireland had, he thought, four days. He had endeavoured so to arrange the days as to meet the convenience of Members coming from those two parts of the United Kingdom respectively. He presumed any Leader of the House would always take the same steps, but he did not think it proper to give specific pledges in regard to the course to be followed next Session.

  CHARITY COMMISSION.
  MR. HARRY POLLOCK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to fill up the vacancy on the Charity Commission created by the appointment of Mr. D. C. Richmond to the post of Assistant Controller and Auditor General in the Exchequer and Audit Department; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce next Session a Measure dealing with the constitution of the Charity Commission, with a view to placing the work of the Commission more directly under the control of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid it was not proposed to fill up the vacant place. Mr. Richmond was a temporary Commissioner, and it was not necessary that a new temporary Charity Commissioner should be appointed. He could not give any pledge in regard to legislation on the subject.

  STRIKE (MESSRS. THORNY CROFT'S WORKS).
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the recent strike at Messrs. Thorny-croft's works at Chiswick; whether he is
  752
  aware that it has proved most disastrous to that firm, coming at a time when they were exceptionally busy on contracts; that, in consequence also of the delay in the construction of torpedo boat-destroyers, they lost orders for the refitting of vessels with their water tube boilers; and that recently, when the Swedish Government required a torpedo boat-destroyer, they rejected the tenders of six English firms in favour of one from a German firm, in consequence of the absence from the latter of the strike clause, embodied in the others; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take these facts seriously into consideration, with a view to inserting a clause in the Conciliation Bill or the Arbitration Bill by which workmen will not leave their work pending the consideration and decision of the matters in dispute?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am aware that a dispute has recently taken place at Messrs. Thornycroft's works between two classes of workmen. I am glad to learn, however, that not only has the dispute been now amicably settled by the arbitration of Sir Benjamin Baker, but the two trade societies concerned are now negotiating with a view to arrive at a permanent arrangement to obviate all such disputes in future. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the Conciliation Bill of this Session has already received the Royal Assent, and such a clause as he suggests cannot, therefore, be inserted in it.

  TREASON-FELONY PRISONERS (RELEASE).
  In answer to Mr. CAREW,
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY said: My attention was called by the medical officers of the Prison Department to the health of certain of the treason-felony prisoners at Portland. I accordingly directed a special medical inquiry by Doctors Buzzard and Maudsley. Upon their report I have felt it my duty, as I should in all similar cases, to advise the release on licence, on grounds of ill-health, of four of the prisoners—viz., Daly, Devany, Gallagher, and Whitehead—and they will accordingly be released so soon as the doctors in each case advise, and arrangements are made with their friends.

  LOCAL TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. RADCLIFEE COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he could now give the House the names of the Commission appointed to consider the subject of local taxation?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The Queen has approved the following list of names to constitute a Royal Commission to inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised for local purposes, and report whether all kinds of real and personal property contribute equitably to such taxation, and, if not, what alterations in the law are desirable in order to secure that result:—
  Lord Balfour (Chairman),
  Lord Emlyn,
  Sir John Hibbert,
  Mr. J. B. Balfour, M.P.,
  Mr. C. B. Stuart-Wortley, M.P.,
  Mr. J. L. Wharton, M.P.,
  Mr. Arthur O'Connor, M.P.,
  Mr. J. Stuart, M.P.,
  Mr. C. A. Cripps, M.P.,
  Sir Alfred Milner, K.C.B. (Inland Revenue),
  Sir Edward Hamilton (Treasury),
  Mr. C. N. Dalton (Local Government Board),
  Mr. T. H. Elliott (Board of Agriculture),
  Mr. E. O. Smith (Town Clerk of Birmingham), and
  Mr. H. E. Clare (Town Clerk of Liverpool).

  REFORM LEADERS (JOHANNESBURG).
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the "Reform" leaders in Johannesburg still in prison were undoubtedly under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that a promise of protection was given by Her Majesty's representative, whether the right hon. Gentleman could see his way now to making some representation in their favour to the Boer Government?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is only part of the Question.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I am willing to address the whole of my Question to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes it.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think he had better.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I was not aware that he was so anxious for the whole of it. The rest of the Question was whether, in reply to the representations of the High Commissioner urging the immediate laying down of their arms, the Reform leaders used this expression:—"The people of Johannesburg place themselves and their interests unreservedly in the hands of the High Commissioner, in the fullest confidence that he will see justice done to them."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to refer him to what I have already said—that if the two gentlemen still in prison will petition the Government of the South African Republic, as their fellow-prisoners did, I shall be glad to support their petition by my friendly offices. As regards the second part of the Question, I desired that he should put it, because I thought he was under a misapprehension, and now he has put it in a different form from that in which it was sent to me.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: No.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; I have his letter. What the hon. Gentleman asked me by letter was "whether the Reform leaders when they laid down their arms, did not say that they 'placed themselves in the hands of the High Commissioner, in the fullest confidence that he would see justice done to them.'"
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Exactly what I have said.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No; the hon. Member really does not know what he did say. [Laughter.]
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg pardon. These were the identical words. ["Order!"] I must claim my right to explain. The words which I sent to the right hon. Gentleman were taken from a document which I hold in my hand, and are exactly the same as those which I read to the House. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to disprove that.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I accept the challenge. The words which he has just put into his question are "whether the Reform leaders did not say that the people of Johannesburg place themselves," etc. There is a very important distinction. What my hon. Friend asked me by letter was "whether the Reform leaders did not say," etc, the implication being that they were making a condition that they should not be put upon their trial.
  *SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The Reform leaders were people of Johannesburg.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As a matter of fact, early on the 7th of January the secretary of the Reform Committee sent a telegram to the High Commissioner, the last sentence of which was in the following words:—"The people of Johannesburg place themselves and their interests unreservedly in the hands of your Excellency in the fullest confidence that you will see justice done to them," and that has reference to the reforms for which the people of Johannesburg were agitating. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, the same secretary-telegraphed to the High Commissioner, "We have surrendered our arms unconditionally."

  KUMASI.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information confirming or denying the alarming telegram with reference to an anti-British movement in Kumasi.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not seen the telegram, and I have no information to that effect.
  MR. DALZIEL: I will ask a question to-morrow.

  BUSINESS IN THE HOUSE.
  *SIR C. DILKEasked as to the hour of meeting for the House to-morrow.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought it was just possible that by meeting at an earlier hour to-morrow they might be able to conclude their proceedings altogether to-morrow. If any advantage of that kind could be gained he was sure that the House would not object to his giving notice of the fact late that night. He would make inquiries.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Message from the Lords as to the Amendments to this Bill considered.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said that the Lords had struck out a clause which had been inserted in that House the object of which was to preserve the church of St. Mary Woolnoth. Their Lordships had also inserted a clause providing for the distillation of the money to be paid as compensation by the railway company to the churchwardens. The message from the Lords stated that they did not insist now on striking out Clause 7—that was to say, they accepted the Amendment of the Commons that the clause preserving the church should remain. Their Lordships, however, did insist on the clause which they inserted making proper provision for the disposal of the money to be paid by the railway company to the vicar and churchwardens. Formerly he had grave doubts on this point, but he thought that the Lords had now shown that this clause really did not depend on the other. It was admitted that some alterations had to be made in the church; a portion of the graveyard had to be taken; and it was desirable that the money should be dealt with in proper form. He moved that the House do not insist on disagreement with the Amendment made by the Lords.
  Motion agreed to.

SHIPPING FEDERATION BILL.
Order [18th February 1896] that the Shipping Federation Bill be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
PUBLIC BUILDINGS (UNITED KINGDOM).
Return [presented 12th August] to be printed.—[No. 369.]
METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES.
Return [presented 12th August] to be printed.—[No. 370.]
WORKHOUSES, ETC.
Return [presented 12th August] to be printed.—[No. 371.]
RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR).
Copy presented,—of Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the Railway Regulation Act during the year ended 27th July 1896 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 372.]
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Copy presented,—of Report by the Board of Trade on their proceedings and business under the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 and 1889) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 373.]

BUILDINGS, ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORIC, MAINTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS AND FORESTS.
Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 11th August; Lord Balcarres]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
—[No. 374.]

Ordered, That the Standing Orders of this House, as amended, be printed.—(Chairman of Ways and Means.)—[No. 375.]
PUBLIC LOCAL RATES AND NET EXPENDITURE ON RELIEF OF THE POOR, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AND POLICE, BORNE BY SUCH RATES.
Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 13th August; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 376.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS (INDIAN BUDGET).
  Order for Committee thereupon read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,): I think it will be for the general convenience of the House if I make my statement relating to the finances of India before you, Sir, leave the Chair. In taking this course I am following several precedents which occurred in former years, when the Secretary of State found himself in a position similar to that which I occupy. On the notice Paper there are three Amendments which, though all relating to matters of importance, are purely academic in character, and as the House has met for the purpose of discussing Indian finance I think it will be more convenient to devote ourselves to that purpose than to wait for the Motions on the Paper. When last year I had the honour of making a Statement on behalf of the Indian Government, I was able to lay before the House a Statement which I think was in most respects more satisfactory than up to that time had been thought to be possible. I accompanied that Statement with an indication that, in my private opinion, signs were not wanting to show that during the ensuing months there would be a further improvement in Indian finance. I am glad that anticipation has been more than realised, and the figures and Statement I am about to make would be eminently satisfactory if they could only be detached from the unfortunate consequences of erratic exchange; but, unfortunately, right through this statement every year the fluctuations of exchange value have left their mark on the finance of the year. I wish to impress this fact on the House. They must discount the favourable character of the figures which I lay before them in the knowledge that a large proportion of the figures are based on a valuation

  759
  which is necessarily shifting. There is a technical matter to dispose of before I enter into a detailed examination of the accounts. The form of the account adopted in the explanatory memorandum laid on the Table of the House is based on the accounts which my predecessor prepared in the belief that a return of net income and net expenditure could be made to give a clearer idea of the actual financial position than can be gathered from the old gross returns, which under statute have to be laid on the Table of the House. The tables in the explanatory memorandum are prepared on that basis, but it will be seen that for the most part they are divided between Imperial and provincial trans actions. In order to stimulate an interest in the development of income the Provincial Governments are allowed to share in the revenue in certain proportions, varying according to the particular head, and they have to meet therefrom the expenditure under specified heads in certain proportions. If their revenue exceeds their expenditure, they are allowed to add the surplus to their balances, which are available for expenditure in subsequent years. On the other hand, if their revenue falls short of their expenditure, they must make the deficiency good out of their balances. Thus, the provincial receipts and charges exactly balance one another, and, while it may be of interest under any particular head to examine the total receipt or charge, the improvement or deterioration of the surplus and of the general financial position depends alone on the extent to which the Imperial Accounts are affected. The first year I have to deal with is the closing of the accounts of the year 1894–5. Sir-James Westland originally estimated for a deficiency of Rx.301,900, but I am glad to say that the accounts show a surplus of Rx.693,110. But it is satisfactory to note that the real improvement is considerably greater. In the course of this year a material addition was made to the charges by bringing up the Famine Insurance Grant to a higher point than that at which it originally stood. Those conversant with Indian finance know that it was established by Sir John Strachey in 1881, and it amounted to a sum of Rx.1,500,000 annually to be put on one side out of revenue for the purposes of famine, and
  760
  he fixed upon the figure of Rx.1,500,000 in the following manner. He took the total expenditure upon famine during the past ten years and divided it by ten. I am glad to say that from that time until now we have not had a single serious famine to deal with in India, and the Government came to the conclusion that, looking to the fact that the danger from famine had largely diminished, they might fix the Famine Insurance Grant at Rx. 1,000,000. This grant under financial exigency has been largely reduced, and the amount originally taken in the estimates of this year was only Rx.445,000. The difference of Rx.555,000 has to be added to the surplus, and, taking these two together, the total surplus as against deficiency is Rx.1,248,110. There has been apparently a remarkable improvement in reveuue of Rx.2,823,096 on the original estimate. But an examination of the figures shows that they are not so satisfactory. Rx.1,569,000 is due to an improvement in opium. The other item which has contributed to the increase of revenue was Rx.941,000 in Customs, mainly due to the taxation which had been imposed at the beginning of the year. The increase of expenditure was Rx.1,828,000, but the whole of this is more than accounted for by the loss on exchange—namely, Rx.2,121,468. If in this increased expenditure is included the additional sum added for the Famine Insurance Grant, we find that the Government of India have accomplished the remarkable feat of keeping within their original estimate by Rx. 848,000. It is often said in certain quarters that an improved system of control by Parliament over Indian finance could be introduced. I hold the contrary view, believing that the financial control exercised over expenditure in India as it now is, is more efficacious than any control that could be exercised in this country would be. I do not remember any occasion here when the Treasury have been able to save £800,000 on their original estimates. The rupee for 1894–5 was taken in the estimate at 14d. and it realised 13·1d. and this involved a charge of 212 lakhs in addition to the sum originally provided. The total charge amounted to Rx. 14,615,300, or more than 24 per cent. of the total net expenditure of the Indian Government. The next year 1895–6 is

  761
  a very remarkable financial year, and I hope marks the commencement of a new financial era. The Indian Government budgeted originally for a surplus of Rx. 46,200, but they only obtained this surplus by much scraping and paring. They cut down the grants originally made for the local governments by Rx. 405,000, and they only placed Ex. 470,000 to the credit of the Famine Insurance Grant. Since that Estimate was made much has happened. There has been the successful expedition to Chitral, which entailed an unexpected charge of 164 lakhs upon the revenues of India. Then the Government have increased their Famine Insurance Grant by 53 lakhs of rupees; they have revised the Indian Cotton Duties, which entailed a loss of about 28 lakhs of rupees, and they have repaid to provincial governments 40 lakhs of rupees. They therefore have had to meet an additional expenditure of Rx. 2,850,000, and yet, I am glad to say, the revised Estimates showed a surplus of Rx. 905, 200, and the gross accounts show an even better surplus—namely, Rx. 1,604,000. Let us examine this remarkable improvement in the financial condition of the Indian Government, because it is desirable to see how far that improvement is due to permanent and reliable causes, and how far it is due to incidents which are ephemeral and accidental. The revenue shows an increase of Rx. 1,405,300, but again opium absorbs a great amount of that increase—namely Rx. 874,000. The remaining Rx. 531,000 is due to a general advance under most heads of revenue. Against that must be put the amount of the Cotton Duties, by the remission of which the Government will lose in an ordinary year Rx. 495,000. When we examine these figures we see that there is a very small margin of revenue upon which the Government can rely to provide for any fiscal reform or increased expenditure. I am glad to say that in 1895–6 the Indian Government have again shown signs of a remarkable frugality and control. The total increase of expenditure at the close of the year, including all these large sums which I have mentioned, is only Rx. 500,000, or 50 lakhs, as against charges incurred of 285 lakhs, showing an improvement of 235 lakhs. This is due to two causes. The exchange, estimated
  762
  at 13·09, realised 13·68, so that there was an improvement of Rx. 1,665,600, and this saving in exchange almost exactly balanced the cost of the Chitral expedition. There was also a saving of Rx. 624,100 on the ordinary expenditure of the Army, and there was a further saving in other branches of expenditure amounting to Rx. 60,300. These two figures taken together account largely for the remarkable improvement in the financial position, to which I have called attention. Thus we see in one year a loss in exchange very largely diminished by a saving in expenditure, and in the next year we see a gain in exchange greatly enhanced by further savings so as to cover very large unexpected disbursements. Here I must interpose a few observations upon the subject, of Cotton Duties. When those duties were imposed, my predecessor in office imposed them on a certain condition—namely, that the duties were in no sense to be protective, and he undertook, should there be any vestige of protection about them, to take steps for their removal. When I succeeded the right hon. Gentleman I had to look into the matter, and it appeared to me that there was an infringement of the condition. It became clear that we must either tax all imported cotton on yarn value or tax all cloth in India on its full value. We arrived at the conclusion that it would be most inadvisable to draw a hard-and-fast line in respect of various qualities of goods and yarns and to say, on the one side there shall be a duty and on the other side there shall be no duty. The House can hardly realise the extraordinary ingenuity which manufacturers show in keeping within a line of exemption. A deputation on this subject produced certain figures which are so extraordinary that I should like to call attention to them. The passage to which I refer is found on page 199 of the Blue-book on the Cotton Duties:—
  "In the six months of 1878, when the first change was made admitting some classes of goods duty free, our exports to India were 9,000,000 yards of duty-free goods, and 358,000,000 yards of goods paying duty. The following year, although the larger measure was only introduced in March, in the six months following March the duty-free goods were 99,000,000 yards, and the duty-payable goods 323,000,000 yards, and in the corresponding six months of 1880 the duty-free goods were 360,000,000 yards; those on which

  763
  the duty was paid were 164,000,000 yards, and the revenue from Cotton Duties, which was £200,000 in 1878, was reduced to £81,000."
  The arrangements that I have made have been attacked somewhat unfairly in certain quarters. My desire was to put the industries dealt with on a footing of perfect equality, and I claim that we have succeeded in doing that. Now I come to the Budget of 1896–7; but before I deal with the figures I should mention that there are two decisions which have been arrived at by the Indian Government which have absorbed a considerable sum in addition to the ordinary expenditure, as compared with the expenditure of the preceding year. The Famine Insurance Grant we determined to raise to Rx. 1,000,000, and that entailed on the revenue of this year an extra charge of Rx. 473,000 over and above the Budget Estimate of the preceding year. But we further came to an important decision with reference to the Army. Those who have read the Debate on the Indian Financial Statement in the Legislative Chamber of Calcutta will find there a most interesting and valuable speech by General Sir Henry Bracken-bury as to the efficiency of the Indian Army; and especial importance, I think, attaches to that statement, as he is probably of all living authorities, the best acquainted with the conditions of foreign service. He has made that a special object of study, and was for many years the efficient and capable head of the Intelligence Branch of the War Office. ["Hear, hear!"] He gives in the highest terms his opinion of the efficiency of the native Army—[cheers]—and gives a number of details showing the extraordinary improvement that has been made in recent years in organisation and powers of mobilisation. He also calls attention to the great economy in administration. But Sir Henry Brackenbury's speech reveals, at the same time, certain defects as regards power of mobilisation, and for some time past the Indian Government have pressed on us the desirability of allowing them to add largely to the reserve, and especially in connection with camels. Camels are very delicate animals and require special handling, and it has been found that when a large number of them are bought a very large proportion of them die in consequence of those attending them not
  764
  being acquainted with their habits. Therefore, we have provided for a reserve depôt for camels. We have also allowed for a reserve of 1,000 horses to be established in addition to those already in reserve. This will greatly increase the mobilising power of the Indian Government; but I will say at once that the India Council would not have agreed to this expenditure if it had not been of opinion that the native Army was fit to go anywhere and to meet any troops in the world. [Cheers.] In respect of these two matters, then, we start with a debit of Rx. 968,700. Exchange is taken at 13·75d., as against 13·1d. for the preceding year, and that gives a reduction in the charge on that account of Rx. 1,665,000. There are various other improvements and fallings off in the revenue, but after taking them into consideration we get a total improvement of Rx. 1,770,200, including Rx.46,200, thesurplus of the previous year. On the other hand, there is an increase in expenditure amounting to Rx. 338,400, which is almost entirely due to the very low estimate taken on account of the railway revenue. For some reason or other for the last few months the returns of the railroads have not been as satisfactory as we could wish, and in the circumstances we thought we were justified in taking a very low estimate. Deducting Rx. 338,400 increased expenditure from the improvement in revenue of Rx. 1,770,200, that leaves an improvement of Rx. 1,431,800 and if the special expenditure to which I have referred, of Rx. 968,700, is deducted from that amount, we get an estimated surplus of Rx. 463,100 for the present year. ["Hear, hear!"] I think I can congratulate the House on the fact that for the first time since 1891, the Secretary of State for India is able to show a surplus for each year, and that which makes those surpluses more satisfactory is the fact that they are honest surpluses, and the total expenditure in this country for the last two years has been defrayed without a loan. Whenever loans are raised in this country they affect exchange in two ways—namely, by diminishing the amount of bills on India, and by their being sold at a higher rate. From 1888–9 to 1893–4, inclusive, loans have been raised in this country in

  765
  order to meet the liabilities of the Secretary of State in this country, but I am glad to say that in the three years to which I am alluding, we have been meeting the whole of our obligations without having recourse to a loan. ["Hear, hear!"] It is also satisfactory to note how the improvement has progressed. Taking the last four years, we started in 1893–4 with a deficit of Rx 1,546,998. In 1894–5 we had a surplus of Rx. 693,000, in 1895–6 a surplus of Rx. 1,604,000, and this year we have, estimated, a surplus of Rx. 463,000. This improvement in Indian finance has greatly improved the borrowing power of the Indian Government, and the credit of the Indian Government to-day stands in an unparalleled position. Taking the credit of India in England, in 1889 the Government congratulated themselves on being able to raise a 4 per cent. loan at just below par. In 1893 they were able to raise a 3½ per cent loan which realised 96·21, and this year we made the experiment of raising a 3 per cent. loan in England, and it was covered three times over and taken up at 103⅛. Now, Sir, if the statement I have made had been made by a Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this country, it would have seemed of so satisfactory a character that the general verdict would have been that a remission of taxation was almost certain to take place in subsequent years. If India were similarly situated to this country such might be the case; but, unfortunately, it is not. Therefore, I must warn the House against drawing any false inferences from what I have said. India differs from this country in two essential particulars. It is not self-contained as to expenditure; and, secondly, the Indian Government, unlike the British Government, is not in possession of any reserve of taxation either direct or indirect. The obligations in gold, which year by year have to be met, mainly arise in connection with home charges, and there is no possibility of their being diminished. But that is by no means the greatest difficulty with which we now have to deal. Without almost any warning the charges in connection with exchange which we have to meet are subject to sudden fluctuations, and therefore the abruptness of the fall and the magnitude of the charge
  766
  so imposed constitute a double financial difficulty with which India has now to contend. The fall in the value of the rupee of one-tenth of a penny causes a loss of 22 lakhs; or, in other words, a fall in exchange of a penny means a loss in the revenue of the year of 220 lakhs of rupees. The experiment of closing the mints for the purpose of improving exchange was an artificial makeshift; but, at the same time, it has succeeded in doing that which its promoters anticipated—namely, it has caused a divergence between the exchange value of the rupee and the price of silver; but, although it has done that, still the market price of silver is the dominant factor in the exchange value of the rupee. Influences so widespread, cross currents so mixed, production so curiously controlled, political, commercial, and monetary interests so intermingled affect Indian finances to such a degree that it is impossible to foretell what is going to happen from the premonitory symptoms. Taking the surplus of exports over imports, and the relative exchange values, it will be found from the explanatory memorandum that in 1893–4, when the exports were 4,057,000 tens of rupees under the imports, the exchange value was 14·547d.; the next year, when there was a considerable surplus of exports over imports, it was 13·101d.; and in 1895–6, when there was only a slight balance in favour of exports, it was 13·680d. Therefore, in each year, the exchange value of the rupee operated in exactly the reverse direction from that which might have been anticipated. What I wish to impress upon the House, therefore, is that, owing to the speculative and gambling character of the exchange value of the rupee, the Indian Finance Minister finds it almost impossible for him to foretell how it will operate in any particular financial year, and the expenditure can only be met by a margin of revenue or by financial or taxable reserves capable of immediate realisation. In these circumstances, we have to ask ourselves what taxable resources we have that are not now in operation. Of direct taxes there are absolutely none. The Income Tax is small and cannot be raised, and it is impossible to impose a Succession Duty. The only indirect taxation which is in our hands consists of the Salt and Customs Duties. The Salt Duty cannot

  767
  be put higher, because it is higher now than one could wish it to be. ["Hear, hear!"] Indirect taxes upon articles of great consumption cannot be varied from year to year, like the Income Tax, to meet the variation of charges; still less can they be abolished and then re-imposed without causing general confusion in trade. Therefore, I may point out to the House that until the Indian Government can see its way more clearly in the future it cannot afford to part with any existing sources of revenue, although I am hopeful that revision and amendment of existing rates may not be outside our capabilities. ["Hear, hear!"] I lay these views before the House in the interests of sound finance and of those great producing trades and industries to which uncertainty as to the future and a constant variation of taxation is most galling and injurious. There has been during recent years a development of two important portions of Indian policy, one external, the other wholly internal, but both bearing on Indian finance. In past years there has been an expenditure on frontier wars and upon punitive expeditions largely due to want of demarcation between ourselves and neighbouring responsible Powers. In view of the character of the frontier tribes and of the country, it is of the greatest importance that the spheres of influence of the different Powers should be known, respected, and protected. There are on our Indian frontiers six such Powers—namely, Siam, France, China, Russia, Afghanistan, and Persia. The frontiers between India and some of these Powers have been demarcated. I trust that the demarcation of the Indian frontiers will enable expenditure to be reduced and will inaugurate an era of more peaceful policy than has prevailed during recent years. With regard to Chitral, it was only the other day that we sent a number of troops up to that place, and during their march there was a heavy fall of rain, by which the bridges were broken and the road impeded; 4,000 men of the Khan of Dir were employed in repairing the bridges and the road, and the agreement entered into was loyally carried out. The camps were guarded by them, and, I am glad to say, the relations between our officers and troops and the tribes are steadily improving. What has occurred there may happen elsewhere. ["Hear,
  768
  hear!"] I may say that the Chitral expedition had done an immense deal of good, because all along the route that our troops took, the wild tribes that bordered it have been civilised to a large degree, and the frontier has become settled. ["Hear, hear!"] The second movement to which I have alluded is that which relates to the construction of Indian railways. In this respect I have followed the policy that was laid down by the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor in office. During the past year we have been able to make a substantial improvement in the means of railway communication by encouraging the construction of branch or feeder lines. We have also come to a definite conclusion to give a direct guarantee to those lines. The second matter which I looked into was the amount of capital annually given to main lines, and I thought that we might legitimately largely increase the amount devoted to that purpose. Hon. Members who have the memorandum will see the amount devoted to irrigation and railways during the past three years. The sum amounts in 1894–5 to Rx. 6,637,944; in 1895–6, to Rx.6,890,700; and in the present year to Rx. 11,550,600. [Cheers.] Including the expenditure by companies here, I think the outlay will exceed 12 crores in 1896–7, and this high rate will be practically maintained for three years. It will also interest the right hon. Gentleman to know that we have arrived at a new decision as regards the means for supplying these funds. Of course it was desirable to keep down our obligations as much as possible and to have recourse to the loan market in India first. We came to the conclusion that for the future the Indian Government should raise all money to be borrowed in India, and advance it to the companies, and by that means we take care that the loan market in India is always exhausted before recourse is had to a foreign loan. Then the third change which is about to be made is that there should be an annual conference in India of the chief railway officers presided over by the Viceroy, in order that they may thoroughly consider all the proposals that come up before them. It seems to me that in the past our policy has been too piecemeal. Proposals were constantly coming in with reference to some particular line, and it
  769
  was absolutely impossible for the Indian Government or the India Office to express an opinion upon it until it had been considered in connection with others, and also in connection with the amount of money available. I believe that if the practice is once established of having this annual conference it will insure that every line sanctioned shall be part and parcel of a carefully considered scheme and system. I think, moreover, that it will fit in with the views of the promoters of railways, because they will know that they have to send in their schemes by a certain time, and that if they are not in by that time they will probably not be accepted. The return on railroads is satisfactory. In 1893–4 the percentage of net receipts on lines in operation (independent of exchange) was 5·49; in 1891 it was 5·72, and in 1895 it was 5·82. The new mileage open in 1894–5 was 360, and in. 1895–6 821. The new mileage sanctioned in 1894–5 was 651, and in 1895–6 it was 2,415. [Cheers.] Our experience as regards railroads in India is that the Indian Government have brought their Construction Department to such a point of ability that they can construct railroads more easily than private companies; on the other hand, private companies can, as a rule, more effectively work the lines. It is very desirable that railway enterprise should be largely developed in Burma, and we have recently entered into an agreement with the Burmese Railway Company by which they have undertaken to work the lines and provide the necessary capital for various feeders and extensions which from time to time will be necessary. I saw a statement in one of the newspapers that we had entered into an arrangement for the purpose of selling our interest in the lines; no such idea ever entered our heads. We have retained full control as to the rates and other conditions on which the lines may be worked. In looking at the question of railroads, I am glad to see that they have tended enormously to increase the amount of exports during the last ten years, and have not only increased exports, but have also multiplied the staple commodities in India, so that India is no longer dependent on two or three staple productions. Looking to the other side of the balance-sheet, to see how far British trade and industry have
  770
  benefited by this increase, I think, on the whole, that it may be said that British goods have obtained their full share, with one notable exception, which is, I think, worthy of the attention of the House. There are two forms in which steel and iron are imported into India—in the shape of rails or railway material, and in bars or bulk. This country practically monopolises the imports of railway material, but I think this is rather due to the fact that the policy of the Government is to give some preference to home production. But when we come to steel and iron in bulk, there is a remarkable shrinkage in British imports into India. Twelve years ago we had 97 per cent. of the total imports of iron and steel into India, but according to the last return our percentage has shrunk to 56 per cent., while Belgium has risen during these years from 2½ per cent. to 39 per cent. These figures are those of iron and steel in bulk. Now, I think there are some persons who maintain that foreign competition is a bogey, but here is clear and distinct evidence that in regard to a manufacture of which we had practically the monopoly, we are gradually being ousted. I commend this to the attention of both masters and men, because if we get ousted from a favourable market such as India in a matter of this kind, I think it is clear that in a short time we may also find that we may be similarly neglected for other countries as regards the import of railway materials. I have to thank the House for the attention with which they have listened to the various topics on which I have dwelt. ["Hear, hear!"] No one, I think, ever commenced a statement in connection with Indian finance without being impressed with the immense range of subjects with which he has to deal, and also by the multiplicity and complexity of the questions on which he is asked to give off-hand an opinion. I do not think that anybody who ever held the post I have the honour to occupy has not appreciated the assistance of outside advice, opinion, or even criticism; but whilst I welcome advice and do not repel criticism, I cannot help feeling that there is a tendency in certain quarters at the present moment to somewhat unduly disparage the benefits of British rule in India. Since I have been at the India

  771
  Office I have made a point of reading the translations of native newspapers which are sent home, and I think there is no improvement in their tone; on the contrary, I think they now discuss many matters with much more acerbity, indulge in more general depreciation of the benefits of our rule, and are more apt to draw wholesale indictments against us than was the custom 20 years back. If that is the case I think a very grave responsibility rests with anybody who encourages that feeling by perhaps attaching undue importance to the infinitesimal drawbacks of the effects of our rule and ignoring its infinite benefits. [Cheers.] For ours, and for all Governments which exercise an administration over composite races, absolute perfection is not the standard; the standard is the comparative merit of the Government that is in existence with the Government which it superseded or the Government which might supersede it. If those who criticise our rule in India could only have a very short taste of the rule which it superseded they would, for generations to come, bless the Government. [Cheers.] I was reading the other day accounts of the improvements which have taken place by the acquisition of the territories in Upper Burmah, and the change that has taken place there is extraordinary. Ton years ago, outside Mandalay the government of the country was one of wholesale misrule. The hill tribes desolated the plains, thousands of cultivators annually migrated, dacoity in many parts was supreme, and outside the capital there was not a mile of road or a decent public building. There were no ordered law courts, and corruption and blackmail were the only methods of administration known. Now, what is the position? An efficient police has been established; law courts subject to regular laws have been opened; violent crime has decreased from 3,408 in 1888 to 232 in 1894. The garrison has been reduced by more than a half, the hill tribes are pacified and quiet, emigrants are flocking back, cultivation is everywhere increasing; and, notwithstanding the abolition of internal customs, the revenue has risen from 65 lakhs to 114 lakhs. ["Hear, hear!"] Such are some of the advantages which British rule has conferred on the native populations which have come under its power. I quite admit
  772
  that there are many questions in regard to which I can only lend a ready ear to the suggestions or advice of persons who have experience or who are competent to give it. Between European races and the vast population of India there are racial, religious, and social differences, and it is enormously difficult to graft European ideas of progress and reform upon primitive customs or upon old Eastern traditions, and all these difficulties result in a labyrinth of complex and contradictory problems such as, I suppose, no other Government in the world has to deal with. I think no one can pretend that through all these questions he can see light, even if he can frame principles for his guidance or exactly describe his goal. On all these questions there must be wide differences of opinion, but still there are certain principles on which we can all agree. A sense of external security, of inward quiet, of internal improvement, high credit, a flourishing exchequer, and a capable and impartial Administration—these are elements by which, I believe, despite difficulties of race, religion, and custom, the prosperity and consolidation of this vast population can be effected, and their loyalty and goodwill obtained. I venture, on behalf of these three years to claim that they have done their fair share towards the realisation of these results.
  *SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid he was hopeless of any benefit arising from the Indian Budget Debate under the present system. Intricate accounts involving an expenditure of nearly Rx. 100,000,000 were placed upon the Table, and the House had no guidance in deciding whether the explanations of the Secretary of State were satisfactory or otherwise. The difficulty of the case was increased by the fact that the Secretary of State's explanatory statement had only been two days in the hands of Members. Under such circumstances it was impossible that in the course of few hours any profitable discussion could take place regarding Indian finance. He therefore asked the indulgence of the House in order that he might place before it an humble suggestion having for its object to obtain, in future years, a more systematic and effectual scrutiny of Indian accounts. The Amendment that stood in his name was

  773
  as follows:—To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words—
  "With a view to the effectual discharge of its existing duty in respect of the finances of India, this House is of opinion that the East India Accounts should each year he examined and reported on by a Select Committee of the House, thus mutatis mutandis assimilating the practice as regards Indian Accounts to that followed, by means of the Public Accounts Committee, in respect of the Accounts of the United Kingdom."
  It appeared to him that this was a simple proposal, and at the same time a moderate one. It proposed no new duty, and only indicated the way in which an existing and accepted duty might be properly performed. It merely proposed that in dealing with Indian finances they should exercise the same reasonable care that they exercised with regard to their own. A trustee was required to give as careful attention to trust funds as to his own property. But in the present case there was a painful contrast between the promptitude and rigour with which the House looked after its own finances and the indifference with which it treated those of India. For weeks all items of British expenditure were minutely debated, while the complete control of Parliament was secured by the action of the Public Accounts Committee. On the other hand, one day at the fag end of the Session was grudgingly given to Indian finance, and no steps were taken to make the Parliamentary control anything but illusory. It was a bad object-lesson for India, which complained that they neither gave her a voice in her own affairs, nor would attend to them themselves. The British system of control had gradually perfected itself since the passing of the Exchequer Audit Act of 1866, and in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee for the current year, testimony was borne to the great benefits arising from the arrangements now in force. Referring to the excellent services of Sir C. Ryan, the retiring Comptroller and Accountant General, the Report reviewed the past history of the Committee, and noticed—
  "the admirable results, as evidenced by the public accounts, of the arrangement introduced by the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1866. The striking contrast from the point of view of financial regularity between the
  774
  period antecedent and the period subsequent to that Measure, shows it to have been, in its peculiar field, an epoch-making Statute."
  It appeared that in the first nine years after the passing of the Act, the financial irregularities brought to light averaged 25 yearly, but during the nine years up to 1894–5 this was reduced to two yearly, and during the last two years all irregularities had ceased. But the Committee pointed out that the improvement was greater than that shown by mere statistics.
  "An examination of the Auditor's Reports will show what the experience of our Committee confirms—namely, a remarkable diminution of controversy on first principles, and the disappearance, to a great degree, of impatience of scrutiny—it sure and honourable testimony to the value of the work."
  If such solid benefits arose from the labours of a, Select Committee of the House in dealing with British accounts, why should not the same benefits, mutatis mutandis be extended to India? Of course, the system of Indian finance differed from that of the United Kingdom, but he believed that if a Committee was appointed an arrangement could be devised adapted to the requirements of Indian methods. He felt confident that to accomplish this was not beyond the wit of the noble Lord the Secretary of State, who would thus remove the reproach of neglecting the golden rule. It would be for the wisdom of Parliament to decide how best the Committee could do its work, so as to secure for the House a reasonable understanding of Indian finance and a reasonable control over this most important Department of Imperial affairs. For the moment the rise of exchange, over which we had no control, had saved the Indian Exchequer from its most serious difficulties. A fall in exchange, over which we equally had no control, would plunge the Indian Treasury into its former embarrassments, and he would remind the House that financial embarrassment in India meant increased taxation, and perhaps a demand on the Imperial Treasury. The control over British finance, now so smoothly worked by the Public Accounts Committee, had not been devised in a day, but had been gradually perfected by experience. He noticed that the system had first been applied to the

  775
  Navy so long ago as 1832, to the Army in 1847, and it was not until 1866 that it was extended to all grants in Supply. Similarly, if the House should be pleased to appoint a Committee, he had no doubt that such Committee, with characteristic British business capacity, would work out for itself a practical method of performing its duties towards the House. They would look to the noble Lord, who had long experience of Indian affairs in the House, for guidance in this important matter. But having himself given much thought to this subject, he might perhaps be allowed to make a practical suggestion as to the direction in which such a Committee might most advantageously work. He would suggest that the principal materials for the labours of the Committee might be provided by a special report on the financial condition of India, supplied each year by the Government of India, such report being based on the Debates on the Indian Budget in the Viceroy's Council. The House was aware that the Council contained a certain proportion of non-official members, nominated by the Viceroy, and under Lord Cross's Act of 1892, certain public bodies were allowed to recommend a few members for nomination, thus giving voice to a certain extent to outside public opinion on Indian finance. The Debates, therefore, in the Viceroy's Legislative Council would give the Committee valuable and definite matter for consideration, and if, under the Viceroy's rules of business the non-official members were invited to move amendments and divide upon them, distinct issues would be provided for the Committee to examine and report upon to the House. The proposed annual report of the Government of India would, of course, come through the India Office with the views of the Secretary of State in Council, and it would be received early in the Session, so that the Select Committee would have abundant leisure for its consideration, and it might be hoped that the influence of an important Committee of this kind would induce the Government of the day to bring on the Debate on Indian finance at a reasonably early period of the Session. Such was a brief outline of his scheme, which he would gladly lay more in detail before the noble Lord. In answer to his question in the House a few days ago, the noble
  776
  Lord expressed an opinion unfavourable to the appointment of a Select Committee on Indian Finance, but he thought this unfavourable opinion was in great measure based upon a misunderstanding of the proposal, a very natural misunderstanding, as, in the limits of a question the particulars of the proposal could not be set forth. The two main objections raised by the noble Lord were that the proposed Inquiry would seriously interfere with administrative work in India, and would entail large expense. No doubt these objections were based on the assumption that it was proposed rigidly to follow the procedure of the Public Accounts Committee, and make the duty mainly one of Appropriation Audit. As above explained, that was not the intention of the present proposal. No doubt there was in India an Appropriation Audit, but it was one entirely different in character and effect from that in England. In England the Appropriation Audit was of the highest possible importance, being the machinery by which Parliament exercised its financial control over the Executive, and especially the Treasury. In India the Appropriation Audit was merely an arrangement by which the Executive controlled its subordinate Departments; it was of little use, and of no constitutional importance whatever. As it was not proposed that the Committee should carry out an Appropriation Audit for India, the difficulty suggested by the noble Lord disappeared, because departmental officers would not be called from their administrative duties in India, and no expense would be incurred. He would no longer detain the House. It was for the House to decide how a difficult but manifest and admitted duty to India could best be performed. No one considered that the present state of things was creditable. It might not be possible to do complete justice to India in this matter, but that was not a reason for doing nothing; they might make an effort and do their best. No one could do more than that
  *MR. H. J. WILSON, in seconding the Amendment, remarked that the noble Lord the Secretary of State himself could hardly regard the circumstances in which the Indian Budget was considered in this House as satisfactory. The noble Lord's

  777
  speech was listened to during a considerable portion of it by 12 Members on the Government side and nine on the Opposition. How could it be expected that those voluminous details could be mastered and digested in the time at present at their disposal? Whether the particular propositions referred to in the speech of his hon. Friend were practicable or not, he did not feel himself competent to express an opinion. He only desired to urge that something or other should be done.
  *MR. B. L. COHENsaid that the first thing which struck him in considering this Motion was the extraordinary want of connection between the suggested remedy and the alleged grievance. It was true that the Memorandum of the Secretary of State had only been in the hands of hon. Members for two or three days, but he had read that statement with very little interest. Nearly all its contents were familiar to him from the document which had been in the hands of hon. Members for two or three months—namely, the financial statement of the Indian Government. This statement had been in their hands since June 24th. It seemed to him that the hon. Member was proposing to substitute a faulty, certainly an imperfect, system of audit of accounts for a system which was almost ideally perfect, and for as clear and businesslike a statement as any private or public body had ever examined. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not believe that the acceptance of any such arrangement as had been suggested would favour the better examination of the finances of India. He thought that the hon. Baronet would acknowledge that the Public Accounts Committee had no control over the expenditure of this country, and the assimilation of the system to India could not in any way control or vary the expenditure by a rupee. He believed, therefore, that any deviation from the form in which the accounts of India were now presented would be to render more obscure that which was, in his judgment, already quite clear. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR HENBY FOWLERsaid he was surprised to hear the hon. Baronet say that there was a mass of figures thrown on the
  778
  Table of the House without anything to guide the House with reference to their meaning.
  *SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I did not say that. I said there was no guidance to enable the House to decide whether the explanations of the Secretary of State on behalf of the Executive were satisfactory or otherwise.
  *SIR H. FOWLERsaid he did not understand the hon. Baronet to say so. He thought, however, that the last speaker had given a true answer to that criticism—namely, that the House had a clear, complete, and elaborate statement presented to it nearly three months ago, and that statement contained not only a lucid explanation of the finances of India by Sir James Westland, one of the most distinguished Finance Ministers India had known, but the Debate of the Indian Legislative Council, and the criticism by distinguished native members of the Council as well as Anglo-Indian members, on the various finance proposals of the Government. The hon. Baronet said that the House had no control, as in dealing with the finances of this country in Committee of Supply, over the expenditure of India. No; nor was it a part of the Government of India that the House should control the expenditure of India in the same way as it controlled the expenditure in Great Britain. The House had by legislation delegated to two other bodies the administration of the finances of India, only reserving to itself supreme and final authority. The hon. Member had urged the House to adopt the precedent of the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee was for audit, and not for control. He would quote the Standing Order under which the Public Accounts Committee acted:—
  "That there shall be a. Standing Committee, to be designated the Committee of Public Accounts, for the examination of accounts, showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure."
  The Public Accounts Committee had no more control over the expenditure of this country than they had over the expenditure of the London and Northwestern Railway Company. The theory of our system was that every Parliamentary Vote must be placed by the

  779
  Treasury under the control of a Department responsible for the proper application of the money. The regular appropriation of the accounts must be prepared in the Department; the accounts must be audited, and the Auditor General reported his observations to the Committee on Public Accounts, but there was in no sense a Committee controlling the expenditure. Was this new Committee of the hon. Baronet to be, so to say, the Auditor General of Indian Accounts? There were more than a thousand accounting treasuries in India, and those accounts could not be audited here. The audit must take place in India, and nowhere else. The noble Lord had told the House how complete and satisfactory was the control of expenditure in India, and that it was quite as effective as the control of the expenditure here. Complaint had been made that but few hon. Members came to listen to the Debate on the Indian Budget, but, short of enforcing penalties for non-attendance, hon. Members could not be compelled to attend these Debates unless they were so disposed. When, however, questions arose in the House affecting the administration, the policy, or the interests of India, the House was scarcely ever more crowded than on these occasions. It was not fair to represent to the people of India, therefore, that the present small attendance always characterised Indian Debates, or that it was to serve as any gauge by which to measure the interest taken by the House of Commons in Indian affairs. [Cheers.] Was this Committee to be a more Committee of audit, or was it to deal with questions of policy? Did the hon. Baronet moan that the policy of the Government of India should be referred to this Committee? Apparently that was what he intended, because he spoke of this Committee as a Court of appeal from the Legislative Council of India. To constitute such a Committee as that would not be in accordance with the Constitution. But there was already a Committee which acted as a Court of appeal from the Legislative Council of India, from the Viceroy's Council, and from the Council in Whitehall, and that Committee was the Cabinet of the Queen representing the majority of the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"] The proposal that a Committee of the House
  780
  of Commons should undertake the control of the whole expenditure of India and of the policy of the Indian Government was a proposal which the House would not entertain, and which, if adopted, would be resented both in Great Britain and India. If to the responsibilities already resting upon the House they were to add responsibility for the details of Indian Government, the machinery of Parliament would inevitably break down under the weight imposed upon it. But in recent times the House had shown no unwillingness to listen to any well-founded complaint relating to Indian Administration, taxation, or finance. The House had discussed in the last two years as questions of Imperial importance, upon which the fate of a Ministry might hang, the competitive examination for the Civil Service, the Cotton Duties, the Opium question, the retention of Chitral, and the charges for the Indian Troops sent to Suakin. On some of these subjects the House agreed with the Government of India, and on others it differed; but in each case the House recognised its Imperial duties, and discharged them in a manner which represented the convictions of the majority of the people of this country. It was his opinion that in constituting such a Committee as was proposed and transferring to it the duties which belonged to the Secretary of State and the Government they would be adopting a plan which would give no satisfaction in India and which would cause great expense. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR C. DILKEdid not believe that there was any ground for making an attack upon the system of administering Indian finance. In fact, he thought the appointment of any Committee would only result in eliciting facts in favour of the Government of India in this regard. That, however, was not the last word that had to be said on the matter, because Governments were not based upon scientific principles only, but depended in large measure upon the consent of the governed. They must always take into consideration the necessity of securing for their Government the support of the people. The opponents of this Motion failed to take into consideration that popular support might be obtained if some such scheme as the hon. Baronet proposed were adopted. Lord Randolph

  781
  Churchill, who was a very remarkable Secretary of State for India, and left a very great name, was always in favour of some system of Committee in that House with regard to the Government of India. The same could be said of the late Mr. Fawcett. As regards the principle of inquiry, whether regular, or whether only occasional, he did not think that the point was settled by the speeches that had been delivered. As he had said, there was a great deal that could be said in support of the Motion of his hon. Friend, but he would ask his hon. Friend and his supporters what they meant by their Motion? Did they intend that questions of policy should be brought before this Committee? He did not himself think that it would be a fitting body before which to bring matters of policy. There was, however, a great deal to be said for the view of Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr. Fawcett in favour of occasional inquiry by that House into questions involving the policy of the Government of India. But there was a great deal to be said against an annual and lasting inquiry by a Committee of that House, that would involve the policy of the Government of India. That would be a disturbing cause and would do harm and unsettle the finances of the Indian Government, and undermine the authority of the Legislative Council in Calcutta. Let them consider for a moment the weakest point of our rule, viz., that they had to rely, in dealing with the people, upon Native police, and that those police were not as satisfactory officers as they might be. Was the Committee which the hon. Baronet proposed to consider, under the cloak of finance, the re-organisation of the whole system of criminal administration in India and of police in India? Take another question. The home charges of India had been reduced by the manufacture of military stores in that country. India had saved money in that way, and the process might no doubt be carried further. Was a Committee of this kind to consider that question continuously year by year? He thought it would be impossible for it to do so, for they would fail to get men of the qualifications necessary to carry such inquiries on year after year. In fact, this would virtually amount to assuming a portion of the responsibility of the actual government
  782
  of India. Therefore he did not think that his hon. Friend would suggest that questions of policy of that kind ought to be submitted to a Committee of the House, although he agreed that from time to time, examination by that House of questions affecting India was desirable. Then came the question whether, with these limitations it would be wise to have a Finance Accounts Committee, a Public Accounts Committee on the finances of India. Agreeing as he did, absolutely with the view that the financial system of India was a good one, he did believe it would be a good thing that the inquiry which they pretended to make in the House with a very thin attendance at the end of the Session, should be made by an annually appointed Committee of the House; but he would give that Committee no power over the Government of India. He believed that would be a better and more popular form of dealing with the accounts of the Government of India than the control they pretended to exercise in the House on the last day but one of the Session.
  *SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANrose to call attention to the remarks made by a very high English military authority with regard to the troops of India.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must reserve his remarks on that subject until the main question is put again.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid he was bound to say that he disagreed with everything the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire had said. He had had a good deal of experience of these Committees, and he found that in proportion as the numbers of a Committee were increased the quorum had to be diminished. He asserted that it was no use whatever to appoint a select Committee to inquire generally into Indian finance. The finances of India constituted a very large question, and he was convinced it would be almost impossible to bring the Members of a Committee of this kind together in sufficient numbers and sufficiently often to enable them to report with effect on a general question of such importance. He could not help thinking that what the hon. Baronet wished was to appoint a Committee, nominally to

  783
  investigate accounts, but in reality to interfere with the expenditure policy, with which he did not agree. A more mischievous proposal he could not conceive. We had an Indian Government, of which we could control the policy in the House of Commons, and the House of Commons, if they disapproved of that policy, could express their opinion upon it; but to try and make that policy futile, by checking expenditure which was necessary to give it effect, was a mad suggestion. The hon. Baronet also seemed to think that the more the House interfered with Indian finance the more economy would be promoted; but that was certainly not his view. Then the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean spoke on one or two questions on which inquiry might be judicious—questions connected with native manufacture.
  *SIR C. DILKE: I said I could not support any proposal for an annual or permanent Committee to consider any question of policy.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid he could understand the propriety, and even the necessity, of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into some definite subject; but, surely, of all the instruments for that purpose, the most inconvenient would be a Committee of Accounts. In the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire would not press his Motion.
  *MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREEthought it was not the intention of the hon. Baronet, so far as be understood it, to have any sort of controlling Committee whatever. A sort of feeling did prevail, no doubt, both in this country and in India, that the statement of the accounts of India which was submitted to the House at the end of every Session was not listened to by a sufficient number of Members to satisfy the people of India that an interest was really taken by the House in their affairs. Whether that feeling was right or wrong he was not prepared to say, but, after listening to the elaborate and eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for India, he believed that the notion founded on that supposition would be to a certain extent dispelled. The purpose for which he rose was simply to ask the hon. Baronet opposite not to press his Motion to a Division. He
  784
  believed such a Division would do more harm than good. If hon. Members were to be convinced that the accounts of India should be submitted to and attended to by a Committee of the House with advantage, they ought to have time to deliberate on the way in which that end was to be secured; but to bring forward a Motion of this importance, and to ask the House to decide upon it at once, would only lead to one result, and that was that the House would not listen to any future proposal in favour of submitting the Indian Budget to the House at a time when there was a fuller attendance.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 110: Noes, 30.—(Division List, 419.)
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSsaid that he understood that he would not be in order in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, namely—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to revise the arrangements under which political control is exercised over Indian Princes and Chiefs, and especially to provide that in future no deprivation or penalty shall he imposed upon an Indian Prince or Chief on the ground of maladministration or misconduct until the fact of such maladministration or misconduct shall have been established before a public and independent tribunal."
  It was, he thought, most important that in the interest of the continuance of satisfactory relations between the Indian Government and the Indian people, that it should be made plain that the Indian Princes and Chiefs would not be interfered with, would not be punished or deprived of their ruling powers without an adequate and fair trial. He would not encroach one hair's breath upon the essential condition of British rule in India, namely the right and obligation of the Indian Government to depose or punish those Princes or Chiefs when charges of misconduct or misgovernment were proved, but he contended that before action was taken by the Government in that direction, the men should have an opportunity of stating their case before an impartial tribunal. The foundation of the policy he advocated was to be found in the Proclamation of

  785
  '58, for in that Proclamation the Queen said to the Princes of India, "We will respect the rights, dignity, and honour of the Native Princes as our own." From that day to this the Native rulers had shown their appreciation of the confidence reposed in them, and they had shown loyalty to us by helping us with money and troops in time of our need. There were precedents which proved that the Indian Government had taken the course he desired. For instance, when charges of misgovernment were brought against the Gaekwar of Baroda in 1875, a Commission, consisting of three English Judges and three Natives, were appointed to inquire into them. The same pledge which was given in the Proclamation of '58 was given at the historical assembly at Delhi, but in his belief, and in the opinion of a number of those who acted with him, the Government of India had recently violated the spirit of the pledges they had given, and the effect had been to create an impression in the minds of the Native rulers that the policy of the past was not going to be rigidly enforced in future. It might be said that an inquiry was conducted in the case of the Maharajah of Jhalawar, but he could not admit that when charges of misconduct or mismanagement against a Native ruler were inquired into by a political agent, the inquiry could be called an impartial one. Until it was made quite plain that we intended to treat the Native rulers with respect, and intended to carry out our pledges, a very unfavourable impression would exist in their minds, and until that impression was removed there would exist a feeling of dissatisfaction and disquietude which might have serious consequences.
  SIR ANDREW SCOBLEsaid that the hon. Gentleman opposite was no doubt perfectly right in saying that a well-governed neighbouring native State was a source of strength to the Indian Government as well as of happiness to the population of the State itself. The Government of India fully recognised that fact, and they did their best to insure the good government of all the neighbouring native States. The Governmeent of India, however, interfered with the domestic government of native States with the greatest reluctance, and only in such cases where such interference became absolutely necessary. He could not conceive what tribunal
  786
  the hon. Member proposed to set up in place of the Government of India, who had always acted most impartially in all cases in which their interference had been necessary. To set up a fresh tribunal of any kind would increase rather than diminish the responsibilities and difficulties of the Indian Government. No doubt proposals of this kind had rather a specious air at first to those who were not intimately acquainted with India, but when they came to be examined into, that speciousness disappeared, and it was soon discovered that it was impossible for them to be carried out practically. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. BHOWNAGGREEhad given notice of the following Motion:—
  "That the system of combining executive (revenue and police) with judicial duties in the same officer which at present prevails in India is objectionable in principle, inconvenient in practice, and calculated to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice; and that, therefore, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to revise the system, with the view of effecting a separation of judicial from executive functions."
  The hon. Member said he had given notice of a Motion upon the subject of the system of combining executive with judicial duties in the same officer, which, owing to the Division on the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire, the forms of the House would not permit him to move, and therefore he would only deal with the matter in a general way. In the first place, however, he hoped that he should be permitted to congratulate the noble Lord upon the very interesting and lucid statement he had delivered that evening, in the course of which he had been able to show that the finances of India were in a better state than they had been in for many years. ["Hear, hear!"] He must also congratulate the noble Lord, as representing the Government of India, upon the improved credit which India now enjoyed, both in this country and in India itself. It was also a matter for satisfaction that the demarcation of the Indian frontiers had been proceeded with to so great an extent, thus rendering remote the chances of those expeditions which are a heavy drain upon the Indian Exchequer. He was glad also to hear from the noble Lord that inducements had been held out to Indian capitalists

  787
  to invest in Indian railways, because he believed that it would not only be an encouragement to Indian investors, but would tend to develop the railway communication of the country by the construction of new lines. He hoped that policy had been pursued in the new arrangement made in connection with the Burmese railways and the contemplated future extensions. He now came to the subject of his Notice of Motion. He might say, in the first place, that all native administrators of the highest capacity admitted that law and justice in India had never been so well administered as they had been under British rule. To say that law and justice were administered in India very much in the same manner as obtained in this country was equivalent to saying that that administration had attained a very high level indeed. ["Hear, hear!"] Every human system, however, had its defects, and there were certain defects in the administration of law and justice in India. That was the fault, not of individuals, but of the system which had been handed down from generation to generation, in fact, ever since the establishment of British rule in India. In the past it was perhaps expedient to allow a combination of judicial with executive functions in the same officer, but now, in more settled times, and with a higher standard of justice before the people of India, he had thought it to be his duty to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the defects in the administration to which he had referred, in the hope that the noble Lord would promise to give due consideration to the subject, and to do his best to remedy the defects inherent in the system which prevailed in India, which was not known here, namely, that in large districts the judicial, revenue and police functions were mixed up among a class of Government officials. He would call the attention of the House to a statement made by a responsible officer, who stated that in extensive and thickly-populated districts he had for years combined in himself the functions of head of the police, head magistrate, head superintendent of prisons, head revenue officer, head tax collector, head of the Treasury Department, head manager of government estates, head engineer, head sanitary officer, and other functions. [Laughter.] This was the statement of an officer occupying a distinguished
  788
  position under the Government of India, and he could assure the House that it was true. It could easily be seen that when the same person held so many offices the judicial functions which he had to perform would be prejudicially affected, for even the highest men in the service of the Government were human beings, who required a clear head untainted with other considerations for the proper administration of justice. In the districts in India there were three grades of magistrates, known as first, second and third class of magistrates; these were under the chief executive officer of the district, who was called the district officer or collector. The first class of magistrates had power to inflict two years' rigorous imprisonment, and the second and third class had similar powers in a less degree. Under this district officer there were these officers, who were also invested with executive, together with judicial functions, down to the lowest grade, and known as the joint, assistant, and deputy magistrates. Then there were the deputy collectors, and even the sub-deputy collectors. The executive functions all these men had to perform were of a very varied character, and naturally brought them into relationship, and even into conflict, with the inhabitants of the district, and yet in the same district these officers had to perform their duties as Judges. The consequence was that very often preconceived notions in regard to their judicial functions were attributed to them by the public; and whether this was correct or not, it could not be denied that in some cases, if not in many, such a misconception was possible, and that if it occurred it might taint the purity of justice. This had been a vexed question for a century past. In 1793 it engrossed the attention of Lord Cornwallis, who made a regulation that the collectors of revenue who presided over Revenue Boards should be divested of the power of deciding upon what were practically their own acts. In 1860 there was a Police Commission which reported on the organisation of the police, and declared that the judicial and police functions were not to be confounded; and Sir Bartle Frere, in introducing the Act of 1860, expressed the hope that at no distant period this principle for which he was contending

  789
  would be acted upon throughout India. That principle had been acted upon in some parts of our Indian dominions, but at the same time there were still considerable portions where the collector or the district judge was also the head of the judicial system. This combination of functions had very often led to a miscarriage of justice according to the opinion of the judges of the High Courts in India. Even at the present time, he believed, there was a quarrel on the subject between the High Court of Bengal and certain officers under the Government of Bengal. Many distinguished and weighty names might be adduced in support of this separation of judicial functions for which he was contending, among thorn being those of Lord Hobhouse, Sir Henry Maine, Sir W. W. Hunter, Sir Richard Garth, Sir Raymond West, Sir John Peter Grant, Sir J. Strachey, Sir Lepel Griffin, and two Secretaries of State for India. Lord Kimberley, in a Debate on May 8, 1893, had said:—
  "It is admitted on all hands that it is contrary to right and good principles that the civil and judicial powers should be united in one person, and the difficulty is simply one of expense."
  Lord Cross had supported this view. Now the objections which had been raised to this separation of functions had either been on the ground of expense or of prestige. He believed, however, that the change could be effected by a division of labour rather than by an increase of officers, so that extra expenditure would not necessarily be involved. It was possible to divide the various functions among the half-dozen assistants who were under the chief of each district, and to divide them in such a way that no assistant would have mixed duties. An old and well-known member of the Bengal Civil Service, Mr. R. C. Dutt, was in favour of this plan, and he had shown, in an admirable scheme, how easily it could be adopted. It was further objected to this reform that, unless the executive officer had judicial functions to perform, he would lose prestige. He himself was one who attached great value to prestige, especially in a country like India; but it should be prestige of the right sort, and not terrorism. The contention really was that every officer should have penal power to enforce his orders. That was
  790
  not at all necessary, and such power was very likely to be abused. Any officer, European or native, who had the authority of the Government behind him, had quite sufficient prestige. A distinguished member of the Bar in Bengal, Mr. Manmohun Ghose, had prepared a list of 20 cases where abuses of the kind he referred to had occurred. A reform which could be accomplished at such small cost and with so little difficulty ought to be at once put into effect. Of course the present system had the sanction of time, having been handed down from generation to generation; but he had said enough to show that there was need for reform, and at least a case for inquiry. The system must necessarily beget great distrust of the administration of justice; and, as far as the expense of the reform was concerned, even if the objection were sound, that consideration ought not to make the Government of India shrink from taking the necessary steps. The strongest basis of British rule in India—the reason why the people had such confidence in it—was above all the sense of justice with which that administration had inspired them. ["Hear, hear!"] That it was which had made the greatest impression on India in favour of Englishmen, and if that confidence were shaken, the great pillar on which British dominion in India rested would also be shaken. [Cheers.]
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER after the usual interval,
  *MR. BHOWNAGGREEsaid he trusted the Secretary for India would give his attention to the grievances in connection with the Indian Medical Service, to which he believed the noble Lord's attention had been recently drawn. Graduates of the Medical Schools in India had not had fair play, as they were shut out of important offices and restricted to inferior posts with trivial salaries; and it was believed this was based on racial considerations. Regard to these was inconsistent with the traditions of British rule in India, and the Secretary for India, he was sure, was the last person to attach any importance to racial distinction. ["Hear, hear!"] The Queen, in Her famous proclamation 40 years ago, said that all Her subjects would be treated equally without regard to distinction of

  791
  caste, colour, or creed. In this connection he also wished to call attention to the compensation allowances given to European officers on account of the difference in the exchange value of money and submit that these allowances under certain conditions ought to he extended to Native officers. Many of them had to go to considerable expense to send their children to this country to be educated to qualify them for the Civil Service, the legal profession, or the higher grades of the medical and engineering professions in India. Native officers, especially in the covenanted Services, should have the same privileges as their European brethren, at least to the extent of the actual remittances they have to make to England. He (Mr. Bhownaggree) did not wish to detain the House, but could not omit to refer to the treatment of the British-Indian subjects in South Africa, notably in the Transvaal, who were precluded by the local legislation in the Transvaal from acquiring and occupying tracts of land within certain limits. The Colonial Secretary had promised to look carefully into the question. Then there was the important question of the exercise of the franchise by British Indians in Natal. The Natal Legislature in April last issued a proclamation excluding all subjects of Her Majesty's Indian Empire from having the power to vote at elections. He did not see why the responsible authorities of the Natal Government should have imposed those restrictions unless they were based purely on considerations of race and colour. He admitted that there were certain social distinctions of race that had to be preserved in every colony and community, but the restrictions he had referred to were not meant to do any good or prevent any impending harm. The Secretary for India was the custodian of the rights and privileges of the Indian subjects of the Queen, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies had a controlling hand over the legislative proceedings of the Colonies, and he hoped both these powerful Ministers would combine to bring about a remedy for the crying evil which had been causing so much irritation throughout our Indian Empire. It was a noble sentiment of the ex-Secretary for India, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, that every Member of the House was also "Member for India." (Cheers.) He implored the
  792
  House, regardless of Party considerations and petty racial feelings, to rise to that sentiment, and as Members for India see that the Indian subjects of the Queen were not deprived of their rightful privileges, and subjected to uncalled-for degradation and humiliation. A few weeks ago his hon. Friend the Member for Battersea took objection to the employment of Lascars on P. and O. steamers. That objection was attributed to race distinction, but he was assured it was not based on racial prejudices. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad of that. If the hon. Member could come with him to India he would show him Lascars who in physique and skill were the equals of the hon. Member himself; and even as regards their complexion, many of them would not ill compare with the milky whiteness and velvet softness of his own face. [Cheers and laughter.] As far as loyalty was concerned, a more loyal and devoted people than the people of India, especially of the class of Lascars, there could not be found. Whatever distinction of treatment they made, let it be on the score of character and qualification, but never on the score of caste, colour or creed. He fervently hoped once more that the Secretary of State for India, in conjunction with the Secretary for the Colonies, would take steps to remove the great indignity sought to be imposed upon British Indians in South Africa by the Natal Legislature refusing them the elementary right of every British citizen of voting for the candidates of such Legislature. In conclusion, he gratefully acknowledged the complimentary terms in winch the Secretary for India had referred to the Indian Army. He did not believe for a moment that the gallant General (Lord Wolseley), to whom certain words had been attributed on a recent occasion with reference to that Army, attached to them the meaning applied to them; and the noble Lord had done wisely to refer to it in generous terms. ["Hear, hear!"] It was, therefore, due that from his place there he should also disown the sentiment which was uttered on the same occasion with regard to England's connection with India. There was an exclamation used to the effect—it could have been but an exclamation—that the connection of Great Britain had only tended to impose a great and material burden

  793
  upon India, and that India had, at the same time, contributed to the glory and greatness of England. He should be failing in his duty if he did not take that opportunity, in the name of the people of India, of saying that the connection of Great Britain with that country had been the instrument of conferring manifold benefits upon the people of India, and that if India had contributed in any sense to the greatness and glory of England, she only returned a debt she owed for the many blessings she had received, and to that return Great Britain was thrice welcome. [Loud cheers.]
  *SIR H. HAVELOCK-ALLAN, as perhaps the only Member of the House who had commanded the native troops of the British power in India, entered his strongest protest against the construction that might possibly be put upon certain words which had fallen from the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army. Nothing was further from that gallant Gentleman's mind than to cast any reflection at all upon the spirit, the courage, or the loyally of the native troops in India. No graver question could be raised than that of the efficiency of the Indian Army. He had the honour of recollecting the British troops in India as far back as 1848, and on and off for nearly half-a century, since that time he had been associated with them both in quarters and in various Fields, and he could safely say that, however great their efficiency and power might have been in former days, there was no period in the illustrious and chequered history of the Indian troops of the British Empire at which they were more efficient and better calculated to servo the purpose for which they were intended—namely the defence of their native county and of British interests there—or were more disciplined, more zealous or more loyal to the core than at the present moment. As to the statement that had fallen from Lord Wolseley, he had since qualified it by stating that there was no more efficient, loyal or more splendid troops in the whole world than the native troops of the British Empire. But he had also said that the Indian Army of 120,000 men, or thereabouts, was composed of races not all of equal martial quality. Those who admired them most would be the first to admit the truth of such a statement. He would undertake to say that, if the
  794
  opinion of experts such as Sir Henry Brackenbury—whose report, dated the 28th March, on the Indian Army had become a State Paper deserving the study of every man in that House—Sir Donald Stewart, and Lord Roberts—who had been Commanders-in-Chief in India—had been given before a Commission like that on which Lord Wolseley gave evidence the other day, they would have been found to be the first to admit that there were great differences both in the martial qualities and preparedness for war of the various portions of their Indian troops. There were 50,000 of them as competent to be put in the field, if officered by a proper number of Europeans, as were any troops in the whole world. Lord Wolseley never intended to say that he was afraid or would decline to lead these 50,000 picked troops against any troops of any other military Power. This question of the efficiency of the British Army in India, under the circumstances of the day, was of primary importance. He contended that the British Army in India was equal to any contingency to which it might be exposed, and capable of facing any opposing force, if only it had a proper number of European officers to lead the men. That was the great defect in the present system. After the Mutiny it was thought right to reconstitute the Indian Army. In the belief that a few regiments that were called irregular had done well with three British officers, the great mistake was made of reconstituting the whole of the Native Army with three British officers per regiment. Later on a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, a seventh, and an eighth officer were added, but the sooner we dissipated the idea that the whole of the Army in India was properly organised for operations beyond the Indian frontier the sooner we would arrive at a degree of safety which would prevent war. The Native troops were now organised on what he would call a totally inefficient system. The system of three linked battalions was an excellent one as long as each battalion had from 20 to 24 British officers. Was it credible to anyone who had studied the organisations of the great; military Powers of Europe that there were only seven or eight British officers to each Indian native battalion, and that of the three battalions linked together, and there were 40 or 50 of them, the theory was that the one battalion that was to be put into the field was to take

  795
  with it the 20 officers or so that belonged to the three battalions? He could only characterise this as a "fatal" system. Everyone recollected the disaster that occurred to a portion of the Indian Army in 1879 at Maiwand when it was opposed to an Afghan enemy with a great preponderance of artillery. The defect of which he was speaking was then displayed in a striking way. Two Native regiments had only 10 British officers between them, and in the course of the action five of those officers were killed or wounded, and the whole force crumbled up like a rotten stick. The brigade, under General Burroughs, was defeated, and had to retreat for nearly 60 miles simply because the Native portion was not officered as it ought to have been. He did not wish to say anything to the detriment of the Native troops on that occasion. The 1st Bombay Grenadiers, a regiment with a record of a 140 years, fought gallantly and died side by side with their British comrades, but he did hope we would derive some instruction from that disaster. This was a question the magnitude of which could not be overrated. The taxpayers of Great Britain and the taxpayers of India—the most heavily taxed people in the world—had a right to know whether the money extracted from them for the support of their military power was rightly expended, so that when the occasion arose the soldiers they furnished would be so organised as to maintain the defence of their country in a proper way. He implored the Secretary of State for India to take advantage of the interest that had been excited by the somewhat misunderstood expression of Lord Wolseley to initiate a complete and searching Inquiry as to whether the Native Army in India as now officered by British officers was efficient for its purpose or not. The time might not be far distant when it might be as important to this country that every portion of our Native Army should be as efficient for the purpose of the defence of the frontiers of India as the very pick of the troops of whom Lord Wolseley spoke. A great responsibility rested upon Lord Wolseley. Though Commander-in-Chief of the British Army, he was incidentally responsible for the Army of India, and therefore Members of the House who were inclined to take a somewhat unfavourable
  796
  view of the utterances of Lord Wolseley should make great allowance for a man in his position, and who had always desired to do that which was for the benefit of his country. They might deplore that the utterances were made on an unfit occasion, and perhaps in an unfit way, but a great basis of serious truth underlaid what Lord Wolseley said. He therefore entreated the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India to institute an Inquiry at once as to whether the Native Army in India was, as to its proportion of British officers, in a secure position. A Commission, presided over by Lord Welby, had sat to inquire into the question of the apportionment of the military charges between India and England. He advised the Leader of the House to let no time elapse before reconstituting that Commission and enlarging its scope, so that it could go into the particular point he had now raised. He himself had served the Queen for half a century and felt that, at the close of his career, he could do no greater service than to raise this great question.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPEsaid that earlier in the evening he gave his support in a limited way to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Sir W. Wedderburn). Year after year they had pressed on successive Governments the necessity of providing occasions when Indian topics might receive adequate attention. The question to which he desired to draw the attention of the House was one of great importance to both England and India, and was of too large a character to enter into fully. He referred to the question of the cotton duties, and he wished to allude to it briefly for one purpose only. The noble Lord had briefly referred to the duties in the lucid statement he had made touching the finances of India, and pointed out that the modifications he had been able to introduce into the scheme originally accepted by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had, at all events, produced this desirable result—that there was now an equitable system in existence as between the Indian and the English manufacturers. While he cordially acknowledged the good effect of those modifications, he would, on the other hand, ask the noble Lord to remember that in former days he had

  797
  expressed the opinion that those import duties, in whatever sense they might be regarded, were detrimental to trade, and that he had declared that they ought to he repealed whenever the finances of India would enable it to be done. ["Hear, hear!"] That declaration applied with as much force to the question to-day as it did when it was made, and therefore he hoped that the noble Lord had not forgotten it. He was willing to admit that the present moment might not be the most opportune for raising the subject again, and that it might be well to give time for the recent changes in respect to the duties to settle. But he was anxious, nevertheless, that the subject should be kept in mind. ["Hear, hear!"] A few months ago they were told that great agitation existed in India, and that the manufacturers and people of India were protesting against the changes introduced by the noble Lord; but, after all, very little had been heard of this great agitation. ["Hear, hear!"] They were told that the Indian people were ready even to boycott Lancashire cloth and to adopt the most extreme measures of opposition, but no such thing had yet taken place, and he did not believe it was in prospect. He repeated that having regard to the fiscal changes just made in India, and to the fact that the silver question must be one of considerable anxiety to the people of India, remembering what was taking place in America, the present time might not be the best to raise the subject again. Therefore all he would ask the noble Lord to do was to bear in mind the fact that the question of the Indian Cotton Duties had not been absolutely settled, and that when a good opportunity occurred it would be re-opened. ["Hear, hear!"] The rate of exchange at present, perhaps, was too precarious to enter upon the matter, but if next year the silver question was settled in America, and there was any prospect of the same stability in the course of exchange, he hoped and believed those hon. Members who represented Lancashire would take an early opportunity of again raising the whole matter. It was not a party question—["hear, hear!"]—and it was one in which the interests of the people of India and those of British commerce were alike concerned. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYthought it was desirable that he should now make an appeal to the House to go into Committee. They had had a very interesting discussion, to which the hon. and gallant Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green had made very important contributions—[cheers]—but that discussion had now run its natural course, and he trusted the House would at once go into Committee, when any financial point might be raised.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Considered in Committee,—
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he had to congratulate the noble Lord on the satisfactory statement he had made to the House. He would not say that he entertained any feeling of envy towards him in respect to his position when he recollected how he had himself to be content with an increasing expenditure, a falling revenue, and a falling exchange, but at all events he could not help looking with some feeling of jealous pleasure at the statement the noble Lord had been able to make—that although there was an increasing expenditure yet that there was an increasing revenue, and that a balance on the right side had been carefully maintained, and that the rate of exchange had improved from 1s. 1d. when he was in office to 1s. 2d. since the present financial year commenced. If that fortunate state of things continued it would certainly have a material effect on the finances of India. ["Hear, hear!"] He had always maintained, as the noble Lord had done on that occasion, that the true secret of our financial difficulties in India was the difficulty of exchange, and that the great increase in net Indian expenditure was attributable, in the main, to the enormous loss sustained on exchange. The loss upon exchange during the last few years was given by the noble Lord in his explanatory statement, which showed that while in 1882 the total charge for exchange was Rx. 2,000,000, in 1892 it was Rx. 7,000,000, and in 1896 it was Rx. 13,500,000. This was the real trouble they had to face, and he hoped

  799
  that the expectations the noble Lord had held out might be realised. He had been much gratified to hear that the frontier difficulties were coming to an end. Our anxiety had been owing not so much to aggressive action on the part of our neighbours in India as to the difficulty of ascertaining and settling what were the true frontier boundaries with neighbouring States, and he was glad that a similar policy to that pursued with regard to the settlement of the boundaries of the Pamirs was being pursued by the present Government in those important matters. It was true that the subject in which perhaps he took the greatest interest when he was in office was that of the extension of railways in India, and he was very pleased to note the advance which the noble Lord had made in this work during the present year. Owing to the financial difficulties created by the loss on exchange the work of railway extension was suspended to a great extent in 1890, and in 1892 and 1893 it reached its lowest ebb. Therefore, it was very satisfactory to learn that the noble Lord had been able to provide by various means upwards of Rx. 12,000,000 for expenditure on the work this year—["hear, hear!"]—for nothing could tend to promote prosperity in India more than a large railway expenditure. ["Hear, hear!"] In the last three years the percentage of net receipts on capital cost had increased from 5½ in 1893 to nearly 6 per cent. in 1895; the number of passengers had increased in the same period from 135 millions to 152 millions, and the amount of merchandise conveyed on the Indian railways had increased from 28,000,000 to 32,000,000 tons. Therefore this increased railway expenditure was a wise one because it was successful. He hoped the noble Lord would continue to pursue this policy, and in doing so he would confer a great boon on the people of India. ["Hear, hear!"] A point on which the noble Lord did not touch, and one to which he wished to refer, was the debt of India. The Indian debt was Ex. 122,000,000, and the sterling debt was £115,000,000. But that was not all the truth of the case, and he wished to call the attention of the Committee to page 23 of the Memorandum of the noble Lord, in which, taking the figures down to March 31, 1896, it was shown
  800
  that, whereas the debt in India was Rx. 123,000,000, the assets against that debt in India were Rx. 148,000,000. Therefore, they had an actual excess of assets over liabilities of 25½ millions. The debt of India was like the debt of a municipality in England, who incurred a debt to pay for a gas works or to construct a water works or any other reproductive works; and of all reproductive expenditure in India, that on railways and irrigation was certainly the most satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] The rupee debt of India was 123 million tens of rupees. Against that, in railways constructed by the State, in irrigation works, in loans to corporations, and in cash balances there was a set-off of 148 millions; showing that, so far as India was concerned, there was a balance to the good of 25½ millions. The sterling debt of India in England was £116,000,000, and the charges, advances to railway companies, and cash on the other side of the account amounted to £68,000,000. Therefore, in England they had an uncovered debt in excess of assets of £47,000,000. If they deducted 25 millions from £47,000,000,'the House would get at what was the real debt of India. He knew of no other country of similar magnitude where the real debt was of the smallness of the real debt of India. There was another point with reference to the taxation of India. He agreed with the noble Lord that the sources of Indian taxation were limited. He did not see that there were many other sources from which he could draw, and that, of course, had a proper restraining effect on Indian taxation. He also agreed with the noble Lord that there was one tax which he ventured to think had the first claim upon the Secretary of State and upon the India Council, and he was sure would have the first claim on the Legislative Council in Calcutta whenever there should be a surplus. That was the Salt Tax. ["Hear, hear!"] The Salt Tax was raised in a special emergency a few years ago. It was raised to a very high percentage, and, like the Income Tax in England, it was a tax which could be raised more readily than any other tax. In a time of, he would not say peace, but of tranquility and of prosperity, he was satisfied it was to the interest of the Indian Exchequer, as well as to the interest of the taxpayer of India, that that tax should be at as

  801
  low a figure as it reasonably could be. They were told that India was such a heavily-taxed nation. He did not deny the poverty of the Indian people, and he did not deny that the burden of taxation was heavy. At the same time, it was always well they should know what the exact figures were. The burden of taxation, according to the Secretary of State's own statement, was, putting it into English money, 2s 5¼d. per head in 1895; 2s. 6¾d. in 1896; and for 1897 he estimated it at 2s. 6½d. In this calculation he was taking the rupee as worth 2s. The taxation of England was on a very different scale. In England the taxation per head was £2 11s. 8d.; in Scotland, £2 8s. 1d.; and in Ireland, £1 12s. 5d. Those were, no doubt, very wealthy countries compared with India, but nevertheless there was a very great difference between 2s. 5¼d. and the figures he had just given. Again, the noble Lord reminded them of what would happen if the British Government of India was superseded by another Government. He ventured to say there would be an enormous increase in the burden of taxation. [Cheers.] When he heard the economy of the British rule impugned and the expenditure of the British Government styled extravagant, he should like the House to contrast the British expenditure in Madras with the expenditure of the Government of Mysore, which was a native Government, one of the best native Governments, a Government of great ability, of great enterprise, and of great public spirit. He had not the figures before him, but hon. Gentlemen would perhaps take it from him as correct, that the expenditure per head in Mysore; was greater than it was in Madras. He simply made that remark, not as in any way casting the slightest reflection on the expenditure of Mysore, which he believed to be wise and just, but as some indication of the nature of the charges which were spread broadcast with reference to the expenditure of the Indian Government. He thought the Secretary of State would have to contemplate an increase in internal expenditure in India. As time went on, and as the wise demands of Indian civilisation increased, he was satisfied that in all those social, sanitary, educational, and other means of expenditure on which this country and their colonies prided themselves, and which
  802
  were most happily increasing in India, he was satisfied the Secretary of State would have to increase his outlay. He hoped the House would pardon him if he said a word upon a matter in which he had a personal interest, and on which he had been criticised most severely, and on which his mouth had been closed—namely, the Cotton Duties, and if he also expressed his own opinion as to what was the best mode of carrying out that policy on which the noble Lord and himself, he thought he might say, had been agreed. Nobody, he thought, would contradict the statement that from the very first he always maintained his determination to remove any just complaints that this country could have against these duties, so far as they were protective. The basis of his policy was that there should be no protection. It was admitted eventually, and he was himself convinced, that there was to a slight extent an element of protection in the duties. The Lancashire people contended that exempting local yarns under 20's from excise was unfair to them, and that to tax the cloth at its finished value, whereas the excise duty was only upon yarn value, was also unfair as favouring the local production. He thought the contentions were greatly exaggerated, but as far as the principle was concerned the complaint as to the inequality of the duties on piece goods was made out. He thought the Government of India and the noble Lord and his Council at home were quite right in recognising it. But the question arose—What was the best mode of removing that protection? And there, perhaps, he was rather disposed to part company with the noble Lord. The ablest document he had seen in the Blue-book upon the question was the memorandum of Mr. Campbell, Collector of Land Revenues and Customs at Bombay to the Government of Bombay, and and it was fair and just to that distinguished officer to call the attention of the House to the great ability with which he dealt with the whole case, and although he himself was unable to concur in the conclusion at which Mr. Campbell arrived, he was not surprised that the noble Lord and the Government of India had looked at that conclusion with favour and had practically accepted it. Now, Mr. Campbell pointed out that there were three courses open to the Government, and those three courses were—(1) to tax

  803
  all cloth and yarns at finished values; (2) to tax all yarns over 20's and all goods containing such yarns and to exempt all cloth and yarns of 20's and under; and (3) to tax all woven goods and exempt all yarns. Now, the collector at Bombay stated that, in his opinion, the only practical alternative was to tax all cloth and exempt all yarns, and that was the view which the Secretary of State had taken. Before the matter came to the consideration of the Legislature in Calcutta the Bombay Government were consulted. That Government, representing as they did a portion of India containing the largest Indian manufacturing interests, were entitled to speak with some weight upon the question. The Bombay Government, in a letter addressed by them in January last to the Government of India, said there were two schemes put forward—namely, that of the Bombay millowners, which was to exempt all imported yarns of 20's and under, and all cloths made from such yarns, and to put them on the same footing as similar local produce, and that the excise should be imposed on the market value of all Indian cloth made from yarns over 20's. That no doubt removed all protection. The proposal of the collector of land revenue was that all yarns should be exempt, and that all cloth should be taxed at its market value. Mr. Campbell raised the point which had great weight, if he might say so, with the noble Lord—namely, the difficulty of the dividing line at 20's. There was one other difficulty connected with this scheme which he should like to notice in passing, which was this, that if you levy a tax exclusively upon woven goods you leave out a very large class of native produce which was made in hand-looms. Under the scheme which the late Government sanctioned the tax was levied on yarn, and, therefore, before ever it reached the hand-loom weaver it had paid the duty, but, of course, if yarns were exempt from duty that industry remained unchecked. What the Bombay Government said was this:
  "The fourth objection is, in the opinion of his Excellency in Council, of considerable importance. There are hereditary, skilled, and generally well-to-do weavers throughout the country who will be materially aided in their competition with the mills by a tax on the cloth produced in the mills from which they are xempt."
  That question was very fully discussed. It was discussed at Madras and Cawnpur, where this industry was, perhaps, more extensive than in any other part of India, and the Cotton Chamber at Cawnpur said,
  "This Chamber's views coincide with those expressed" (at Bombay). "Within the last five years two mills at Cawnpur have had to discontinue the weaving of cloth and stop their looms because of their inability to compete with hand-woven cloths."
  Two-thirds of the cotton cloth production in India was from handlooms and one-third from powerlooms, and the impending legislation proposed to penalise the weaker industry. That view was repeated in a variety of other documents in the Blue-book. He had no idea until he saw these figures that between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 persons in India were dependent on the handloom industry; and, of course, whether right or wrong, they must not overlook the fact that a large industry in India which must compete, he thought, with Lancashire and with the powerloom mills in India, was exempt from taxation altogether. There was another point raised by the Government of Bombay to which some importance should be attached. It was the serious objection to the taxation of cloths used by the poorer class of consumers. The difficulty of the dividing line was, of course, a question for experts, and he felt great hesitation in expressing an opinion upon it; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that the illustration which the noble Lord gave as to the marvellous conversion of duty-payable into duty-free cloths which took place in 1878 and 1880 had been dealt with very fully by the Bombay authorities. He thought that the objections with reference to the dividing line were not so strong as were objections to taxing the coarser cloths; and, balancing the two together, he said with hesitation, and with the knowledge of the opinions of the Governments of Bombay and Madras and the various chambers of commerce in India, that his own preference would have been to exempt from duty all yarns below 20's and all cloths made from yarns below 20's, and to have levied a tax on everything above 20's. He thought that this would have removed all element of protection. He admitted that Sir James Westland did not agree

  805
  with that view; but there was one point which they should not forget in this controversy and which he should like to commend to the attention of the House, to Lancashire and Bombay as well. Sir James Westland said it would be seen that he had throughout dealt with this question on the assumption that the tax, whatever it was, fell on and was paid by the Indian consumer; much of the language held in Manchester would seem to indicate a belief that the tax fell on the producer. But Sir James could hardly believe that this view was seriously accepted by Manchester merchants, and he was quite sure that two years ago they would have rejected it as an economic heresy; this tax was paid, as all Customs and excise taxes were paid, by the consumer sooner or later. It had been with great reluctance that he had been compelled by public considerations to take up the question, but they ought not to overrate and add to difficulties which did not really exist. His object was to make the burden on the Indian consumer as light as possible. If the Indian consumer bought Manchester cloth, he had to pay the Excise duty. His policy was that the poor consumer, who were the coarser cloth, should not pay the duty. The yarns from which his clothing was spun were subject neither to customs nor excise. The decision at which the noble Lord had arrived, by alleging the impossibility of laying down a dividing line, had thrown this tax on all classes of the Indian people.
  *COLONEL MELLORfelt bound to say a few words after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought he might speak with some authority on the matter from his long experience of the textile industry. He thanked the noble Lord, on behalf of all Lancashire, employers and employed, for the steps taken with regard to the import duties. The noble Lord was undoubtedly placed in a very difficult position, and he faced it in a perfectly straightforward manner. He showed a grasp of technical points which certainly surprised a great many people in Lancashire, and he could not have come to a wiser, sounder, and juster decision. As to the difficulty of differentiating between coarse and fine cloths, he might state that in 1878, 1879, and 1880 his firm
  806
  was largely engaged in manufactures for the Indian market, but a complete change took place in the making of these goods, in consequence of the change of duties. The right hon. Gentleman opposite might rely upon it that, if the plan he favoured was carried out, and there was again a differentiation, Lancashire would once more find means of evading the tax.
  *MR. BHOWNAGGREEsuggested that substitute would be a better word than evade.
  *COLONEL MELLORsaid he would avail himself of the word substitute. Reference had been made to the protection which the present arrangement afforded the handloom weavers of India. He, for one, thought that Lancashire weavers had nothing to fear from that protection. They did not believe that handloom productions could for any lengthened period compete with power-loom productions. At one time there was an enormous production in Lancashire of hand-loom calico, but it had been displaced by power-loom calico. Hand-loom silk weaving had also almost entirely given way to power-loom weaving, and he believed the same process would come about in time with regard to the Indian products. But if it did not, who would be benefited? The poorest people on earth, to whom they did not begrudge the advantage. He believed these people made very little cloth for the bazaars, and he, for one, would be glad if they derived some little advantage from the change. He agreed that the first tax to be removed in India was the Salt Tax, but when a suitable time did come they hoped and believed the noble Lord would remove as early as possible these duties altogether—at a time when it would be alike advantageous to the finances of India, to the people and manufacturers of India, and to the manufacturers and operatives of Lancashire. The people of Lancashire had been accused of selfishness, but he was sure they did not wish to do anything to injure the people of India. After all, the 7,000,000 of hand loom weavers of India were a small proportion of the 270,000,000 in India, and if they derived any comfort in their miserable lives from the slight protection these duties gave them, by all means let them have it. He thanked the noble Lord sincerely for what he had done in this matter.
  *SIR W. WEDDERBURNthought the noble Lord was quite entitled to congratulation on the Budget he had been able to submit, but at the same time he thought that although the surplus that was shown was very satisfactory for the Treasury, there were certain figures in the account which showed that the condition of affairs was not so satisfactory for the Indian taxpayer. He would specially draw the noble Lord's attention to the peculiar use of two words in these accounts—namely, improvement and deterioration. These two words were used solely from the point of view of the interests of the Treasury. They were used in a sense exactly contrary to the sense in which they would be used if applied to the financial position of India. Under the head of improvement was shown new taxation. New taxation did not improve the financial position of India. It showed a deterioration in the condition of the people. If he drew his savings out of the bank and put them into current expenditure, that was not an improvement in his financial position. Similarly if a shop-keeper took money out of his strong box and put it into his till, that was deterioration, not improvement. Therefore, it was because these accounts looked only to the interests of the Treasury and not to those of the taxpayer, that he contended that in many respects they produced a false impression. He could not, therefore, accept the comparison made in these statements and he would instead give a comparison between two years including a space of 12 years, which would enable the House to see whether the condition of India was improving or not. When the year 1894–5 was compared with the year 1896–7, it would be found that the natural increase of revenue from the development of resources was about Rx.9,000,000, and the saving in the commercial service debt Rx. 1,000,000, making a total improvement of Rx.10,000,000. With regard to deterioration, he found an increase in the land revenue from enhanced assessments of Rx.500,000, new taxation Rx.6,000,000, loss of opium revenue Rx. 1,500,000, increase in civil services Rx. 7,500,000, increase in military services Rx.8,500,000, reduction in Famine Grant Rx. 1,000,000, making a total deterioration of Rx.25,000,000, or after deducting
  808
  Rx.10,000,000 for improvements, a net deterioration in 12 years of Rx.15,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had laid great stress upon the question of exchange, but as regarded the present rate of exchange, so far from its being a burden now, there was actually an increase of Rx. 1,500,000, so that that bugbear of exchange would no longer be put forward and they might look much more to the constant increase in civil and military expenditure. He thanked the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Radcliffe Division of Lancashire for what he had said about the Salt Tax and the willingness of the people of Lancashire to see the needs of the great masses of the people relieved before the question of Import Duties was touched. He recognised that feeling gratefully, and he only trusted that by careful economy, not only the Salt Tax might be reduced, but the Import Duties entirely abolished. He might mention to the noble Lord the Secretary of State that the figures he had given were given according to the way in which they were used in a very interesting article in the Daily Chronicle that morning, and the statements there were in accordance with the mode of reckoning the expenditure and revenue which had been often placed before the India Office by the British Committee of the Indian National Congress.
  MR. KENYONsaid that the complaint of the people of Lancashire against Indian Cotton Duties had always been that they were levied with injustice. He thought that the people of Lancashire had good reason to complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had treated a deputation from them, which had waited upon him last year. The language of the right hon. Gentleman had rather rankled in the minds of the Lancashire people ever since. It was contended that duties of this kind were always paid by the consumer, but when the duties were unjustly levied, the producers always suffered by it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had referred to the report of Mr. Campbell, Collector of Customs, Bombay, in which he said that—
  "There is more weight, at least in theory and in possibility, in certain of the objections taken by Manchester to the existing excise arrangements

  809
  than cither the Millowners Association or the Chamber of Commerce admit."
  He went on to say—
  "That the difficulties in working the proposed exemption of yarns and cloth of 20's and under, and still more in taxing both yarn and cloth of 20's and over, are so grave as to make the proposal to tax cloth and exempt yarn the only practical solution of the question."
  He further said:—
  "Reduction from 5 to 3½ per cent. takes from the objections all or nearly all of their practical significance."
  In a Report from Upper India Chamber of Commerce, Cawnpore, there was a remark that bore very importantly upon the question of the supremacy of British Government. The Report stated:—
  "And in finish and dye India cannot at present produce as good drill as England, but the difficulties aro gradually lessening, and the moment Indian weavers and dyers attain the necessary skill, English drills must cease to be imported."
  The great authority on this question, and the most powerful movers in opposition to English goods, were the Bombay Mill-owners Association. They said that, if the Government were willing, both the English and the Indian manufacturers would be glad to have the duties abolished. They alleged that the Indian industry was penalised on stores, and lastly, and most important of ah, that there must be decided protection given to handlooms. A better authority than, he thought, almost anyone in that House, was the Ahmedabad Millowners Association. Then there was another witness as regarded the handloom weavers, Mr. Playfair, who thought that if it were possible to extend help to this class, it would be but assisting a section of the community which had suffered much by the introduction of powerloom manufactures—a relief which should not be grudged. The hon. Babu Mohiny Mohun Roy thought that this change was not likely to affect the interests of cotton mills to such an extent as to render it objectionable. He thought the House would be satisfied that this arrangement of the noble Lord would not do any harm, and he was quite certain that the course he had taken in reducing the duty was far more equitable than the arrangement they had before.
  *MR. J. F. OSWALDsaid, as one of the Members representing Lancashire, he had sat out this interesting, animated, and exhilarating Debate
  810
  on the Indian revenues. [Laughter.] He thought that, as all the Lancashire Members were in a congratulatory mood, he would take the liberty of offering his congratulations also to the noble Lord on the satisfactory basis upon which he had for the present settled the vexed question of the Indian Cotton Duties. The noble Lord had no doubt found this to be a vexed question during the late election last year. It had then been a very vexed question in Lancashire. [Laughter.] He desired to ask the noble Lord whether the full amount authorised to be expended upon railways in India had been expended in the last financial year. If that was not the case, he hoped that the full amount would be expended in future, because his constituents attached the greatest importance to the full development of railways in India for opening up the trade of the country. He hoped, also, that the noble Lord would do all that was possible in pushing forward the construction in India of the railway mileage which had been sanctioned, but not yet completed.
  MR. COHENcomplained of the way in which the Government advertised the sale of Indian Bills, and stated that it enabled those who wished to do so to take advantage of the Indian exchequer.
  *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, who was very imperfectly heard, said the general discussion had been so friendly that he had very little to answer. In regard to the question raised by his hon. Friend who had just spoken, he was assured by his official advisers that the system was as good a one as could be devised, and one of the highest banking authorities in the United Kingdom had also assured him that that was the case. As to railways, it was intended that all the money voted for railways should for the next few years be spent, and not only this year, but the same rate of expenditure would be maintained. The complicated but important matter to which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green had called attention was one to which the Indian Government were giving great attention. The change urged would involve great expenditure, but gradually the Indian Government were working in that direction. As to the tariff which he had substituted for that of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton in respect of the cotton duties, he did not think there would ever be peace on the

  811
  question as long as there were differential duties. He reached his conclusions after consultation with the best authorities in this country, and, curiously enough, Sir J. Westland, in India, arrived at just the same conclusion. Various suggestions had been made to secure economy. The Indian Government were doing their work well in controlling expenditure, and while they were doing that, the wisest thing which the House of Commons could do was to leave them alone. [Cheers.]
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,—
  That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1895 was Rx.95,187,429; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged against the Revenue was Rx. 94,494,319; that there was a Surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.693,110; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works not charged against Revenue was Rx.4,446,231.—(The Secretary of State for India.)
  Resolution to be reported.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  *MR. SPEAKERannounced that a message had been received from the Lords that they had agreed to the Commons' Amendments to the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, with Amendments.
  Motion, That the said Amendments be considered, agreed to.
  Amendment in Clause 1, page 2, line 27, to leave out "this" and insert "that," agreed to amid general laughter.
  On the Lords' Amendment to the provision dealing with the occupation right of the occupier in the fixing of a fair rent,
  MR. JOHN DILLONopposed the Amendment, contending that it deprived the tenants of the rights which they enjoyed under the Act of 1881. ["Oh!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had not seen the Amendment, nor had he been able to attend in the other House to hear what had taken place. He was engaged in the House of Commons in the discharge of his duties. No one could deny that the House of Lords drew, so to speak, the naked sword and brandished it in the face of the Irish tenants. The
  812
  Government had compelled them to sheath that sword, which the Lords had now abandoned. The original Amendment was a challenge to the Irish tenants, and, admitting that the Bill had excellent points, he should sacrifice it over and over again if the tenant's occupation right was not to be considered in the fixing of a fair rent. The Irish held the old Gaelic idea that the landlord was a mere rent-charger, and they could not give that up. He had seen the Amendment adopted in the House of Lords, and so far as he could judge it, speaking on the spur of the moment, he saw nothing in it which damaged the immemorial position of the Irish tenants that the land belonged to them, and that the landlords who came in upon it were only entitled to a rent-charge. The landlords had really been frightened by a shadow in this matter of the tenant's occupation right. All that was claimed for the the tenant was that that occupation right should be taken into account in the first fixing of a fair rent, and not that it should go on reducing the landlord's interest after every 15 years' period, when the holding was brought into Court again. He should have been glad had the Government's Amendment to the Lords' Amendment been accepted yesterday, for they would have for the first time the occupation interest of the tenant recognised by the law of England, and a long advance would have been made on the weary pilgrimage of the Celtic serf to freedom. That Amendment would have been passed unanimously yesterday, and the House would not have got into the present tangle, had not the hon. Member for Mayo unfortunately interposed when it was put from the Chair, and said he did not understand. [Ministerial laughter.] Unhappily, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College was in his place also, and he having reinforced the arguments of the hon. Member for East Mayo against the Amendment, the Government had to give way, and had to do the best they could to retrieve the situation in the House of Lords. He rejoiced that the House of Lords, with its concentrated wisdom coming down from the days of the Norman Conquerors, had reduced themselves to the position in which he found them with regard to this Amendment, because a more harmless one never

  813
  emanated from that Assembly, or one that touched so little the interests of the Irish tenant. The Lords had made themselves a soft bed to fall upon, and they had fallen upon it, drawing their ermine round them with the greatest grace. [Ministerial laughter.] Ireland was an impressionist country, and so much depended on the transitory opinion of the moment. He had known Judges take one view of the law when a Liberal Government was in power, and another view when a Tory Government was in power, and yet they were always regarded as most eminent, virtuous, and respectable. The Amendment left the law exactly as it found it. Taking the case as a whole, he could only say he trusted that the example the Government had had of their successful management, though in a limited measure, of this thorny and difficult question would induce them on some near occasion to address themselves to other branches of the Irish problem—[Ministerial laughter]—and he could assure them that, as far as his humble voice and vote went, thanking them as he did heartily for the good work they had done on this Bill, that if they proceeded as they had done in regard to this Bill, and addressed themselves to future Measures as they had done to this, they would have his cordial support and acquiescence. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid he would not follow the hon. Member who had just spoken into the imaginary historical dissertations he had given on the question of occupation right. He told the House that, according to Irish traditions, occupation interest had been the immemorial possession of the tenants. The amount of exaggeration attached to that statement might be imagined when the House recollected that, as stated on Wednesday, the suggestion of this right was first made in 1894, when Mr. Justice Bewley was examined before Mr. Morley's Committee on the Irish Land Acts. On Wednesday there was a consensus of opinion between the Leader of the House and himself upon the real meaning of the Acts of 1881, and the rights of the tenants thereunder, and the Committee appointed to draw up the reason for rejecting the Lords' Amendment said the Lords ought not to insist on introducing occupation right, because no such right
  814
  in fact existed; and it being stated by the Leader of the House that no such right existed, it was proper for the House of Lords to say whether some Amendment might not meet their view, which would at the same time do no injury to the tenants or take away anything they had under the existing Acts, and protect them in the future from the assertion of a right which the Leader of the House said never existed. That was what the Amendment proposed by the Government did. But Mr. Justice Bewley said the matter had never been decided. All the Amendment did was to state in effect that, if the matter was relied upon and regarded in the assessment of the rent by the Sub-Commissioners, they must put it on the face of the order so that it might be tested in the Court of Appeal, and they might see whether it was a mere myth of the imagination of the learned Judge who introduced it to the Morley Committee, or whether it was a substantial matter. The tenant would have all he was entitled to under the Act of 1881, and no more; and no one ever wished to go back upon that. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he occupied the unusual position of supporting the Government Amendment? ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
  MR. CARSONadmitted that it did seem rather curious, and he was stating the reasons why he found himself occupying that somewhat happy position. The hon. Member for Louth stated that the tenants had now what they always had under the Land Acts, but what they wished was that they should not have something more, which was suggested in an indefinite manner, or that if it was attempted to give them more there should, at all events, be an opportunity of raising the question in the highest Court of Appeal. ["Hear, hear!"] This was the last time there would be an opportunity, of speaking on this Bill, and he only wished to say he had to the best of his ability opposed the Government in certain particulars in which he believed he was bound by his pledges to his constituents to do so. His efforts had been directed to mitigating any evils that might arise from the Bill. He admitted that on some occasions he did appear to some hon. Members to have gone too far. If anything he had said in the course of the

  815
  Debates had offended anyone, he regretted it exceedingly. ["Hear, hear!"] He could only say that, while he had had many tussles during the Debates with the Chief Secretary, he was perfectly sure that, as he gave him credit, the right hon. Gentleman would also give him credit for this—that all they differed upon was as to the best method of promoting what they both had seriously at heart—namely, the interests of Ireland and the maintenance of the Union. [Cheers.]
  MR. MAURICE HEALYobserved that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that a Committee of the House had placed on record the fact that it refused to accept the Lords' Amendments, denying the tenant occupation right, on the express ground that no such right existed. He rose for the purpose of giving that statement the most absolute contradiction. ["Hear, hear!"] There was not one word in the Commons' reasons to bear out such an allegation. The reasons stated—
  "The Commons disagree with the Amendment made by the Lords because (1), after a net fair rent has been fixed no deduction can he made from it."
  Nobody ever alleged that the occupation rent could be deducted from a net fair rent, which meant a fair rent from which all deductions had been made. The reasons went on—
  "(2) The only deduction allowed by the clause from the gross fair rent in order to fix the net fair rent is in respect of tenants' improvements."
  That was the position the Irish Members had taken up from the beginning to the end of this question. The fair rent was the tenant's right to have a fair rent fixed after taking into account such occupation right as the law entitled him to. When they had fixed the gross fair rent on that basis they arrived at the net fair rent by deducting from the gross the value of the tenant's improvements. He was certainly amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, with his Parliamentary experience, should venture to get up and, without the smallest qualification, say the Committee had placed it on record that that House had refused to recognise the tenant's occupation right.
  MR. CARSON: I say so still.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: He put forward the reasons given by a Committee of that House as the charter of the
  816
  tenants' rights. That occupation right had now got a sanction from that solemn declaration of that Committee, coupled by the refusal of that House to accept the Lords' Amendment negativing the tenants' occupation right. With that declaration he fearlessly left this matter to the judgment of the tenants of Ireland.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he had always heard that Irishmen were so fond of fighting each other. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] He withdrew that expression. They were so fond of fighting that, if they could not fight the Government, and if they could not fight the opposite political Party, they got up faction fights of their own and fought about anything that no one could determine at all. [Laughter.] If that were true he could only say that they could not have had a better illustration of it than the little fight they had seen across the floor of the House on this Amendment, because it was quite evident that, though the hon. and learned Member for Louth made a very interesting and an amusing attack upon his right hon. and learned Friend behind him, and, though his right hon. and learned Friend behind him made a most interesting reply to the hon. and learned Member for Louth, they were both in absolute agreement that the words introduced by the Lords left the law of the land as it stood at present—["hear, hear!"]—and they both thought that a most desirable consummation. [Laughter.] If that were true—and it was true—why should they go on discussing it? [Cheers.] They were both agreed that the Amendment carried out what they wanted. In Heaven's name, therefore, let them leave the discussion, too long prolonged, upon that controversial matter and let them part in peace and close the subject, which had caused too many heart-burnings during the Debates they had spent upon it. He was glad to think that, in the last Debate on this Bill, they were in perfect agreement. The House of Commons agreed with the House of Lords; the Gentlemen who sat upon the opposite side of the House agreed with the Gentlemen who sat on his own side of the House; the representative of the tenants agreed with the representatives of the landlords, and at last a great peace had descended upon the land. [Loud laughter and cheers.]
  Amendment agreed to; remaining Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  The conclusion of the consideration of the Lords' Amendments was greeted with general cheering, and as Mr. Gerald Balfour left the House he was warmly cheered.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
On Clause 2,—
MR. MAURICE HEALYasked on what clause of this Bill the Post Office Vote came up?
*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid he was afraid there was nothing to be discussed on this Bill, because the Bill only sought to appropriate to a particular subject those grants which had already been made by the House. The question might perhaps be raised on the Third Reading.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order read, for Consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee).
MR. JAMES BAILEYmoved "That the Bill as amended by the Standing Committee be considered."
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that he ventured to appeal to the Leader of the House or to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abide by the pledges given a few days ago with regard to the abandonment of all Bills that were contentious other than Government Bills. He appealed, not on frivolous grounds, to the Leader of the House with regard to this Bill, which he had conscientiously opposed for some time. If, when the Bill was previously brought forward, the House had sat longer on that occasion, he believed considerable opposition might have been brought to bear against the Bill. [Cries of "No, no!"] He asserted the contrary, for, as he had said, notice had been given of several
818
Amendments. The Bill was a contentious one in a Parliamentary sense and if it was then proceeded with, it would, even at that late hour, be strenuously opposed. But he hoped the Leader of the House, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not break the pledge which was given by the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "What pledge?"] The pledge given by the Leader of the House when he said that the Bill would not be proceeded with if there was any serious objection raised to it. There was serious objection to it—[cries of "By whom?" and laughter]—and in order to give, the Government an opportunity of replying to what he had said, he would move the adjournment of the Debate.
MR. HERBERT LEWISseconded the Motion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he had had no communication with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the matter, but he was bound to say, expressing his own opinion, that he did not think the contention of the hon. Member was reasonable. [Cheers.] It was not yet 12 o'clock, and, so far as he knew, the hon. Member was alone, or almost alone, in his opposition to the Bill. [Cheers.] That, surely did not constitute the serious opposition contemplated by his right hon. Friend, and he did not see why the House should not proceed with the Bill. [Cheers.]
MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid that undoubtedly the House was given to understand a few weeks ago that for the remainder of the Session no private Bill had the slightest chance. The Shop Hours Bill and other Bills of importance, in which many Members on both sides of the House were greatly interested, had been abandoned because opposition was offered to them, and because, therefore, they were held to be contentious. Yet now, at the very end of the Session, the Government—with the best intentions, no doubt—["hear, hear!"]—had evidently made a selection of certain Bills with the view of passing them if possible. He admitted that the present Bill was supported by many Members on both sides of the House; at the same time, it was disapproved by several Members, and a portion of the public. It was not, therefore a non-contentious Measure, and the

819
Government would have to decide whether they would take the responsibility of making an invidious selection of Bills among hundreds of others of equal importance, and proceeding with them, in face of their recent declaration they had made that no Bill would henceforth have the slightest chance unless it was thoroughly non-contentious. He submitted that in those circumstances the Government were not justified in proceeding with the Bill. ["Hear, hear!" and cries of dissent.]
*MR. EDWARD STRACHEY, who spoke amidst cries of "Divide," expressed the hope that the Government would persist in their intention to proceed with the Bill. The Opposition represented a very small minority—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—and the hon. Member for 'Kirkcaldy was wrong in suggesting that exceptional treatment had been accorded to this Bill. No other private Bill on the Paper had been so far advanced as the present one. [Cries of "Divide!"]
MR. HUBERT DUNCOMBEmoved, "That the question be now put." [Cheers and laughter.]
*MR. SPEAKERdeclined then to put the question.
*MR. STRACHEYconcluded by observing that he believed the Government were perfectly justified in proceeding with the Bill, seeing that it had been considered by a Standing Committee, and its object being generally approved by the House, and being of a non-Party character.
Motion negatived; Bill considered.
Amendments, moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question proposed (10th August), "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
Lords' Amendments to be considered forthwith.
Considered and agreed to.

SITTING OF THE HOUSE (14TH AUGUST).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he understood that, in order to complete their labours to-morrow, it would be convenient that the House should meet at 11 o'clock.
MR. T. M. HEALYs asked if there would be any business except the Appropriation Bill.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the only business besides the Appropriation Bill would be the Resolutions on the Standing Orders in the name of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, he said, he would not press through the House if they were seriously opposed. There was also the Resolution which he had ordered to be put down on the Paper to-night, and which, he thought, corresponded to one already moved in the House of Lords, and which he thought would be welcomed by the House in general. The point of it was that they should be permitted to get their own Blue-books during the vacation.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Will there be any private business for to-morrow?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Oh, no.
MR. LEWIS: What about questions to Ministers?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Questions will be answered at 11. My right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary, and possibly other Ministers, may not be able to get the information by 11, but I have some questions which I mean to answer, and perhaps any Minister who cannot answer any question by eleven o'clock will endeavour to communicate any information that is desired.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: At what hour will the prorogation take place?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think about seven. I hope so.
Resolved, that this House do meet this day, at Eleven of the clock in the morning.—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 20th day of July last, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House Adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Sir Hercules George Robert Robinson, Baronet, G.C.M.G., having been created Lord Rosmead of Rosmead in the county of Westmeath, and of Tafelberg in South Africa—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Fourth Report made; to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow.—[No. 254.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BLACKROCK AND KINGSTOWN DRAINAGE BILL.
  Commons' reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to Order). One of the said Amendments not insisted on.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  Commons' reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to Order). One of the said Amendments not insisted on, but verbal Amendments made in the clause restored by the Commons; the other Amendment insisted on, and a Committee appointed to prepare a reason to be offered to the Commons for the Lords insisting on the said Amendment; The Committee to meet forthwith.
  Report from the Committee of the reason prepared by them; read, and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill with the Amendments and reasons.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD BALFOUR), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said its object was to empower the Treasury to provide a guarantee for a sum of money to be devoted to making a railway in one of the poorest district of the West of Scotland. This was one of the schemes which a Committee which sat in 1890 recommended. It was approved of by the late Government, and carried some stages before they left office, and it was subsequently taken up by the present Government. The Treasury were, under the Bill, to give a guarantee of 3 per cent. on a sum of £260,000. Fifty per cent. of the gross receipts of the railway were to go to pay the working expenses, and the North British Railway Company was to work the line for that sum. The remainder of the receipts less than the Government Duty which would not be a large sum were to go to diminish the cost of Treasury guarantee now proposed. The locality, which was a poor one, was prepared to do its utmost because £40,000, partly in land which was given without compensation, and partly in money, had been subscribed.
  Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow.—[No. 257.]
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered To-morrow.—[No. 258.]
LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS, AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY)moved the Third Reading of the Uganda Railway Bill.
LORD STANMOREsaid that before this Bill finally left the House he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to one point which he ventured to think was not undeserving of their consideration. The utility of this railway depended in no slight degree upon the date of its completion. The German authorities intended, very naturally and very rightly, that railway communication between the sea and the Victoria Nyanza should exist on their territory also, and, if he had been correctly informed, works with that object had been already undertaken. Now, whichever railway first reached the Victoria Nyanza would have an advantage—a natural and perfectly legitimate advantage—over the other, almost exactly proportionate to the length of time which elapsed between the arrival of the one railway at the lake and the arrival of the other. National predilections would not outweigh trade interests, and their Lordships might depend upon it that whichever line was first opened would be used by all the traders on the lake without regard to nationality. But when once a trade route was firmly established it was not an easy thing to alter it, even in favour of one perhaps in some respects more advantageous. The practical reason which induced him to press that fact on the attention of Her Majesty's Govern-
680
ment was this. The large increase in the estimates for the construction of this railway, which was referred to the other night, was not wholly or even mainly due to a revision of the probable cost of the works originally contemplated, but to alterations in the character of those works themselves, which it was now intended to construct in a much heavier and more solid manner than was originally contemplated. Now he was quite ready to admit that solid and good work was in the long run cheaper than work of a more flimsy nature, but he had spent too many years in North America not to have imbibed a suspicion that, when the object in view was the rapid opening of a line, English engineers were apt to sacrifice rather too much for the sake of solidity, and he would earnestly press on the Government, or those to whom they might delegate their authority in the matter, to consider very seriously whether by the use of temporary expedients with which American engineers were familiar, but which made English engineers shudder, the line might not be opened for traffic at a much earlier period than would otherwise be the case, and that monumental bridges and a track able to stand the wear and tear of 50 trains a day might be postponed to a time when they were more wanted than they would be in the early days, when it was, he believed, estimated that the trains would be only one or two a week. He could not sit down without congratulating his noble Friend at the head of the Government, not only in having carried a Measure which out of office he had so powerfully and persistently advocated, but in doing it with the cordial sympathy and support of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. If that noble Earl took some time to come to a decision on the subject, he had, at all events, now done so thoroughly and heartily, and he could only regret, in the interests of Uganda, that the noble Earl did not at an earlier period perceive, as he now did, that the construction of a telegraph could never make up for the absence of a railway.
THE PRIME MINISTER: The cause of the increase in the estimate cannot, I think, be described as a Resolution to construct the railway on a monumental type or even with a very great increase of solidity, except only in

681
this point, that we have substituted 50 lb. rails for 35 lb. rails. That, I believe, is a healthy substitution, and one that will not involve any loss of time. The main cause of the increase is, as I said the other night, that when the survey came to be more closely examined than was possible in the first instance it was found necessary to make certain alterations in the line and to undertake engineering difficulties which had not been overseen before. There was also this difficulty, that when the first survey was made it happened to be a rainless year, and therefore there was no anticipation of danger from floods, which in those countries is a serious danger. After more careful survey it became clear that culverts would have to be made to a much larger extent than was originally anticipated. I do not think all those things could be safely postponed for the purpose of procuring that greater rapidity on which my noble Friend lays stress. I do not think, so far as I am able to judge from the details of the estimates, that there is anything unduly solid or professionally extensive in the construction of the railway. But I am wholly unable to accept my noble Friend's philosophy about the laws of commerce. I believe railway traffic will be much the same in Africa as anywhere else, and no one can tell me that because one railway reaches a terminus a few months before its competitor therefore it will for all time have the advantage in the lines of commerce and the directions of trade. There is nothing in our experience which justifies such a belief. No one will say that because the London and North Western Railway was at York many years before the Great Northern therefore the London and North Western Railway has all the traffic and the Great Northern Railway has none of it. I believe his doctrine to be wholly without justification, and I view without the slightest jealousy or apprehension the construction of a rival line through their own territory by the Germans. On the contrary, I believe it will stimulate the industry of the country and produce a large amount of railway traffic by which both lines will be benefited. We have no ground whatever of apprehension from the construction of the German line. I say this in order to dissipate my noble Friend's fears;
682
but he preaches to the converted when he preaches to us the necessity of adopting the most rapid method for the construction of the railway. We feel on every ground, political as well as commercial, that every month lost is to a certain extent an injury, and no effort will be spared in order to bring it to a speedy conclusion.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) ESTATE DUTY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and
passed.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments, and Commons' reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments, read. Moved, "That the said Amendments and reasons be now considered."
Motion made.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE)said that, before asking their Lordships

683
to consider these Amendments, he desired to say one or two words to the House. The time had come when it was their duty to consider these Amendments, not in detail, but in regard to their collective importance, and in regard to their bearing on the Parliamentary situation with which the House was confronted. The Bill during its passage through the House underwent very considerable alteration. He, of course, excluded from consideration those minor changes usually spoken of as drafting Amendments, and even changes which might be spoken of as of second and third rate importance. But in matters which were of first-rate importance the Bill underwent very material transformation. Some of these Amendments were accepted by the Government in deference to the suggestions made to the Government by noble Lords from Ireland; others were imposed upon them by the big battalions which the Duke of Abercorn and the Marquess of Londonderry brought into action in a manner which, he must say, commanded his admiration and envy. He wished to refer for a moment to one or two Amendments. First of all, the Government had, in consequence of the Motion carried by Lord Templetown, greatly altered the first section of the Bill. He always understood, from what passed both in and outside the House, that what noble Lords from Ireland used to speak of as "the elaboration of the record" was a matter to which they attached the greatest possible importance. ["Hear, hear!"] That Amendment was carried against the Government. The Government opposed it, not on grounds of principle, but because they apprehended that the change in the law might have the effect of greatly overweighting the officials of the Land Commission. But when the Amendment had been carried they did their best, in cooperation with noble Lords from Ireland, to put it into a thoroughly workable and efficient shape, and in that shape he hoped it had now a place in the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] In the next place, there was an Amendment put on the Paper by the Government in regard to the law as to turbary and other easements. That, again, was a question to which noble Lords from Ireland attached the utmost moment. He
684
remembered hearing the clause described by a critic of the Bill as, if not the most important provision in the Measure, certainly contained in it the most irritating provision. The Government had altered that provision completely, and it now was in a shape which, he believed, amply protected the tenant from the injustice of being rented on a privilege which was not effectually secured to him without occasioning any undue interference with the rights of the landlord. There was a third clause in the Bill to which he would refer in this connection—the clause which dealt with the sales of estates by vesting order. That clause, forming as it did part of the purchase provisions of the Bill, was emphatically condemned by noble Lords behind him on the ground that it was likely by its operation to kill purchase. That clause had been completely altered, and they had accepted provisions in lieu of it prepared and introduced by Lord Londonderry. All these altered provisions in the Bill had come back from the House of Commons, he would not say verbally and literally intact, but at all events without any material modification. He passed from them to those clauses of the Bill which might be regarded as still under discussion between the two Houses. They were (excluding points of secondary importance) four in number. There was the Amendment of Lord Cloncurry for maintaining the £50 limit in the case of grazing farms, the Amendment of Lord Macnaghten dealing with the question of appeals from the Land Judge to the Court of Appeal, and there was a third Amendment due to the same noble and learned Lord dealing with the question of town parks. Last, but not least, there was the important Amendment introduced by Lord Inchiquin dealing with the occupation interest of the tenant. Now, of these four Amendments only one had been definitely put aside by the House of Commons. One, the Amendment with regard to appeals from the Land Judge, had been substantially accepted with slight, and he believed necessary, alterations, which they would, no doubt, presently discuss. The Amendment with regard to town parks had not been accepted by the House of Commons. The clause which

685
their Lordships removed from the Bill had been restored, but it had been restored with words which, he hoped, went some distance, at all events, towards meeting the points raised by the author of the Amendment. The remaining Amendment with regard to occupation interest, had, it was true, been rejected by the other House, but it had been rejected under very peculiar and exceptional circumstances, which certainly did not seem to point to irreconcilable difference between the two Houses. This was how they stood. Summing the matter up, he thought they might say that, although the majority of the House had not succeeded in obtaining all it desired, it had certainly achieved a great deal. He was certainly not going to be guilty of the indiscretion of lecturing noble Lords from Ireland or their Lordships' House. He knew that his noble Friends from Ireland would believe that he was speaking sincerely to them when he said that if he was not able to entirely agree with them, he was able to understand their feelings with regard to this legislation. [Cheers.] They represented a class which had suffered much under the land legislation of the last few years. He himself was certainly not a friend of that legislation. But the Statutes were on the Statute Book, and he conceived it was their duty to accept them loyally and make the best they could of them. This Bill might possibly contain imperfections. It certainly contained a number of valuable clauses, and he would earnestly entreat noble Lords from Ireland not to look at the imperfections through a magnifying glass, or to turn their blind eye to the telescope when looking at the provisions which they and he certainly regarded as valuable. With regard to their Lordships' House, he yielded to no Member of it in his jealousy for its reputation. But before they asserted their rights let them consider well whether the occasion was one to push those rights to an extremity. This Bill admittedly contained much that was valuable. It had occupied a large portion of Parliamentary time, and he could not believe that that House would wreck it merely because in two or three of its clauses it failed entirely to satisfy the majority of their Lordships.
THE DUKE OF ABEBCORNassured the noble Marquess who had just spoken
686
that in contesting certain provisions of the Bill they had not been actuated by any private motives of their own, but were only working on behalf of those whom they considered it was their duty to protect as far as lay in their power. The noble Marquess had delivered a little lecture to them, and hoped they would not turn a blind eye to the telescope in looking at the various clauses in the Bill. They had no intention of doing that in any way. They were only anxious in the course they had taken to improve the personal condition of the tenant of Ireland, and to make his legal status a satisfactory one, but they were also bound to protect as far as possible the interests of those who had property in Ireland, and to endeavour to provide by legislation that those privileges which they now possessed should not unnecessarily be taken away. The noble Marquess stated that considerable Amendments had been granted by the Government to the demand of the Irish landowners. When those Amendments came to be analysed, he thought the House would find that they were not large in point of number. The first was the Amendment that was moved by Lord Templetown, the second that relating to turbary, and the third the one which had reference to the vesting order and purchase. With regard to the last-named, it had always been the object of the Irish landowners to promote purchase, which was stated by the Government to be the main purpose of this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Every noble Lord connected with Ireland must acknowledge the desirability of purchase being carried out to the fullest possible extent. But he maintained that it had been effectually shown that the provisions of the Bill were not so beneficial for the purposes of purchase as the Government imagined, and it was on the ground alone of helping the Government to carry out those objects that the Irish landlords proposed those Amendments which had now been accepted. ["Hear, hear!"] On the other hand, they had given up one very important Amendment with regard to £50 holdings. ["Hear, hear!"] It was only because they desired that the Bill should pass through their Lordships' House that they had acceded to

687
dropping this Amendment. With reference to the Amendment connected with the question of occupation, he believed the Government were going to accept a proposal which originated with the landowners of the country. But whether that was the case or not he hoped, in common with all his Friends sitting behind him, that this Bill would pass into law. [Cheers.] If it did and fulfilled those hopes which the Government entertained, he trusted that for many years to come it might be a final settlement of the Land Question in Ireland. [Cheers.]
*THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYdid not know that any further remarks were necessary from him, but as he and his noble Friend had been accused, with their brother landlords in Ireland, of being desirous of wrecking the Bill, he wished to associate himself most heartily with what had fallen from the noble Duke, and to endorse, on behalf of those who worked under him, their desire and hope that that night would see this Bill placed on the Statute-book of Parliament. [Cheers.] He knew it was a popular idea that they on that side of the House from Ireland represented the landlord interest and the landlord interest only. With that idea he at once joined issue. They might represent the landlord interest, but they represented an interest of greater magnitude and importance than even the interests of individual landlords. There was hardly any profession or industry in Ireland that was not more or less bound up with the landed interest, and in representing the landowners of Ireland, and consequently the landowning interests, he maintained that they represented the interests of the vast body of the community of Ireland. [Cheers.] Any one who stated that this Measure had been opposed by the landlords in that House because they were merely defending their own interests, stated that which was absolutely untrue. [Cheers.] The landlord interest had only attempted to defend the landowning interest, with which the great industries of Ireland were connected and bound up, and they had endeavoured to send down to another place a Bill which did not attack the rights of property of any one. ["Hear, hear!"] Had such a Measure been introduced in the first
688
instance he could assure their Lordships, on behalf of the Irish landowners, that it would have passed absolutely unchanged. The noble Marquess had congratulated the Duke of Abercorn on the manner in which he had brought up his battalions, and had rather expressed a wish that he could have paraded his own battalions in the same manner. Why could he not? Because the ordinary followers of the Prime Minister would not, he believed, assemble in their battalions to support a Bill attacking the rights of property in Ireland. He thought their abstention proved beyond all doubt that they did not intend to support the landlords of Ireland because they were landlords, but because representing the landlords in that House, they represented the landowning interests with which all the great interests in Ireland were identified. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Marquess dealt with the various stages of this Measure as it went and as it returned from another place. He had referred to Clause 1, which was altered by the noble Marquess himself on account of the division which, he ventured to say, he unnecessarily forced upon them. They merely demanded that the Sub-Commissioners should give their reasons for the extraordinary reductions which they had been in the habit of making. As far as he could gather, the reason why the noble Marquess forced that Division was because he considered the Sub-Commissioners would be overburdened by giving the details and reasons of these reductions. But these particulars were already in the possession of the Sub-Commissioners, and on the case being carried to the Court of Appeal these details—which were in the pockets of the Sub-Commissioners at the time—would be produced. Consequently he entirely repudiated the statement that the suggestion he made as to details being given would cause overwork to the Sub-Commissioners. ["Hear, hear!"] On the question of turbary the Government themselves realised that their proposals were so impossible and absolutely injurious that they withdrew their own and inserted another clause. He maintained, therefore, that there was no concession. Again, as to the vesting orders, in omitting the clause in the Bill and accepting the clause he drafted in its

689
stead, he contended that the Government had also made no concession. Their object was to promote purchase; but if Clause 30 had been allowed to remain in the condition in which it originally stood it would have absolutely killed the system of purchase. His noble Friend had stated that, on behalf of the Irish landowners, he had determined to accept the decision of the House of Commons and not press the question of the £50 limit He entirely endorsed, as he always did, any action of his noble Friend; but he maintained that in making that concession to the Government the landowning classes of Ireland had been guilty of a renunciation of principle. ["Hear, hear!"] The principle of the Act of 1881 was to exclude any one whose farm was rated at over £50. Mr. Gladstone gave reasons for that exclusion, which were endorsed by Mr. Parnell, and consequently the Government sought to infringe the Land Act of 1881 while they told the House that their only object by this Bill was to elucidate the Land Act of 1881, and, if possible, amend its glaring imperfections. ["Hear, hear!"] But so strongly did they from Ireland feel that they would not wreck the Bill that they had sacrificed their principles to the wishes of the Front Bench below him. ["Hear!"] The mere facts of the concession they had made on this important point proved beyond all doubt their anxious desire to see a Land Bill carried into law during the present Session. ["Hear, hear!"] There was one point on which, he confessed, they all felt very strongly, and that was with reference to the question of town parks. He was not going into that question now, but he confessed he had hoped the Government would have seen their way to accepting the very small alteration which they had proposed. The alteration, which was almost a verbal one, was one which they really took from Mr. Timothy Healy. How far Mr. Timothy Healy guided the counsels of Her Majesty's present Government he was at a loss to say; but when he read that Mr. Timothy Healy did not object to the word "farmer," he certainly thought that, at any rate, the Government would not object. He trusted that in this case of, he maintained, simple justice, the Government would see it was their
690
bounden duty to meet their just demand in the way that Mr. Timothy Healy proposed to do. The question was so small that he could not imagine for a moment that a responsible, he was almost going to say a sane, Government would run the risk of wrecking their Bill for such a trifle as this. He appealed to the noble Marquess to accept the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend, Lord Macnaghten. They must insist on the alteration, and, if a Division was forced upon them, it would be their duty, in the interests of all classes of the community in connection with towns, to follow his noble and learned Friend into the Lobby. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not say one word with regard to the question of appeal which had been accepted. He did not think the Government could have done less than accept such a proposal. They in that House, again, made great concessions, and gave up the question of principle simply to show their Lordships how anxious they were to enable them to pass this Bill. The noble Marquess had told them that he did not consider this a perfect Bill—in fact, he thought he said it was a very imperfect one. It was an imperfect one; but it was absolutely perfect compared with what it was when it came up to their Lordships' House. [Cheers.] A more ill-considered, a more ill-drafted Bill, he ventured to say, their Lordships had never had the opportunity of dealing with. ["Hear, hear!"] They had endeavoured to remedy the defects that had appeared in the Bill in another place, and they had done so with moderation and common sense. They had been actuated by but one desire, and that was to send to Ireland a Bill which they knew was necessary; but a Bill which would injure no one, and confer benefits on a good number. At the present moment it might confer benefits, and they had tried to minimise the injury. They asked their Lordships to believe that, in criticising this Bill, they did not do so in regard to their own interests, but with regard to the interests of Ireland. If the Government of the country had simply watched over the interests of all classes of the community in Ireland and had consulted all those who were experts in matters connected with Irish land, and had not placed themselves more or less under the yoke

691
of one Party in the House of Commons, they would have had a Bill to send down to another place which would have given universal satisfaction not only to their Lordships, but to the Members of the other House. ["Hear, hear!"]
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, "That their Lordships do agree with the Commons' Amendment to the Lords' Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 8."
Motion agreed to.
On the Lords' Amendment to Clause 1, page 3, line 4—
"No deduction shall be made from the fair rent named in this section by reason of the mere right of occupation vested in the tenant "—
with which the Commons disagreed,
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid this Amendment was inserted in that House at the instance of Lord Inchiquin. It was not accepted in another place, and he submitted that their Lordships should not insist upon their Amendment. It was, he thought, open to the preliminary objection that, instead of diminishing the obscurity of this particularly obscure part of the subject, it added to that obscurity. The Government objected to it on the ground that it certainly suggested to the mind of many that, in fixing a fair rent, the Court was to proceed upon the assumption that no such thing as the occupation interest of the tenant existed. They believed that that was an assumption which was contrary to the existing law, and certainly contrary to the eighth section of the Land Act of 1881, which expressly directed the Court to have regard to the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively. What was the tenant's interest? It was, in the first place, he apprehended, his interest in his improvements, and, in the next place, it was the right conferred upon him by the Act of 1881 to remain in occupation of his holding so long as he complied with the statutory conditions, and to get that holding at a rent which was not the competitive rent of the farm. That was an interpretation which, he believed, had been generally accepted by high authorities of different political complexions. He noticed that upon a recent
692
occasion Mr. Carson, who carried great weight in the counsels of the Irish landlords, stated that he conceived the occupation right of the tenant
"to be the right of the sitting tenant to have a fair rent fixed, and the right to have his improvements excluded from the calculation in the fixing of that rent. Therefore, what the tenant had was the difference between the competitive rent and what the Sub-Commissioners were pleased to call a fair rent. Now, these rights would still be reserved to the tenant under the clause as amended by the Lords."
It was interesting to compare the language used by Mr. Carson with that used by Mr. Gladstone when the Act of 1881 was passing through Parliament. Mr. Gladstone then said:—
"We are bound to point to the tenant's interest. Now, no one can say, I think, that there has been eny reticence on the part of the Government as to what the interest of the tenant is. My right hon. and learned friend the Attorney General for Ireland said most truly that if you were to admit this doctrine of deduction it would be a deduction from the top market rent, and not from the fair rent. Now, supposing the case of a top market rent in Ireland, what does that include as a general rule? In the first place, it includes annual payment for the value of the tenant's improvements, and that is the first and the greatest element of legitimate tenant-right. In the second place, it includes the excess which is found in open biddings for holdings in Ireland, in consequence of the scarcity of land as compared with the demand for it. Just as in buying a curiosity in this country, simply because the article is rare, the buyer will go far beyond the intrinsic value in the price he gives; so, under the necessity of a much sterner order in Ireland in bidding for land, the bidder is ready to give more than he really ought to give, or can properly afford to give—and that excess in bidding for the land, owing to the scarcity of land in Ireland, is the second and remaining element of tenant-right."
It was a little remarkable that, when the authorities on both sides were so well agreed as to what the intentions of the law should be, they should find so much difficulty in giving effect to its intentions in words. They believed that the existing law was very much to the effect thus laid down on the one hand by Mr. Carson, and in 1881 by Mr. Gladstone. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment had, however, suggested to their Lordships that the action of the Courts had been to give to the tenant and to take away from the landlord, in the guise of occupation right, something in addition to

693
that difference between a competitive rent and the fair rent of the sitting tenant. The representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the House of Commons, while unable to accept the words proposed by the noble Lord, endeavoured to the best of their ability to find other words which would have the effect of rendering impossible an abuse of the kind to which the arguments of the noble Lord pointed. Those words, he believed, were not received with favour by either side of the House, and an attempt was made to discover other words which might be successful in carrying out the common object which apparently both sides of the House had in view. Owing to an accident, the matter was decided before any alternative words could be laid before the House by the Government. They had considered this point very anxiously. They doubted extremely whether the present state of the law admitted the risk which the noble Lord and others apprehended, but they were perfectly ready to do what they could to guard against such a risk if it did exist. During the last few hours innumerable attempts had been made to discover some formula sufficient for the purpose, and at the same time not calculated to take away from the tenants the rights which belonged to them under the existing land laws of Ireland. There had been placed in his hands a formula which he believed found favour with noble Lords from Ireland, and which, to the best of his belief, was not open to objection. The Government would not have proposed those words themselves, but they regarded them as certainly harmless, and they hoped that they might have the effect of reassuring his noble Friends, and of dissipating those apprehensions by which they had been so much influenced. He would read the words to which he referred. They were—
"In assessing the fair rent of any holding no deduction shall he made except such deductions as shall he specified and accounted for in the said schedule, and are in accordance with the provisions of the Land Law Acts."
The Government proposed that these words should be placed in the Bill at the point where the Amendment of the noble Lord behind him was when it left that House. [Cheers.] He moved that those words be added.
LORD INCHIQUINsaid that, as the author of the Amendment which it was now attempted to alter, he might be permitted to say a few words. He might state at once, in order that the House might be informed as to the opinion of himself and those who had acted with him in the matter, that they were ready to accept the proposal which had just been made by the noble Marquess, and that he did not propose to ask their Lordships to insist on the clause which he moved in Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] But, as his motives seemed to have been somewhat misunderstood in that and also in the other House, he desired to offer some explanation. The idea and belief of himself and of others who had acted with him was that it was entirely outside the law of 1881 to take this occupation interest into account. The noble Marquess had stated that that was not the opinion of the Government, and he would state at once why they had consented to accept the Amendment now submitted. It was simply this—that the very question of the occupation interest of the tenant had never been settled in the Courts of law, and that under the clause as now put into the Bill it would be absolutely necessary, in any case in which the occupation interest was taken account of in fixing the rent, that it should be mentioned in the schedule, and therefore it would be possible for any case arising under the Act to be taken at once to the Court of Appeal to have the matter settled. What led them to accept the Amendment was that they were confident that the Court of Appeal would not allow this occupation interest to be considered. The noble Marquess had quoted the words used by Mr. Gladstone in the Act of 1881, and he made out from the words that the interest of the landlord and tenant were respectively to be taken into consideration, and that this occupation interest was to be considered. Their opinion was that the Land Act certainly gave the sitting tenant certain rights and powers. It gave four rights. The tenant's interest comprised several elements, the first of which was the right to get a fair rent fixed; the second was the right as a sitting tenant to have his improvements exempted from the rent; the third was the right of free sale; and the fourth was the right to continued

695
occupation subject to statutory conditions. Now it had been made out by some of the Judges in Ireland that there was another right introduced over and above those he had stated—namely, that of some interest which had never been defined and which could not be defined. They had asked the Government over and over again to define the thing, and it had been found impossible to do so, and therefore his object was to make it clear that they were not to take that interest into consideration. Then he said that if the Government were not going to allow his clause they should, at any rate, define what they were going to allow. What did they do in the House of Commons? They introduced an addition to this proposition, that when once the occupation interest had been taken into consideration it was not to be taken into consideration again. Of course, that was begging the question. That was the very point he wanted to avoid. It was saying that the occupation interest was to be taken into consideration, but was not to be taken into consideration twice. That was just the very point to which he could not have acceded, and therefore it was necessary that this point should be cleared up, and especially so when he called their Lordships' attention to the evidence of Mr. Justice Bewley. In his evidence before the Land Committee, Mr. Justice Bewley distinctly said that this occupation interest had been taken into account, but that the law had never been laid down on the point up till now, and he was not aware that a case had ever been brought before the Courts. It was perfectly simple why it had never been brought before the Courts, for the simple reason that it could not be until some case could be got at. The Commissioners, in fixing the rents, had never given them the particulars that they would now got under the Bill, and therefore they had never been able to take the point before the Judges of Appeal. Their Lordships had now done what Lord Templetown, and those who supported him, were anxious to have done—namely, decided that this important point should be put into the schedule in order that they might get at it, and what the noble Marquess had just done was to provide that this occupation interest, if it was charged, should also go into the schedule, so that they
696
might have some ground to go upon when they took the matter before the Court of Appeal. They were all so confident of the result that he did not want to trouble their Lordships any further. It was not their intention, and had never been his intention, to abstract anything from the Act of 1881. But what they said was that the occupation interest did not exist, and was not in the Act of 1881, and they wanted to make that point clear. It was with that view that he had moved the Amendment that stood in his name, and which he had intended to adhere to if some compromise or some arrangement had not been come to. With this explanation he was glad to say he could agree with the Government Amendment.
Motion to amend the Commons' Amendment agreed to.
Several drafting Amendments having been agreed to,
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the next Amendment was that of the Commons to their Lordships' Amendment in regard to the valuation of grazing farms. This matter had been so frequently discussed in that House that he thought he should be needlessly taking up the time of the House by reiterating arguments with which their Lordships were perfectly familiar. The able speech delivered by the noble Duke behind him in Committee contained all that could be said upon the subject. He feared the difference of opinion between the two Houses was distinct upon this particular Amendment, and he had simply to move that, under the circumstances, their Lordships did not insist on their Amendment.
*LORD CLONCURRYsaid that, as his name had been prominently associated with the Amendment now before the House, he would ask permission to say a few words. The noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) had laid stress on the speech of the Chief Secretary at Leeds last autumn. As an Irishman, he looked upon that speech as a friendly and conciliatory speech, and as a Unionist he felt bound by all the promises contained in it. But he contended that from the beginning to the end of the speech there was no allusion to the question of repudiation of

697
contracts—["Hear, hear!"]—and that was the only point on which he ventured to urge the Amendment on the House. More recently the Chief Secretary and the First Lord of the Treasury had said they were aware of some cases of hardship which could arise under the existing law. He would he delighted if any case of hardship were removed, but he asked the right hon. Gentlemen whether they were quite sure that in removing the cases of hardship they had in view they would not impose still greater hardship on the other side. ["Hear, hear!" Since the Land Act of 1870 was passed owners of land, especially in the three southern provinces, had held large quantities of land in their own occupation. Those lands they had laid down to permanent pasture, and then the men whom the Government chose to say were bonâ fide tenants, but whom he called cattle jobbers, had gone to the owners with the Act of 1870 fully present to their minds and asked for grass or pasture land on a definite contract for a limited number of years. It was to prevent grave injustice being perpetrated that he called attention to the matter. As the House knew, he and his Friends did not intend to insist on the Amendment, but he hoped the Lord Chancellor for Ireland would be able to see his way to safeguard a species of injustice which could arise. While agreeing with the action of the Commons, he would suggest that the following proviso might be inserted:—
"Provided that where the Court is of opinion that the letting was made subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870, the Court should consider the application as if 50 were inserted in this section instead of 100."
That would allow the Court to maintain cases under the old law if they thought it right to do so. ["Hear, hear!"]
Question, "That the House do not insist upon their Amendment," put and agreed to.
VISCOUNT DE VESCIasked that some reply be given to the appeal of Lord Cloncurry as to the insertion of the proviso he had read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)said that that would be contrary to order, as they had not insisted upon the Amendment.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid it was very difficult to hear what was being done.
THE LORD CHANCELLORassured the noble Lord that that was a difficulty which he also experienced. It would, however, be irregular to go back.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that Lord Cloncurry suggested the addition of a proviso, and asked the noble Marquess whether he would accept it or not?
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid he had not seen the proviso before it was read out by the noble Lord. It would be absolutely impossible for him, on a point of this kind, to accept, on the spur of the moment, an Amendment which apparently ran counter to the House of Commons' Amendment and with which their Lordships had agreed.
House agreed with the Commons in respect of other Amendments.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid the Commons disagreed to the Amendments made by their Lordships in Clause 5, page 4, lines 38, 39 and 40, and he moved, "That the House do not insist upon their Amendment."
Motion agreed to.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, "That the House agree to the Commons' Amendment to the Lords' Amendment at line 9, page 5, omitting the words 'provided that,' and inserting after 'rent' the words 'when made.'"
Motion agreed to.
On the question, "That Clause 5 be omitted,"
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid their Lordships agreed to leave out the clause, but the Commons disagreed with the omission. The clause had reference to town parks, and the effect of it was to admit to the benefit of the Land Acts a tenant, although his holding might be within the town park zone, if that holding was not required for the development of the town or for the accommodation of the inhabitants, and if it were let or used as an ordinary farm, whether of grass, or tillage, or

699
mixed. The Government considered that that was a reasonable provision to make, and they believed that the intention of the law was in accordance with their proposal, and that the decision of the Court of Appeal, though no doubt perfectly sound in point of law, was opposed to the intention of the clause. The House of Commons had restored the clause, but added to it words which had been prepared with the object of meeting, if possible, the difficulty raised by Lord Macnaghten, who apprehended that the effect of the clause might be to admit to the benefit of the Land Acts persons who were not, in the proper sense of the words, tenants of ordinary farm land. It was proposed to add the words—
"Provided that this section shall not entitle a person to have a fair rent fixed who is not bonâ fide using the holding as an ordinary farm."
He understood it was the desire of the noble and learned Lord to attach the disqualification from admission to the benefits of the Land Acts, not to the farm but to the particular person who happened to occupy the farm; in other words, that the person who was engaged in trade or business should, from the fact that that was his vocation, be precluded from the benefit of the Land Acts, even though his farm were an ordinary farm in the common acceptance of the word. His objection to that proposal was that it was entirely contrary to the principle upon which they had hitherto proceeded in discriminating between those farms which should be entitled to the benefit of the Land Acts and those which should not. At this moment, if a farm outside the town park zone was held by a tradesman, by a parish priest, or by a squire, and could be described as an ordinary farm, the occupant of it could go into Court and get a fair rent fixed. That was, in their opinion, a principle to which they should adhere. If they adopted the principle which he understood was advocated by the noble and learned Lord, the principle of saying to a particular individual, "You shall not get a fair rent, whatever be the character of your holding, because you yourself follow, not the profession of a farmer, but some other profession," it seemed to him they would be landed in these contradictions—that the farm
700
might at one time come under the Land Acts and at another might find itself outside, from the accident that in the meanwhile it had passed from a person who was engaged in trade to a farmer; or, vice versa. The Government saw no other solution of the difficulty but that of adhering to the accepted principle, adding at the same time to the clause the words which he had read to the House, in order to make it emphatically clear that it was only where the farm was a bonâ fide farm that the occupant should have the right to apply to the Court for a fair rent.
LORD MACNAGHTENsaid that when the clause was before their Lordships on a former occasion, he stated that, in his opinion, it would entirely destroy town parks. He did not say, as the noble Marquess seemed to have understood, that it would admit some persons who ought not to be admitted. He had asked for some answer to his argument, and he had received none. He thought some reason would be given by the Commons in rejecting this Amendment; but, singularly enough, on this Amendment alone no reasons were given by the Commons for disagreeing with the Lords. That was, he supposed, because no reasons could be found. Certainly no lawyer had contradicted his statement that the clause as it came from the Commons would entirely destroy town parks. Now, the object of the Act of 1887 was undoubtedly that any bonâ fide farmer, although he happened to have a town park, if it were let and used as an ordinary farm, should be admitted to the Land Act. Undoubtedly the words added to the Act of 1887 by the House of Lords made that point unmistakable; and they were interpreted by the Court of Appeal precisely in the sense in which they were intended to be interpreted. It was said, however, that certain persons were excluded who were using the town park as an ordinary pasture farm. He did not know what an ordinary pastoral farm of one acre was. ["Hear, hear!"] Mr. Justice Bewley, in his evidence before the Morley Committee, said that there were persons who were intended to be introduced by the Act of 1887 who had been, by some accident, excluded. There neither were nor could be any such persons; but the House of Commons

701
had taken a different view. Well, he submitted to the voice of the House of Commons, and he did not quarrel with their restoring the words which came up to the House of Lords in the first instance. But he would ask their Lordships to pause before accepting the proviso which the Commons had added. As he understood from the speech of the Chief Secretary, it was a part, not the whole, of the enactment of 1887. There was nothing more dangerous than to re-enact a small portion of a former statute. How was it to be construed by the Judges? What on earth were they to do? If Parliament thought it right to re-enact a shred and patch of the Act of 1887, was that to be of greater value than those portions of the former Act which had not been re-enacted? The proviso was—
"That this section shall not entitle a person to have a fair rent fixed who is not bonâ fide using the holding as an ordinary farm."
That looked very like an invitation to a mala fide farmer to use his town park as a bonâ fide farm. ["Hear, hear!"] Now, the Amendment which he proposed was very simple. It was to insert in the proviso the word "a" before "bonâ fide" and the word "farmer" after "bonâ fide." In support of this Amendment he would quote the evidence of Mr. Justice Bewley, at whose suggestion the Amendment which had been carried in the Commons was originally proposed. Mr. Justice Bewley said that he thought that the word "agricultural" had been used by a mistake—and in that he was wrong—and he proposed that it should be amended by adding the words "or pastoral" after the word "agricultural." Then he added—
"I do not see any reason for including town parks generally within the purview of the Act, and my grounds for so thinking, whether right or wrong, are these:—I must assume now that the Act has been amended so that every bonâ fide farmer, whether his farm is used for tillage or for pasture, though his farm would otherwise be a town park, is taken within the Act—that is to say, that the word 'agricultural' is removed, and it includes any holding that is let or used for farming purposes. But now take the ordinary case of a town park. These small holdings outside towns are held to a large extent by shopkeepers and others residing in the town, and no doubt they are a very great convenience to them; but at the same time, these people who have these small holdings are not in any sense
702
farmers—they do not make their livelihood by the land. One of the principal uses of these small town parks is to graze their milch cows on. I do not think that the Land Commission, or any tribunal of the kind, ought to deal with anything except with purely agricultural holdings or pasture holdings. For instance, some of these shopkeepers living in the town will have a small plot outside—a town park—for which they will pay a rent; others, on the other hand, will not hire land, so to speak, but will take grazing from some farmer, and they will send out their cows backwards and forwards to those lands, paying so much a head. I see no more reason in policy why the Legislature should interfere to fix the rent which the man pays for his bit of land than it should interfere to fix the rent which the other man pays for his grazing. As I said, all these people admittedly ex con cessis are not farmers. For instance, the keeper of the local hotel or public-house, the butcher, the local solicitor, the doctor, and so forth, all have their little plots outside; and, although, no doubt, it would be very beneficial to them to have their land cheap, I do not think it is the same kind of thing as making provision for the agricultural tenants of Ireland."
He would ask their Lordships to act on the view of Mr. Justice Bewley. These shopkeepers were not bonâ fide farmers, and very often town parks were allotted to a particular house. But now the noble Marquess said that so long as the occupier cultivated the town park as an ordinary farm it was no longer to be a town park. No, and it never would be again. [Cheers.] It was a direct invitation to the mala fide farmer. It would be a most mischievous provision. It would destroy the whole benefit of town parks, and soon there would be none left in the whole of Ireland. The local solicitor or shopkeeper had nothing to do but to treat his holding as an ordinary farm, and then he was free from this restriction, and could put into his pocket the full value, and more than the fee-simple value of the farm, and no one would ever again be able to use it for the accommodation of the people. [Cheers.] That was a very weighty opinion of Mr. Justice Bewley's, and he entirely agreed with it. A more important witness was his noble Friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, who, speaking in the House on August 6, said:—
"The fault of the Act of 1887 was that the word agriculture was construed in a restricted sense."

703
The result was, his noble Friend went on to say, that a holding within what he called "a town park zone," and
"held by a bonâ fide farmer living in the town, and used principally as a dairy farm or for grazing, was excluded from a fair rent."
"This distinction," continued his noble Friend, "seemed an unreasonable one." He quite agreed. He never thought there was such a person, but if there were he was quite prepared to admit him to the benefits of the Land Act. But he must be what his noble Friend called him, "a bonâ fide farmer." Then there was another authority, not so great as his noble Friend, but still an authority who had great influence at present—though what position Mr. Timothy Healy, to whom he referred, occupied with the present Government he did not know. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Mr. Carson had argued in the other House that a certain man who occupied one of those town parks was not a farmer because he was a lawyer. "If that was the point taken," said Mr. Timothy Healy,
"then it was met by the Amendment of the First Lord of the Treasury, which provided that the section should only apply to the case of a bonâ fide farmer."
The whole grievance throughout was that they were excluding from the benefit of the Land Act, not the shopkeeper or the attorney who happened to be cultivating a town park after the manner of an ordinary farmer, but the bonâ fide farmer. Then, admit the bonâ fide farmer to the benefit of the Land Act; but restrict it to the bonâ fide farmer, or there would not be a town park left in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] Another witness he would call in his favour was Lord Justice FitzGibbon, who, perhaps, had more experience of the vast amount of litigation that had been caused by the use of inaccurate language in the Act of 1881 than any other Judge. Lord Justice FitzGibbon said, in reply to a question before the Morley Committee:—
"If, instead of using the words 'not agricultural or pastoral,' we could only find the words 'bonâ fide farmer' to describe the tenant who is to be admitted, it would relieve us of a great many of these questions."
He, too, thought it would. But if their Lordships adopted the Amendment of
704
the Commons, which he frankly told them he did not understand, they would be accepting an absolutely illusory proviso which, in his humble judgment, would give rise to unlimited litigation. [Cheers.]
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he hoped their Lordships would not refuse to listen to an English lawyer, although he did not profess to claim any authority beyond that of any other lawyer who applied his mind to the language of the old Land Act and the Bill now before the House. He hoped their Lordships would also give him credit for being in hearty sympathy with his noble Friends who owned land in Ireland, and that in saying what he was about to say he spoke of his conception of the law, as it would be affected by the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend, without any reference to his position as a Member of Her Majesty's Government. It was, in the first place, most important that their Lordships should carry in their minds the language of the Act of 1887 which gave rise to this question of town parks. It said:—
"A holding shall not be deemed to constitute a town park, though within the definition of a town park under Section 58 of the Land Act of 1881, if it is let and used as an ordinary agricultural farm, and may in the opinion of the Court be included in the operation of the last-mentioned Act without substantially interfering with the improvement or development of the town to which it belongs, or the accommodation of the inhabitants thereof."
Their Lordships would observe that the holding must be let and used as an ordinary agricultural farm, and that nothing whatever was said about the occupation of the holder of the farm. The first observation that was to be made on the Amendment before the House was that for the first time it sought to disqualify the holder of such a farm from the benefit of the Land Act because he followed some other occupation besides the holding of that particular farm. If his noble Friend intended that to be the operation of the section, the most straightforward mode of effecting that operation would be to say:—
"Provided that no holder of a farm who has any other occupation shall be entitled to come within the benefits of the section."
["Hear, hear!"] If that was what was meant, why was it not plainly

705
stated? Indeed, he had hopes that that was not the object of the Amendment until, listening in another place yesterday, to arguments on the subject, he heard his very learned and distinguished Friend, Mr. Carson, emphasize the fact that a person in possession of one of those farms was a solicitor—a fact which appeared to him to be absolutely irrelevant, having in mind the language of the section of the Act of 1887. If the Amendment were introduced it would open up a flood of litigation to which many lawyers would look forward with considerable interest, for the position the Courts would then have to decide was "What is a bonâ fide farmer?" and, forsooth, "Is he less a bonâ fide farmer because he has some other occupation?" He trusted that their Lordships would not let loose such a flood of litigation upon the Land Courts of Ireland. But he doubted very much whether the acceptance of the Amendment would help his noble Friend. Speaking for himself as a lawyer, if he might be permitted to do so, he should hold, when he looked at the Act of 1887 and the provisions contained therein, that the meaning was that he should be a farmer in respect of that particular piece of land. But he was aware of the fact that others took a different view, and that was a question which would have to be litigated all through Ireland—not whether it was let as an ordinary agricultural farm, but whether, as a matter of fact, he was the person who was entitled to hold it. He hoped the House would not be led into launching such a mass of litigation on the Land Courts in Ireland, and, under colour of making an Amendment, depriving a great number of persons of rights already in their possession. "Ordinary agricultural farm" might be either tillage or pasture, and was not intended to be confined to tillage. He earnestly entreated noble Lords to look what the effect of the words would be, and to see the object underlying the words, before they introduced a matter which would raise a question for the Courts, not whether the holding was within the contemplation of the Act, not whether it was let or used as an agricultural farm, but whether A B, the occupier, followed any other vocation in life than that of a bonâ fide farmer. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that, surely, butchers, bakers and solicitors were not bonâ fide farmers? What was understood in Ireland by a bonâ fide farmer was a man who earned his livelihood entirely by farming.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he hoped the Lord Chancellor would not think him guilty of presumption if he said that he had taken an entirely English view of town parks. He had had no practical experience of them, and had not any real knowledge as to what the use of town parks was. He had dealt with town parks as if they were land in connection with a house.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Marquess will excuse me, I said nothing of the kind.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he understood the Lord Chancellor suggested that town parks should be, farms in connection with a house. Town parks were merely accommodation land, and were let to an individual simply in connection with his business, which might be that of a butcher or dairyman. But the town park had nothing to do with farming, and consequently what he desired was that a line should be drawn between the man who used accommodation land for farming purposes and the man who used it solely for accommodation ground. If it were laid down that town parks were farms, irretrievable damage, would be done to the town in the neighbourhood of the land. Town parks were of enormous benefit to the inhabitants of a town, and it did not follow that they were always let to the same individual. But if once they were included in this Bill they at once made the owner the permanent holder of the land from an agricultural point of view, and it was no use to anyone in connection with the town except that individual himself. Lord Macnaghten was an authority on town parks. He had told the House—and he believed his opinion was endorsed by Mr. Carson—that if this clause stood in the Bill they would abolish the whole of the town parks in Ireland, and no one knew what injury would be done if that took place. When the question was discussed in the House of Commons the Chief Secretary had not one word to say in defence of his action. He should like to hear from Lord Ashbourne why he refused to allow to be

707
introduced into the clause words to the effect that he must be a bonâ fide farmer who was to farm town parks, and as such to be admitted to the benefits of the Act. Some Member of the Government connected with Ireland should give a valid reason why they proposed to omit the words.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENasked what was the definition of a bonâ fide farmer? In the case that had been mentioned so often—that of a man who was both a farmer and a solicitor—was the Court to decide whether he was a sham solicitor but a bonâ fide farmer, or a bonâ fide solicitor but a sham farmer? [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE)said he heard with great astonishment his noble and learned Friend Lord Macnaghten say that if the Amendment were passed, the death-knell of town parks in Ireland would be sounded. He never heard anything to him more incomprehensible. Before the Act of 1887 every form of town park was in use—some agricultural, some pastoral—and no one found the slightest difficulty in deciding whether they were all agricultural or all pastoral. What the Act of 1887 said was that inside a town park zone there were tracts of ground, and if let and used, not as town parks, but ordinary farms, they were to be treated as ordinary farms if they satisfied the ordinary conditions. If that was so, how the moderate extension proposed of the Act of 1887 was to kill town parks was a thing he could not for the life of him understand. Lord Dunraven had asked a question which it was almost impossible to answer—namely, what was the meaning of a bonâ fide farmer? In the mass of litigation which would be inaugurated by his noble and learned Friend a very possible construction might be that suggested by the Lord Chancellor for England—that a bonâ fide farmer was one who bonâ fide farmed a particular tract of land used by him under the Land Act of 1887 as amended by this Bill.
LORD CASTLETOWNsaid he should like to know what the position would be of a man, who was a butcher in a village, who had accommodation land to the extent of five or six acres within the purview of a town park and bad a large
708
farm outside. Would that man be a bonâ fide farmer, a man owning accommodation land, or a butcher? Practically he was all three. Lord Macnaghten desired to preserve for the advantage of the town the accommodation land which surrounded the town, and to make it clear that that man, a butcher, who was a bonâ fide farmer three or four miles from a town, was not a bonâ fide farmer of accommodation land let for fattening cattle for six months or so. They had to follow custom in Ireland in an Act dealing with Ireland. Therefore he would suggest that Lord Macnaghten should press his Motion to a Division, because the words made it clear that a man such as he had referred to would not be a bonâ fide farmer of accommodation land.
The House divided on the Question "That this House agree to the Commons' Amendment to re-insert Clause 5."

CONTENTS

74

NOT-CONTENTS

68

DIVISION LIST.—CONTENTS.

Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Yarborough, E.

Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bridport, V.

Oxenbridge, V.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Peterborough, L. Bp.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Grafton, D.

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Rutland, D.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Ailesbury, M.

Addington, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Ampthill, L.

Salisbury, M.

Armstrong, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Balfour, L.

Belper, L.

Burghclere, L.

Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlian.)

Burton, L.

Churchill, L. [TELLER.]

Albemarle, E.

Colchester, L.

Carnwath, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Clarendon, E.

De Ramsey, L.

Coventry, E.

Emly, L.

Dudley, E.

Glenesk, L.

Dundonald, E.

Harris, L.

Howe, E.

Hothfield, L.

Morley, E.

Iveagh, L.

Onslow, E.

James, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)

Selborne, E.

Spencer, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Stamford, E.

Lawrence, L.

709

CONTENTS—continued.

Lingen, L.

Robartes, L.

Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby.)

Rothschild, L.

Rowton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Scarsdale, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Stanmore, L.

Plunket, L.

Thring, L.

Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

Wantage, L.

Windsor, L.

Rathmore, L.

Wolverton, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.

De L'Isle and Dudley. L.

de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

Belmore, E.

Caledon, E.

Dunalley, L.

Camperdown, E.

Dunleath, L.

Essex, E.

Ebury, L.

Ferrers, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Fortescue, E.

Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Ilchester, E.

Harlech, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

Lucan, E.

Inchiquin, L.

Mayo, E. [TELLER.]

Kilmaine, L.

Partarlington, E.

Leconfield, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Macnaghten, L.

Rosse, E.

Massy, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

Verulam, E.

Muskerry, L.

O'Neill, L.

Bangor, V.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Templetown, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Abinger, L.

Annaly, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Ardilaun, L.

Rossmore, L.

Bagot, L.

Sherborne, L.

Bateman, L.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Botreaux, L. (E. Loudown.)

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Stalbridge, L.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Castletown, L. [TELLER.]

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Ventry, L.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Clarina, L.

Clonbrock, L.

Willoughby de Eresby, L.

Crofton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Clause 5 accordingly re-inserted.
Remaining Commons' Amendments on page 4, 5, 6, 7, and consequential Amendment on page 8 (Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive), agreed to.
On Lords' Amendment, Clause 39, line 22, after "mentioned," insert—
"Subject to the prescribed rules any person aggrieved by any Order of the Band Judge made under this section may apply to the Court of Appeal to re-hear the matter, and the matter shall be re-heard accordingly—"
LORD MACNAGHTENsaid he would just like to say one word upon this Amendment. When he proposed this Amendment it was said to him by his noble and learned Friend that this would encourage appeals without number and without risk. He saw that in the Commons House they put in some words about the security for costs. The words he would have suggested would have been these—limiting the appeal or the re-hearing "with the leave of the Land Judge or the Court of Appeal." He thought that would get rid of all frivolous appeals. He thought that was better. The security for costs might operate very harshly on a poor tenant, and it might also operate very harshly on a poor landlord. He thought that the object of his noble and learned Friend and that of himself was exactly the same, which was to put an end to frivolous appeals, and he thought the words he had suggested would carry that out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid that in the Landed Estates Court Act, there was a section which dealt with appeals, enabling a deposit for costs to be provided. He thought it would be desirable to keep that. The words suggested by his noble and learned Friend were, he thought, extremely useful and good words, and he would be very glad if the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill could see his way to introduce the words.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved "That the House do amend the Commons' Amendment by inserting the words 'with the leave of the Land Judge or the Court of Appeal."'
Motion agreed to.
Lords Amendment, Clause 47,—
"Page 28, line 39, leave out from ('where') to the end of the sub-section, and insert ('a tenant would, if this Act had been in force at the passing of the Band Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, be now a present tenant, and either the landlord

711
has not, since the said decision, resumed possession of the holding, or if he resumed the tenant has redeemed, the tenant shall he deemed a present tenant for the purpose of any such application')."
Commons Amendment,—
"The Commons propose to amend the Amendment in page 28, line 39, by leaving out the words ('said decision') and inserting ('passing of the said Act or the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, as the case may be '), and by inserting after ('redeemed') ('or been reinstated in his former tenancy')."
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved that their Lordships do agree with the Commons' Amendment.
Motion agreed to.

SCHEDULES.
Lords' Amendment,—
Page 30, insert the following Schedule:—

FIRST SCHEDULE.

  FORM OF SCHEDULE FOR RECORD.
  7. IMPROVEMENTS.—Proved in Court (excluding buildings) whether made by landlord or tenant, which are at present a bonâ fide benefit and suitable to the holding and are found to exist on inspection, to he stated in detail, together with the nature, character, and present capital value thereof, and the increased letting value due thereto, and the date, so near as can be ascertained, at which the same were made, and the deduction from rent made.
  8. BUILDINGS.—If tenants state so, if landlords specify particulars of same, the date, so near as can be ascertained, at which they were made, state fair annual value, whether they have been kept in repair, and by whom, and any deduction from rent made on account thereof, and the extent (if any) to which the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect thereof made on account thereof.
  Improvements under this head shall be distinguished according as—

  (a) they have been made wholly or partly by or at the cost of the tenant; and

  (b) the landlord has paid or compensated the tenant in respect thereof.

  To be signed by Legal Assistant Commissioner only.
  Commons' Amendment,—
  "The Commons propose to amend Subsection 7 of schedule by leaving out (' and suitable'), and to amend Sub-section 8 by leaving out ('made on account thereof')."
  Lords' Amendment,—
  "Page 30, line 56, leave out (' 33 & 34 Vict, c. 46 ') and the rest of those lines."
  Commons' Amendment,—
  "The Commons disagree to the omission of lines 5 and 6, but propose to amend the words restored by leaving out ('sections') and inserting ('section'), and leaving out ('thirty-seven and thirty-nine')."
  Commons' Amendment,—
  "The Commons propose as a consequential Amendment to the Bill in page 31, line 30, to leave out ('as respects any'), and to amend the Amendment made by the Lords by inserting before ('purchasers') ('save as respects any')."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEmoved, "That the House do agree with the Commons' Amendment."
  Motion agreed to.

VEXATIOUS ACTIONS BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the House do agree with the Commons' Amendments, said he only wished to say, in respect of one of the Amendments, that the other House had introduced a new clause providing that counsel should be assigned to poor persons unable to bear the cost themselves. How that would operate and where the funds were to come from he was unable to say.
Commons' Amendments agreed to.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELANDsaid this was a useful Bill that was before their Lordships to simplify and to cheapen and to facilitate procedure under the Labourers' Act. Their Lordships made some Amendments to the Bill—two clauses were introduced, and some other matters of importance. One of those clauses, moved by Viscount de Vesci, had been accepted by the House of Commons, and also a clause

713
moved by himself and some other consequential Amendments. There was one clause moved by the Earl of Arran that was dissented from, and the reason given was that the subject of the Amendment would be more conveniently dealt with if necessary in a separate Bill. Incidentally he mentioned that himself when the matter was before their Lordships before. It was found, without making the slightest vestige of a reflection on the good sense of the clause proposed by his noble Friend, that it had become a matter of contention, and that if it was insisted upon it would practically mean that the Bill would be lost. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary intimated that it was a matter that he had present to his mind, and that he would be very glad to consider it in another Session when another opportunity presented itself. He hoped, therefore, his noble Friend would acquiesce in the Motion he now made, that their Lordships were pleased to agree with the House of Commons' Amendment.
THE EARL OF ARRANsaid he rose to say that he did not propose to persist in his opposition to the omission of this clause. After all, it was only a storm in a teapot, and it would not have excited as much attention as it had done had it been brought forward at any other time. One thing had been made very clear in the course of the discussion on the Bill—that the Government, with an unusual majority of 150 at their back, were just as much at the beck and call of the Nationalist Party, even divided as that party was, as were the late Government with a very doubtful majority of about 30 only. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid the clause referred to was in the Bill when it was originally brought forward by the Government, but in the Standing Committee Mr. Dillon objected to it, and therefore, as it was a non-contentious Measure, the Government gave way to the hon. Member and the clause was struck out. When the Bill came up to their Lordships' House this fact was noticed; they divided on the question; and the clause was re-inserted. Now, the object of this Bill was to make it more easy for labourers' cottages to be built in Ireland. It was not a question that very much affected Irish landlords, but at the same
714
time it was a matter which affected the whole country, and he for one should be very sorry if it could be said that they, as Irish landlords, were capable of looking after their own interests but were indifferent to the labourers' question, which he regarded as one of the most important questions in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought the clause a reasonable one, and if it was left out improper people might be allowed to get into the cottages. It was said that evicted tenants might get into them; but, in respect to that, it did not matter to him whether the man who got into the cottages was an evicted tenant or anyone else, so long as he was honest and sober and willing to work. ["Hear, hear!"] The two Acts referred to were passed for the benefit of the labourers, and they conferred on them one of the greatest benefits ever granted to that class in any country in Europe, and had been largely availed of. Why should not the clause be retained? The noble Marquess in his speech on the Second Reading said that already improper people had got into the cottages. That fact strengthened the reason why a clause of this sort should be admitted by the Government, especially when the objection to it came from a party in the other House of which, he believed, Mr. Dillon was at the head. He confessed that he felt very strongly on the matter, and noble Lords who lived in Ireland and had to do county work knew what a great extent of jobbery went on in Boards of Guardians with respect to those cottages. ["Hear, hear!"] He fully appreciated what had fallen from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland with reference to future legislation on the matter, but he should have liked to see the question dealt with now. However, having expressed their views, and having taken their stand on the matter against the Government—in which course he believed they had justice on their side—he would not press the question further. But it should be remembered that in taking the course they had done, they spoke, not for themselves as Irish landlords, but in the interests of the labourers of Ireland. ["Hear, hear!"]
VISCOUNT DE VESCIurged that, in the circumstances, seeing that the alteration was introduced by the Government, and that the Government had promised to

715
deal further with the matter in future, it would be unwise on the part of their Lordships to insist on the clause and resist the Commons' Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
Commons' Amendment then agreed to.

QUARTER SESSIONS (LONDON) BILL.
On the Motion of the EARL OF ONSLOW this Bill was read a Second time, and the following verbal Amendment in Clause 6, page 2, line 27, leave out "this" and insert "that" having been agreed to in Committee, Standing Order No. XXXIX. was dispensed with; Bill read 3a; an Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed at Ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.
The EARL OF PEMBROKE was chosen SPEAKER.

LAND LAW (IRELAND BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords, and with the Lords' consequential Amendments to the Bill—agreed to.
QUARTER SESSIONS (LONDON) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a Tomorrow.—(The Earl of Camperdown).—[No. 255.]

POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow.—(Lord Glenesk.)—[No. 256.]
House adjourned at a Quarter past Twelve o'clock, a.m., till a Quarter past Four o'clock, p.m. To-day.