Sitting of 26 February 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  EAST LONDON WATER BILL.
  On the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not intend to oppose the Bill in any way, because it was essential that the company should have the powers they sought to carry out the projected works. But he felt constrained to express the regret which he believed the ratepayers of London felt that the question of the water supply of the metropolis was being dealt with piecemeal, thus involving great additional trouble and expense. It had been understood that the Government were prepared to deal with the whole question last Session, and that, not having done so, they would have introduced. Bill this Session. But it was evident that they did not intend to legislate on the matter. Under the circumstances, as representing an East End constituency, he should support the Second Reading, and he was glad to learn that the company had come to a satisfactory agreement with regard to land.
  Bill read a Second time.
  MR. J. M. PAULTONmoved—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the East London Water Bill is referred that, having regard to the Resolution of this House of March 12, 1896, they do insert such provisions in the Bill as will insure the acquisition by the local authority of such a suitable area of open space as, in the judgment of the Committee ought fairly to be substituted for the common rights proposed to be extinguished under the Bill."
  He remarked that he thought he was justified in moving the Instruction, on two considerations—the protection of important public interests, and the fact that those interests could be protected without interfering with the purpose of

  1247
  the Bill. The Bill was introduced to enable the East London Water Company to obtain powers for acquiring certain lands in the neighbourhood of Tottenham to construct a new storage reservoir. Those lands, much of which was common land, were situated in the Lea Valley, and were in the midst of growing population, and this made it all the more desirable that regard should be had to the preservation, of open spaces. Last year the House not only rejected. Bill for the enclosure of certain common lands, but, on his Motion, unanimously passed a resolution declaring that they were not prepared to entertain any proposal for the enclosure of common lands within the metropolitan area. By this Instruction he sought to maintain the principle then laid down by Parliament. The circumstances in this case admitted of the view that these particular lands were required, and were especially suitable, for the purposes demanded by the company. The public interests involved would not suffer by the substitution of other land to be given by way of exchange for the common rights which were thus extinguished. The Board of Agriculture, in the excellent report they had made on this Bill, had said that, in their opinion, an amount of land equal in extent to the common land proposed to be taken under the Bill should be given by the promoters in substitution. Under the special circumstances of this case, he did not go so far as that, and his Instruction left it to the judgment of the Committee to say what, in their opinion, would be a fair and sufficient equivalent in the way of an open space in substitution for the common land to be taken. It was important to observe that this land should be acquired by the promoters and handed over to the local authority, who had long been desirous to acquire land for this purpose in this particular district. The promoters of the Bill had met them in a fair and reasonable spirit. They had in that spirit agreed to accept this Instruction and he therefore did not offer any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, because the Instruction really carried out the object he had in view. He confidently believed that the result would be not only to maintain a very important principle of public policy, but to confer on the inhabitants of Tottenham a lasting benefit which they had long desired.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that, though this company still believed that the Government would bring in. Bill dealing with the water question, they thought, with the scarcity of water which occurred last year, they would not lose an hour in presenting. Bill to enable them to increase their storage. With regard to the common rights that must be extinguished by the taking of the site for their new reservoir, they were extremely anxious to provide an area for the commoners to replace them. They confidently left it to the Committee to state what should be done, and the company would endeavour to meet them in the most equitable and fair way. He had no doubt whatever that there would be no difficulty in providing such lands as could recompense the commoners for the rights they had given up.
  MR. JAMES BRYCEsaid he had heard with the greatest pleasure of the arrangement made by which the company agreed to accept the Instruction. This question was one which used to cause a good deal of difference in that House. Some 12 or 15 years ago or more, when railway companies especially, and, to some extent, water companies also, were entitled to acquire common land, conflicts used to frequently arise in that House. In 1883 or 1884 a plan was devised, by which companies applying for power to take common land should be bound by an Instruction such as this to substitute land of an equal extent or equally well situated, so as to provide adequate compensation to the people of the neighbourhood for the land taken away. He believed that, although that was adopted in certain Bills, it had not been so in all cases, though he did not know why. He was all the more pleased that the principle should be revived on this occasion, and that the reasonable desires of his hon. Friend, acting on behalf of the commoners and of the people of Tottenham, should have been met in so frank and liberal a spirit by the company. He hoped that, now this principle had been revived, it would pass into a precedent, and that they would have it generally accepted that, where common land might be taken for a purpose of public utility, those who took it should be bound to

  1249
  have regard to the interests of the commoners and to provide equal land or equal convenience for the purposes of the community.
  Motion agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  LEWES ASSIZES (CONVICTION FOR FRAUD).
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the fact that on the conviction at Lewes Assizes of a woman named Manning, on, charge of obtaining money by false pretences, a, communication was received from the Home Office asking that the Court should be informed of large number of warrants relating to other charges in different parts of the country which were out against the prisoner, so that they might be taken into consideration by the judge in aggravation of sentence, will he explain what steps does he propose to take in order to obtain the withdrawal of these warrants, or to prevent the execution of them when the woman comes out of prison, so that she may not be twice punished for the same offences?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I entirely repudiate the construction which the hon. Member puts upon the Home Office action in this case. The object of the communication, which was sent out in pursuance of a policy that is not a new one, and has been well considered and was recently discussed with Her Majesty's Judges, was in the interests of the prisoner, that, as far as possible, the various offences of the same kind committed by her might be taken into account at one time, and her repeated re-arrest at the prison gates might be avoided. Having since learned that the Court, in passing sentence, took into consideration the fact that there were these other offences, I have informed the police authorities concerned that such was the case I have no power, of course, to prevent the execution of the warrants for the other offences, but I have generally found
  1250
  that the steps which have been taken in the present case are effectual for the purpose of preventing repeated prosecutions for what is practically the same offence, and I hope they will be equally effectual in this case also. I should not hesitate, however, if I were satisfied that the prisoner was being punished twice for the same offence, in recommending the; exercise of the prerogative of the Crown.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, with regard to the Instruction to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, as it apparently sanctioned the practice of allowing hearsay evidence against a prisoner after conviction, so that it might be taken into consideration by, Judge in aggravation of sentence, if copy of the Instruction would be laid on the Table?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he had issued the circular with the view of relieving prisoners who were convicted from being, after sentence, again arrested for actually the same offence. It was really in the interest, not against the interest, of prisoners. He did not know that he could do more.
  MR. PICKERSGILLpressed the right hon. Gentleman to lay a copy of the circular on the Table.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the circular had been sent all round to all the authorities, and he did not see there would be any advantage in laying a copy on the Table.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked, would the right hon. Gentleman send him a copy?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYhad not the slightest objection to do so.

  LAND COMMISSION (IRELAND).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the decisions will be given in the land cases before the Sub-Commission Court which sat at Lisnaskea, County Fermanagh, on 8th November, 1896?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed by the Land Commission that the decision referred to in the Question will be announced at an early date.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Carlow (MR. JOHN HAMMOND), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  1251
  Ireland when the Land Commissioners will visit Carlow to hear land cases there?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: All the cases listed up to November in this county were disposed of recently, and the number of applications now pending from the county are comparatively few. A sitting will be arranged at as early a date as possible, having regard to the claims of other counties where more cases and of older date are pending.
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if the Land Commission has been able to fix day for the holding of Court in County Kildare for the fixing of fair rents?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: a Sub-Commission Court will hold a sitting in this county on the 23rd March.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consent to postpone Vote 17 for the Irish Land Commission until the Return which has been frequently promised in relation to the new Commissioners is given to the House. He will notice that in that Vote there is an item of £11,337 for the additional Commissioners.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. R. W. HANBURY,): No, Sir I do not think there will be any necessity for that a Any explanation which the hon. Gentleman requires can be given on the Vote.
  MR. DILLON: Might I point out that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the explanation, because the information is in the form of an elaborate Return, giving the qualifications for each of the new appointments?

  WATER TRUSTEES.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number and names of such Water Boards in the three kingdoms as are elected by the ratepayers for the sole and exclusive discharge of the office and duty of Water Trustees?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: So far as I have been able to ascertain, there is only one such Board in the United Kingdom, namely the Belfast City and District Water Commissioners. There
  1252
  are several Boards for the sole and exclusive discharge of the duty mentioned, which are elected by local authorities, and I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a list of these if he wishes to have it.

  VOLUNTEER CADET CORPS.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the strength of cadet corps attached to Volunteer battalions which attended regular training and inspection during the past year; whether he is aware that these cadet corps receive no Government assistance other than the loan of unserviceable Martini-Henry rifles; that their officers only hold honorary rank and have no official status; that their services do not bring any financial assistance to their corps; that these corps are maintained at an annual expense to the members composing them of from 25s. to 35s. per head; and that when they go into camp at Aldershot or other military stations to learn their duties alongside regular troops, with whom they take their full share at field days, they incur as further expense of from 21s. to 25s. and whether he would be prepared to consider, and if possible bring forward, proposals in next year's Estimates for recognising these corps in some substantial manner, as for instance by allowing the officers to hold commissions with substantive rank and with full grant for efficiency, and granting to non-commissioned officers and privates the authorised proficiency allowance as issued to effective Volunteers, and by requiring a special Report and establishing a high standard of efficiency, so that these corps could be looked on as very valuable educational institutions for furnishing officers and non-commissioned officers to the service Volunteer battalions?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. BRODRICK,): 4,321 cadets appeared at inspection in 1896. These cadet corps consist of school boys, under 17 years of age. To treat them as suggested in the Question would involve a heavy annual expenditure, which is not recommended by the military authorities, although the Secretary of State fully appreciates the value of these juvenile corps as feeders for the Volunteers as the boys grow up.

  "ALABAMA" CLAIMS.
  MR GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that a sum of 8,000,000 dollars, out of the 15,500,000 awarded in 1872 by the Geneva Tribunal on the Alabama claims, to be paid by Great Britain to the United States as damages, is still in the hands of the United States Government undistributed to any claimants for compensation in respect of the acts of the Alabama, Florida, and Shenandoah; and (2) whether there is any prospect of the United States Government offering to repay to Great Britain the amount remaining unclaimed after all claims for compensation have been satisfied?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. G. CURZON,): a similar Question was answered on February 17, 1891, by MR. W. H. Smith, then First Lord of the Treasury, as follows:—"It was believed from accounts which had been published in the United States that a certain portion of the sum paid by Great Britain to the United States under the award of the tribunal of arbitration at Geneva still remained in the hands of the United States Government. It would be contrary to the engagements taken by this country in the Treaty of Washington of 1871 that Her Majesty's Government should request the return of this sum."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the second paragraph of my Question? I do not suggest that Her Majesty's Government should make the request, but ask whether there is any prospect of the United States Government offering it. Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that?
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir; I cannot speak for the United States Government. [Laughter.]

  PRISON OFFICERS.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, with the exception of clerks, all ranks of established prison officers including the storekeepers who give their
  1254
  whole time to the service, are provided with quarters or receive an allowance in lieu; and whether he can see his way to redress the inequality between the clerks and the other officers?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, I am quite aware of this. The conditions of service of the prison clerks have always been considered separately from those of the prison officers strictly so-called, and their scale of pay has been fixed and from time to time revised with full knowledge of the fact that they were not provided with quarters or an allowance in lieu I cannot admit that there is any such inequality as is suggested in the Question, nor I am prepared, in view of certain improvements which have recently been made in the pay and prospects of these officers, to make any recommendation on the point.

  DRUNKENNESS (GLASGOW).
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether his attention has been directed to the fact that while 18,572 persons were arrested as drunk and incapable, and many thousands more were arrested for being drunk and disorderly in the City of Glasgow during the year 1895, only two publicans were summoned for contravening the terms of their licences which render them liable for supplying intoxicated persons or permitting drunkenness on their premises; and (2) whether he will call the attention of the Magistrates of Glasgow and of the Chief Constable of that city to the extraordinary and striking discrepancy between the number of persons summoned for the two classes of offences named which are admittedly closely connected?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I must point out to the hon. Member that for the purposes of his Question a publican is in breach of his certificate only if within his house he permits a breach of the peace or riotous or disorderly conduct, or supplies excisable liquor to persons who are in a state of intoxication I must refer the hon. Member to my previous answer that there can be no normal numerical relation between the two classes of offenders, and therefore no just inference

  1255
  to be drawn from their respective numbers I cannot undertake to do as desired in the last paragraph of the Question, as I do not admit that the numbers referred to are in any way related in a legal or criminal sense.

  SOLENT AND CLYDE (ARTILLERY FIRING).
  MR. D. NICOL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he has received the Report of the Board of Trade Inquiry respecting the regulation of artillery practice in the Solent and on the Clyde, and, if he has, whether he can communicate same to the House?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The Reports on the Bye-laws both for the Solent and the Clyde are at present under consideration I cannot yet make any statement as to them.

  BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH (CONFIRMATION OF ELECTION).
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a statement in The Manchester Guardian of the 23rd instant, that the Vicar-General of the Province of Canterbury, in the recent proceedings at Bow Church on the confirmation of the election of the Bishop of Peterborough, omitted the decree to proceed, by which a public acknowledgment is made that the confirmation of the Bishop proceeds in obedience to the command of Our Sovereign Lady the Queen; whether such omission was made; and, if so, what was the reason of such omission, and what is its effect on the validity or otherwise of the confirmation; and whether the public acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Crown made in the decree to proceed can be omitted or altered without an alteration of the law?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, I have seen the statement, and am informed by the Vicar-General that it is correct. The forms which are used at the confirmation of a Bishop, and of which the decree to proceed forms part, should certainly not be altered without proper authority, and but for a momentary inadvertence, as I understand, would have been strictly followed in the present case. They have never, however, received
  1256
  statutory sanction I am informed that the omission of the decree will not affect the validity of the confirmation. The proceedings are based throughout on an acknowledgment of the Royal supremacy.

  RURAL POSTMEN (IRELAND).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the fact that rural postmen in England who use their own bicycles are granted an allowance of 4s. week, a similar consideration will be extended to rural postmen in Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: Rural postmen in England or in Ireland who are required to use a cycle in the performance of their official duties are granted an allowance of 4s. week. But there are a number of men who obtain permission to use their own cycles on posts which are laid down as foot posts, and in such cases no allowance is granted. The treatment of the postmen is the same whether in England or Ireland.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (IRELAND).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the great hardship caused to various local authorities in Ireland, and especially to the Listowel Guardians, by the rigid application of Section 6 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1892, which exacts one shilling in the pound as receivers' fees on any instalment more than a month overdue a whether there is any similar provision affecting English local authorities; whether he is aware that, in the case of the Seed Potatoes Supply (Ireland) Act, 1895, the rule has worked with exceptional harshness owing to the fact that the loans were repayable by two instalments only, and the amount to be repaid at one time has consequently been proportionately large, while the money has had to be recovered by the local authorities, who in 1895 were unable through poverty and the failure of the potato crop to procure seed; and whether he will consult the Irish Law Officers as to whether Section 6 is applicable to the case, having regard to the words of Section 3 of the Act of 1895,

  1257
  which directs that the interest on the loan, or as much of it as is for the time being not repaid, shall be at the lowest rate fixed by the Treasury for interest on local loans in Ireland, and shall be paid out of the Church Fund?
  MR. HANBURY: Section 6 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1892, imposesa payment of 1s. in the pound as Receiver's fees (not interest) on instalments of loans not paid within 31 days of the date on which repayment is due. It applies to any Board of Works loan created after the passing of that Act, and therefore, of course, to the seed loans made under the Act of 1895. With knowledge of that fact, Parliament in 1895 required these seed loans to be repayable by two instalments. Interest on the loans is one thing and Receiver's fees are another; but there is a special necessity for imposing these Receiver's fees in the case of seed loans. The local authority does not pay interest on the loans—that being paid out of the Irish Church Fund—and it would, therefore, have little inducement to repay the instalments unless this penalty were imposed. There is no similar provision affecting local authorities in England, because, speaking generally, similar difficulty is not found in obtaining repayments in this country. On the other hand, I know of no class of loans in England in which the local authorities bear no charge for interest, as is the case with these seed loans.
  MR. E. CAUSONasked if the Treasury had any power to remit any portion of these Receiver's fees?
  MR. HANBURYsaid that he was not aware that they had.
  MR. KNOXasked, having regard to the fact that this provision was not fully understood, if the Government would reconsider the question of enforcing these lines?
  MR. HANBURYsaid in every case due warning was given to the local authorities that they should pay in 31 days.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNasked was the right hon. Gentleman aware that these charges in some instances amounted to an interest of 60 per cent. on the loan?
  MR. HANBURYsaid it was not interest at all; it was a charge for collecting instalments overdue.

  BOGUS TELEGRAMS (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a bogus telegram was twice delivered to Rev. D. Humphreys, P.P., Killenaule, on 4th February, purporting in the first case to have been sent from Cloumel, and in the second to have been sent from Clogheen; that the postmaster at Killenaule stated that he re-delivered the telegram as coming from Clogheen, in consequence of an inquiry made over the wires to Clonmel; that the officer in charge of the telegraph at Clonmel states that no telegram was sent thence, and no inquiry as to a telegram made from Killenaule on that day; and that the postmaster at Clogheen refuses all information; and whether the Postmaster General will direct an inquiry into this matter, with a view to discovering whether any postal official was responsible for giving this annoyance?
  MR. HANBURY: I can only answer the hon. Member's Question in part, as the matter to which it relates is under investigation in Ireland, and the facts are only partly known in London. It appears, however, that the telegram referred to was delivered to the Rev. D. Humphreys through an unfortunate error in telegraphing his name instead of that of the actual addressee. It is not known in London how the error occurred. The circumstances under which two copies of the telegram were delivered to Mr. Humphreys are as yet unknown, but a full explanation shall be sent to that gentleman on this point, and also as regards the refusal of the postmaster of Clogheen to furnish information. The cost of any telegrams sent by MR. Humphreys in consequence of the mistake will be refunded to him.

  NATIONAL TEACHERS' FUND (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Report on the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund will be ready in time for the discussion on the Supplementary Estimate, Clause 6, Vote.; and whether the sum to be voted will make the fund actuarially solvent, having regard to the claims of existing teachers to pensions on the present scale,

  1259
  and also to the liabilities likely to be incurred in respect to future teachers on the same scale?
  MR. HANBURY: The Report cannot be circulated in time, but I shall be prepared to state the substance of it in discussing the Estimate. The Report will be in Members' hands before the discussion of the Estimate for 1897–8. The sum now asked for forms part of a scheme which, I believe, will restore the solvency of the fund, after providing for all its liabilities to present and future teachers.

  CONVENT AND MONASTERY SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how it is proposed to distribute the £12,600 to be voted by Supplementary Estimate to the convent and monastery schools, as representing their share of the arrears of the Irish fee grant?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The amount will be distributed to the capitation convent and monastery schools in proportion to the average daily attendance of pupils (over three and under 15 years of age) for each of the years concerned.

  BRENNAN, JOHN (LATE 41ST REGT.).
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to. Resolution passed unanimously by the Boyle Board of Guardians, in which they ask the Government to take into consideration the case of John Brennan, late 41st Regiment of Foot, who was wounded at Sebastopol, and attended by Dr. Reid in the hospital at Balaclava; and whether ha will inquire into the circumstances of the case, and provide a remedy?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The Resolution of the Boyle Board of Guardians was received two days ago, and will be duly considered.

  CULLENAGH MOUNTAIN, COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. T. J. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government has been called to the excitement caused in the County Tipperary by an attempt of
  1260
  Lord Lismore to enclose Cullenagh Mountain, and forcibly interfere with the rights on the mountain exercised from time immemorial by the tenants on the Lismore estate; and whether, having regard to the danger thus threatened to the public peace, the Government will take steps to prevent this interference with old established rights of the tenants, either by refusing police assistance in turning sheep and cattle off the mountain, or by introducing a short Act amending the Land Law Act, 1896, section 9, by giving to the tenant the right of election at any time, whether he will or will not exercise the casement previously enjoyed by him by the permission of the landlord as of right during a statutory term?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It appears that for a number of years past Lord Lismore let this mountain to his tenants for the grazing of their sheep at the rate of 8d. per head per annum, and that recently notices were served on the tenants that in March next the grazing would be taken up on behalf of the landlord. The service of these notices has been followed by several outrages, of which I would mention two, namely the malicious killing of eleven sheep the property of Lady Chartern in November last—the motive for this outrage being that some sheep had been sold by her to Lord Lismore—and the malicious destruction on the 18th instant of about 1,400 yards of wire fencing and wooden posts, which had been erected by Lord Lismore on the mountain referred to. The question of the ownership of the mountain or of the alleged rights of the tenants, is not one in which the Government can intervene, but they are bound to preserve the peace and prevent any breaches of the law, and this duty they will perform in any eventuality. It is not the intention of the Government to legislate in the direction suggested.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these grazing rights had existed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I have no information upon that point.

  DARDANELLES.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in or about November 1895, one of the Great Powers of Europe

  1261
  made a proposal to Great Britain, in conjunction with, the other Great Powers, to enter the Dardanelles and to seize the Sultan; if so, what reply did Her Majesty's Government make to the proposal?
  *MR. CURZON: No such proposal was made to Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BRYCE: DO I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the statement in the Question, which is taken from the speech of M. Hanotaux, is in fact incorrect?
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir, I have been asked here whether a proposal has been made to Her Majesty's Government, and that is the question I have answered I do not understand that M. Hanotaux said anything about a proposal to Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BRYCE: Perhaps it would be beter to put another question to clear the matter up.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Was not part of the proposal made to Her Majesty's Government to enter the Dardanelles?
  *MR. CURZON: I cannot bisect the proposal. No proposal of the kind was made to Her Majesty's Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman's answer is ambiguous. ["Oh, oh!"] He says he cannot bisect the proposal, but at the same time says that no such proposal was made I wish to ask him whether a proposal to enter the Dardanelles by force was made to Her Majesty's Government?
  *MR. CURZON: I have nothing to add to the answer I have already given. [Ministerial cheers.]
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSintimated that he should repeat the Question.

  LIGHTHOUSES (RED SEA).
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the cause of delay in erecting lighthouses in the Red Sea, particularly at Mocha, and also Abu Ail, on the island of Jebel Tier?
  *MR. CURZON: Funds have already been provided by the Egyptian Government for the construction of these lights, but, as the proposed sites are within. Turkish territory, it will be necessary to make arrangements on the subject with
  1262
  the Porte. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople is in communication with his colleagues as to the nature of the representations which should be addressed to the Porte on behalf of the maritime States who are interested in the subject.

  REFORM PRISONERS (PRETORIA).
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if MR. Sampson and MR. Davies are still kept in prison at Pretoria; and if he will explain the reasons for the continued delay in the circulation of the Papers relating to their case, which were laid upon the Table more than a week ago?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): So far as I am aware, MR. Sampson and MR. Davies are still in prison at Pretoria. The delay in issuing the Papers has arisen from the necessity of a reference to South Africa in connection with one of the documents.
  MR. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Papers are likely to be circulated?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I cannot I am in the hands of other people.

  FOREIGN PATENTS.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that Section 22 of the Patent Act of 1883 does not specify any time within which a foreign patentee must work a, patent taken out by him in this country, or grant licences in default of working it, and the scale upon which he must work is not fixed, and in view of the great differences of opinion which exist as to the English method of granting patents as compared with the American system, would he consider the desirability of appointing a Select Committee of this House to examine the question and report, with a view to the making of such changes in the Patent Laws as might be shown to be equitable and practicable?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. T. RITCHIE,): The hon. Member proposes to open up the working of the whole of the Patent Laws in the investigation which he asks the

  1263
  Committee to undertake. Until it is proved by experience that Section 22 of the Act is insufficient to effect the working of patents taken out by foreigners in this country, I am not prepared to support a Motion for Select Committee.

  FISHING PIKES (IRELAND).
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that though a grant is made out of Imperial Funds for Fishing Piers in Scotland there is no similar grant in Ireland, and whether he will consider the possibility of making a similar provision in Ireland, and extending the same to Kilrush, Liscamior, and Carrigaholt, in County Clare?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It appears from the Estimates that a sum of £3,000 is provided for Fishery Piers in Scotland in the next financial year. The hon. Member does not appear to be aware of the fact that very large sums of money have already been expended on the construction of such piers in Ireland under various Acts of Parliament, and that, as regards two of the piers specially named in the Question, namely, Liscamior and Carrigaholt, sums amounting to £5,184 and £13,761 respectively, have been expended. It has not been the practice in recent years to provide in the Estimates for additional expenditure on piers in Ireland, generally, but of course the Government have always been prepared to inquire into any applications made to them and to consider each case upon its own merits.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this expenditure is out of Irish funds, and not out of Imperial funds?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. It is out of Imperial funds that these charges are paid.

  LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS (IRELAND).
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the memorial of the Irish lighthouse keepers on the subject of their grievances in the matter of pay and pension, etc., to the Board of Commissioners of Irish Lights has been kept for two years without an answer?
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the Commissioners of Irish Lights deferred the consideration of the memorial of the lighthouse keepers pending the Report of the Committee on the Mercantile Marine Fund, but that the Commissioners are now considering the matter.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that two years is too long a time for this investigation?
  [No reply was given.]

  JAMESON RAID (CAPE INQUIRY).
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the interest taken in the British South Africa Company Inquiry, he will lay the Report of and Evidence taken before the Select Committee of the Parliament of Cape Colony with reference to the raid into the Transvaal upon the Table of the House?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It is my intention to lay the Report and Evidence mentioned on the Table of the House. In fact, the Committee have requested me to do so, but some time must elapse before it can be delivered, as it is a very lengthy document.

  CRETE.
  MR. CHANNING: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eye Division (MR. F. S. STEVENSON), I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Vice Consuls at Retimo have sent a dispatch to the Consuls at Canea to the effect that the protraction of the present situation would entail grave consequences, that the Turks desire the re-establishment of order, and declare that they are ready to accept annexation to Greece?
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir; no information has been received to that effect.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether on Monday and Tuesday last the Turkish cannon on the Suda and Galata side of Akrotiri fired upon the Christian troops, who did not reply for fear of being shelled by the warships of the Powers; and whether a protest has been sent by the Cretan Christian troops to the foreign Admirals complaining of such action?
  *MR. CURZON: The following telegram has been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Canea:—
  "No fire has been exchanged between Greek and Turkish troops on the western front since Sunday. On southern front Christians and Mussulmans had some desultory skirmishing. On Monday and Tuesday the insurgents were filing against Suda arsenal, and on Monday and Wednesday against Fort lzzedin. Turks replied with very few rifle shots and two or three shells towards village of Tsikalaria. Statement of newspaper correspondents that Turks fired shells on villages of Korakies Akrotiri without provocation disagrees with information of Colonel Chermside and British Arsenal."
  I may, perhaps, be allowed at the same time, with reference to many questions which have been asked during the last few days in regard to alleged sallies from Canea, to read the folowing telegram which has also been received from Sir A. Biliotti:—
  "Two companies, about 300 men. Turkish troops garrisoned during last four months Voukoulies to afford protection to the Turkish emigrants, who returned to their village in that commune; their block-house was destroyed by Greek regular artillery; the garrison sallied out at night, but was afterwards surrounded. Major and many killed, over 100 taken prisoners, about 80 found their way back; no sortie was made from Canea in connection with Voukoulies affair; the only offensive operation undertaken by the Turks was driving the insurgents from the heights dominating Halepa on the 14th of February."
  MR. CHANNING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the operations in connection with this Turkish fort, which he states is several miles from Canea, were not the operations which led to the cannonading of the insurgent position by the allied fleet?
  *MR. CURZON: No, Sir; the hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect in his geography. Voukoulies Fort, about which I have just been reading, is considerably to the west and a little to the south-west of Canea. The operations of the insurgents against which the tiring of the fleets was directed the other day were to the east and a little to the south-east of Canea, many miles from Voukoulies.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state whether the 3,000 Mussulmans besieged at Kandanos and Selinos have been relieved, or what is their fate?
  *MR. CURZON: I have had no notice of the Question, but as I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would very legitimately ask it, I have brought the information. We have received the following telegram from the British Admiral:—
  "The armistice at Selinos will last three days longer, till then no danger. Austrian ship gone there, am sending one as soon as can be spared. Have been consulting with colleagues plan of operations with a view of relieving beleaguered Mahomedans in other districts."
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: On that answer, may I ask whether that applies to the two beleaguered forces at Kandanos and Selinos, as it will he remembered that there were 2,000 Mussulmans in one place and 1,000 in the other?
  *MR. CURZON: Yes, Sir. Selinos is a port on the coast from which Kandanos, in the interior, is, as I understand, separated by a range of mountains, and the operations for relief which may be directed on behalf of the one will apply to the other. ["Hear, hear!"]

  SUPPLY (NAVAL ESTIMATES).
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked the First Lord of the Treasury when the First Lord of the Admiralty would make his statement with regard to the Navy, and upon what Vote?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THIS TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,)replied that there had been an idea that his right hon. Friend would make his statement on Monday with the Speaker in the Chair, and that the Debate would then be adjourned. That was the course pursued last year, but, on consultation with his right hon. Friend he had come to the conclusion that the statement should be made after the Speaker had left the Chair.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: When?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: On Friday.

  POLICE AND SANITARY REGULATIONS.
  Ordered, That the Committee of Selection do appoint. Committee, not exceeding Nine Members, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities, by

  1267
  which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or are repugnant to, the general law.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered, That, it be an Instruction to the Committee in their Report, under Standing Orders 150 and 173A, to state their reasons for granting any powers in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the general law.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee not to insert in any Bill referred to them any provision which is already in force in the district to which the Bill applies under any public Act, or which might be put in force by adopting the provisions of any adoptive Act.
  Ordered, That in the case of Bills reported from the Committee, Three clear days shall intervene between the date when the Report of the Committee is circulated with the Votes and the consideration of the Bill.—(MR. Jesse Callings.)

LONDON WATER COMPANIES AMALGAMATION BILL.
Second Reading deferred from Wednesday next till Wednesday 10th March.
MOTIONS.
  SOLICITORS (IRELAND).
  Bill to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to Solicitors and to the service of indentured apprentices in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by MR. Carson, MR. Hemphill, and MR. O'Neill; presented, and Head the First time; to be Read. Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 145.]
  APPOINTMENT OF HIGH SHERIFFS (IRELAND).
  Bill to relieve persons required to serve in the office of High Sheriff in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by MR. Carson, Colonel Saunderson, MR. Horace Plunkett, MR. John Redmond, and Sir R. Penrose FitzGerald; presented, and Read the First time; to be Read. Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 146.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, MR. J. W. LOWTHER, in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.

    NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
    1. £507,000, Navy (Supplementary).
    MR. VESEY KNOXsaid this large Supplementary Vote amounted to an extraordinary Budget like the extraordinary Budgets of some Continental States, and surely the House was entitled to some explanation of it. He would like to know why £116,000 more was wanted for coal.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. W. E. MACARTNEY,)replied that, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the current year, it had been necessary to keep a larger number of ships in commission than were provided for when the Estimates were framed. This accounted for the additional expenditure in coal and maintenance stores. It was also considered advisable, owing to the increased activity in the shipping industry in private yards and the large number of private orders which were being placed, to take advantage of a rising market in the interests of the economical administration of the service and a "place" the Government, orders as early as possible. It had been necessary to accelerate the completion of guns under construction, and the supply of ammunition that they might be ready for certain classes of ships, the building of which was being hastened. The £100 asked for on account of works, buildings, and repairs was merely a formal sum placed in the Estimate to bring under the notice of the House the magnitude of the work to be undertaken, which included the reconstruction of a jetty at Devonport, and foundations for 100-ton sheers, dredging, etc., in order to provide accommodation for large battleships, the total estimated cost being £20,000. No money would be

    1269
    spent on these objects during the current year.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was a remarkable thing that one-quarter of the amount originally asked for was being spent in coal. He presumed this was largely due to the state of affairs in the East, and the employment of more troops on active service than was contemplated. If so it might be possible to raise the whole of the Eastern question on this Estimate. [Laughter.] Member who objected to the employment of Her Majesty's coal against the Greeks or the Christians in Crete might discuss the entire action of the Government in the matter. He presumed that the increase of £30,000 for guns related to the supply of wire guns. [MR. MACARTNEY signified assent.] He was glad of it. He would be glad to see more money spent on these splendid armaments, which he believed were the finest that could be used by any navy in the world.
    MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.),while admitting that the circumstances of the last 18 months had been exceptional, thought a fuller explanation should be given why so large a sum was wanted for coal. If it were possible and convenient to vote such sums as these on Supplementary or other Estimates, why were they asked to vote for enormous loan Bills?
    MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid that last year they specifically voted about half a million for harbour accommodation and purposes connected with Devonport Dockyard. That being so, why were they now asked for £100?
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid the work had been considerably altered since the attention of the House was first directed to it, and it had been necessary to make provision for the larger class of battleships which could not get into the Keyham basin. In order to facilitate that it would be necessary to construct a new jetty. The Estimates had been revised, and amounted to a very much larger sum than was originally designed. In compliance with a rule of the Treasury, the nominal sum of £100 had been put in the Supplementary Estimate in order to call the attention of Parliament to the total estimated cost. The works which were to be carried out before the end of the current year would be provided for out of savings on Vote 10.
    MR. MORTONasked whether the sum of about half a million, which was specially voted last year for the current year, had already been expended?
    MR. MACARTNEY: No, it has not already been expended.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was not surprised that hon. Members should have had some difficulty in understanding the exact position. As he understood it this was a new work of magnitude, and the Admiralty could not be allowed by the Treasury to spend money on it until it had been brought to the notice of Parliament and submitted to their approval. By means of the item of £100, the Admiralty would be enabled at the beginning of the financial year, before Vote 10 had been reached, to pay for the work out of the ordinary proceeds. What was specified here, however, but a series of works which did not seem to be connected necessarily with one another? His hon. Friend asked for some explanation in connection with this item and the Loan Act of last year. The Naval Loan Act of last year contained an item for harbours and approaches, which as far as he could gather was for Devonport. That was work which might be within the scope of the Naval Loan Act, but this was an extra item, the necessity for which had been discovered since. The amount would come on when the Navy Estimates were prepared. He did not know when they were to see the Navy Estimates.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. GOSCHEN,): Tuesday.
    MR. DILLONsaid he thought the Secretary to the Admiralty had very clearly exemplified the enormous inconvenience of this double method of expenditure by loan and yearly Estimates. It was easy to carry out such works by the annual Votes instead of having recourse to the enormous loan Bills that had been passed during the last few years. The Secretary to the Admiralty could hardly claim to have carried out the Regulation of the Treasury. The Supplementary Estimate had only been circulated that morning, and, so far from the Treasury Rule being carried out, it was proposed to take the Vote in silence without a word of explanation.
    MR. MORTONasked why the sum of half a million voted last year had not been expended.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTYsaid that the £500,000 in the Loan Bill was intended to be spent over several years. That was for definite and specific works, and was not an annual Vote. This was a work of magnitude, but it did not enter into the general scheme; it was a separate work, and it would be contrary to Parliamentary procedure that any portion of the loan fund should be given for this particular item.
    MR. KNOXreminded the Committee that the Secretary to the Admiralty stated that the rule was that as soon as any work was contemplated, even though it was not to be done in the present financial year, there was to be a separate Estimate for it.
    MR. MACARTNEY: No, I never said that.
    MR. KNOXsaid that, as he understood the matter, the whole of this £20,000, or at least a, large part of it, was going to be spent in the present, financial year, and he thought the Committee ought to be informed how much it was proposed to spend in the course of the present financial year.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid the work would be proceeded with with all due dispatch a but as the weather might interfere with its progress he could not say how much would be spent on it during the current financial year.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I presume there will be an Estimate.
    MR. MACARTNEY: Of course there will.
    MR. KNOXsaid that, on the principle the Under Secretary to the Admiralty had now laid down, there should never be an Estimate, because the weather might upset all calculations. He noticed that, under Sub-head B., for Metals and Metal Articles, the original Estimate was, £1,149,000, and the revised Estimate £1,419,000. He understood that the Admiralty, apprehending a rise in pig iron, had laid in a larger stock of metals and metal articles than was required for the work in hand for the financial year. The Admiralty had, in fact, speculated in "metal futures." He did not object to reasonable speculation by the Department, but he thought, the Committee should be told whether there had been a profit or a loss on the transaction.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid the metals and metal articles intended for ships in the course of construction had run short, and as large stock of these materials had been ordered. There could be no doubt as to the benefit that had accrued to the Department by the, buying of these stocks.
    Vote agreed to.
    2. £5,775 13s., Naval Defence Act, 1889 (Excess Expenditure), 1896–7.
    MR. KNOXsaid he should like to know how much of the original £10,000,000 for the construction of vessels, to which this vote was supplementary, had been spent in the dockyards of the north of Ireland?
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (MR. J. W. LOWTHER,): Order, order! The discussion of that subject is not in order on this vote.
    MR. KNOXsaid he understood that this sum of £5,775 13s. was supplementary to an original sum of £10,000,000 for naval construction. He therefore submitted that it was a fair question to ask how much of that £10,000,000 had been spent in the Irish shipbuilding yards? He knew that, when the money was voted in 1889, one of the Irish yards, that of Derry, was decided to be fit for this work, and he would like to know whether any work had been given to it?
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not think that question can be properly raised.
    MR. KNOXsaid, if that were so, he was in doubt what question could be raised except the small financial question of excess. Was he to understand that in all cases like this, if the total amount raised had been exhausted and the Department concerned came to the House for a supplementary Estimate, they were not obliged to explain to the House on what works the excess had been incurred?
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESdesired to know how it was there was any excess at all. Was it in consequence of non-efficient specifications having been sent by the Department to the contractors, of new demands made by the Department on the contractors during the progress of the work?
    MR. DILLONsaid it was bad enough for the House to be asked to vote these large sums in. Loans Bill without being

    1273
    asked to increase the amounts by supplementary Estimates. It ought to be the policy of the Departments which get these large audits to keep within the margin, so that if they had not a, surplus remaining after the completion of the work they would not, at least, have to ask the House for a, supplementary Estimate to make up the deficiency.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he believed that this was the last time the Naval Defence Act of 1880 would appear on the Estimates.
    MR. MACARTNEY: Yes.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Naval Defence Act had now reached its final stage, and he thought it was a matter for congratulation that the original Estimate of £10,000,000 for that great work had only been exceeded by £500,000. Considering that the work had been in progress for seven years under three successive Boards of Admiralty, the fact that so small a sum as £500,000 was required to complete it reflected the greatest credit on the officials concerned, either in the preparation of the Estimate or in the carrying out of the work. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. KNOXsaid the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee were in part a laudation of his own administration. He should like to hear something on the subject from the hon. Gentleman at present in charge.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid he should have thought, after what had been said by the hon. Member for Dundee, that it was unnecessary for him to say anything further about the Naval Defence Act. Close on 22½ millions sterling had been issued under the Act. The money was devoted to three purposes. For the first, which involved ten millions, there was an excess expenditure of £5,775 13s., for which the sanction of the Committee was now asked. For the second, involving-close on ten millions, there was an expenditure less than the Estimate of £2,000. and for the third, for which 2½ millions were asked, there was an expenditure less than the Estimate of £20,000. So that in the first case only was there a slight excess over the estimated expenditure.
    MR. DILLON: What has become of the money in the cases where the expenditure was below the Estimate?
    MR. MACARTNEY: It had to be surrendered to the new Sinking Fund.
    Vote agreed to.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY) ESTIMATES, 1896–7.
      CLASS I.
      3. £7,000, Supplementary, Public Buildings, Great Britain.—Agreed to.

      CLASS II.
      4. £1,000, Supplementary, Colonial Office.—Agreed to.
      5. £40, Supplementary, the Mint, including Coinage.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that some alteration should be made in the sizes of the half-sovereign and the farthing, to prevent the laitter from being passed for the former; and also that every coin should bear its denomination on its face.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said the Mint proposed to try whether it was not possible to secure that the colour of the farthing should be in the first place entirely different from the colour of the half-sovereign. ["Hear, hear!"]
      Vote agreed to.
      6. £25,000, Supplementary, Stationery and Printing.
      MR. KNOXasked whether anything had been done with regard to the Fair Wages Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for East Donegal, and also whether the complaints of the printing operatives of Ireland in regard to the Queen's printers, Dublin, had been attended to.
      *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. R. W. HANBURY,)said the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for East Donegal only dealt with the wages paid in the stationery department. The new Committee that was now sitting would deal with all the Government departments. Whenever any tenders were now invited for Government contracts the Fair Wages Resolution of the House was brought more prominently under the eves of those who tendered

      1275
      than hitherto, and the Treasury took care that the Resolution was strictly carried out by all contractors. That applied to Ireland as well as to England. Questions were raised before the former Committee as to the printing in Ireland connected with boards of guardians, in which it appeared the Resolution was not carried out; but, of course, these were not Government contracts. Vote agreed to.
      7. £80, Supplementary, Lunacy Commission, Scotland.—Agreed to.

      CLASS III.
      8. £17,500, Supplementary, Law Charges.—Agreed to.
      9. £2,000, Supplementary, Supreme Court of Judicature.—Agreed to.
      10. £10, Supplementary, County Courts.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he found on referring to the original Estimate that there was an increased expenditure in connection with the levying of processes in County Courts. He desired to know whether that was distributed over all the country, or was it to be ascribed to special circumstances arising in particular localities?
      MR. HANBURYsaid that, though he was not responsible for the Vote, he could give the hon. Member the information he desired. The charges were very varied, and only a small portion of the Vote was connected with the Welsh question.
      Vote agreed to.
      11. £2,030, Supplementary, Register House, Edinburgh.
      MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid that for a long time the clerks employed in this office had had a deep-seated grievance with regard to their scale of pay as compared with that in the offices in London and Dublin. There was a discussion on this question two years ago, and he should like to know whether the Government had considered the matter.
      *MR. HANBURYsaid that, as to all Second Division clerks, the scale was the same throughout the United Kingdom; but with regard to all
      1276
      other officials, the scale varied according to the cost of living in the town concerned. But, although the rate in Edinburgh might differ from that in London and Dublin, he had not been able to satisfy himself, having regard to the comparative cost of living in the different towns, that any injustice was done.
      Vote agreed to.
      12. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £12,938 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
      MR. DENIS KILBRIDEsaid that some time ago the Chief Secretary promised. Return with regard to the recent appointments of temporary Sub-Commissioners. The hon. Member for East Mayo had asked the Government to postpone the Vote until the Return was in the hands of hon. Members; but, very unreasonably, the Government had refused this request. As it was, the Committee was asked to vote this money in the dark. They knew nothing about the persons appointed, and he protested against the Vote being taken in these circumstances. It was not a question whether the gentlemen appointed belonged to one Party or another; but they ought to have a practical knowledge of the work they were called on to perform, and they ought to understand all about the value of land. He moved to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
      MR. DILLONsaid that he could not understand why the Government had refused to postpone this Vote until the Return was available. The Chief Secretary very well knew that these new appointments of assistant lay commissioners had given the greatest dissatisfaction in Ireland, and especially in Ulster among the Unionist tenant farmers. He did not state his personal views, because he knew nothing at all of the gentlemen appointed, except their names. He protested against the action of the Government in forcing this Vote on before the Return was issued; and he was only expressing the views of the constituents

      1277
      of the Attorney General for Ireland and of the Ulster farmers generally. The appointments had been condemned at meetings of both parties and at united meetings.
      MR. EDWARD CARSONsaid that the appointments of the new assistant lay Commissioners had given great dissatisfaction among the landowners. These new Sub-Commissioners were reducing rents at enormous rates, without giving any reasons for the reductions. Were they appointed by the day or by the year, and did their appointments depend on the number of cases which came in? Were they paid the same salaries as the quasi-permanent Commissioners, or were they paid smaller salaries which would not be so likely to attract men of independence? The appointment of these temporary Sub-Commissioners might be a necessity, but it was a deplorable necessity. He joined with hon. Gentlemen opposite in expressing great anxiety to see the qualifications of these gentlemen, about whom strange stories were told from time to time. There ought to be an opportunity given of going into the matter fully.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR.)thought that it would have been more convenient if the hon. Member for North Galway and the hon. Member for East Mayo had raised this question in reference to the appointment of these Sub-Commissioners when the Estimates for the next, financial year came on for discussion, by which time the Return would have been made and the matter might have been fully gone into. The unfortunate Chief Secretary for Ireland had to make some 40 or 50 of these appointments, and, no matter how conscientiously those appointments were made, they were necessarily subject to considerable criticism. He could assure the hon. Members opposite that he had spared no trouble in making these appointments in order to select the best men for the positions, and he should be sorry to say how much of his time had been occupied in interviewing the hundreds of gentlemen who had applied for the appointments. Complaint had been made that comparatively few of those who had been appointed were acquainted with the Ulster custom. It must, however, be remembered that a large proportion of the new appointments
      1278
      were in reality reappointments of Gentlemen who had previously held such posts, and who, therefore, were well acquainted with the Ulster custom. The figures before him showed that out of the 44 new appointments 25 were reappointments, 17 of whom were from Ulster or who had experience of fixing rents in Ulster. Of the 19 new appointments seven were from Ulster. This was exclusive of those who already held their posts when the present Government came into office. In answer to a question from one of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he had to say that the appointments were for a year with the exception of four, whom he might term a emergency men "—[ironical cheers and laughter from the Nationalist Benches]—who were appointed by the day. ["Hear, hear!"]
      MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary took credit for having made so many reappointments of these Sub-Commissioners, but those were the men who were old hands at cutting down rents, and he should have thought that that was a good ground for never employing them again. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] What had occurred in Ireland during the last few months justified the doubts that had been expressed as to the justice of the legislation of last year. ["Hear, hear!"]
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had drawn a moving picture of the mental sufferings he had undergone in making these appointments. Rut if the right hon. Gentleman suffered so deeply under this infliction, he should like to ask what the feelings of the Irish landlords must have been when they knew that the right hon. Gentleman was engaged in Dublin Castle in appointing to the offices of Sub-Commissioners some 40 gentlemen, whose one and only object would be the further reduction of rents? In Ireland at the present, moment, as far as he knew, the only qualification necessary for a Sub-Commissioner, who probably knew nothing about agriculture, was that he should be able to go to a farm, look at it, and, hearing that the rent had been reduced on a former occasion some 20 or 25 per cent., make a further reduction of 35, 40, and sometimes 50 per cent. The result, therefore would be that in some cases the rent

      1279
      would be reduced altogether by about 70 per cent. The House would see that at the present moment a system of absolute and deliberate confiscation was being adopted. The House, therefore, would understand that the Irish landlords looked with some suspicion upon the appointment of these Sub-Commissioners, who would have to decide whether they and their families should be allowed to remain in Ireland or be turned out of the country. He knew that the Government had expressed their opinion that a final settlement of the Irish Land Question could only be arrived at when the dual ownership ceased to be, and when the time arrived when public money would buy out the present landlords in order to put new landlords in their place. There was, of course, a cheap and easy way for the British Exchequer to settle the Irish Land Question, namely, by appointing a lot of Sub-Commissioners who were to understand that their appointments would depend upon the influx of Irish tenants into their Courts, and who, having received more or less their cue from the Government, the Sub-Commissioners would proceed to reduce the rents by 40, 50, 60, and sometimes by 70 per cent. In that case the Irish landlord who had no margin to live on would be an easy man to deal with. That might be an admirable plan, and might commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to his right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary and the Leader of the House, who thought that this was a final and happy solution of the Irish Land Question. But the House could not suppose that such a policy could commend itself to the Irish landlords. The recent action of the Land Commissioners in Ireland was to his mind absolutely inexplicable. Without giving any reasons at all they had reduced rents 40, 50, and even 70 per cent. ["Hear, hear!"] The Irish landlord was now in this happy position. He knew that at any time some of these gentlemen might come down and hold a Court, and he had not the least idea as to whether, when they had performed their functions, he would have a penny left to pay his passage out of Ireland. Was this realised by the House of Commons? The Irish landlords were a class who did not deserve this sweeping condemnation at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
      1280
      Their position was one against which the good sense and sense of justice of the House must in the end prevail. He did not object to the Vote, but he appealed to Her Majesty's Government to see whether they could not in some way create in Ireland a court presided over by men whose position would be permanent, and not dependent upon the fact that their decisions might bring an influx of new tenants into their Courts. ["Hear, hear!"]
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the Chief Secretary was bound to appoint these Commissioners by the law of the country, and he was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish the head of a department to be guilty of an illegality. He had never heard of reductions of 60 or 70 per cent. being made by the Commissioners, and he would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether it was not a fact that the tenants of Ulster, including his own constituents, were up in arms against the decisions of the Commissioners?
      COLONEL SAUNDERSON: That is only natural to an Irishman. [Laughter.]
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsupposed it was natural for a tenant to expect a large reduction and for a landlord to resent it, but when the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the dissatisfaction among landlords it was just as well that the Committee should know that the dissatisfaction of the tenants with the insufficiency of the reductions was practically universal. ["Hear, hear!"] Agitation, disturbance, legislation, and the Sub-Commissioners had on the whole produced smaller reductions in Ireland than had voluntary arrangements in England.
      MR. CARSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the interests in farms in Ireland sell for a larger sum than they do in England?
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that had nothing to do with the matter, and there could be no comparison of the sort because of the simple and fundamental fact that all the improvements were made by the tenant in Ireland and by the landlord, speaking generally, in England. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think there was something odious and repulsive in the system of payment by the day of gentlemen employed in the important work of reducing rents in Ireland, but he

      1281
      would suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should join in the movement general among tenants in Ulster for allowing the compulsory purchase of his land by the tenant, and they would very soon get rid of these Sub-Commissioners. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet had said that the Sub-Commissioners had acquired the name of Sub-Confiscators.
      MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that the person who suggested that name to him was the late Lord Cairns.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid it would remain in the minds of the Irish people a very delicate historical question whether the title of founder of the Land League should be given to his hon. Friend near him or to the right hon. Gentleman whose occupation of the office of Chief Secretary was one of the chief causes of its foundation. [Cheers and laughter.]
      MR. T. C. FLYNNsaid that, taking the whole of the revision of rents by the Sub-Commissioners down to last year, the average reductions were only 21·5 per cent., whereas voluntary reductions of 40, 50, and even 60 per cent., or three times as much, had been given in England. It was not only unfair but most unreasonable for the representatives of the landed interest to come down to the House and condemn the reductions given by the Sub-Commissioners. He feared that speeches like that of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh might have an intimidating effect upon the Assistant Sub-Commissioners, who were liable to be dismissed at any moment.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURobserved that in almost every case the appointment was for a year at least.
      MR. FLYNNsaid that, at any rate, these gentlemen desired to retain their posts, and premature attacks upon them were greatly to be deprecated. The Return showing their qualifications ought to be supplied as soon as possible.
      MR. J. A. RENTOULsaid that he was in possession of a good deal of information concerning the Commissioners who had been appointed, and he had reason to believe that the selection had been very well made. One gentleman had been appointed from his own division, having been recommended by himself, by the hon. Member for North Down, who was closely connected with the landlord interest, by the Marquess of Londonderry,
      1282
      and all the leading landlords of the division, and by the tenant farmers of the district, 200 of whom signed a memorial in his favour. He believed that when the qualifications of these Commissioners were submitted to the House it would be found that there was nothing to say against the appointments.
      MAJOR JAMESONhoped the Chief Secretary would consent to postpone the Vote. At present the Committee were without information about the qualifications of these gentlemen. They could not tell whether the appointments were good, as the hon. Member for East Down averred, or whether they were bad, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh declared.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONexplained that all he had said was that nothing was known about, them.
      MAJOR JAMESON,referring to the Chief Secretary's statement that 17 out of 24 gentlemen appointed had knowledge of Ulster, asked for how long they had been in that province.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURreplied that they were either natives of Ulster, or had had experience in valuing land there.
      MR. SMITH-BARRY (Hunts,)said that if hon. Members opposite went to a division he should vote with them, as a protest against the way in which the Commissioners had done their work. If they proceeded as they had begun, a very large number of landlords must inevitably be ruined. These Commissioners were given no instructions to guide them in fixing rents. It was supposed that they had regard to the prices obtainable for agricultural produce, but, as a matter of fact, rents were being reduced at a rate entirely unwarranted by the prices prevailing in recent years. Upon what grounds had these enormous and unjustifiable reductions been made? The prices given for tenant right were increasing every day. The more the rent was cut down the higher, apparently, became the value of the tenant right. There was no analogy between the case of England and that of Ireland. Would they find a man in England ready to give a large sum of money for the right of taking a farm in Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire, Essex, or any of the other distressed counties? The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of

      1283
      Liverpool had referred to tenants' improvements, but the highest prices paid for tenant right were paid in cases where there was grass land, and where there were no improvements at all. The existing state of affairs in regard to rent reduction was unsatisfactory and unjust, and must be reconsidered by Parliament if the landlords of Ireland were not to be reduced to absolute ruin.
      Question put, "That a sum not exceeding, £7,938 be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 91; Noes, 188.—(Division List No. 51.)
      Original Question put, and agreed to.

      CLASS IV.
      13. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £153,044, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Public Education in England and Wales."
      *MR. F. A. CHANNINGwished to draw attention to the amount assigned to School Boards under Section 97 of the Education Act. The amount was £19,680. It seemed to him that that sum was inadequate to meet the undertaking given to School Boards by the Education Department under the Circular of 1881. According to. Return obtained by the right hon. Member for Rotherham, the total amount due last year to School Boards in the country under Section 97 was in England £27,523, and in Wales £7,192, making a total of £34,715. The Vote passed last year for this item was only £26,400. That left a deficit to be made good by Supplementary Estimate of £8,315 on the year. The Circular of the Department of 1881 gave an undertaking to School Boards that they should be entitled to a grant under Section 97, not only for the current year, but also for the year immediately preceding. He found that the amount of unclaimed grant for last year under the Section in question was, in England £10,388, and in Wales £4,334, or rather more than half the grant due in the Principality. The total of unclaimed grants for last year,
      1284
      therefore, was £14,722. The payment, therefore, of these grants for the second year, under the Circular, together with the deficit of £8,315 on last year, made up a total of nearly £4,000 greater than appeared in the Supplementary Estimate. That was the first point on which, he wished for an explanation. Then there was the further point—that the amount of unclaimed grant was a minimum amount. It was probable that other School Boards had come on the list for these grants, so that the amount might be still greater. It had been the policy of the Department to keep the School Boards directly concerned in the dark about it. The subject, he might say here, was not at all one of a party character, for successive Vice Presidents of the Council of both parties had pursued the same course. No information was given to those necessitous School Boards that they were entitled to claim the money. He contended that Section 97 of the Act imposed no time limit whatever in respect to this grant. According to the wording of that section, any School Board which could establish the fact that. 3d. rate on their assessment would not produce 7s. 6d. per head of the children in average attendance, was entitled to the grant to have that amount made up, and as the section laid down no time limit the Boards could claim it for any past year. Since the matter was discussed last year a good many claims had been sent in to the Department based upon this view of Section 97, and the Department were asked to take the question into consideration. The Vice President dealt with it in a frank spirit last Session, and admitted that the circular of 1881 did not constitute a statutory bar to the claims for arrears—that if a School Board could show a legal claim the circular would be of no value to set aside that claim. Well, a number of those claims having been sent in, the Department consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and afterwards addressed a letter to the School Boards informing them that the Law Officers had advised the Department that such claims "should not be entertained." Very considerable importance might attach to the wording of that legal opinion, and he invited the Vice President to give the Committee some further explanation as to its precise meaning. He was placed

      1285
      at some disadvantage by the discussion taking place on that day, because he had a question on the Paper next week, asking the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation of a case relating to a particular School Board, the Sutton-in-Ash-field Board, in which the terms of the Circular of 1881 were set aside by the Department, and in which the Department assigned to the Board in question, not only the amount due under the section for the current year, and for the school year immediately preceding, but also the arrears for a third year. In this instance, therefore, the Department admitted the principle and the right of claim by the School Board. In the particular case to which he referred, the School Board, as he understood, became aware of their ability to make the claim under Section 97. They sent in their claim for arrears, and, as he was informed, the officials of the Education Department replied that the circular of 1881 barreil all such claims, and that, therefore, the Department was not legally in a position to entertain any claim except that for the current year. The School Board thereupon drew the attention of the Department to the wording of the Act, and to their position as a necessitous School Board, as deputation from the Board then waited on the Department at Whitehall in 1885. And, finally, the Department said that, after considering the case, they would admit the arrears claim of the Board for a third year, the three years being 1883, 1884, and 1885. Now the matter was one of importance to a large number of people in many parts of the country. The total amount of such arrears claimed by the poor School Boards concerned was not small, and, supposing the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown was not so clear and decided as to constitute an absolute bar to the claims, he thought those School Boards were entitled, as a matter of right, to the generous consideration of the Department. ["Hear, hear!"] They had been practically kept in the dark, as he had said, with respect to the claims, and there was a large sum now fairly due to them. Even if the claims for arrears could not be recognised by the Department in view of the opinion expressed by the Law Officers, still he urged that the position of the School
      1286
      Board in question constituted, under the circumstances, a strong reason for the Department dealing with them in a broad and generous spirit. ["Hear, hear!"] He had quoted one instance in a which the Department had recognised the claim for the arrears, and he saw no reason why the same consideration could not be extended to School Boards in many other necessitous districts. He begged to-move the reduction which stood in his name.
      THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,)said that, the promises contained in the circular of 1881 would be fulfilled to the letter, and every Board School would receive the amount to which it was entitled. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Estimate of £19,680 would prove to be too small to meet the claims of the School Boards, but he would point out that the Estimates had been carefully prepared by officials of experience, and it was believed that the sum asked for would meet all such claims as would mature and become payable before March 31 next, and that was all they had to do in those Supplementary Estimates. With regard to arrears, that was not a question for him, but rather for the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee of Council had no jurisdiction at all. The Committee of Council had intrusted to them by Parliament certain sums of money, and they were bound to pay them according to law. When they were in doubt as to the payments they ought to make, they fortified themselves with the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government. In this particular matter the Committee of Council had consulted the Law Officers of the Crown, and, as the result of the advice which they had received, they came to the decision that they could not entertain applications from necessitous Board Schools for grants beyond the current year and the preceding year. Of course, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw fit to put on the Estimates a sum of money for paying all the arrears, it would be the duty of the Committee of Council to make the payments accordingly; but, as the case now stood, they were not able to pay out of the sums voted for the current year more than the grant for the current year and the arrears for the year preceding.

      1287
      The right hon. Member referred to the case of the School Board of Sutton-in-Ashfield, where two years' arrears were paid. He thought that must have been a payment made by. Liberal Government, because he did not think such a payment was ever made in his time. If the hon. Member would put a Question down for next week, he would answer it, and if there were any particular reasons why Sutton-in-Ashfield was treated different to other places, he should be glad to give him an explanation. So far as the Government was at present advised, while they would fulfil to the letter the engagements of 1881, and while they would ask Parliament in the coming year for sufficient provision to meet the case of all School Boards which applied for the arrears to which under the circular of 1881 they were entitled, they considered that the provision which was now being asked for was ample to fulfil those obligations, and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would vote that sum.
      MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this was a question for the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a most important one. He would venture to ask the House to consider it very carefully, because it affected the interests of a very large number of Boards of the poorest character all over the county. He certainly thought this was a case in which sentiments of equity ought to prevail, and if the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown precluded the Committee of Council from dealing with this matter according to an equitable view of the case, then the House of Commons, as the right hon. Gentleman had himself said, could take the matter into its own hands. He could not believe that the Government would, at a time like the present, refuse such a reasonable request as was now made. He felt a special interest in this question, because a very large proportion of these arrears were, unfortunately, due to the School Boards in Wales. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would, on that ground, bring the weight of his influence to bear on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to have these grants made. If the Government declined to take this course, he hoped the House would take an independent view of the matter.
      MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was sorry to hear the somewhat uncompromising line which the Vice President had taken up in this matter, because he was sure there was no desire on either side of the House to make any party capital out of the subject. He hoped that the Vice President would, on looking at this matter more carefully, see his way to make some suggestion to the House by which these poor districts might be able to claim the money to which they were unquestionably legally entitled. He understood the position the Vice President took up was that the Law Officers had advised that the claims beyond the current year and the year before were not legal. He could not say, judging by the terms of the circular letter, that the opinion expressed by the Law Officers was a very strong one, and he thought that, considering that public attention had been drawn to the matter, and that there were now a considerable number of these claims, they might fairly ask the Vice President to give his further and special attention to it, and see if the decision the Law Officers had arrived at might not be modified or altered. If it was not modified or altered, then they might press the Vice President, to see whether, by legislation, or in some other way, he could not come to some just and satisfactory solution of this matter. If the arrears were paid beyond the current year and the past year in one case, it was done either legally or illegally. He could not think for a moment that a Vice President, whether he was. Conservative or Liberal Vice President, would commit an injustice, and if it was an illegality, it ought not to be permitted. It must be assumed that the Committee of Council, since they took legal advice, acted in a proper and legal manner; but if they were able, in the case of a single school, to give arrears beyond the past year, then it was clear that, under certain circumstances, they could do so in other cases. If, when the Vice-President came to consider the matter, he found that in one case arrears had been granted, that would go far to destroy the value of the legal opinion on the ratepayers' claim. The right hon. Gentleman would, he hoped, deal with this matter in a just, and even generous, spirit. The point of the case was, that it was not brought to the knowledge of

      1289
      these districts that they were entitled to this money, and there ought not to be any legal quibble in the way of their obtaining the grant.
      *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,)did not think the Education Department came out very handsomely in the discussion of this question. It appeared that the School Board were entitled to the money from the Education Department, but were kept in ignorance of the fact, and when, later, the Boards made the discovery, the Department said that, though the ratepayers of a few years ago were entitled to receive it, the ratepayers of the present day were not. The facts being what they were, and especially if the statement made in regard to the school at Sutton-in-Ashfield was correct, then the Department might well strain a point in favour of the schools. He hoped that two assurances would be forthcoming, first, that the Sutton-in-Ashfield case would be inquired into, and, if the facts in regard to it had been correctly stated, a similar course would now be pursued; and secondly, that in coming legislative proposals on behalf of Board Schools this matter would be satisfactorily dealt with. He did not think it was becoming in a great Department to do anything which bore the appearance of sharp practice, and this term might, he thought, be applied to the way in which this matter had been dealt with.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Committee had been told that an opinion had been given by the law officials, but the right hon. Gentleman did not convey to the Committee the exact terms of that opinion, and this, he thought, should be done. The question was, whether School Boards were entitled to these arrears or not, and upon this the Committee were entitled to some guidance. He called the attention of the Committee to the section under which the claim was made. When. School Board satisfied the Education Department that certain conditions obtained, such School Board was to be entitled to this particular grant. Thus the legal claim was established; and, he supposed, a School Board could, within the year, sue the Department or the Treasury for the amount. Was that so or not? The words were specific—"shall be entitled"—and if it was as legal obligation at all on the part of the Treasury
      1290
      or the Education Department, then, certainly two years was not the limit of the claim, the Statute of Limitations allowed six years. No statute imposed a limit of two years. The Committee were entitled to know what specifically was the opinion given by the legal advisers of the Department. It was not a case of a claim against the Crown by a litigant; it was the claim of a certain district to a certain sum of money under a statute, and in such a case, and on the public service, the Committee should know exactly what the opinion was. It might save the locality from indulging in litigation against a powerful Department, having at command the resources of the State. Such litigation might be crushing on a locality in which, perhaps, a shilling rate meant only a few hundred pounds. In the public interest he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he was prepared to lay the opinion of the Law Officers on the Table?
      SIR J. GORSTcould not undertake to lay on the Table the opinion of the Law Officers. It was the universal custom, as he knew, having been. Law Officer himself, not to make these opinions public. Why it should be he did not know. In other countries it was not so. In the United States he believed the opinions of law officers were published. In this country it was never done; and it was not for him to act counter to the universal custom.
      MR. SAMUEL EVANS,on looking at the section of the Act, did not come to the conclusion at which the Law Officers arrived. Notwithstanding that precedents were against the publication of Law Officers' opinions, the Committee were entitled to ask the grounds upon which the opinion was given. It was plain that the proviso had been tacked on in Committee, and did not touch the first part of the section at all. There was nothing in the proviso to imply any limitation for any term of years. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to inform the Committee what his view of the section was, just as if there had been no Law Officers' opinion. The right hon. Gentleman had in view the interest of the Committee of Council, and he was perfectly certain the Committee of Council and the right hon. Gentleman would desire to pay these arrears, if allowed to do so by law. At the present

      1291
      time especially he should think they would be anxious to do so, for they were proposing to assist some classes of schools to a surprising degree. He did not think that the universal practice prevented the right hon. Gentleman from stating the grounds on which the opinion of the Law Officers was given. They constantly gave legal opinions to Members, but perhaps they were on a different footing to opinions given to the Government. There must be some remedy for the recovery of these arrears: the limitation of the recovery must be clearly expressed or necessarily implied from the provisions of the Act itself. The reason he asked the right hon. Gentleman to state his opinion was, that he believed the proper form for. School Board to adopt for recovery would be by Petition of Right to the Crown; and, no doubt, a School Board would be guided, in a large measure, by the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that the Vice President of the Committee of Council should take the opinion of all his colleagues on the point, and call them together to give it. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
      MR. H. J. WILSONpointed out that, though the ratepayers changed, the School Board was a continuing body. He hoped the Attorney General would tell them why it should be lawful to recover one year's arrears and be illegal to go beyond it.
      MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid there had been a hard case at Tamworth, where the School Board lost one year's arrears through the Education Department not making up its mind. When the Board tried to recover it subsequently they found they could not do so.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that during the time he had had the privilege of holding the office he did there had not been the slightest difference of opinion as to the production of the opinions of the Law Officers. Under no circumstances had they been produced unless it was thought some public purpose would be served. He had heard Mr. Gladstone on more than one occasion refuse to produce the opinions of his Law Officers, and it would be absolutely impossible for the Law Officers to fulfil their
      1292
      duty of advising the Government in confidential matters if their opinions could be produced. The Vice President of the Council had been. Law Officer himself and knew what was the rule. Coming to the other point raised, no one could read Section 97 without coming to the distinct opinion that it was intended that the grants should be annual grants in respect of annual expenditure, and that School Boards could not be allowed to claim several years' arrears which, for their convenience, they had accumulated. The condition as "to the satisfaction of the Education Department" was intended to enable the Department to make reasonable and proper rules and enable School Boards to show that contributions to proper annual charges only were being asked for.
      *MR. CHANNINGasked whether the Circular of the Education Department in 1881, promising a second year's arrears, was not a departure from the legal doctrine which the Attorney General had laid down?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he had carefully considered the Circular referred to. Prior to December 1881, there was not the strictness in regard to the matter that there ought to have been, and the Department, in the reasonable and proper exercise of its rights, laid down the Regulations which had been in force ever since.
      *MR. CHANNINGsubmitted that there was no insuperable difficulty in the way of the Department issuing. Circular tomorrow, saying that owing to the circumstances they would consider the arrears not only for the immediately preceding year, but for the two or three previous years. The intention of Parliament clearly was that poor districts should have these sums of money allotted to them for the provision of school buildings, clearing off the sinking funds, and meeting all the necessities of education. There was a poor village in his own divison where agricultural land had been going down in a value, while the school rate had grown up to 1s. 11d. in the pound. That School Board had been for many years past entitled to receive this amount, but was not aware of it. It seemed to him that, whatever might be the legal position, there was the strongest moral claim on the part of such. Board to have those arrears considered, as it

      1293
      was clearly the intention of Parliament that these sums should be given from year to rear.
      MR. SAMUEL EVANSexplained to the Attorney General (who had been absent during the hon. Member's previous speech) that he had not questioned any opinion which had been given by the Law Officers of the Crown, but had asked what were the grounds for that opinion, as the matter did not seem quite clear from doubt. He would point out that the section appeared to divide itself into two distinct parts. The first part dealt with the conditions of the annual Parliamentary grant, and it did not appear to have any connection with the second part, which was in the nature of a proviso, and as to which he hazarded the opinion that it had been tacked on in Committee. The Attorney General said that only one year was recoverable here. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman this question a assume the Estimates were prepared for the year 1895–96, that would only contemplate a state of things up to the 31st March 1896. The school year for 1895–96 would be from September 1895 to September 1896. What was the date within which the School Board might claim the year's account if it should be limited to one year. Were they to be allowed to have another year from September 1896. If only one year was recoverable, was it recoverable at any time?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied that all schools did not end their year on the 29th September, and it did not matter in the least whether the financial year of a school ended then, or on the 31st December, or on the 31st March. What was asked for by the Department was an account under the section in respect of the year, and which was recoverable, for the purpose of the Estimates. The Circular was issued in regard to the 29th September accounts, and provided that the account was a fair estimate for the year ending September 29 in any particular year. Then it could be made the subject of a claim for the purpose of the succeeding year's Estimate, and it was that which the Department hail no doubt in view when they stud they would allow a period of, practically speaking, another year, for the actual account to be made up; although the two years—the school year and the financial year—did not termnate on the same date, for practical
      1294
      purposes they would be treated as so doing, and the fact that the educational year ended on the 29th September created no difficulty. The Circular was to direct how the claims for the twelve months should be made up, and that was its only effect. The reason that difficulty had arisen was because there had been attempts to bring into the scheme for the one year the expenses or allowances which might have been claimed in past years.
      Question put, a That a sum, not exceeding £153,034, be granted for the said Service."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 42; Noes, 140.—(Division List, No. 52.)
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      14. £10,000, Supplementary, Science and Art Department for the United Kingdom.—Agreed to.
      15. £650, Supplementary, British Museum.—Agreed to.
      16. £327, Supplementary, National Portrait Gallery.—Agreed to.
      17. £20,110, Supplementary, Public Education, Ireland.—Agreed to.
      MR. KNOXsaid he did not wish to raise any of the contentious questions, but item J, he thought, required some explanation. So far as he understood the matter the Government seemed to have arrived at a satisfactory settlement of a question which had occupied a good deal of their time last Session and part of this. But he thought it would be satisfactory if the Secretary to the Treasury would explain what the settlement was, as it evidently required serious consideration before they could discuss it.
      *MR. HANBURYsaid this was only part of the whole contribution, which was about £108,000, including the payment to the Teachers' Pension Fund on another Vote. The whole sum was in respect of a the arrears of the grant for the last four or five rears, based on a capitation fee of 10s. The reason why the £12,600. in item J had been detached from the £95,000, which was to go towards the Teachers' Pension Fund, was that the convent and monastery schools had got

      1295
      no interest in the Teachers' Pension Fund, and it would be hardly fair to deprive them of their share of the arrears. The arrears in the case of all other schools interested in the Pension Fund would be devoted to putting that Fund on a sound footing.
      MR. KNOXasked if the Secretary to the Treasury could state whether or not the Pension Fund at present would be actuarially sufficient for the claims of existing teachers, because if the teachers understood that it was not sufficient to meet the claims of existing teachers it would modify their feeling as to the disposition of that money.
      *MR. HANBURYsaid he did not think he should be able to reply to the hon. Member on the present Vote, because the matter he had referred to was on a separate Vote, dealing with all the teachers who were not teachers in monastic schools.
      MR. KNOXthought it was not an unsatisfactory thing that they should have been able, by knocking somewhat repeatedly at the door of the Treasury, to extract something like £100,000, and hoped it was a foretaste of the other things which they were going to get by similar procedure.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS V.
      18. £23,670, Supplementary, Diplomatic and Consular Services.
      *SIR CHAULES DILKEsaid he should not attempt to debate questions of policy, but some portion of the Vote related to the reception of Li Hung Chang, who came to this country last year in a capacity that was somewhat undefined. There was an impression that his visit was likely to have some influence which would be beneficial to this country in their dealings with China and questions of the China trade. He believed that impression had proved to be entirely erroneous. He desired to know whether on the Foreign Office Vote any statement would be made with regard to the Government's policy in a connection with recent treaties and negotiations in China. The prestige of this country in that part of the world had apparently received a considerable blow, and he thought an opportunity should be afforded of debating that question, and
      1296
      questions connected with the present position of Korea, and other matters.
      *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (MR. GEORGE CURZON,)said that, on the point regarding Li Hung Chang raised by the right hon. Baronet, it was not correct to say that he occupied an undefined position when he visited this country. He came here as. Special Envoy with special letters of credence from the Emperor of China to the Queen, and, whatever may have been the impression entertained in some quarters as to the benefits which might accrue to our trade in China from his visit, he did come for the purpose of laying specific proposals before Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Baronet asked whether an opportunity would not be given at a later stage, perhaps on the Foreign Office Vote, of hearing something as to the Government's policy in the Far East. He thought that was a most reasonable demand, and he did not think the Secretary of State would have any other desire whatever than to comply with it. If no other opportunity occurred in the course of the next few weeks, the hon. Member for the Ecclesall division of Sheffield had got a Motion down at an early date for a discussion on the policy of the Government in that part of the world. But, if that opportunity did not occur, he did not think there would be any objection whatever to a statement being made, when the Foreign Office Vote came on, as to what was going on in that part of the world, and what were the views of the Government. The proposals made by Li Hung Chang were merely trading proposals.
      MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREthought they should have had. Blue-book upon this question. Vague statements which appeared in the news-payers were not sufficient, and as the question was urgent at the present moment, they ought to have adequate information. Surely sufficient time had elapsed. There was an item of £1,000 under the head "Manica Boundary." That was a boundary between some of the South Africa Chartered Company's possessions which was due to a war which took place between the Company and, practically, the Portuguese. If there was to be a boundary the Company ought to pay for it.
      *MR. CHUZONthought the hon. Member was mistaken, as this was territory administered by the British Crown A treaty was signed in 1891 between Great Britain and the Portuguese as to the frontier of their possessions in that part of Africa, and the delimitation consequent upon that treaty was then begun. There was disagreement between the two parties' Commissioners, and the dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitration resulted very decidedly in our favour.
      Vote agreed to.
      19. £36,700, Supplementary, British Protectorates in Uganda and Central and East Africa.
      *SIR C. DILKEsaid this was money to cover the cost of operations in two wars which had taken place on the coast. As he had done on previous occasions, he protested against the Foreign Office carrying on wars of this description. MR. Harding, and the other excellent Foreign Office clerks, were not the people to carry on these wars a in fact, the sooner the Foreign Office got out of this East African territory and handed it over to the Colonial Office the better for all concerned.
      MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREasked what quid pro quo we got for the expenditure of £36,700? One of his strong objections to the expenditure of such large sums of money in Africa was that, not only was it unjust, but that we did not get anything for it. Could the Under Secretary show the Committee that in meal or malt we had got £30,000 or even £500 worth for our money?
      *MR. CURZONsaid the object of the expenditure had been very clearly explained in. Blue-book laid before Parliament. What we had gained was the pacification of the Zanzibar Protectorate which we had assumed. Disturbances arose owing to the hostile attitude of important Arab chiefs, and in consequence a regiment was sent from India, The operations conducted were entirely successful, and now throughout that long strip of maritime territory over which we exercised supremacy and which we were governing there was perfect peace and tranquillity.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he should not divide the Committee, as the money had
      1298
      been spent, but he objected to the expenditure of a shilling of British money in establishing peace and tranquillity in any part of Africa, [A laugh.]
      Vote agreed to.
      20. £14,980, Supplementary, Colonial Services, including South Africa.
      MR. DALZIELasked for an explanation of the expenditure of £1,000, consequent on the transfer of buildings in Norfolk Island to the Government of New South Wales.
      MR. T. LOUGHasked whether the Colonial Secretary would give some information as to the second item, one relating to the Transvaal?
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)said the condition of things in Norfolk Island had got as bad as it could. There was practically no proper administration of justice, and it was absolutely necessary to make a change. It was the opinion of the Government that it would be very much better that this dependency should be governed by New South Wales. The Government of New South Wales expressed their readiness to undertake the government, but, when doing so, represented that the administrative buildings had been allowed to get into a terrible state of repair. £1,000 was granted for the repairs, but he believed the expenses had been more than was calculated. The change which had taken place was apparently entirely satisfactory. The late British Agent stood in rather a different position. No archives were kept and there were no means of dealing properly with the business of the office. It was an arrangement made under totally different circumstances, before the post became of the great importance that it was at present. ["Hear, hear!"] When the new Agent was appointed it was necessary to provide him with a new residence. It was found that no house suitable could be obtained on lease, and it was necessary to purchase a house and make additions to it. When it was remembered that house property in Pretoria was, he thought, more expensive than in the West-end of London, he believed it would be felt that on the whole they had done the best they could. ["Hear, hear!"]
      MR. BUXTONexpressed his satisfaction as to what had been done with regard to Norfolk Island and the way in which the transfer had been carried out.
      Vote agreed to.
      21. £1,200, Supplementary, Slave Trade Services.
      MR. DALZIELasked for information as to the suppression of slavery in Zanzibar.
      *SIR C. DILKEsaid there could be no doubt there had been a large increase in the shipping of slaves to the island.
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSthought that a discussion on slavery on this item, which was very limited, would be out of order.
      MR. DALZIELsaid, in view of the fact that the late Government had been subjected to a vote of censure on this Question, he thought they ought to know whether anything had been done, or, at least, how soon the Government would make a statement on the subject I Would it be on the Foreign Office Vote?
      MR. CUHZONthought that would be the proper course to pursue.
      Vote agreed to.
      22. £16,304, Treasury Chest Fund.
      MR. T. LOUGHasked for an explanation of this somewhat mysterious item.
      *MR. HANBURYexplained that the deficiency chiefly arose in connection with one local Treasury Chest, and this was due to the quarterly rating of the Mexican dollar.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS VI.
      23. £30,151, Supplementary, Trustee Savings Bank and Friendly Societies Deficiency.
      MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYthought this was a very important matter, and he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not there to explain to them this very important new departure in connection with Savings Banks. For the first time a deficiency was shown, and it was necessary, in his opinion, for the Government to have some distinct policy. (The Chancellor
      1300
      of the Exchequer having come in.) He hoped they should have some idea given them, of what the policy of the Government was to be. It was obvious that after giving 2½ per cent. there was absolutely no margin.
      MR. AVALTER HAZELLhoped the Government would look carefully into the matter. Some extension might be made of the limits within which savings banks funds could be invested, and everything possible done to encourage the habits of thrift of the people.
      MR. LOUGHremarked that on the third item there was a considerable increase in the Estimate for the deficiency for friendly societies and savings banks.
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the reason of the Vote was that the annual interest arising from sums invested was less than the interest paid to depositors and the expenses of management of the banks. The sums invested at the present rate at which Government securities had to be purchased, obviously produced a very low rate of interest indeed. Consols and other securities of the kind to which the investments of these banks were limited by law, stood at a very high rate last year, and consequently the profits of the banks fell in proportion. He had been asked to make a statement of policy. Last year he saw what was coming, and he had brought forward this Vote rather earlier than usual in order that the attention of the House of Commons might be directed to the matter. ["Hear!"] This was the first time it had been necessary to ask Parliament to subsidise the Post Office Savings Banks, and it clearly amounted to this—that the Government were paying depositors in those banks a higher rate of interest for their money than that money could really earn. That was earn thing which could continue. [Cheers.] He did not believe that depositors themselves would desire to receive from the State what he must call a kind of charity. He admitted that these banks were of the greatest value to the community; but it was not necessary to their value that they should pay more interest than they could earn. The public were induced to invest in Post Office Savings Banks far more by the sense of security given than by the particular rate of interest paid on their money. ["Hear,

      1301
      hear."] When he was asked whether he could suggest an extension of the limits at present imposed on investments by the banks, he was bound to say that he saw great difficulties in the matter. It must be remembered that the State was liable for this money, and it I would be a very dangerous thing for the State to receive this enormous sum from depositors to whom it was actually liable and then invest the money in securities of a more or less speculative nature on which great losses might be suffered. Under the present law the investments were confined to securities guaranteed by the State, and he should be most reluctant to make a change in that direction. He did not wish to say anything more at present, because he had not made up his mind as to what was to be done in a matter which was full of difficulties and was of great importance. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not wish to move in the matter one single day sooner than was necessary. So long as the present rate of interest could be maintained he wished to maintain it; but he must warn the Committee that the time was rapidly coming when it must be considered whether it might not be necessary, perhaps not in all but in some cases, to reduce the present rate of interest. ["Hear, hear!"]
      MR. T. P. WHITTAKERasked how the deficiency was arrived at. Was account taken of the redemption of Consols, which were now selling at 113 and which were liable to be redeemed at 100?
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that if the hon. Member would look at the Returns annually presented, he would find full particulars.
      MR. BARTLEYexplained that really the amount of interest paid varied very fractionally for most depositors, whether the rate were ½ per cent. higher or lower. The security was the great point. It was not necessary to consider the larger deposits, up to £200. very large number of the deposits were of £5, £6, and £7, and in those cases it was obvious that the reduction of the interest by ½ per cent. would only mean to each depositor a difference of a fraction of a farthing a week. It would be a bad thing if it were to get about that a large Parliamentary Vote was necessary to balance the bank's accounts. As to enlarging the scope of investments, whatever
      1302
      security was permitted would be practically guaranteed by the State, its price would at once rise to the price of Consols, and the object of the Government would thereby be frustrated. There was no alternative to reducing the rate of interest. He had had long experience of a penny bank, in which the rate of interest had recently to be reduced; and no ill-effects to the popularity of the Institution resulted.
      MR. LOUGHhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider very carefully before he changed the rate of interest. While the Parliamentary grant was so small, it would be a pity to disturb a system which was of such value to the poor people a and there might be reason to think that the deficiency would not be permanent.
      Vote agreed to.
      24. £95,434, Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland.
      MR. J. H. YOXALLasked from, what sources this money was to be drawn? Was it money due to the Irish schools, and, if so, had care been taken to ascertain whether the teachers who were entitled to these arrears were quite satisfied with the proposal to place the money in the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund? He was glad that something was being done to strengthen the Fund, but regretted that nothing had been done to redeem the promise to establish a similar fund for England and Scotland.
      MR. FLYNNsaid that the Committee ought to know exactly the position of the fund. If there was a deficiency, it was not due to any fault of the teachers, but to a miscalculation on the part of the Treasury in 1885. The fund was started out of the Irish Church Fund, and in 1885 there was a valuation, when a surplus of £196,000 was declared. This was an a important question for the teachers, as no male teacher was allowed to draw from the fund until he had given 40 years of service, and then he only received £6. year. The Irish Teachers' Pension Fund ought not to suffer because the Treasury had made a mistake.
      MR. DALZIELsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury from what sources the money necessary to place this Fund upon a sound financial basis was to come?
      *MR. HANBURYsaid that originally a large proportion of the Fund was derived from the Irish Church Fund. Owing to a miscalculation with regard to the Fund, arising out of an actuarial mistake, there was a large deficit in the amount of the Fund, and the Treasury felt themselves morally bound to do their best to make good that deficiency, and, therefore, it was that this, £95,000 was now asked for. With regard to the actual position of the Fund, he was sorry to have to state that it was insolvent to the extent of a million and a quarter. That deficiency they had to face, and they were now endeavouring to put the Fund in a solvent position. The arrangement which they now asked the House to agree to was that this sum of £95,000 should be voted in respect of a readjustment of School Grants during the last three or four years, while a certain sum would be deducted from the teachers' salaries. Pay means of an additional sum to be derived from an annual Vote of that House, the whole of the amount necessary to make up the deficiency would be obtained, and the Fund would be restored to a position of solvency. With regard to the question which had been put to him by the hon. Member for West Nottingham, as to whether the Irish Teachers had been consulted before this arrangement was adopted, all he could say was that the National Education Commissioners in Ireland were perfectly satisfied with what the Government proposed to do in the matter.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, from the statement which the Secretary to the Treasury had just made, it appeared that the Committee were asked to vote this sum of £95,000 in order to make good a deficiency which had been made by an actuary of the Treasury. In that case they must take it that the Treasury themselves were to blame in this matter.
      *MR. HANBURYsaid that the mistake occurred some years ago.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that might be so, but the principle remained the same. He thought that actuaries never made mistakes, and that they were regarded as being infallible in the accuracy of their calculations. It was clear that in this instance the Treasury actuary
      1304
      had not been infallible, and, therefore, the Treasury themselves were responsible. The truth was that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury came down to that House and asked, not for. Supplementary Vote, but for a bill of indemnity on behalf of the Treasury. He recollected the time when the right hon. Gentleman sat on the other side of the House, and if this matter had been brought forward at that time he could scarcely say what might not have happened. The right hon. Gentleman would then probably have moved the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to it as a matter of urgency, and perhaps have followed that up by a Motion for the impeachment of the Ministry. [Laughter.] Without going to that extent, however, he thought that the Committee were entitled to have the whole matter cleared up.
      *MR. YOXALLsaid that he was not quite satisfied with the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had given the Committee in relation to this subject. He could not admit that these payments ought to come out of the arrears of the Fee Grants, neither could he admit that nothing was due to the Irish Teachers. He hoped that as the Treasury was to be generous to the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund, provided that the money did not come out of the arrears of the Irish Fee Grant, the Treasury would also be just to teachers in England and Wales and Scotland, by establishing a. Pension Fund for them.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS VII.
      25. £4,500, Supplementary, Temporary Commissions.
      *SIR C. DILKEsaid that he thought that neither the Agricultural Commission nor the Commission on the Licensing Laws had done much good. With regard to the West India Commission, he thought that its attention should be directed to the question of manufacture rather than to economic questions.
      MR. J. CALDWELLsaid he desired to refer to the item for the Scottish University Commission, and to point out that the Commission ought to

      1305
      have expired long ago. It was a piece of absolute jobbery. The Commission was established in 1889, and had gone on ever since. Last year. Vote of £510 was obtained in the expectation that the whole thing would be wound up in a month or two, and now. Supplementary Vote for £620 was brought forward. The Commission had already cost £16,000. The reason why the Vote had been allowed to pass without remark for the last year or two was, that everybody interested expected that it would not be asked for again. He wished the Secretary to the Treasury to understand that the Scotch Members were very emphatic in this matter, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to bring the Commission to an end.
      *MR. HANBURYsaid the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that a large sum was asked for in these Estimates, but it arose in this way. When the Estimates were framed at the beginning of the year it was expected that the work of the Commission would be completed by July 1 of last year. Unfortunately it was found that the Commission would have to sit, at any rate, till July. 1897, owing to the great opposition offered by Lord Bute to the amalgamation of St. Andrew's University and University College, Dundee. It was necessary for the Commission to frame fresh ordinances for these two united bodies; and, meantime, it was absolutely necessary for the Commission to be continued.
      Vote agreed to.
      26. £16,617, Repayment to the Local Loans Fund.
      In reply to Sir C. DILKE,
      *MR. HANBURYsaid he had to defend this policy when the Bill by which these sums were written off was before the House last year, and he did not think he would be in order to go back to it. These arrears had now been written off by Act of Parliament, and the Government were bound by the Local Loans Fund Act, 1887, to bring in This Vote in order to make good the deficiency.
      MR. CALDWELLwas understood to complain that Scotland only got £65 out of this transaction.
      Vote agreed to.
      27. £20,500, International Exhibitions. Agreed to.

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
      28. £6,800, Supplementary, Inland Revenue.
      MR. WHITTAKERwished to ask for a little information as to the methods of selecting cases for prosecution adopted by the Department.
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I do not see under what item the hon. Member can raise the question.
      MR. WHITTAKER: The law charges for prosecutions.
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That item refers to the fees paid to counsel and solicitors. The question whether the prosecutions were properly instituted does not arise on that.
      MR. WHITTAKER: There is an item for cost of prosecutions in Inland Revenue Department.
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Any question relating to prosecutions which have taken place might be dealt with under this item; but a question as to the future policy of the Department as to prosecutions could not.
      MR. WHITTAKER: I wish to raise a question as to the present method of prosecution.
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is a matter which is in the discretion of the heads of the Department.
      MR. WHITTAKER: Would it not arise on the amount of money incurred in prosecutions?
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think not. The heads of the Department apply for extra money to meet the expenses of prosecutions that have taken place. The general policy of the Inland Revenue could not be discussed on that.
      MR. WHITTAKER: Can I not argue that it is not fair to select some cases for prosecutions and not others?
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: No, because that is a matter

      1307
      within the discretion of the Department. Counsel and solicitors do not have the selection of the cases.
      MR. WHLTTAKER: Very well, Sir, I will raise the matter on the General Estimates.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether there had been any large addition to what he might call the Statistical Department, and any diversion of work from other Departments. Could the right hon. Gentleman give him any information that would enable him to understand what the additions to the establishment were?
      *MR. HANBURYsaid the additions arose almost entirely from the additions that had to be made in connection with the Death Duties.
      Vote agreed to.
      29. £10, Supplementary, Post Office.
      MR. DALZIELasked when. Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Commission would be circulated? He wished to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the great dissatisfaction that was given to some steamship companies with regard to the American Mails. There was an especially strong feeling in the Argentine with regard to the few deliveries from this country, whence letters were only received once in 10 or 14 days. Of course the best way out of this difficulty was to send the Mails by all companies.
      *MR. HANBURYsaid that the Vote referred to the cost of the boats which carried the Mails from Holyhead to Dublin, and he did not think the Question the hon. Member had put properly arose on this Vote. He thought the Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee was handed in at the end of last December. It was a long Report dealing with a large variety of points, and was very complicated. It also, as hon. Members knew, dealt with questions involving very great expenditure. It had, in the first place, passed through the hands of the Post Office Authorities, whose final recommendations had only reached the Treasury a week ago. The matter had still to be dealt with by the Treasury, and in the circumstances he could hold out no hope that the Report would be presented to Parliament before three weeks or a month at the least. The
      1308
      Government thought that the Report ought not to be presented until the Treasury had come to a conclusion as to what ought to be done.
      Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Committee deferred till Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
SHOP ASSISTANTS (HALF-HOLIDAY) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Friday next.
LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

MUSEUMS OF THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
Ordered that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the administration and cost of the Museums of the Science and Art Department.
Committee accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Acland, Lord Balcarres, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Bhownaggree, Mr. John Burns, Dr. Farquharson, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Ernest Gray, Sir Henry Howorth, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Herbert Lewis, Mr. Platt-Higgins, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Donal Sullivan, and Mr. Yoxall.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That five be the quorum.—[Sir William Walrond.]
Horse adjourned at Five minutes after Nine o'clock till Monday next.

SINCLAIR'S DIVORCE BILL.
Petition of Alfred Low Sinclair, of Holy-hill, Strabane, County Tyrone, a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Indian Staff Corps, praying for leave to present. Bill. Considered (according to Order). Counsel called in. Moved that leave be given to present the said Bill. agreed to.
A Bill to dissolve the marriage of Alfred Low Sinclair, of Holyhill, Strabane, County Tyrone, a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Indian Staff Corps, with Isabella Sinclair, his wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes presented accordingly. Read 1a; and to be read 2a on Monday, the 28th of June next; the usual orders made.

EARL OF KINGSTON.
Petition of Henry Edwyn Earl of Kingston, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland. Bead, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision and Consolidation Bills; and message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned at Half-past Four o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.