Sitting of 3 August 1898

BLACKROCK AND KINGSTOWN DRAIN- AGE AND IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].

  CONSIDERATION.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)wished to ask, if he might do so without forfeiting his right to speak on his Notice of Motion, whether either of the Notices of Motion standing in his own name and that of the hon. Member for East Wick-low (Mr. J. O'Connor) was in Order, and, if so, which? because if his hon. Friend's Motion was in Order he would not move his own, as he thought that of his hon. Friend the better of the two.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's is in Order; the other Amendment is not in Order.
  MR. CLANCYasked if he was in Order in moving to-day?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the Motion is opposed it stands over until to-morrow, and as I understand it is opposed it must stand over.
  As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [LEEDS AND LIVERPOOL CANAL] BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    As amended, considered.
    SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said, there were several Amendments upon this and three other Canal Bills standing in his name upon the Paper. Though they looked formidable and were highly technical, he was glad to say they were not very formidable. A meeting had taken place at the Board of Trade between the promoters, the traders, and the Permanent Secretary, at whose intervention, through the President of the Board of Trade, an arrangement had been arrived at. The Amendments which were now upon the Paper were different to those which appeared upon the last consideration of the Bills, but they represented an agreement that had been arrived at, and which was satisfactory both to the traders and the promoters of the Bills. The general effect of the arrangement was to assimilate the system of carrying timber on canals to that employed on the railways, and especially in the direction of making the tolls chargeable for timber to be determined by measurement and not by machine weight. He might remind the House that when the Railway Rates Bill was under discussion this point was raised, and an alteration was made in the law by which timber was to be carried by actual machine weight. At the same time, a distinction was made between the rate for timber goods carried by measurement and the rate by machine weight, the former being under Class 1, and the latter under Class C. The arrangement now arrived at was in accordance with the practice that had prevailed, notwithstanding the change in the law, and was that the toll should be the same as had taken place in regard to railwaycarried timber—namely, the continuance
    1176
    of the shipping and carriage of timber by computed or measurement weight; that was, ascertaining the weight by the measurement of timber instead of by machine weight. That was satisfactory to the trade, and met generally the views entertained by the traders. The only other material change was that equality was established between the charges made by the companies for carrying timber and the charges for what was known as the bye-trade; that was, through a carrier acting for third parties. The Bill, as he thought, gave an advantage to the companies; but as it was proposed to be altered, it would keep on foot that competition which was essential to proper rates. The other Amendments dealt with the mode of measuring timber for the purpose of ascertaining the weight, but that was so technical that he need not now enter into it. Then concessions had been made on the other side which would prevent, by means of new clauses, those frauds which had been attributed, he believed wrongly, but which had been attributed to the traders, and enabled the Railway Companies to test whether the computed weight had been properly and accurately rendered to the company. Some new concessions had also been made as to tolls except in the case of the Aire and Calder Company. He thought even the Joint Committee—of which the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) was a Member— would not be disinclined to approve an arrangement that was sanctioned all round. When before the Committee, the Committee themselves saw the difficulty of dealing with these technical points, and suggested it might form the subject of an arrangement which, thanks to the good offices of the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) and his staff, had been arrived at, and the House was now asked to ratify Amendments which expressed the general feeling of the trade. He begged to move the Amendments standing in his name.
    Page 7, after Clause 19, insert the following Clause:—
    (Provisions as to declarations.)
    "The company may demand that any trader or bye-trader shall forward a declaration to the company, setting forth the true dimensions of timber conveyed by or for him and the cubic contents of the same. In the event of doubt as to the correctness of such declaration, the company may insist upon measuring the timber

    1177
    the cost of which measuring and of the necessary unloading and reloading shall be borne by the party in error, or the company may demand either from the consignor or consignee of such timber, or from the bye-trader, a copy of the invoice of the timber, and a statutory declaration of the correctness of the same. Upon failure or refusal, after reasonable notice, to furnish any of the aforesaid documents, the company shall have power to charge either the consignor or consignee, or the bye-trader according to the avoirdupois weight of the timber, to be ascertained in the same manner as the weight of other merchandise."
    Clause, page 7, line 4, leave out "and timber."
    Line 5, after "measurement," insert "and except as hereinafter provided as to timber."
    Line 10, leave out "when timber is charged by measurement weight."
    Line 17, leave out "elm, birch."
    Line 18, after "fir," insert "elm, birch, lancewood, and walnut."
    Line 20, after "boards," leave out "may," and insert "shall."
    Line 20, after "quantities." leave out "may," and insert "shall."
    Lines 21 and 22, leave out "consigned by measurement weight," and insert "other than round timber."
    Line 22, leave out "most accurate."
    Line 23, after "being," insert "the cubic contents of round timber shall be ascertained by quarter girth, and the divisor of one hundred and forty-four, measurement being taken by tape over bark."
    Page 10, Table A, part 2, line 33, after "C," insert "(except timber)."
    Between Class C, and Class 1, insert.—

    "For Timber

    0·85

    0·65

    0·55

    0·35

    3

    For Timber"

    MR. HANBURYsaid, that as a Member of the Joint Committee, he ought to have noticed that the Amendments were down, but having been away he did not do so. What struck him about the Amendments was that they involved a complete reversal of policy on the part of the Board of Trade. When these came before them in the Joint Committee undoubtedly the Board of Trade inserted in the Schedules exactly the same provisions with regard to canals that they had inserted with regard to railways. What his hon. Friend below the Gangway (Sir A. Rollit) said might be true, that they were only doing for the canals what was the practice on the railways; but they would be in this extraordinary position: that they would have the law regulating the canals in one state and the law regulating the railways in another. Whatever might be the effect on the English railways, his impression was that on the Scotch railways the sys-
    1178
    tem of carrying by weight and by measure would still go on; that timber would not be carried only by measurement, as his hon. Friend said; and if that was the case, they should have the law in the two cases different, which seemed to him an objection. But, after all, they were technical objections; and if the Board of Trade was satisfied and reversed its policy, he did not know that he need, on behalf of the Joint Committee, object to it. But there was this objection to all Amendments of this kind: and it was, that before the Committee they were able to hear evidence on which they could judge whether there was that agreement between the Canal Companies and the traders that his hon. Friend spoke of, and unless they were quite sure of that agreement they ought to hesitate before they accepted the Amendments.
    SIR A. ROLLIT: I have the original and minuted agreements.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, it was all very well to say that, but it was difficult to say who represented the trade. They were constantly having before the Committee merchants who said they represented the trade when they might only represent particular portions of it, and the interests of the different classes were different. Before agreeing to these Amendments — although he could not but recognise the persistent way in which his hon. Friend had carried out his programme in this matter and that of some of his constituents—he thought they ought to have a precise pledge from the Board of Trade that his hon. Friend, when he said he had the agreement of the traders, was really able to speak on behalf of the great bulk of the traders connected with the timber trade. If the Board of Trade supported the hon. Member in that view, there was nothing to be gained by opposing the Amendments. There was this difficulty, however: that there would be a distinction in law; and inasmuch as a good many of the canals were under the control of the Railway Companies, it struck him that was an inconvenient arrangement, but he was perfectly willing to be convinced.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,)said, there was no doubt this was not merely desired by a few or by those represented by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir A. Rollit), but it was desired by all

    1179
    the timber trade throughout the country. Deputations representing the timber trade, both in the North of England and elsewhere, were in favour of making the law in accordance with the general practice. The traders and the Canal Companies had come to an agreement to support the Amendments and the clause, so that the rates might be put on the same footing and the law brought into harmony with the practice that had prevailed for the last 20 years. There was no doubt that the system of measurement weight was the one most convenient to the traders and the companies, and he thought it was desirable that the Amendments should be adopted.
    MR. HANBURYasked if he was to understand that even on the railways the carriage of timber by measurement was the universal practice?
    MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, and on canals it is the legal practice.
    Amendments agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

QUESTIONS.

  THE IRISH POLICE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the difficulty members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police dismissed under the Home Rule Bill will have in finding future police employment in Great Britain, should they have passed the maximum age for enrolment, usually from 25 to 30 years, he will consent to introduce on Report, or in the Upper House, such Amendment as may enable members of those Forces likely to be affected to retire on the terms prescribed after due and sufficient notice?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): I am not clear that I understood the object of the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I think the point will be better raised in the discussion on Report.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: The point is whether the right hon. Gentleman will allow members of the
  1180
  Royal Irish Constabulary to leave the Service, if the Home Rule Bill passes, upon proper notice?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is a question of organisation, which I cannot deal with in answer to a question.

  PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF INDIA.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has received Memorials from engineers in the Public Works Department of India, complaining that the advantages held out to them as inducements to enter the Service have not been realised, and praying for redress; and whether there is any hope of such redress being granted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL, North Beds.): (1.) Yes, Sir. As I informed the hon. Member on the 12th May, these Memorials have been received. (2.) The views of the Secretary of State in Council on the proposals submitted by the Government of India for the removal of the block of promotion from which the Indian Public Works Department is suffering were conveyed to the Government of India in a Despatch of the 27th of last month. Both the Secretary of State and the Government of India are anxious to effect a settlement of the question as soon as possible.

POLICE MEDICAL ATTENDANCE IN IRELAND.
MR. GILHOOLY (Cork Co., W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Dr. O'Driscoll, Medical Officer of Health to the Goleen Dispensary District, has applied for the position of medical attendant to the Goleen, Crookhaven, and Dunmanus Police Barracks, which are situate within his dispensary district; and whether his applications have been favourably received by the Police Authorities; and, if not, why not?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that Dr. O'Driscoll did make the application referred to. The attendance on the police at Crookhaven and Dunmanus stations was given to the medical gentlemen residing nearest to these stations. The

1181
Inspector General felt himself unable to accede to the application of the gentleman named in the question, and it would not be consistent with precedent to call upon him to state his reasons for taking a course which is entirely within his own discretion.
MR. GILHOOLY: Is it not usual for the dispensary doctor to have also to attend the Constabulary barracks within his dispensary district?
MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say whether it is usual or not. But I do not think that usage would deprive the Inspector General of his right to use his own discretion in particular cases.

LICENSING BUSINESS IN WALES.
MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the facts that at the Pendoryn Petty Sessions, on 26th July, one of the two Magistrates present (Mr. D. E. Williams) refused to sign a transfer of the licence of the "Brecon Arms Inn" from William Thomas to Gwenllian Jenkins, there being nothing whatever against the latter, and that Mr. D. E. Williams declined to state any reason for his refusal; whether he is aware that Mr. D. E. Williams states publicly that during his Magisterial career he has never signed a licence; and whether, in such refusal, the Magistrate is acting according to law?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): My attention has been called to this case. The Magistrate is within his right in not assigning a cause. In fact, it is not usual to do so, except in certain cases where the law makes it compulsory. This was a case of a transfer, not of a new licence. I am not aware whether the Magistrate has stated publicly he has never signed a new licence; he informs me that he has signed hundreds of "renewals," "transfers," and "indorsements," but has never signed a new licence. He appears to have acted according to law.

TEUNK TELEPHONE LINES.
CAPTAIN BAGOT (Westmoreland, Kendal): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in case the Post Office purchase from the National Telephone Company their trunk lines as contem-
1182
plated, he will provide that all telephonic exchanges having the use of such trunk lines in connection with their own exchanges shall give facilities to other exchanges, irrespective of their ownership, for communication with their subscribers through such trunk lines?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The subject has been carefully considered, and the agreement now in course of negotiation does provide for the facilities contemplated by the hon. Member.

THE BOAED OF TRADE AND THE UNEMPLOYED.
MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is making any prospective arrangements to mitigate as far as practicable the effects of a probable increased scarcity of employment during the coming winter; and if he will suggest and use his influence to encourage the formation of labour bureaux in provincial towns on similar lines to those in Chelsea and other parts of London, such bureaux to be in communication with one another with a view to assist in finding employment for those seeking it?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The duty of providing relief work, where necessary, devolves upon Local Authorities, subject to the control of the Local Government Board. As to the second part of the question, I may say that the Labour Department has now a Report in an advanced state of preparation, which deals with the whole subject of unemployed labour and the various agencies in operation for finding work or other relief, municipal or otherwise. I trust that the information contained in this Report may help to guide Public Bodies to a knowledge of the best forms of relief agencies, and thus favour their establishment more widely upon lines shown by experience to be safest.

DECORATIONS FOR THE VOLUNTEER RANK AND FILE.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any decision has been arrived at with regard to the recognition of 25 years or so gratuitous service in the Volunteer Force of non-commissioned officers and

1183
privates, in some such manner as Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to recognise that of the officers; and in such case, if, having regard to the detraction such distinctions suffer if awarded simply by mere years in some sinecure capacity, Commanding Officers will be held more strictly responsible than in the past, that their recommendations are based only upon especially zealous and active service, particulars of which must be submitted to superior authority?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): I stated some time ago that this question was under consideration; I shall be able to announce my decision upon it when the Volunteer Vote is reached in Committee of Supply.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: When will that be?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say. It does not depend on me.

SOUNDINGS OFF THE SHBTLANDS.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (Leith, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the soundings that were being taken off the South-west of the Shetlands to complete the Chart 23,976, Sheet 2, were suspended; and whether it is the intention of the Government to further prosecute the work, and to complete the chart of Lerwick Harbour on the large scale?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The soundings were not suspended, but were completed to the limit ordered. There is no intention to sound the deep sea in the vicinity at present. It has not been found practicable, in view of other requirements, to undertake the re-survey of Lerwick up to the present, although this is among the list for re-survey.

SLAVE TKADE IN TRIPOLI.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Slave Trade is carried on to a large extent from the Gulf of Sydra and adjacent ports of the State of Tripoli, on the north coast of Africa; and whether they have any recent informatiou on this subject?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GEEY, Northumberland, Berwick): We have no reason to believe that the Slave Trade is carried on to a large extent from the ports mentioned. In May last the Consul at Benghazi reported on four cases. The first one referred to one slave embarked under suspicious circumstances; in each of the next two cases a slave dealer was found guilty, and condemned to one year's imprisonment; in the fourth case the Consul has pressed for a thorough investigation. Only 17 slaves were concerned in all four cases.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the hon. Baronet inform me whether it is a fact that no fewer than 219 slaves have applied for manumission papers?
SIR E. GREY: I cannot say, but I shall be glad to receive any information which the hon. Member wishes to give.

MUIR OF ORD WATER SUPPLY.
MR. BURNIE: In the absence of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir) I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that a large number of the inhabitants of Muir of Ord, Ross-shire, have petitioned the Board of Supervision, as well as the District Authorities, with regard to the impurity of the water supply of the town, the Board of Supervision will make immediate inquiry into the matter, or cause the Local Authorities to do so?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): In reply to the hon. Member, I may point out that it is the duty of the Local Authority—in the present case the Mid Ross District Committee—to deal with any complaint as to the impurity of the water supply. If the Local Authority decline to entertain the complaint it will then become the duty of the Board of Supervision to make such inquiry as may be necessary.

SALMON FISHING IN THE BALGUY.
MR. BURNIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir), I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has made further inquiry regarding the inaccurate information furnished to him as to the distance which Finlay Mackenzie, Duncan Macdouald, and Angus Maclennan, charged recently

1185
with salmon fishing in the River Balguy, had to travel by road in order to reach the nearest railway station when on their way to Dingwall to answer the summons issued at the instance of Earl Lovelace; if so, will he state the result?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.): I have not directed any further inquiry to be made on the subject, as I should not feel warranted in causing a further expenditure of public time and money upon it.

PAUPER COLONY IN DINGWALL.
MR. BURNIE: I beg, on behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir), to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the condition of the small pauper colony located in a wood, and hidden from the public road, between Strathpeffer and Dingwall, about a mile from the former place?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I have, on inquiry, received the following Report through the Board of Supervision from the Inspector of Poor of Fodderty:—
"Seven paupers, two males, one female blind. In addition to parochial relief they receive coals and firewood from Cromartie Estate, also allowance from Ecclesiastical Fund. Their condition is as comfortable as any paupers in Ross-shire."

FOXES IN THE HIGHLANDS.
MR. BURNIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir), I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the agreement between the Master of Blantyre and others for the destruction and keeping down of foxes has proved ineffectual, and that at a meeting held at Eilanreach on the 19th July, under the auspices of the Master of Blantyre, it was shown that the farmers and crofters are suffering extensively from foxes destroying their sheep stock owing to the increase of foxes lately, arising from the extension of deer forests, and the carelessness in keeping them down; and whether the Government will take steps to protect farmers and crofters from loss through these pests?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have not had my attention specially called to the meeting referred to in the hon. Member's question by the Chairman, or by any
1186
other person; nor have any representations in regard to the devastation by foxes been made to my Office. I am still inclined to think that the question of the suppression of foxes, before the Government is called upon to interfere, should be brought before the Highland County Councils, and pronounced on by them.
DR. MACGREGOR: May I humbly ask whether the time has not come when not only foxes but other wild animals should be evicted and way made for the restoration of human beings to their former holdings?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think we are taking preliminary steps in that direction.

THE ANGORA PRISONERS.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to communicate any further information to the House relative to the orders of the Sultan with regard to the prisoners sentenced to death at Angora, all stated to be the victims of a cruel conspiracy; the prisoners sentenced to various terms of imprisonment; the Archbishops of Marash and Zeitoun, the Bishop of Moush, and the Bishop Suffragan of Fournouz; and the political prisoners in Aleppo Gaol; and whether efforts are still being made to secure the release of these prisoners, as well as a re-consideration of the sentences on the Armenian Christians, against whom sedition is alleged, who are now undergoing imprisonment at Van, Rhodes, Tripoli in Barbary, St. Jean d'Acre, and Konieh?
SIR E. GREY: I regret that I have no further information to give, and that it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to interfere in cases in which they are not in possession of positive evidence of the prisoners' evidence.

THE ARMENIANS IN ASIA MINOR.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the unsatisfactory state of the administration which prevails in Asia Minor, the Foreign Office will consider the desirability of increasing the staff of British Vice Consuls in the Provinces inhabited by Armenians?
SIR E. GREY: As I stated to the hon. Member yesterday, it is necessary

1187
first to consider deficiencies in the Consular staff where purely British interests are affected. I may add, however, that the Secretary of State does propose to establish a Consul at Angora and to revive the appointment of a Vice Consul at Mosul.
MR. J. W. LOWTHEE: Will the Secretary of State also take into consideration the advisability of re-establishing the school of student interpreters, which I think only two or three years ago was temporarily suspended, and which supplied gentlemen who are subsequently appointed to Vice Consulships and other positions in the Consular Service in the East?
SIR E. GREY: I believe it is not intended to re-establish the school, but to make an alternative arrangement. I cannot say more without notice.
MR. CHANGING (Northampton, E.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the widespread interest which has been shown in the case of the persecuted Armenians in Asiatic Turkey, Her Majesty's Government will direct Papers to be laid upon the Table of the House giving full details of the steps which have been taken during the last three years by the British Diplomatic and Consular officers to alleviate the sufferings of the oppressed Christians in Asia Minor; and, if so, when the Papers will be in the hands of Members?
SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the publication of further Papers would not benefit the Armenian and other Christian races in Asiatic Turkey, whose welfare ought to be the first consideration in any step of this kind.

POOR RELIEF IN EAST KENT.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that there is no provision made at Folkestone for the relief of the casual poor; that the nearest casual ward is placed at Elham, six miles from Folkestone on a cross country road, and two miles from the nearest railway station; that the casual ward accommodation at Elham is utterly inadequate to meet the requirements of the casuals sent from Folkestone, Sandgate, Hythe, &c, who are occasionally huddled, men and women alike, into
1188
the stable to sleep; and if, considering that Folkestone contributes two-thirds of the rate and only returns 12 out of 35 Guardians, the Local Government Board will consider the advisability of dissociating Folkestone from the rural districts and granting the borough a Union of its own?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): Inquiries are being made as to the facts, and I have to ask that the question may be deferred.

SKIBBEREEN AND BALTIMORE RAILWAY.
MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the line of railway from Skibbereen to Baltimore was constructed at a cost of £57,000; whether the chief object in constructing the said line was to develop the fishing industry; whether this line of railway is practically useless for that purpose unless a pier is built to connect it with the deep water; and whether, in view of the fact that the Baltimore and Skibbereen Harbour Board have guaranteed if the pier be built to maintain it, he will advise the Congested Districts Board to give a grant for its construction?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Congested Districts Board have had under consideration a proposal for the construction of a pier at Baltimore, but have not yet arrived at a decision in the matter.

AN ENGLISH JUDGE ON BOYCOTTING.
MR. BODKIN (Roscommon, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the language used by Mr. Justice Williams at the Derbyshire Assizes, and reported in The Westminster Gazette in regard to a person who had in his Lordship's judgment acted in a mean and heartless way, though in strict conformity with his legal rights, to the following effect:—
"I do not know where he lives, but wherever he lives and with whomsoever he may associate you can have no doubt, gentlemen, that if these people are men, if these people have any knowledge of the facts which are brought before you to-day, to whatever station in life they belong, whether they are people in his own rank or the very beggars in the street, they will know how to shun the side of the street where he walks."

1189
And whether, under similar circumstances, the course suggested by the learned Judge would be legal in Ireland?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have not happened to see the report of the language alleged to have been used by the learned Judge. I am ignorant of the circumstances under which the language was spoken, and, of course, every case would have to be considered on its merits. As to the last paragraph of the question, I may remark that the Lord Chief Baron observed in a well-known case that came before him in January, 1889, the question whether action of this kind be legal or illegal must depend upon a vast variety of considerations.

THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and what, progress has been made with a view to the settlement of the claim of the owners of the ship Mary, of St. John's, Newfoundland, against the French Government; and what is the present position of the matter and the prospect of an arrangement?
SIR E. GREY: I regret to say that in the existing state of the negotiation on questions connected with the Newfoundland Fisheries, and in view of the attitude of the Colonial Government with reference to certain analogous claims of French citizens, it is not possible to make progress with the claim of the owners of the Mary at present.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the interest to the mercantile community of this country of the recent alterations in the Russian Customs Duties, he will cause the British Commercial Attaché at St. Petersburg to be instructed to report fully on them, and also to prepare a general Report on the subject of trade between Great Britain and Russia, in continuation of the Memorandum by the Attaché at St. Petersburg, dated 4th December, 1865; and whether the two Reports now asked for both from the Commercial Attaché at St. Petersburg could be distributed to Chambers of Commerce?
SIR E. GREY: I regret to say that Mr. Law is now absent from his post on sick leave; but as soon as he is able to return, he will be instructed to prepare two Reports such as those asked for.

THE STATE OF THE NILE.
MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an article on the pollution of the Nile in the British Medical Journal of 22ud July, wherein it is stated that by dams having been constructed in the Delta the current is in some places entirely stopped, and that, in consequence, poisonous filth accumulates and putrifies in the reaches; whether the water in those reaches is in nearly all cases the only drinking water; whether he is aware that it has been shown by Dr. Greene Pasha that during recent years the mortality during the summer months has in consequence largely increased; and whether he will draw the attention of the Egyptian Government to the state of the Nile in the Delta, and the desirability of undertaking some scheme for doing away with the pollution of the water?
SIR E. GREY: I have not road Dr. Greene's Report. I am informed that drinking water in the Delta comes from the Nile or from canals fed by the river; but the point raised in the question is one which primarily concerns the Egyptian Government, who have in their service competent advisers for the consideration of such matters.

MAIL CART DRIVERS.
MR. SAUNDERS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the facts given in an article in The Weekly Times and Echo, of 29th July, headed "The Sweated Mail Cart Drivers," which shows that men capable of carrying out 47 pages of rules and directions are paid 4d. per hour, or when promoted 3s. 6d. per day with no definite limit of hours, and that when men are required to be in attendance from 2 a.m. to 8 a.m., and again from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., they are paid 1s. only for both attendances; and will he inform the House if steps are being taken to improve the condition under which mail cart drivers are now working?
MR. A. MORLEY: My attention has been called by the question of my hon. Friend to the article in question. I am unable to admit the accuracy of all the statements contained in the article; but as I informed a deputation, which submitted certain statements on July 13, I am inquiring into the subject. I must, however, point out that the scale of wages and the hours of employment are under the control of the contractors, and not of the Post Office.
MR. KEIR HARDIE (West Ham, S.): Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to insert in future contracts a clause providing that the men shall receive Trade Union wages and work Trade Union hours?
MR. A. MORLEY: I believe some such clause or condition will be inserted in all new contracts.
MR. J. BURNS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the suggestion I submitted to him some months ago as to the advisability of the Department employing the men direct, and without the intervention of a contractor?
MR. A. MORLEY: I have considered it, but I am afraid I cannot see my way to making a proposal of that kind.
MR. J. BURNS: Who are opposed to it? The permanent officials or yourself?
MR. A. MORLEY: That is a question I cannot answer. I am responsible for any decision come to by the Department.

THE LOSS OF H.M.S. "VICTORIA."
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whose duty was it, when there appeared imminent danger of the Victoria sinking, to call up the engineers and stokers from the engine room and stokehold; and why was this duty not performed?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The men were all at their stations hoping to save the ship, and, according to the reports which have been published, the final lurch and foundering appear to have been so sudden as to leave no time for giving orders to abandon the ship. It cannot but be a matter of surprise and regret that such questions should be asked conveying imputations which should not have to be answered, especially before the proceedings of the Court Mar-
1192
tial have been received and considered by the Admiralty.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I must press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to this question. These stokers and engineers have had their lives sacrificed. I must ask whose duty it was to call them up, and why that duty was not performed? If the right hon. Gentleman distinctly refuses to answer I shall know what to do.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The suggestion that it was any one's duty is an imputation of neglect. I cannot answer the question.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I shall raise it on the Estimates?

SWAZILAND.
BARON H. DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the Swaziland Convention of 1890 expires on the 8th of August, he will now state whether a new Convention has been entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the President of the Transvaal Republic, give the terms of such Convention, and present Papers on the subject?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I am sorry that I am still unprepared to make a statement on this subject. Her Majesty's Government are expecting daily a further communication from the Government of the South African Republic. Meantime, the Convention of 1890 has been extended for three months pending a settlement.
BARON H. DE WORMS: I will repeat the question at the Autumn Sitting.

SMALL-POX IN DURHAM.
MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at Bear Park Colliery, Durham, where part of the family of a workman were suffering from an attack of smallpox, the father and sons were prevented from attending their employment; and whether, under such circumstances, seeing the prevention was for the public good, the family have a claim for compensation?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Public Health Acts do not authorise the payment by Sanitary Authorities of compensation in a case where, in consequence of an outbreak of small-pox in the household, a person cannot follow his ordinary occupation without danger of communicating the disease to others.

COLLIERY REFUGE HOLES.
MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a workman named Samuel Ward was killed at Usnorth Colliery (Durham) on 14th June, and that it was stated in evidence that his death arose from the "refuge hole" being too small to afford security to the deceased and three of his fellow-workmen; and whether he can state what size these refuge holes should be, and what distance they should be from the rails upon which the tubs or waggons travel?
MR. ASQUITH: The Inspector reports to me that the death of Samuel Ward was not due to the refuge hole being too small. The actual distance from the side of the tubs on the rails to the back of the hole was five feet, and the depth of the hole from the side of the road was three feet six inches, and the width five feet four inches. The Act of Parliament (50 & 51 Vict., c. 58, ss. 49, 14) does not proscribe the size of the refuge holes, or their distance from the rails, beyond requiring them to be sufficient. The deceased would have been safe had he not, as I am informed, leant out of the hole, when he was caught by one of the tubs, several of which had got off the rails.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AT ENFIELD.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield): I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there is a serious deficiency of elementary school accommodation in the Parish of Enfield, Middlesex; whether he is aware that, at the Enfield Petty Sessions on the 17th July, several parents who had been summoned for neglecting to send their children to school pleaded that admission could not be obtained for them in existing schools, and for that reason the fines inflicted were, in some cases, paid by one of the
1194
Magistrates; and whether, having regard to such deficiency, and to the continuous growth of the population, already amounting to 35,000, the Education Department will take the requisite steps for the early formation of a School Board?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND, York, W.R., Rotherham): I have no official information as to the case of the parents referred to by the hon. Member. But a very careful inquiry has been in progress for several months as to the deficiency at Enfield, and notices have now been issued requiring additional accommodation to be provided for 519 children independently of the enlargement of St. Luke's National School, which is now in progress. The continuous growth of the population has been borne in mind in estimating the number of places required. If the requirements of the Department with regard to this additional provision should not be met with due despatch by voluntary effort, it would become their duty under the Act to order the formation of a School Board for the purpose of supplying the deficiency.

ALLOTMENTS IN BUSHEY PARK.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has received and refused a request from the Hampton Local Board, made in accordance with Section 2 of "The Allotments Act, 1887," asking for a grant of a small portion of the enclosed laud in Bushey Park for allotments for working men; whether a similar request was granted by the late Government out of the Home Park at Hampton at the request of the Hampton Wick Local Board, and at the same price per acre as now offered by the Hampton Local Board; and what reason exists why the Hampton working men, of whom 40 signed the Petition to their Board, should be treated differently to those of Hampton Wick?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): It is quite true that the late Government consented to let a field adjoining Hampton Court Park to the authorities of Hampton Wick for allotments; but they also on two occasions refused a similar application on behalf of the inhabitants of Teddington for the

1195
hire of land attached to Bushey Park, on the ground that it was wanted for the service of the Park. A like application was made some time ago by the authorities of Hampton, and, as the same objection applied, it was refused. At the same time, if the Hampton Authorities are unable to find laud elsewhere for the purpose, I will endeavour to see whether some other portion of the land attached to Bushey Park, not open to the public, can be spared for this object.

THREATENING NOTICES ON LORD LANSDOWNE'S ESTATES.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to proceedings at Limerick Petty Sessions on the 27th July, when a man named Doyle was prosecuted for posting on the walls of the city notices threatening one William Bateman as a landgrabber, for taking a farm on Lord Lansdowne's estate formerly occupied by a Mrs. Morrison; whether he is aware that Doyle was arrested by the police in the very act of posting the notices in question and fully identified; that the Crown Solicitor who prosecuted said he did so by direction of the Attorney General, the case being one to which the Government attached importance; and that the Magistrates by a majority refused to return the case for trial; and if the Government intend to take any further proceedings in this case?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have had before me all the facts connected with this case. Doyle was one of three persons who were observed standing together; the other two ran away, and escaped from the police. After Doyle was arrested he threw away some documents, which turned out to be boycotting notices. There was no evidence forthcoming that he had actually posted the notices, although there was a strong case of suspicion made out against him. The Crown Solicitor prosecuted by direction of the Attorney General. The Magistrates, by a majority of five to four, refused to send the case for trial. The Government could only interfere with the exercise of the Magisterial discretion if it were established that the Magistrates were clearly and unmistakably wrong in
1196
their decision, which can hardly be alleged in the present instance.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope to have an opportunity on the Vote on Account of calling attention to this matter.

RIOTS AT BODYKE.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Tomgraney, County Clare, Petty Sessions on the 27th July, when a number of men were prosecuted for not on the occasion of a seizure for rent at Bodyke; whether he is aware that the Resident Magistrate desired to send six of the men for trial, declaring that the offence was an indictable one; that the District Inspector of Police intervened and said that this course had been found unsatisfactory in the past; and that these six men, against whom the Magistrates held there was a primâ facie case for an indictable offence, were discharged after being bound over to keep the peace; whether the District Inspector, in referring to the unsatisfactory method of procedure in the past, had any reference to the refusal of juries to convict in such cases at the Assizes; and whether, in pursuing the course he did, the Inspector was acting under instructions from Dublin Castle?
MR. J. MORLEY: The facts connected with this case are as follows:—On the 13th June two caretakers on the Bodyke Estate, with their police escort, went out for the purpose of mapping some farms. A crowd was attracted, and assembled round; at no time did it exceed 30 persons. Several members of the crowd hooted and groaned the caretakers, and on being cautioned by the police the greater number of those assembled desisted from any demonstration. When the caretakers moved away the crowd followed them, but on the police advising the people to go back they all did so with the exception of five or six, who persisted in following. After proceeding some distance this party was joined by a number of children, and three stones were thrown in the direction of the police and caretakers without, however, striking anyone. The whole matter was reported by the Constabulary Authorities, who recommended the case as one in which the persons identified as

1197
having been members of the disorderly crowd should be proceeded against, with a view of having them bound over. The Divisional Commissioner approved and directed that proceedings be taken, and summonses were issued accordingly. It appears, however, that the Petty Sessions Clerk omitted to enter in the Order Book laid before the Magistrates that portion of the notice to the defendants which called upon them to give sureties of the peace, and the Magistrate did not think, therefore, he had power to comply with the application of the District Inspector in this respect; but on being shown the summons the Magistrate at once acceded to the District Inspector's application, at the same time remarking to the defendants that their conduct was of an aggravated character, and that it was fortunate for them they were not proceeded against on the more serious charge. The District Inspector denies that he made any allusion to the action of Juries, or assigned, as a reason for his application to the Magistrates, that cases of a similar character had been sent for trial with unsatisfactory results. No instructions were given in the case from Dublin Castle.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask whether the Magistrate who presided at this trial used words to the effect that on the evidence it was clearly an unlawful assembly and an indictable offence; and if the prosecution had been brought in any other part of Ireland save the County Clare, the defendants would have been found guilty and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment?
MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say that that language was used by Mr. Hodder, the Magistrate; but I am warned that the newspaper reports of these proceedings are gravely inaccurate. I have given my hon. Friend what information has been supplied to me.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I hope to deal with this case also to-night.

OUTRAGE IN COUNTY GALWAY.
MR. DANE (Fermanagh), N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 12th July a horse belonging to Martin O'Hara, who lives near Portumna, County Galway, was maliciously injured by having its tongue cut out, the only reason for this outrage
1198
being that the animal was grazing on an evicted farm; whether he is aware that, on the same date and in the same locality, a horse belonging to a tenant named Johnson, who occupies an evicted farm, was also maliciously injured by being stabbed in the belly; and what action has been taken by the police to trace the perpetrators of these outrages?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am sorry to say the facts are as stated in the question. Both cases have been closely investigated by the Constabulary, and every effort is being made to trace the perpetrators.

DISTURBANCES AT LISAGOON.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that recently at Lisagoon, County Cavan, a large mob, accompanied by six Nationalist bands, assembled for the purpose of preventing men in the employment of Captain Smith from working on an evicted farm in the locality; that the police authorities, anticipating disturbance, had a force of 40 men present to protect the workmen; that, in spite of the presence of the police, hooting, groaning, and stone throwing were kept up by the crowd to frighten the workmen; and that, notwithstanding that some of the police were struck with stones, they made no attempt to preserve order or disperse the mob; and what steps have been taken to prosecute the ringleaders for unlawful assembly and intimidation?
MR. J. MORLEY: It is a fact that on July 17 a considerable number of persons assembled in a field adjoining the evicted farm with the object mentioned in the question; that they were accompanied by some bands of music, the precise number of which is not known; that the crowd hooted and groaned; and that a force of 28 police was present. About 10 stones were thrown, but upon the District Inspector remonstrating with the crowd the stone-throwing ceased. One constable was struck by a stone on the hand, and one of the workmen, it appears, was also struck. The workmen have since proceeded to the farm under police escort, and there has been no renewal of disturbance. The names of the ringleaders in the disturbances on July 17 have been taken, and the question of a prosecution is now under consideration.

THE SMALL HOLDINGS ACT.
MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any application has been made by a County Council to the Local Government Board for sanction to borrow money for the purpose of acquiring land under "The Small Holdings Act, 1892;" and, if so, what is the number of such instances, and the acreage of land so to be acquired?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Board have not received any applications for sanction to loans for the purchase of lands under the Small Holdings Act, 1892.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that a considerable number of County Councils have taken up the question of the Small Holdings Act with a view to putting it into operation, and have referred it to Committees, from which they are now awaiting Reports?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have no information on that point, but I have no doubt my right hon. Friend is quite correct in the statement. I can only say that no applications for sanction to loans have been received.

CARBURY POLLING DISTRICT, NORTH KILDARE.
MR. KENNEDY (Kildare, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the lists of voters for the Carbury polling district of the North Kildare Division of the County of Kildare have not been published on the date and in the places prescribed by statute; if so, who is to blame for this breach of the Franchise Law; and what steps will the Irish Government take to prevent a repetition of such neglect?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am making inquiries into this matter, and shall be glad if the hon. Member will defer the question.

THE ALLOTMENTS ACTS.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, since the date of the Return, dated 17th June, 1892, of land acquired by Local Authorities under the Allotments Acts, there have been any
1200
instances in which either Sanitary Authorities or County Councils have acquired land for allotments by compulsory powers or have petitioned the Local Government Board for such powers; and, if so, what is the number of such instances respectively and the acreage of land so acquired, or in respect of which such Petitions have been lodged; and whether there have been any instances in which either a Rural Sanitary Authority or County Council have applied for sanction for loans for the acquisition of land for the purpose of allotments; and, if so, what is the number of such applications and the acreage of the land so to be acquired?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: Since the date mentioned there has been one instance in which a County Council has obtained powers for compulsory purchase of land for the purpose of allotments. The acreage of land to be acquired in that case was not stated. There have also been, since that date, six cases in which authorities have applied for sanction to loans for the purchase of land for this purpose. The total acreage of the land in four of these cases was about 53 acres. In the remaining two cases, I am not at present informed as to the acreage.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether enormous numbers of allotments have not been provided by voluntary arrangement; and, if so, how many?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I cannot say if the Department have that information. I will ask for notice.
MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly 150,000 persons have by voluntary arrangement been supplied with allotments?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have no figures before me.

NELSON LEVEL CROSSING.
MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company have stated in their reply to the Board how soon they propose to acquire land for footbridges at the Nelson level crossings under their Act of this year; whether he proposes to make any local inquiry, by an Inspector or otherwise, as to the advisability of having two

1201
bridges or one; whether he will urge on the company the necessity of removing this source of danger to the public at the earliest moment; whether the Board of Trade have made repeated representations to the company as to several other level crossings on their lines at which accidents have occurred; and whether the several dangerous level crossings as to which representations have been made to the company have now been provided with bridges in pursuance of the recommendations of the Board?
MR. MUNDELLA: I have received a communication from the Railway Company in which they state that they cannot say how soon they will acquire the necessary land; but they will re-open negotiations with the Nelson Corporation at the earliest opportunity to determine whether one footbridge in lieu of two will be sufficient, and the proportion of the cost which should be contributed by the Corporation. The Board of Trade will be prepared to use their good offices to bring about a settlement of these questions. The Board have from time to time made representations to the Railway Company as to several level crossings on their lines, and I understand that during the last 11 years the company have substituted no less than 28 bridges in lieu of public road crossings, and 28 footbridges in lieu of footpath crossings.
MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second paragraph of my question, as to whether a local inquiry is to be held?
MR. MUNDELLAwas understood to say inquiries had been made locally by the Inspector.
MR. CHANNING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that three fatal accidents have occurred at this crossing within the last 18 months?
MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot say.

RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Rule of the Road at Sea applies to Fleets engaged in manœuvres; if not, is the Rule to be disregarded by Fleets during manœuvres when meeting stranger ships, vessels, or boats not forming part of the Manœuvring Fleet; whether there is any Rule at all, and, if so, what Rule, for preventing collision between such stranger ships and the
1202
ships of the Fleet; and is there any means of informing such stranger ships that the Rule of the Road will not be observed?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows what the Rule is?
[The question was not answered.]

ATTACKS ON GOSPEL MISSION SER- VICES IN DONEGAL.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in possession of the particulars relating to the organised attacks made by mobs from the County Leitrim, upon Sunday the 23rd July, upon persons attending Gospel Mission Services, and also the service at the parish church of the Church of Ireland, at Bundoran, in the County Donegal; have any persons been made amenable; and what steps have been taken to prevent a renewal of such attacks?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a special Report of all the facts connected with the disturbance referred to. Three persons have been summoned for assaults committed, and the eases will be heard at Ballyshannon Petty Sessions on the 10th instant. The police have taken all necessary steps to prevent a renewal of the disturbance; and I am happy to say that, although the services have been held daily since July 23, there has been no attempt at renewal of these disturbances, and that everything has passed off quietly.

COAL STRIKE DISTURBANCES IN LANCASHIRE.
MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is a fact that large bodies of police have been drafted into the following places in Lancashire—namely, Farnworth, Walkden, Leigh, Wigan, and Haydock; if they have been sent at the instigation of the Home Office, the Local Authorities, or the coal owners; whether there has been any disorderly or riotous conduct, or any semblance of such conduct, on the part of the miners in any of the places mentioned; and, if so, where, and in

1203
what manner; if he is aware that these proceedings are viewed with strong feelings of resentment by the miners of the county, who are behaving themselves in the most peaceful manner under their present difficulties; and by whom the police will be paid for discharging their present duties?
MR. TOMLINSON: Before the question is answered, I wish to put a further question—namely, whether it is a fact that on Tuesday morning last some persons who were filling up waggons from a heap of coal at a colliery near Wigan were assailed by a baud of men, who threw stones at them; whether the assailants made off on the county police being summoned from Wigan; whether it was afterwards found that the sliding doors of two waggons had been opened, letting the coal out, and that the coal heap was fired; and whether an attempt has been made to set on fire some waggons of coal near Haydock? [Cries of "Notice, notice!"]
MR. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Gentleman given notice of that question?
MR. TOMLINSON: No.
MR. SPEAKER: Then a Minister could not be expected to answer such a question without notice.
MR. ASQUITH: I am informed by the Chief Constable of Lancashire that extra police have been drafted into all but one of the places named. The police were sent by the orders of the Chief Constable. The Home Office had nothing to do with the matter. As to the 3rd paragraph, the Chief Constable states that an instance of disorderly conduct occurred near Wigan in the early morning of the 1st instant, when some 30 or 40 colliers attacked those working at Worsley Mesnes Colliery, and at Windmill Pit, in the same police district, some machinery was injured on the night of July 31. He is not aware that sending extra police into the colliery district is viewed with strong feelings of resentment by the miners, who are generally behaving peacefully, and certainly have not shown resentment towards the police. The duty will be paid for by the police district rate. I think this a convenient opportunity for saying again that the responsibility for the maintenance of order lies on the shoulders of the Local Authorities. The Central Authority is always ready
1204
to assist them with advice; and in the rare cases where the means at the disposal of the Local Authorities are found inadequate for the purpose, and the circumstances justify it, it may become necessary for the Central Authority to supplement their resources and to lend exceptional help. But it cannot be too clearly understood that it is the duty of all authorities alike, in disputes of this kind, to observe an attitude of strict and undeviating impartiality, and not to interfere on the one side or the other, except for the purpose of preventing offences against the law and preserving the public peace. I need hardly add that any irritating or provocative display of force is greatly to be deprecated as being calculated to give rise to misunderstanding, and to increase the dangers which it should be the object of those responsible for the administration of the law to avert. The Chief Constable of Lancashire is fully alive to the importance of observing these rules, and informs me that he issued orders that all needless display of strange constables was to be avoided.
MR. WOODS: Arising out of that answer, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is competent to state that the riotous proceedings referred to in his answer were committed by colliers, or by loafers in the district, or whether he is aware that it is distinctly stated in the Lancashire papers that it was by loafers and not by colliers at all that these attacks were made?
MR. ASQUITH: I have given the statement that was sent to me by the Chief Constable of Lancashire.
MR. TOMLINSON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not desirable, in the interests of peaceful colliers, that a sufficient force should be sent to the colliery districts to prevent outrages by roughs or other persons desirous of taking advantage of the prevailing excitement for the purposes of not and intimidation?
MR. ASQUITH: I have already said that the Local Authorities are responsible for the maintenance of order.

DEVONPORT TORPEDO SHOP.
MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, in the torpedo shop at Devonport especially, overtime is being systematically worked by fitters

1205
and others, and that such has existed for the past 18 mouths and must continue unless au extension in the workshop is made and more men employed; and whether the Admiralty will consider the immediate necessity of terminating overtime and fit up the space in the torpedo shop at present occupied by stores, so that the surplusage of work in hand may be not only distributed amongst a greater number of men, but executed within the recognised limits of the ordinary working day?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): (1.) It has been necessary to work a certain amount of overtime in the torpedo shop at Keyham in order to prevent delay in the completion of ships building under the Naval Defence Act, and of torpedo boats and destroyers building by contract. (2.) Additional men have recently been entered at Devonport, and it is hoped the necessity for working overtime will shortly cease. (3.) The question of removing the stores and fitting up the remaining space in the torpedo shop will be considered later in the year with the general works proposals from Devonport.

THE TREATMENT OF INEBRIATES.
MR. KNOWLES (Salford, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce, at an early date, a Bill to carry out the Report from the Departmental Committee on the treatment of inebriates?
MR. ASQUITH: As I stated to the hon. Member on June 19, I cannot hope to deal with the subject this Session; but I am giving instructions to have a Bill drawn which will embody the main recommendations of the Committee, and I trust that legislation in that direction will be found possible next year.
MR. KNOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Bill this Session in order that Members may see its provision?
MR. ASQUITH: I cannot undertake to do that.

THE LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS.
MR. E. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whose business it is to notify to the additional Land Tax Commissioners, appointed under the Laud Tax Commissioners'
1206
Names Act, the fact of their appointment; and whether he is aware that the numerous Land Tax Commissioners, who have been appointed in years gone by, have never been apprised of the fact, and have never been summoned to perform any duties?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Commissioners of Inland Revenue do at present and will continue to forward copies of The Gazette containing additional names to the respective clerks to Commissioners of Land Tax. I am not aware that the clerks have not been in the habit of apprising the Commissioners of Land Tax of their appointment; but the Board of Inland Revenue will now and in future, on each occasion of fresh appointments, definitely request them to do so.

THE LAND LOANS SERVICES ACT.
MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a new Rule has been made by the Board of Public Works in Dublin to decline to grant loans under the Land Loans Services Act, 10 Vict. c. 32, to tenant farmers in respect of the portion of the proposed improvements on their holdings which can be executed by themselves and their families; whether he will state the date of this new Rule; and whether, seeing the hardship of the operation of this new Rule in the case of farmers possessed of small holdings in the West of Ireland, the Board of Works will be directed to revert to the course pursued in these cases under previous Governments?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No new Rule has been made, but in the last few years greater care has been taken in the preliminary inquiries into the character of works proposed to separate those that could fairly be expected to be done by the labour of the tenant or his family. It is clearly undesirable, in the interests of the tenants themselves, to encourage them to encumber their tenancies with rent-charges in respect of works on which no actual outlay is necessary; but care is taken to distinguish cases where the execution of works by a tenant or his family involves the loss by them of other remunerative employment.

HOISTING THE UNION JACK IN IRELAND.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Armagh I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Union Jack was hoisted on a public-house at Portadown belonging to Matt Fleming on the 12th July last, and that the police ordered the flag to be removed; and, if so, on what grounds?
MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.): At the same time, may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 12th July last the police ordered a Union Jack exhibited on a public-house in Portadown to be taken down; and by whose authority this order was given?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that what occurred on the occasion was this. The attention of a constable was drawn to the flag by Mr. O'Hanlon, a local Magistrate, who suggested that as the licence of the publican had not yet been confirmed at Quarter Sessions it might be well to draw his attention to the flag, as the flying it might militate against his obtaining the licence. The constable merely conveyed this suggestion to the publican, but did not order him to remove the flag. He acted hastily, no doubt, but not with any malicious motive.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not attach much importance to these flag incidents; but may I ask whether during the Lord Lieutenant's visit to Sligo flags were not floating from licensed premises, and especially from the licensed premises of a Member of this House, and that no one interfered? How, then, does it come about that in Derry and Portadown the police are so officious?
MR. J. MORLEY: The constable may have acted imprudently, but he has not acted officiously. He acted on a hint given to him by a local Magistrate.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is Mr. O'Hanlon a recent appointment?
MR. J. MORLEY: That I cannot say.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: He is.

THE "PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the contract for printing Parliamentary Debates requires that they shall
1208
be issued on the seventh day after delivery; whether he is aware that no report has been issued since 20th July; and whether he will take steps to secure that the provisions of the contract are complied with?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: My hon. Friend is correct in stating that the contract requires the issue of the parts on the seventh day; and I believe it is the fact that the issue is in arrear as stated. I am, however, informed by the contractors that the delay is due to pressure put upon them to allow extra time for correction, but that the issue for the 25th July will be published this evening, and that the publication will thus be brought up to date. I have also taken it upon myself to see that in future the provisions of the contract shall be carried out.

THE INDIAN CURRENCY QUESTION.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, since the decision of the Government with regard to the Indian currency was made public, there has been a depreciation in the value of securities held in this country amounting to over £130,000,000; whether the supply of gold is insufficient for the monetary requirements of trade; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to avert a still more serious financial crisis?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I am not aware of a decline of over £130,000,000 in the value of securities held in this country, nor do I know how I could in the ordinary course become aware of such a fact, which I have no reason to believe to be a fact. I am not aware of the insufficiency of the supply of gold to meet the demands of trade; and therefore I may say, I think, for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, that we do not believe in that insufficiency. Under these circumstances, it is not in our power to announce any steps in regard to meeting it.

THE KILDARE MAGISTRACY.
MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of Magistrates for the North Kildare Division of the County of Kildare appointed

1209
by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland since his acceptance of Office, with or without the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county; whether the Lord Chancellor has received the names of seven gentlemen qualified to fill the Commission of the Peace in the district; if the refusal of the Lord Lieutenant of the county to recommend those gentlemen is the only objection to their appointment; whether his Grace the Duke of Leinster, the Lord Lieutenant of the county, has any personal knowledge of them, and on whose recommendations does he act; and whether any steps will be taken by the Irish Government to apply to North Kildare the Resolution of this House with regard to the Magistracy?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Lord Chancellor states that two Magistrates have been appointed for the division referred to, both on the recommendation of the Lieutenant of the county. The names of seven gentlemen were submitted to the Lord Chancellor, who submitted four to the Lieutenant for recommendation, and the latter recommended one. The remaining three are now under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor. It is not possible to answer the inquiry as to the personal knowledge or sources of information of the Lieutenant of the county. The Lord Chancellor will apply to North Kildare, in the appointment of Magistrates, the same rules as he has applied, and intends to apply, to other counties.

BRITISH WAR VESSELS AT SIAM.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask whether it is true, as reported in a telegram in The Daily News, that the British cruiser Pallas and the gunboats Swift and Pigmy have gone outside the so-called blockade limits; and, if so, what British war vessel remains at Bangkok to protect British interests?
SIR E. GREY: I cannot give any details as to the movements of these vessels. I have heard that the Swift was about to proceed on a cruise for the sake of the health of her crew, but I cannot say whether she has actually gone. All I can say is that no change has been made in the instructions originally sent, that sufficient gunboats were to be either on the spot or close to it to prevent any danger to British property at Bangkok.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY,—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

  (THIRD VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a further sum, not exceeding £2,111,500, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, of the Charges for the Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894."—[See page 1102].
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I have two questions to ask of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The first is, whether there is any truth in the statements that have appeared in the public prints as to the retrocession to the Sultan of Zanzibar of that portion of the territory situated on the mainland in the neighbourhood of Vitu? No Papers have hitherto been published upon the question or relating to that incident, and I should be glad to know whether the Government contemplate the publication of Papers on that special part of the question which is at present being discussed between Her Majesty's Government and the British East Africa Company? The second question is, whether the Government have any further information with regard to the alleged advance of Colonel Yanoff with a Russian force upon the Pamirs? The last time the hon. Member spoke of this matter, he said that the Russian Government had stated that they had no intention of sending any force upon the Pamirs beyond the ordinary reliefs for the troops stationed upon the Murghab. I should like to know whether since that time the Government have received any further assurances from the Russian Government upon the subject, or whether from any other source they have reason to suppose that the arrangement that was come to is still in operation, and that the Russian Government do not intend to advance their troops into the disputed territory on the Pamirs?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): With regard to the last question

  1211
  raised by the hon. Member, I may say that there has been no change in the agreement as to the Pamirs, which is still in force. That agreement was that no new force should be sent except for the purpose of relieving the troops who had wintered on the Murghab. With reference to the particular rumours which appeared in the papers as to the new expedition under Colonel Yanoff, Her Majesty's Government brought those rumours to the notice of the Russian Government, and they have been assured that there is no truth in them, and that the reliefs sent to the troops were not under Colonel Yanoff, but under an officer holding a much lower position in the Service. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the Russian Government have in any way altered their intentions on this point, for they have repeatedly stated that they still adhere in their entirety and in good faith to the promises they have given.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Has the Government received any information from the Russian Government as to the number of the troops that have been sent?
  SIR E. GREY: No, Sir. Assurances have been given that the troops on the Murghab shall not be allowed to go into the disputed territory more than two or three together at a time, so that it will practically be a stationary force, and no active operations will take place. With regard to the other question, Vitu stands in a different position to the rest of the territory administered, or lately administered, by the British East Africa Company, inasmuch as it is a British Protectorate, while the rest of the territory is a sphere of influence. The British East Africa Company have announced that they do not intend to retain the Protectorate of Vitu, and Mr. Rodd has been instructed to go there and make arrangements for the administration of the Protectorate. That has been carried out, but the Government have not yet heard what the arrangements were. Papers with reference to this particular question of Vitu can be laid separately, but I think it would be more advisable to wait until the much larger questions have been decided upon, and also until the official Report of Sir Gerald Portal has been received from
  1212
  Uganda and a decision come to upon it by the Government.
  COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)said, he desired to point out that the British East Africa Company had undertaken the government of Vitu at the request of the British Government, and that that fact differentiated the case of Vitu from the other territory administered by the Company. The hon. Member would, therefore, see that any information with reference to Vitu might very well be given at once, without waiting for the decision of the general question raised by the withdrawal of the British East Africa Company from Uganda.
  SIR E. GREY: I have already admitted that Vitu differs from the other territories administered by the Company; but as there is a desire that it should be dealt with separately, the matter will be fully considered, and, if the hon. Member will ask the question later on, I will state definitely whether Papers will be laid or not.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he had intended on the Colonial Vote to ask certain questions about Swaziland; but he thought that, after the answer given that afternoon, there was no need for him to follow up the subject. It were superfluous to remind the House that this territory, lying between the sea at Delagoa Bay and the mountain that formed the Eastern flank of the Transvaal uplands, has great capabilities, and occupies politically an important, almost a strategic, position. He recognised the interest that the Boer Republic would take in this tract, as it was their outlet to the sea. But England also had equal, or more than equal, rights and interests therein. As the Convention had been renewed or extended for a further period, it might be sufficient for him to express the earnest hope of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House that whenever fresh arrangements were made with regard to Swaziland, in which Great Britain as well as the Transvaal had considerable interests, the Government would take care that British interests were duly safeguarded, and that some share at least should be secured to England in the control of that important territory
  SIR C. W. DILKEasked for information respecting Papers on the subject of Newfoundland. In the Debate that took place in another place on a Motion of Lord Dunraven the Government promised that they would at once lay the Newfoundland Papers before Parliament. Negotiations were pending with France respecting the taking of lobster tins into Newfoundland without payment of duty, and a correspondence had been going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Newfoundland Government with regard to the legislation regulating the state of affairs on the French shore. Repeated Debates had taken place in the Newfoundland Legislature, and Despatches had been quoted which had not yet been laid before Parliament. He wished to know whether the earlier portion of the Papers could not at once be presented without waiting for the conclusion of the discussion now going on with France?
  SIR F. EVANSexpressed a hope that the Convention entered into between the Newfoundland and the United States Governments respecting the free entry of bait would not be hung up much longer. Canada had tried to take advantage of the Convention to obtain advantages for herself without giving anything in return. He did not think she would succeed; but, at all events, she had prevented Newfoundland getting the benefit of the Convention. Inasmuch as the Convention would do more to alleviate distress in Newfoundland than anything else that bad been done, he hoped the Newfoundland Government would be allowed to act without reference to Canada.
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman can give us any further information relative to the Matabele raid in Mashoualand, and whether any further instructions have been given as the course to be followed in the event of Lo Bengula sending another impi? I should also be glad to know whether the Government contemplate releasing Dinizulu, and, if so, whether, before they take that step, an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the whole question and to point out to them the danger that is likely to accrue to Zulu-land should he be released?
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked for any information that could be given respecting the decision that had been arrived at with reference to responsible Government in Natal. Whilst the House was making Constitutions, it might as well have all the information it could get with regard to this question. Would the hon. Gentleman say when Papers would be laid on the Table, and also what decision had been arrived at as to the powers of the Natal Government over the natives?
  SIR F. EVANSasked whether any information could be given as to a statement said to have been made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Madrid, that it was the intention of the Spanish Government to exact the payment of duties in gold?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I have no information at present as to the last question, and I would ask my hon. Friend to put it to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I had better take the other questions in order. With regard to the Natal Constitution, the late Government, after negotiation with the Natal Council, settled the terms of the Bill, which was then to be placed before the electors. The result of the elections has been that the Bill has been accepted by a majority, and, by an Order in Council, has been made part of the Constitution of Natal unamended. As to the natives, I am quite sure the people of Natal themselves wish that they should receive justice on every hand, whilst at the same time they are placed under proper conditions of control. As to Zululand, I have explained more than once in reply to questions that at present we do not propose to deal with or consider the question of the return of Dinizulu. The late Resident Commissioner having just retired, and Sir Marshall Clarke, whose appointment I believe met with universal approbation, having been appointed to succeed him, we shall await the latter's special Report before doing anything on the subject. I do not know that I can absolutely pledge the Government to allow a discussion to take place before Dinizulu goes back, if he does go back, because it is a hypothetical question. As to the recent raid in Mashoualand, we be-

  1215
  lieve that Lo Bengula has practically expressed his regret at the impi having acted in the way they did, and at all events their having crossed the imaginary line which has been drawn between his sphere of influence and that of the South Africa Company. Sir Henry Loch has expostulated with Lo Bengula, and in all probability a satisfactory answer will be given, when the incident may close. I do not wish to make any further statement on the question as to the future, but at the present moment I do not anticipate that further trouble will arise. As to Swaziland, I am obliged to my hon. Friend (Sir R. Temple) for refraining from putting any question on the subject at the present moment. While we shall in a short time be in a position to make a statement, we are still in negotiation with the South African Republic, and it would be undesirable to say anything under the circumstances at present. As regards the question of Newfoundland and the United States and the Treaty with regard to the free entry of fish, I think it will be remembered that the cause of the delay which has occurred in carrying out the Convention between Newfoundland and the United States is that Canada desired at the same time to make an agreement of her own with the United States. Her Majesty's Government considered that Canada should have a certain time in which to carry out this intention; but the period has been very largely prolonged, and I think I may safely say that our opinion is that no very considerable further delay ought to take place. If Canada is not able to come to terms with the United States Newfoundland certainly ought to be allowed to carry through a Treaty which will be of great advantage to her, and in which she has been able to give satisfactory terms to America. I have been pressing the Papers on as far as I can, and I was told to-day that they were in a forward state of preparation. I hope they will be circulated in a very short time. Perhaps I may express a hope that the correspondence which has taken place may lead to a satisfactory conclusion, and that Newfoundland may be able to see its way to carry through a permanent Act, so as to relieve Her Majesty's Government from the necessity of carrying an Imperial Act through the British Parliament. I ought to add with regard to Mashoualand
  1216
  that Sir Henry Loch has been in communication with his officers on the point with the object of providing that in case any danger did arise he would be in a position, as far as the Bechuanaland Protectorate at all events is concerned, to meet any raid that might be made over the British territory.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has concluded his otherwise satisfactory statement with the veiled threat of carrying a Coercion Bill through Parliament with regard to Newfoundland. I think it necessary to say that some of us would protest against such a course very strongly.
  MR. TOMLINSON*MR. TOMLINSON (Preston) moved the reduction of the Vote for the Board of Trade by £100, in order to call attention to the question of railway rates. He said that within the last few days a Report had been issued by the Board of Trade as to its proceedings under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, Section 31. It would be remembered that a Committee had been appointed to consider the question of what further remedies could be applied. That Committee seemed to be going on indefinitely, and it appeared hopeless to expect that any satisfactory legislation could be carried out this Session. In the meantime, he should have thought that the Board of Trade would have carefully abstained from publishing anything which might be said to prejudge the question before the Committee. He was, therefore, surprised to find that in the concluding remarks of the Report certain principles were laid down on the subject. Perhaps hon. Members might not be altogether familiar with Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. That clause ran as follows:—
  "Whenever any person receiving or sending, or desiring to send, goods by any railway is of opinion that the Railway Company is charging him an unfair or unreasonable rate of charge, or is in any other respect treating him in an oppressive or unreasonable manner, such person may complain to the Board of Trade."
  The Report of Sir Courtenay Boyle gave the result of the action of the Board of Trade and a reference to the cases which had been dealt with under the clause during the past year. It would have been possible, if the scope of the inquiry had allowed it, to bring evidence to show that several of these cases which were supposed to have been settled, more or

  1217
  less, to the satisfaction of the complaints were settled much "less" than "more" to their satisfaction. But the Committee did not take evidence on those points, and when the Report of the Committee came before them they would have no light thrown on these cases. The Report of Sir Courtenay Boyle, on page 5, said—
  "My opinion as to the value of the clause has been strengthened by experience gained since the last Report. It affords a useful method of adjusting the less important differences, or, in other words, the differences not far-reaching in their influence, which, from time to time, arise between the Railway Companies and Canal Companies and traders. In certain cases it has been impossible for the Board of Trade to deal with the matter in dispute without an examination into a large series of circumstances collateral to the particular facts of the complaint, or to make a suggestion which would not have the effect of extending far beyond the scope of the particular issue."
  He (Mr. Tomlinson) did not take exception to that, but he said that it showed that the operation of this law was very limited, and that it might often happen that cases arose, and where particular traders were interested which involved considerations which were much wider than could be taken cognisance of by the existing law. In paragraph 4, page 6, Sir Courtenay Boyle reported—
  "As I have already stated to a Committee of the House of Commons, the strength of the clause seems to me to lie in its weakness. Approached as it is at present, in a conciliatory spirit, by both companies and trailers; but if the Board of Trade had power to order the adoption of their suggestions, the procedure would have been made far more complicated, the willingness of either party to rely upon it would be seriously impaired, and the decisions of the Department would not only be so liable to external influence as to weaken its efficiency, but would also be so liable to review by the properly constituted wants of the country as to make the clause of very little service to either party."
  It seemed to him (Mr. Tomlinson) that it was going beyond the duty of the Board of Trade, whilst this inquiry was pending, to pronounce as to the mode in which the Board ought to deal with cases coming under the clause. He held that in appointing the Committee the Board of Trade had handed over to Parliament a duty they ought themselves to have performed.
  MR. MUNDELLAreminded the hon. Member that the Committee was appointed not by the Board of Trade, but
  1218
  in pursuance of a Resolution passed unanimously by the House.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that in one respect the House was unanimous—with the unanimity of despair. The traders, no doubt, had a grievance. Upon that the House was unanimous, but he denied altogether that there was unanimity as to the way in which the subject should be approached. Passing from that, he assumed that they would get some Report from the Committee which would indicate how the clause might be made more efficient. It would not be by leaving the clause weak, but by strengthening it that they would be able to deal effectually with the cases that arose. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any figures to show the amount of work done by the Railway Commission this year. He ventured to think that the Commission had done very little work, for the reason that traders were of opinion that it was a cumbrous and costly tribunal, and that it was not worth anybody's while to bring his case before it in the hope that speedy justice would be done.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the Board of Trade was not responsible for the Railway Commission.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would move to reduce the amount for the Board of Trade by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £11,000 for the Board of Trade, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said, he had a difficulty in discovering the point of the hon. Member's criticism. If the hon. Member had followed the proceedings of the Committee he would have seen that they had taken the only course open to them. The Committee had heard a considerable number of witnesses presented on behalf of the traders complaining, with great reason apparently, of the rates inflicted on them, and it was only just after that to hear the defence of the Railway Companies. The companies had serious charges to explain and to rebut if they could, and the Committee had been engaged for only two or three days in hearing their case. The Committee desired that the question should be exhaustively dealt with, and in consequence some delay had occurred; but he

  1219
  was happy to be able to state that they hoped within a few days' more sittings to be in a position to commence the consideration of their Report, which he trusted would be valuable because founded on evidence. It was not impossible, indeed, that the Report might be made even during the present Session, and an opportunity given to the House of arriving at a judgment on this important matter. The hon. Member had expressed a hope that the Board of Trade would not prejudge the case, but the hon. Member himself had been the first to break the rule he said he desired to see observed. He (Sir A. Rollit) was in a position to say that the Committee had been doing its best to arrive at a just conclusion. They were anxious that all the facts should be dealt with in the evidence, and that ultimately a Report should be made which would be serviceable to the House. He only dealt with the other part of the subject, which would be referred to by the President of the Board of Trade, because he wished to vindicate the author of the Report from the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not agree with the whole of the Report, but he thought the prejudgment of the hon. Member had hardly been deserved, and he hoped the time was not far distant when he would have material for forming a better and more correct judgment.
  MR. HANBURY (Preston)said, he had understood his hon. Friend and Colleague to criticise the Committee for not having more rapidly come to a conclusion on the main point as to whether it was possible to find some cheap tribunal which would be able in future to fix rates. Well, with that criticism he confessed he did not entirely agree, because he was of opinion that the Committee had wasted time by going into minute questions concerning rates and other matters largely dealt with by the Joint Committee of the two Houses on railway rates. They had been allowed to waste valuable time by going too much into details, which did not altogether, to his mind, affect the main issue. When his hon. Friend blamed the Board of Trade for not suggesting some tribunal to fix rates, he entirely differed with him, because he thought that the more a Government Department held itself aloof from matters of this kind the better. The hon. Member
  1220
  seemed to find fault with the Board, not in respect of their action as a Board of Conciliation, but for not definitely settling the question of rates very much as a Court of Law would settle it. He (Mr. Hanbury) was bound to say it seemed to him it would be a most serious matter indeed if a Government tribunal representing a Department of the Government, every one of whose judgments would be liable to be discussed in the House, were to take on itself the functions of a Court of law, and give final decisions in these matters. Their decisions would be constantly subjected to review in the House. But there was another vital objection. While the Board acted simply as a Board of Conciliation procedure was cheap; but directly the Board was constituted a tribunal with an ultimate decision the procedure would be made very expensive indeed. Counsel would have to be employed, and there would be no difference practically as compared with the present arrangement, so far as cost was concerned. As he understood it, what the Committee would have to do would be—if it were possible—to find a tribunal which, in the first place, would fix rates entirely without connection with a Department of the State, and which, in the next place, would be cheap.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, it was not necessary for him to detain the Committee for more than a minute or two, because the hon. Member for Preston had been answered by his colleague. The hon. Member had taken the unusual course of criticising on the Estimates the action of the House in appointing a Committee to consider a mode of settling disputes between the Railway Companies and the traders, and had suggested that the Board of Trade ought to have taken upon itself the duty of providing a tribunal for settling these disputes. The Board of Trade could not come to the House and ask for judicial powers to enable them to fix rates, as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to expect. He hoped no Minister or head of a Public Department would ever have such a duty devolving on him, for if he had he was sure he would have a very bad time of it. He would be torn in different directions whenever a rate was considered too high by the traders or too low by the Railway Companies. A very different

  1221
  method of settling disputes must be adopted. Clause 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, which the hon. Member had criticised, was the only clause which provided a cheap and easy method of settling the difficulties which might arise between the trader and the Railway Companies. It happened to be his (Mr. Mundella's) own clause, and he had good reason to believe it had worked satisfactorily. Of course, he did not mean that everybody was satisfied, because traders as well as Railway Companies were sometimes unreasonable in their demands; and if the Board of Trade was to be useful in this matter, it must be impartial and judicial. He was bound to say, however, that on the whole the working of the Conciliation Clause had been good, and the House could hardly form an idea of the number of different cases in which it affected the trading community. A single case was a typical case, and when it was settled that such and such should be the rate of a certain article, that decision extended to all those who were concerned in that particular article, and to all parts of that particular line, and often to other lines also. He did not believe the Report of Sir Courtenay Boyle had prejudged the case before the Select Committee, because it only dealt with cases arising before the 1st of January, and did no! affect those which the Committee had to consider. He looked forward with a good deal of hope and satisfaction to the Report of the Committee as supplying a much-desired method of arriving at a decision. When a complaint was lodged with the Board of Trade the Railway Companies were invited to meet the traders at the Board of Trade Offices, and the whole matter was discussed around the table, and generally a satisfactory arrangement or a compromise was arrived at. He had seen numbers of letters since he had been at the Board of Trade thanking the Board, and expressing satisfaction at the awards made and the good understandings brought about. He hoped the hon. Member would not feel it necessary to press his Motion for the reduction of the Vote. The Board of Trade were doing everything they possibly could in the interests of the traders, consistently with the prosperity of the Railway Companies. From the Report of the Committee, which he hoped
  1222
  would be presented within a short time, the Board of Trade anticipated some guidance for the settlement of these vexed questions.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he had no intention of criticising the action of the Committee, which he did not think would be fair at the present time. The inquiry, however, contrary to the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman, instead of being a light and easy matter, required a large amount of time, and had necessitated the postponement of legislation, which had, to his mind, thrown a doubt on the recommendations under which the Committee was appointed. He would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman expected the Report to guide the Board of Trade or the House in making the Railway and Canal Commission more effectual than it was at present? He would also like to know whether the Report would be issued in time to enable the Board of Trade to deal exhaustively with the matter?
  MR. MUNDELLAdid not think he ought to anticipate the Report of the Committee. The Committee had inquired into the working of the Commission, and he assumed they would report upon the evidence they had taken. He must accept thankfully whatever suggestions the Committee made, and must exercise his own judgment as to the steps he would propose to take in consequence of these suggestions.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the President of the Board of Trade a very important matter. It had reference to the regulations issued by the Board with regard to the testing and stamping of weights and measures under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889. It was a question which affected London, Birmingham, and other places where weights and measures were manufactured. Under the Act of 1884 it was provided that the weights and measures should be tested and stamped in the district where they were used. Although weights and measures might have been tested and stamped by authorised Inspectors in the districts where made, they were rejected by the Inspectors of the districts into

  1223
  which they might be removed. The result was that the whole trade suffered through the rejection of tested weights and measures already approved by qualified Inspectors. It was a source of great annoyance and expense, and thousands—he might say, tens of thousands—suffered from the loss thus entailed. Especially was the inconvenience felt in the case of persons who resided on the boundary of two or three localities, where the weights and scales and measures were made and already stamped, and then removed only a short distance from one district to another. Although already tested where made, they were rejected by the Inspector. A shopkeeper who kept a certain number of weighing machines in his stock could not sell those which had been stamped by one Inspector into a district in which another Inspector resided. The whole thing showed the absurdity of the regulation. This grievance had been very much aggravated, especially by the old Inspectors appointed before the Act of 1889, who declined to receive scales tested and stamped in another district into their district, although they were perfectly correct. There was another point to which he desired to direct attention. In the Act of 1889 there was a definition of a weighing instrument or weighing machine, which was intended to apply to weighing machines fixed in the ground. But the Inspectors of the Board of Trade, by their definition of the Act, had made that provision apply to every portable machine used in a grocer's shop or private family. It should be provided that the weighing machines which were required to be stamped in the locality should be the weighing machines which were fixed; but when once these thousands and tens of thousands of smaller machines, which were self-contained, light, and portable, were stamped and their accuracy vouched for by an authorised Inspector, then the shopkeeper should have the right to sell them, no matter in what local authority the purchaser might be. Very often an Inspector refused to test and stamp these machines, although he had no right to do so. He (Mr. Jesse Collings) did not expect an answer about this matter at once; but he would ask the President of the Board of Trade to take the matter into his consideration and see if there could not be devised some means for
  1224
  alleviating or remedying this matter. In the matter of weights, apart from scales, the difficulty had been met, and they asked that it should also be possible, in the case of scales, that when they had been stamped as correct by an authorised officer in one district this test of their accuracy should be accepted in another district instead of their being required to be stamped again. This matter caused great inconvenience, and if some system could be adopted which would obviate it, it would be a relief not only to merchants and manufacturers in Birmingham, but to thousands of dealers throughout the country.
  MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)remarked that the London County Council had insisted under bye-laws of the re-stamping of weighing machines made in Birmingham. This was a great inconvenience, and he ventured to submit for the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade whether that bye-law was not, in fact, ultra vires, having regard to Section 45 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878? That section said—
  "A weight or measure duly stamped by an Inspector under this Act shall be a legal weight or measure throughout the United Kingdom, unless found to be false or unjust, and not be liable to be re-stamped, because used in any place other than that in which originally stamped."
  MR. MUNDELLA: There is a subsequent Act, that of 1889.
  MR. BOUSFIELDwould invite the right hon. Gentleman to point out in any subsequent Act a provision over-riding the section he had quoted. He must confess that on the face of it the bye-law as to re-stamping seemed to be ultra vires. Apart from that he ventured to submit to the Board of Trade it was a matter of the gravest inconvenience to large manufacturers in Birmingham, who manufactured weights and scales, and got them properly stamped, that they should be unable to sell their instruments in other parts of the country unless they were re-stamped in these other places. Surely this was au Imperial matter, and should not be entrusted to the Local Authorities. He contended that the provision in the Act of 1878 was good in principle, and ought to be acted upon by the Board of Trade.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, if he had received any notice of this question he would have provided himself with the bye-law and the justification for acting upon it. As it was, he would promise his right hon. Friend he would look carefully into the matter. He knew that in regard to the question of weights the Board of Trade had done what had been asked of them, so that a weight which had been once stamped by the proper authority should be legal everywhere. At the same time, there was something to be said as to scales and weighing machines being required to be re-stamped. A weighing machine might be perfectly accurate when it was first put up; but there might be something which entitled the Local Authorities to see that it was a proper machine, and having done so and ascertained it was correct they put their stamp upon it. He could not go further than give the assurance that he would make inquiry into the matter at once. The Board of Trade, so far from desiring to hamper the traders of Birmingham or any other place, were desirous of doing all they could to facilitate trade and traders in every possible way; but, on the other hand, the consumer had to be protected, and the accuracy of the weighing machines was of the utmost importance.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, it was not from want of courtesy that he did not give the right hon. Gentleman notice; but he did not want him to give an off-hand answer at the present moment, but to give the matter full consideration. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of weighing machines, he must understand that there were thousands of articles technically known as weighing machines which were little things to weigh 4 lbs., 7 lbs., and 14 lbs., and other balances for precisely the same purpose, that were called scales and not machines. Through their being described as weighing machines they were confounded with those large machines used at railway stations and other places. The two should be kept distinct, and if these small portable articles had been once properly stamped they should not require re-stamping when sent to another district.
  MR. MUNDELLAintimated that he should be glad to discuss the whole matter with the right hon. Gentleman at
  1226
  the Board of Trade, and no doubt they would be able to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwished to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the very unsatisfactory way in which the cost of inspecting weights and scales was treated. In Wiltshire, a few years ago, the inspection of weights and measures cost £150 a year, of which £50 was returned in fees. Since the passing of the County Councils Act, emanating, he was sorry to say, from his side of the House, the cost had increased to £1,200 a year, although there was no more inspection, and the work was no better done than before. He did not know whether this matter came within the purview of the right hon. Gentleman; but if it did, and he would take action, he might earn eternal glory by reducing from £1,200 to £100 the cost of the inspection of weights and measures in the County of Wiltshire.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTwished to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the present depression of trade and the increasing want of employment in almost every industry throughout the country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee what measures he had taken or intended to take to mitigate the enormous suffering which was entailed upon industrial workers in almost every district of the country by the present state of affairs. He was aware that it was not easy to find remedies, but he thought the country would be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman's lips that the matter was engaging his most earnest attention, and possibly it would be able to derive from his reply to his (Colonel Vincent's) observations some idea of the line which he proposed to take in this matter. He proposed very briefly to call attention to what was the present condition of affairs, and he could do so in a very simple manner indeed by a paper which he held in his hands—namely, a speech of the President of the London Chamber of Commerce, delivered the other day. The President of the Chamber took the opinion of 60 Members of this House who were, in his judgment, best qualified to give an opinion.
  THE CHAIRMAN, interrupting, asked the hon. and gallant Member how he thought this was a matter within the cognisance of the Board of Trade?
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, the whole trade of the country, as he understood, was under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. It was the Board of Trade who issued Trade and Navigation Reports, and who issued The Labour Gazette.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that would not be in Order; the hon. Gentleman must bring the matter home to some administrative act of the Board of Trade.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but if he was only to ask what measures he (Mr. Mundella) would take to mitigate the sufferings of the people, he would say that was entirely a matter for the Local Government Board. It was true that Reports as to trade were issued by the Board of Trade; but that Board had no control over trade.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, to put himself in Order he would move a reduction of the Vote by £50, so that he could call attention to the action, or rather the inaction, of the Board of Trade in not introducing some measure into the House which would enable—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That would be out of Order; you cannot make the President of the Board of Trade liable for his action as a Member of Parliament. The subject must distinctly refer to his administrative action, and must be brought home to the President of the Board of Trade with reference to some action he had done.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, that on the subject of imposing a mark of origin on foreign goods the President of the Board of Trade received a deputation from all parts of the country; and if he did so it was to be assumed that that was a matter which was within the cognisance of the Board of Trade, and of the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he received the deputation because they wished to ask his support to a certain Bill; he did not see, however, that that came under the Vote of the Board of Trade.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid this was a Vote for the Board of
  1228
  Trade, and if the President of that Board received a deputation upon this subject he should have thought it was a matter within the cognisance of the right hon. Gentleman, otherwise he would have declined to receive the deputation. As the right hon. Gentleman raised objection to this matter, he would confine himself to asking him what steps, if any, he intended to take as President of the Board of Trade to mitigate the suffering that now existed in almost every industry in the country by the want of employment at the present time and the enormous decline in exports during the past six or eight months. He would call attention to the Report of the Labour Correspondent at Sheffield, which said—
  "Large numbers of workmen have not more than two to four days' work per week in many eases at reduced prices."
  That was the Report sent to the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Board of Trade by the Labour Correspondent in his own constituency, and it showed the condition of labour within his own constituency. He (Colonel H. Vincent) contented himself by asking what steps, if any, he intended to take to mitigate this state of affairs.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, his hon. Friend asked him what steps he intended to take to mitigate the present state of affairs? He wished it was in his power to do something in the direction either of mitigating the distress that existed, or facilitating exports; but he could not see how the Board of Trade could do anything. He was only sorry that such a state of matters should exist. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to blame the Government, because the exports had been lower during the last six months than previously. Was the hon. Member aware how largely these exports had diminished since 1890? There was a great fall in exports in 1891, and in the first eight months of the year 1892 there was a further decline. Did the hon. Member hold this and the late Government responsible for that fall in the exports? If so, whenever there was a rise in the exports, it would be due to the Government, and whenever there was a fall it would be due to the Government; so that this very varying bulk of exports from month to month would depend in some way or other upon the action of the Government.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear!
  MR. MUNDELLAwas really astonished at the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He could not have believed that he could have cheered the statement that the rise and fall of exports depended upon the act of the Government, or some Department of the Government. It would not be fair to hold Lord Salisbury's Government responsible for the decline in 1891.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: There was great prosperity in 1890.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Well, then, if they could create prosperity in 1890, and prevent a great decline in 1891, the conduct of the Government was still more reprehensible. If they had power to create prosperity, they must be blamed when they ceased to create that prosperity and allowed it to decline. He did not think his hon. Friend could intend to deal with this matter seriously. He must know the reason why there had been a fall in the exports. For the last month the exports were better, he confessed, than even he expected. The reason for the fall in the exports was that our customers had been in great financial difficulties all over the world. They had not had the money, and therefore could not buy. Let him point out to his hon. Friend what had happened in the last two or three years. He knew the state of things that had existed in South America—great financial difficulties, suspension of payments, and almost national bankruptcy. Only in the papers of this morning they read of banks failing, mills closing, and numbers of workmen being thrown out of employment in the United States. He supposed the Government was not responsible for that. There was great distress everywhere, and he was sorry for it, and he was afraid it would be some time before we entirely recovered. He would go further; look at some of our richest Colonies. What was the state of Australasia at the present time? Banks had been embarrassed, and there had been distress all round. He did not know whether his hon. Friend regretted the fall of imports, because he (Mr. Mundella) knew that when the imports were higher than now, his hon. Friend's complaint was with reference to the vast amount of imports. His complaint now was that in recent years there
  1230
  had been a falling-off in imports and exports. Of course, if there was a falling-off in exports and imports, the cost of imports paid for the exports—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this only concerned the Board of Trade.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he was very much obliged to the Chairman; but he did not think this question was altogether in Order. His only desire was not to treat his hon. Friend and Colleague with discourtesy. That was the reason he gave him an answer about the fall in exports, though he really thought it did not fall under the Vote on Account.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTwished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had been in communication with the President of the Local Government Board upon the subject of decreasing the number of unemployed as recorded in the Reports of his own Labour Department.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had not; but he was quite sure the President of the Local Government Board would do his duty in the matter. He (Mr. Mundella) stated in answer to a question this afternoon that the Labour Department had now a Report in an advanced state of preparation, which dealt with the whole subject of unemployed labour, and the various agencies in operation for finding work or other relief, municipal or otherwise.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he wished to draw attention to a few matters in connection with the Board of Trade Department; but, as they could not probably be so conveniently raised on the Vote on Account, as they were Departmental details, he would postpone them until the Votes were taken in their proper order. When that time came the President of the Board of Trade would not be able to say that he had got no notice of the questions. He, therefore, begged to give notice that when the Vote was taken in the ordinary course he would call attention to the appointment of Labour Correspondents, and the almost entirely one-sided political complexion worn by these persons, and he would further draw the attention of the House to the experiment in journalism embarked in by the President of the Board of Trade; and also to the appointment of a Committee to overhaul the

  1231
  Report of the Commission on Saving Life at Sea by means of electrical communication with light vessels. He made those few remarks now, in order that it might not be said when the subjects came on regularly that he had not given notice.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)asked whether the President of the Board of Trade would tell the Committee the intentions of the Government with reference to the importation of pauper aliens. These unsavoury foreigners were shipped from the Continent and landed at Tilbury amongst his constituents, and coming to London they depressed wages and swamped the market. If they were landed at Castle Gardens, at the other side of the Atlantic, they would not be allowed to proceed further; and he, therefore, failed to see why they should be allowed to land at Tilbury, and thence wander where they pleased over the country.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not think that matter arises on the Vote on Account.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that was another of the subjects to which he would draw attention when the regular Vote came on.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question on a matter to which he had on several occasions endeavoured to draw his attention. That was the rules of the road at sea. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt aware that while the loss at sea from shipwrecks had decreased the loss from collisions at sea had increased; and his apprehension was that the adoption of the new rules of the road at sea, which were framed at the Washington Conference, would still further increase the danger of collisions. He had appealed to the right hon. Gentleman again and again for an opportunity for considering these rules; but the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to think the matter of any importance, for whenever the question was referred to the right hon. Gentleman—if he might use a nautical expression on a nautical subject—"tops his boom and pays us with his main-sheet." He most solemnly and seriously warned the right hon. Gentleman that the consequences would be most serious if he imposed these new rules of the road on British seamen without allowing one word of discussion on them in the House, or paying attention
  1232
  to the protests of seamen pilots and shipowners. The matter had become of extremely pressing importance within the last few days, because they had been told by an Admiral speaking judicially as President of a Court that when the Fleet was engaged in manœuvres the rules of the road did not apply. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman what was going to happen—what were sailors to*do when they met the Fleet? Supposing the right hon. Gentleman himself was at sea in heavy weather, close hauled and clawing to windward, and saw a Fleet bearing down at 14 knots on his weather bow. What would he do? Would he put his helm up? Would he put his helm down? Or would he half-horse his foresail, let her come to the wind and sing a little hymn while the Fleet sunk him?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I suppose all the hon. Gentleman wanted was the opportunity to let off his humorous speech, and he has got it. I may tell him I have nothing to do with the Fleet, and as for the rules of the road, the matter has been referred to a Committee, consisting of the best and ablest navigators, as well as Admiralty lawyers in the country, who will hear every objection to the rules, consider these objections with the greatest care, and report the result to the Board of Trade.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he did not know there was such a Committee sitting. If the right hon. Gentleman had told him some time ago that there was such a Committee it would have greatly relieved his anxiety. He trusted they would have the Report of the Committee in time to save the right hon. Gentleman's salary.
  COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)said, the rules of the road had been adopted by International agreement at a Conference held at Washington. Supposing the Committee—of which he, like his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, had not heard before—reported adversely to the conclusions arrived at at Washington, what would happen?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The general principles were arrived at by the Conference at Washington. Upon those principles the rules were drawn. The rules were laid on the Table of the House, and then referred to this Com-

  1233
  mittee, who will hear opinions from all quarters, collect the suggestions laid before them, and report to the Board of Trade.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked whether the other Powers which had taken part in the Conference were agreeable to this reconsideration of the rules?
  MR. MUNDELLA: There will be no reconsideration of the rules. There will be a reconsideration of the regulations for carrying out the rules. I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the exact Order of Reference to the Committee.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he understood that the rules of the road at sea were settled by an International Conference at Washington. Now there was a Committee appointed to revise these rules and alter them if necessary. If the Committee did think it necessary to alter the rules, would the other members of the International Conference accept the decision of the Board of Trade; and, if not, would another International Conference have to he held?
  MR. MUNDELLA: That is not so. Certain broad principles were laid down at the Maritime Conference, and on these the rules were framed. The Committee is to consider suggestions made in reference to these rules. So far we have been acting in consort with all the Powers.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it was not the fact that the Maritime Conference agreed only to the principles. They worked out the rules themselves; discussed every word of the rules, and laid down the rules themselves with the utmost nicety. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely under a misapprehension. He held that it was absolutely unnecessary to have this Conference. The usual result had followed. The Conference had made a muddle of maritime affairs which they did not understand. The right hon. Gentleman had said that objections were to be entertained by the Committee. If that were so, and if proper weight were given to the representations laid before the Committee, he would be delighted. The Committee would then be in a position of throwing over the Maritime Conference at Washington, and probably there would then be another Maritime Conference to throw them over.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I may say that the Committee was appointed by my predecessor.
  SIR J. LENG: The President of the Board of Agriculture will not be surprised that I take this opportunity of bringing before the House the continued prohibition of the importation of live cattle from Canada. He knows that there is widespread dissatisfaction, and active agitation in Scotland against that prohibition. When in November last he issued what is known as the Slaughtering Order, it was regarded as a very strong step made on very weak grounds. At that time Scottish agriculturists and Scottish veterinaries unanimously disputed the existence of infectious pleuro-pneumonia in the Monkseaton and Hurona cases. That there were some cases of pleuro was admitted, but it was not admitted that it was pleuro of an infectious type. The operation of the Slaughtering Order was postponed to admit of the cattle then shipped or about to be shipped from Canada being lauded. Fourteen thousand Canadian cattle were so landed before the end of the year, and not a single case of pleuro was found in them, showing that at the end of the season Canada was perfectly free from pleuro; and those 14,000 were dispersed all over the country without spreading infection. Early this year, soon after Parliament met, a very large deputation of Scottish agriculturists and others interested from different counties and districts in Scotland waited on the President of the Board of Agriculture and strongly urged the revocation of the November Order on the grounds that both Canada and Scotland were free from pleuro, and that it would be a serious injury to both countries if the Order were maintained. The right hon. Gentleman, however, declined to withdraw the Order. He stated his intention to establish for a probationary period a system of examining the lungs of the cattle slaughtered at the port of debarkation, and expressed a hope that this would justify the withdrawal of the Order. There was some dubiety as to the right hon. Gentleman's expressions. The probationary period was very protracted. Then there was a rumour that some suspicious lungs had been detected; and, finally, it was declared that, one lung had all the symptoms of con-

  1235
  tagious pleuro; that the special examinations would be discontinued; and that the Slaughtering Order in the meantime must be upheld. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this has caused great agitation in Scotland. Another large deputation has waited upon him, and largo meetings of farmers, cattle-dealers, and others have been held in Arbroath, Brechin, Montrose, Laurencekirk, Aberdeen, and Dundee, and others are to be held within the next few days within the Counties of Perth and Fife. The reason for holding these meetings is that unless the Order for the slaughtering of all Canadian cattle at the ports of debarkation is promptly revoked, it will be fatal to the most important branch of the importations—that of young cattle for feeding purposes—for the remainder of the present year, as the season for shipments from Montreal closes early in November. In the early part of the season the cattle brought are almost entirely fat cattle, and the principal harm done so far has been in depressing the markets, more particularly in Glasgow, by killing meat in large quantities when not required. From this time forward, however, when the young cattle from Canada are desired, and would be welcomed by our Scottish farmers as the healthiest and most profitable cattle they can put into their fields and byres, they are to be prevented obtaining them. And what is the pretext?—the fear of importing infectious pleuro-pneumonia. If I thought that fear was well-grounded, I should not utter a word of complaint. Do not let it be supposed that anyone, and, least of all, the intelligent farmers of Scotland, desire anything that would facilitate the introduction of such a scourge to their fields and steadings. Such a pestilence as infectious pleuro is too well known to them. Of all men, they have the greatest interest in keeping their herds and their byres healthy. They are the last to wish the business on which they so much, depend for their livelihood to be imperilled or destroyed; but they do not believe that any real case of infectious pleuro has been imported from Canada. There were two supposed cases last autumn, and there has been this year this single supposed case from the Lake Winnipeg. But Scottish farmers, supported by several of the most eminent veterinary experts in Scotland—than whom none stand higher in veterinary
  1236
  science and experience—do not believe that these were infectious cases at all. There are in animals, as in men, diseases and diseases. There are diseases which have very similar symptoms, but which are essentially different in their nature. There are endemic and epidemic, noninfectious and infectious disorders, and, judging merely from post-mortem examinations, it is sometimes difficult to detect the one from the other. Now, the prevailing—I may say the universal—view in Scotland is that not one of the cases in these Canadian cattle has been a genuine case of pleuro-pneumonia contagiosa, and I will briefly state the reasons for holding that view. From the beginning distinguished Scotch veterinary surgeons have declared that microscopic examinations of the lungs have shown the characteristics of the disease to be those not of contagious pleuro, but of broncho-pleuro or "cornstalk disease," which is neither infectious nor contagious, and they quote the authority of M. Nocard, the celebrated French veterinary, in support of their positive statements. Second, there is no infectious pleuro in Canada; the Dominion is singularly free from it, and on the principle ex nihilo nihil fit infectious pleuro cannot come from a country where there is no infection.
  MR. CHAPLIN: What is the authority for that statement?
  SIR J. LENG: The authority for that statement is the High Commissioner for Canada. Sir Charles Tupper, in a statement made by him lately, says—
  "It did occur in the quarantine grounds at Quebec once; but Canada attaches so much importance to the necessity of being free of pleuro-pneumonia that they slaughtered the whole of the large and valuable herd of blood stock there at the time—a herd of the most costly character, numbering over 100—and all the animals in the quarantine station were slaughtered, and all the animals for five miles around it were slaughtered."
  That is an illustration of their determination to exterminate pleuro-pneumonia if it appeared in the colony. But that was the only time it did exist in Canada, and it never got beyond the quarantine station. I know it is insinuated that cases of infectious pleuro may dribble into Canada from the United States; but the Canadians, to prevent this, have established and carefully enforced a quarantine of 90 days for all cattle

  1237
  coming from the States. It is a matter of the greatest moment to protect and preserve their home-bred cattle from infection, and they have succeeded. Sir Charles Tupper says—
  "We ourselves had veterinary surgeons—for nobody was more interested in a wise and just solution of the question than the Government of Canada—we had those experts sent all over the country. The colony was searched from end to end, the districts from which those cattle came was specially investigated, and not a trace of pleuro-pneumonia was found in the whole colony, simply because it did not exist there."
  According to the testimony of all who have purchased young Canadian stores, as well as of the butchers who have killed the fat cattle, they are the healthiest that come into the market, the most free from all kinds of ailments. It would be very desirable for this reason to have them to improve our own breeds. The history of the animal brought by the Lake Winnipeg, whose case decided the Board of Agriculture to continue the Slaughtering Order, is well known. It did not come from the United States. It came from Pilot Mount, Manitoba. It came a distance of 1,500 miles, along with 250 others, closely packed in railway trucks, to Montreal. Then it came between 2,000 and 3,000 miles across the Atlantic in a steamer to this country in close contact again with others, under conditions most favourable to the propagation of infection if it had existed. If this animal had had infectious pleuro, it must have infected those with which it was in contact in the train or in the steamer. It is contrary to all experience that there should be a solitary case like that said to have come ex the Lake Winnipeg. An infectious disease is known by its spreading infection. Like small-pox, it cannot be hidden. Do what you may, it will spread and make itself known, but it has not spread in Canada or in this country. According to the President of the Board of Agriculture, the United Kingdom has not been so free from disease for many years as it is now. Although 14,000 Canadian cattle were dispersed all over the country last autumn after the restrictions were first announced, and although the lungs of 25,000 Canadian cattle have been inspected this year, those of only one animal have been condemned for supposed pleuro. This part of the case may be fairly summed up
  1238
  in the words of the resolution passed at a large meeting of agriculturists in Dundee, on Tuesday, protesting
  "Against the continuance of the restrictions on the importation of cattle from Canada, being of opinion that neither was their imposition nor is their continuance warranted by the circumstances of the cases on which they were founded, as it has not been proved that contagious pleuro-pneumonia has ever existed in Canada or been found in this country as having been communicated by Canadian animals; that, therefore, a great injustice has been done to Canada and the agriculturists and general community of this country by the injurious and uncalled-for interference with an important and growing industry, vitally affecting the meat supply of the country; that the effect of these restrictions, if maintained, will be to increase instead of diminish the risk of the dissemination of disease through the exclusion of Canadian cattle, which are the healthiest that can be imported; and that the interest of Canada and of this country demand that these restrictions should be at once removed, and free entry and distribution alive throughout the country again allowed to cattle from Canada."
  Coming now to the question, what ought to be done? I recognise that the Board of Agriculture is the creature of Statute, and that its procedure is regulated by Statute. The Act of Parliament which governs it in this regard is 41 & 42 Vict., c. 74, and the Fifth Schedule of that Act declares that "foreign animals"—defined to be all animals coming from a country out of the United Kingdom—are to be landed only at a part of a port defined by Order in Council, and "are not to he moved alive out of the wharf." The rule is, therefore, that all animals imported from abroad shall be slaughtered. Up to last year Canadian cattle had such an excellent character that they were excepted from the rule; but in November last, as already explained, the exception was revoked, and they came under the common prohibition, and are not allowed "to be moved alive out of the wharf." It is against this that the fanners and dealers in Scotland, as stated in the third resolution of their meeting at Dundee, protest—
  "Being of opinion, first, that the imposition and continuance of the restrictions were due entirely to the mistaken and disputed diagnosis and course of procedure of the veterinary advisers of the Board of Agriculture, whose investigations are conducted in secret, and are not subject to review; and, second, that as the Board of Agriculture is practically its President for the time being, and as by the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act it is provided that the Board shall allow the importation of cattle from any country if it is satisfied that that can be

  1239
  done so as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of diseased animals, while it does not prescribe any particular means by which the Board is satisfied, the decisions in regard to suspected cases of infectious or contagious diseases should not, as hitherto, rest solely with the Board's present veterinary advisers without the right of appeal, but that the President should avail himself of the best skill and advice to be had either in this or other countries."
  There is undoubtedly a strong feeling that, however able and experienced the Departmental advisers of the right hon. Gentleman may be, he has placed himself too much under their control, is too subservient to their opinions, and has not sufficiently exercised his own independent judgment. It is proverbial that doctors differ as much as others. There are two sets of opinions held by two sets of veterinaries with respect to these cases of pleuro; but the President of the Board of Agriculture has shut his eyes and closed his ears to all hut one set—those held by his own subordinates. In serious cases of life and death in the human subject the most eminent physicians and surgeons are glad to meet others in consultation. The question before us involves the life or death of the trade in live Canadian cattle. It seriously affects the agriculturists both of Scotland and of Canada. The almost universal opinion of both countries is that the veterinaries of the Board of Agriculture are wrong, and yet the right hon. Gentleman will not give the slightest heed to any but them. There are well-known instances in which the advisers of the Board, both with regard to cattle and horses, have been proved to have made mistakes. I received a letter this morning from one of the best agricultural authorities in Scotland. He says—
  "In regard to your Motion re Canadian cattle trade, I have not seen any speaker give any prominence to the fact that the Veterinary Inspectors of the Board have in the past made some very glaring mistakes. Thus at the great Yorkshire show at Bradford, in 1891, two of these Inspectors condemned Mr. Graham's famous Clydesdale horse MacCash on the ground that the animal was affected with ringbone, whereas it was proved within a fortnight thereafter up to the hilt that the animal was absolutely clear of any such disease, and the exposure of these facts caused a great sensation at the time. In the previous year, 1890, Mr. Cope also ruled a well-known horse, Cedric the Saxon, out of the prize list at the same show on the ground that he was affected with hereditary disease, so that the second prize-winner was raised to the premier place; but apparently he did not know
  1240
  that only some few weeks before he had condemned Knight Templar on the ground of being affected with hereditary unsoundness; and it was also proved up to the hilt within a week of the show that Cedric the Saxon was perfectly free from any hereditary unsoundness. You may also remember that a section of the famous 'Deptford lung,' which the Board of Agriculture Inspectors in 1891 condemned as being affected with pleuro, was secured by Principal Williams, of the New Veterinary College, Edinburgh, who pronounced it a case of non-contagious bronchial pneumonia, and his diagnosis was confirmed by M. Nocard, who is leading veterinarian of France. The case of Texas fever referred to by Sir Charles Tupper in his recent speech to the Scottish deputation furnishes another proof of the notorious fact that the Board of Agriculture Inspectors are far from being reliable."
  Yet the President accepts the views and declarations of his advisers as infallible, and, under the enormous powers with which he is invested, virtually issues in the Slaughtering Order a death warrant against the Canadian cattle trade. No wonder that both in Scotland and in Canada a feeling, not only of irritation, but of exasperation prevails! Adverting for a moment more to the Act of Parliament, it seems to me perfectly clear that, having regard to the whole of the circumstances, the Board is entirely free to act in cancelling the Slaughtering Order. Note the words of Clause 2, Section 4, of the Fifth Schedule in relation to foreign animals—
  "If and as long as from time to time the Privy Council (in whose place the Board now is) are satisfied with respect to any foreign country."
  Here observe what they are to be satisfied of—
  "That the laws thereof relating (1) to the importation and exportation of animals, and (2) to the prevention of the introduction and spreading of disease, and (3) the general sanitary condition of animals therein are such as to afford reasonable security against the importation therefrom of diseased animals."
  Then, by Order in Council, the animals may be landed without being subject to slaughter or quarantine. There is nothing in that clause justifying the stoppage of the trade, because in 25,000 lungs examined one supposed case of pleuro has been found. There is nothing demanding that every animal in 25,000 or 50,000 landed on this side shall be demonstrated to be in a perfect condition of health. Nowhere on the face of the earth can you get thousands of animals without some of them being in a more or less

  1241
  sickly state. Of course, if any considerable number of these Canadian cattle were sickly, prejudice would be justified; but all who use them concur in testifying that they are the healthiest cattle that pass through their hands. Mr. E. Anderson, Balbrogie, speaking on Tuesday, said—
  "He could not understand how Mr. Gardner was not convinced before this of the failure of saying that pleuro-pneumonia existed among Canadian cattle. He had had Canadian cattle every year since they were imported into Glasgow, and he had not yet had a Canadian bullock but what went away on his own feet, and that was a thing which could not be said of English. Irish, or even Scottish cattle. They were the hardiest cattle they had ever got to feed, and it was hard to them in Forfarshire and in Perthshire that they could not get Free Trade in cattle."
  MR. Alexander, Ballindarg, a recognised agricultural authority in Scotland, well known to the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby), speaking with respect to this point, also asked—
  "Where could they find cattle as healthy as Canadian cattle? Let them go through the whole universe, and he would defy them to find any place so free from disease of any kind in cattle as in Canada. Ireland of late years, the only place before the introduction of Canadians to which they could resort, had rather decreased in its supply of store cattle, and at the same time Ireland was a country, not he believed the worst under the sun, but certainly one of the worst in regard to disease. He thought it sheer folly on the part of any Government or any Department of a Government, to schedule a country so clean as Canada, and to allow cattle—he supposed they could not prevent it—to come in from Ireland. If they were restricted to Ireland for their cattle they were certain to have disease, and disease of an infectious kind called pleuro. Only the other day they had in Dundee a case of undoubted pleuro. Did that case come from Canada? No. If the Harbour of Dundee had been open at this time for Canadian cattle it was very possible that this case of contagious pleuro in the city would never have happened, as it was more than likely that the dairyman would have gone to the depôt and purchased a Canadian cow. But he was obliged to go to the Dundee Cattle Market and buy a cow imported, as he understood, from Dublin. He thought that fact proved up to the hilt the statement in the resolution that instead of tending to diminish the risk of disease in this country the policy of the Board of Agriculture actually had a tendency the other way."
  The Act mainly regards the state of matters in the country from which the cattle come. Are the laws and regulations of that country for securing the health, and is
  "The general sanitary condition of animals therein such as to afford reasonable security
  1242
  against the importation therefrom of diseased animals"?
  Mark the phrase "reasonable security." Not a security admitting of mathematical demonstration—not a perfect and absolute, but a reasonable security. As I observe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) in his place, I think it would be well if he would explain how it was, when he received a Report of a certain number of Canadian cattle having been suspected of pleuro at Deptford, that he did not issue such a Slaughtering Order as was issued last November by his successor. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has lately received great credit in Scotland for what he did on that occasion in refusing to be misled, as the Scotch people think, by his advisers. They were speaking very much to the disparagement of his successor because he had not followed the example of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I did not deserve the credit.
  SIR J. LENG: I confess to being at a great disadvantage in dealing with this question in consequence of the delay in presenting the Reports and Papers which the right hon. Gentleman promised some weeks ago to lay on the Table of the House. Those Papers may throw unexpected light, on the case. If so, why have they been held back? Why have we been kept in the dark so long? As it is, the agitation in Scotland seems to call for the fullest explanations the right hon. Gentleman can give to the House. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £1,300, for the Board of Agriculture, be reduced by £1,000;"—(Sir J. Leng.)
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr.H.GARDNER,): I think it may suit the convenience of the Committee if I reply at once to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. I agree with him in regretting that the discussion should have taken place without the Papers which I had promised a deputation I would lay on the Table, and had my hon. Friend been able to delay the discussion until the time for the ordinary Estimates had arrived the House would have been in possession

  1243
  of those Papers. The Papers in my Department are perfectly ready, and the delay has taken place at the desire of the Canadian Government, who wish to have some further Papers on the subject included in the correspondence; and I feel it would be unfair that the facts of the case on the Canadian side as well as on our own side should not be set before the House. I welcome this discussion. I have always courted the fullest investigation into this matter, and I am glad of the opportunity to lay before the House and the country the real and true facts of the case. My hon. Friend said he and his friends in Scotland wanted information. I shall do my best to give it. Nobody can have regretted more deeply than I have the position in which circumstances have unfortunately placed us. Nobody recognises more fully than I do the advantage which the trade with Canada has been to Scotland. Nobody wishes less than I to put any limitation on so loyal and friendly a country as Canada. I quite recognise the reason why my hon. Friend has brought the matter forward, and why he will be supported by the hon. Member for Perth. Both represent districts deeply interested in the trade, and are anxious to bring the matter forward on behalf of the Local Authorities, as well as of the agriculturists. I want to draw attention, first, to what the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts have done. Those Acts have practically eliminated pleuro-pneumonia from Great Britain; they have protected this country from the ravages of disease, and have saved the agricultural interest millions of pounds. The reason why the most recent of them—the Pleuro-pneumonia Act—has been so successful is because you have transferred the duty of suppressing disease from the Local to the Central Authority. When the Local Authorities had to do this duty the interests of the locality were over and over again brought into conflict with the interest of the country as a whole, and the consequence was that the interests of the locality triumphed to the great loss and detriment of the agricultural interest at large. An analogous case is found in the present instance. Under statutory obligations, and in pursuance of my duty to the country as Minister of Agriculture, I have been obliged to withdraw the
  1244
  privilege of the free entry of Canadian cattle, to put portions of Scotland—including Dundee—to what I hope may be a temporary inconvenience and temporary loss, and it is very natural the inhabitants of those localities should agitate by every means in their power to have this temporary inconvenience and loss removed at once. I agree with my hon. Friend that the normal condition contemplated by these Acts is slaughter at the ports, and that free entry is only to be permitted when, in the opinion of the Government of the day, it will take place without endangering the flocks and herds of this country. But I have to disagree with my hon. Friend in his history of the case. He says, in the first place, that the present situation has been brought about by one solitary case in many cargoes. That is absolutely not so. The present restrictions are consequent on a sequence of events which began in the autumn of last year. My hon. Friend said there were only two cases last year. As a matter of fact, during last autumn four cases of diseased Canadian cattle were discovered. In the first case, the lungs were examined on October 13, and found to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia, having not only consolidation of the lungs and extensive pleurisy, but also marked interlobular exudation, which, latter is the most prominent lesion in contagious pleuro-pneumonia. In the second case, the lesions in the affected lung were more marked, though perhaps not of quite so long standing as in the former case. In the third case, the lesions were identical with those found in No. 1 case, but judging from the changes which had taken place in the disease structure of this lung, we believe the animal to have been infected as early as, if not prior to, No. 1 case. In the fourth and later case, the morbid appearances were those of pleuro-pneumonia in the early stages of the disease. There was one case in which a Scotch animal caught the disease from the Canadian cattle after their arrival. In this case only a small part of one lung was implicated, but the lesions were those of pleuro-pneumonia in the early stage.
  SIR J. LENG: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the belief is that it was the Scotch animal that infected the Canadian cattle.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Considering that the experts of the Board said the case of the Canadian animal was one of long standing, and that in the case of the Scotch animal the lung was so slightly affected that they said it was one of the most recent cases they had ever seen, I hardly think the interruption of my hon. Friend serves his case. That was the beginning of our difficulty. It was then that I most reluctantly found myself obliged to prohibit free entry. In consequence of representations I received from Canada, that that country was free from disease, I instituted a special and costly examination, in order, if possible, to find some basis on which we might open our ports. That examination took place, and unfortunately we found ourselves face to face with the disease again. On the 29th May, portions of the diseased lungs of an animal which had been landed at Deptford ex ss. Brazilian from Montreal were forwarded to the Department by the Board's Veterinary Inspector, and it was found on examination that a small portion presented appearances identical with those of pleuro-pneumonia, although the chief lesions were due to broncho-pneumonia and tubercle. On the 31st May, two sets of lungs were received from the veterinary officers of the Board at Liverpool which had been taken from cattle landed from ss. Lake Winnipeg, also from Montreal. In one instance the diseased portion of the lung was very limited in extent, and there were well-defined indications of broncho-pneumonia in addition to those which are characteristic of pleuro-pneumonia. In the second specimen two lobes of the right lung, one behind the heart, were consolidated, and there were distinct marks of pleurisy, and on section the typical signs of pleuro-pneumonia were apparent. My hon. Friend will see that, having thus been unable to satisfy ourselves of the sanitary condition of cattle in Canada, obviously we could not, remembering our statutory obligations, say that there was a reasonable and just case for admitting animals from Canada. But the sanitary conditions are not, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the only conditions. We have to look at the laws relating to the importation and exportation of animals to and from Canada, and at the measures taken
  1246
  to prevent the introduction and spread of the disease in Canada itself. It does not for a moment follow that we are bound not to schedule a country because disease does not exist in that country. There are at present countries in Europe where disease does not exist which are scheduled because of the laws of the countries with regard to the admission of animals from countries which are infected. We have to schedule these countries because we cannot allow any country to be the channel through which disease may reach us from other infected places. It seems to be the opinion of the hon. Member and others that the Board of Agriculture is, as it were, a party to the suit, and that there should be some appeal to another tribunal. But we are not a party to the suit. We are the judges in the suit. It is for those who come before us to prove that the country from which they wish to import animals is free from disease, and that the laws of that country are such that we may safely allow the cattle to come into this country. My hon. Friend says the disease cannot be concealed. I am afraid he has not studied this particular disease. It is true that foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest are at once to be seen, but pleuro-pneumonia is an insidious but not violently contagious disease. It is a disease which lies latent for a lengthened period. It has been known to lie latent in an animal for six months and longer, and then develop itself and cause contagion in other animals. It very often does not affect healthy animals, but attacks those predisposed to disease. The hon. Member, referring to the animals from the Lake Winnipeg, said it was an extraordinary thing that the other animals were not infected by the obviously diseased animals that came over in that ship. I would remind my hon. Friend that from the date of their leaving Manitoba until their landing in Liverpool only 23 days elapsed, so that it was extremely unlikely that the animals should have communicated the disease to the other animals brought in contact, with them on board ship. Again, the experts said the disease, in the most advanced case, was concentrated chiefly in one small lobe of the lung lying behind the heart, and that the quantity of matter eliminated would be insignificant in comparison with that which would come from the lungs when the whole or

  1247
  the greater part of the principal lobe of one or both lungs were infected. Under these circumstances it was highly improbable that the disease would spread among the cargo to any appreciable extent. But it is noteworthy that a companion ox, of the same class of old oxen, had well-marked indications of pleuro-pneumonia quite as advanced as might be expected if the infection had been taken from the more developed case soon after leaving Manitoba. With regard to the 25,000 animals which he said came over here, and among which so few cases were found, I would remind my hon. Friend that before these animals left Canada the cattle were examined by Veterinary Inspectors of the Canadian Authorities, and that certain animals were rejected. Those rejected were probably old oxen similar to those which we found diseased over here. It is admitted by the Canadian Authorities that cases in which the morbid appearances are identical with those we have discovered have, in fact, come before them at intervals in the last few years. The Canadian Authorities and my hon. Friend say that the disease indicated by those morbid appearances is not pleuro-pneumonia. What we want to know is, What is the disease?—and we shall be very glad if the Canadian Government will assist us in finding out. So far as our experts are concerned they say it is undoubtedly contagious pleuro-pneumonia, but that there is a slight differentiation between it and the pleuro-pneumonia of this country. But they also say that in all the cases of contagious pleuro-pneumonia that have come from the United States the symptoms have been identical with the symptoms of those which came from Canada. The differentiation is just the same, and, as we all know, that disease is recognised as contagious pleuro-pneumonia in the United States, and the United States have spent large sums of money in trying to eliminate it. My desire is, if we could see our way—if Canada was free from disease—to restore the privilege of free entry. Having this in view, we have ventured to make certain recommendations to the Canadian Government, and we hope for some reply. We are agreed that there is a disease in Canada. The Canadians say it is not contagious pleuro-pneumonia.
  1248
  We say it is. What we have asked the Canadian Government to do is that they should act as we on this side would act if we were placed in the same position. We ask that they should examine the lungs of the animals rejected in these cargoes—that they should trace, if possible, any animals they find affected with this special disease, and find whether among the animals that have been in contact with them any disease exists. In fact, we ask them to come into council with us—not to say of their own ipse dixit that no disease exists, and to attack our officials, and say they do not understand the case, but to make inquiry and tell us the result. Let them make such inquiry in Canada as we should do in similar circumstances. We should then be in a position in which, I think, we should be able to start on a very favourable basis. I gather that my hon. Friend and the Scotch farmers, who are longheaded men, are not opposed to the Acts. They are in favour of keeping disease out of Great Britain. The whole foundation of the charge is that the officers of the Board of Agriculture are incapable of performing their duties. I must deprecate very strongly the attack on the officials of my Department—permanent officials, who are not able to defend themselves in this House. I am responsible for this action, and I alone, and I accept the responsibility for the whole matter. In regard to these officials they are three in number. One of them is a Scotsman. I should have thought my hon. Friend would have been satisfied with that as a proof of ability. They are the three men who perhaps in the whole world have had the most experience in this particular disease. They have examined thousands of lungs, and I do not suppose my hon. Friend wishes for a moment to impugn their good faith. They have no interest in the matter one way or the other. They come to each case with a judicial mind, and give an opinion in good faith from their experience and knowledge. My hon. Friend said the examination of these lungs was conducted in secret. Why, Sir, I myself invited the Canadian Government to send one of their Representatives to be present when the lungs were examined. I would also remind him that the examination took place at the Veterinary College,

  1249
  not only in the presence of experts of the Board of Agriculture, but in the presence of Professor MacFadyen, Professor M'Queen, and other veterinary authorities. I do not propose to go outside my three advisers for any advice in this matter; but I would refer my hon. Friend to any of the eminent authorities with whom my advisers had the advantage of speaking. Let my hon. Friend find what the opinion of these authorities is as to whether the cases were contagious or not. It has been said— certainly not by my hon. Friend, but by certain newspapers in Scotland—that my action was taken in order to favour importation from Ireland. I do not think that is an observation I need notice, except to draw the attention of the Committee to what took place earlier in the Session. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that at the beginning of the Session a Resolution was brought forward by an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and supported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), for closing the whole of the ports for ever, except for slaughter. I resisted that Resolution on behalf of the Government. I believe in the principle of Free Trade. If it is of advantage to Ireland to keep out Canadian cattle, how much more would it be to prevent cattle coming in from any country except Ireland? The Irish Members, by their vote, resisted that proposal. How, then, is it possible to say that it is on account of pressure from the Irish Party that this action was taken? By this action no single individual in Scotland or elsewhere has been injured in the smallest degree in regard to the purchase of store cattle. If there be a doubt on the subject, to whom should the responsible Government give the benefit of the doubt—to another country, even one of our own colonies, or to our agricultural interest? I recognise the inconvenience that has arisen; no single man would welcome more heartily than I a return to the original state of things, but I am bound to protect the flocks and herds of this country from disease. What would the country say at a moment like this, when agricultural distress is at such a pitch, if the Government of the day were so lax as to allow disease to be imported? We have made recommendations on this matter to Canada, and we
  1250
  are awaiting their reply. I hope that reply will lead to such a state of things that we may look forward with hope to be able once more to allow Canada the privilege of free entry. I would read the concluding paragraph of the letter which was addressed to the Government of Canada on 21st July—
  "The Board have expressed their views thus frankly and fully because they approach the whole subject with a real desire to find themselves in a position to sanction the resumption of unrestricted trade between the Dominion and the Mother Country at the earliest possible moment, and they earnestly hope that the Canadian Government will on their part recognise the obligation attaching to the Board under the Statute, and govern their action accordingly. In the opinion of the Board the interests of both countries will be best consulted by the interchange of the fullest possible information on both sides. If this be done, and the Canadian Government will at once institute the special measures proposed for tracing the disease, if it exists, and will also communicate to the Board any information in their possession as to its past history, the Board will not hesitate on their own part to do everything in their power to facilitate the resumption of free entry."
  I will say this, in conclusion—Sir Charles Tupper has argued with great skill on the part of Canada. My hon. Friend and others have put forward the case on behalf of the locality which is affected at the present moment by this Order. I have to look at the case from the standpoint of Great Britain, and I am bound to say I think I have proved on the facts before me that there is nothing left for us but to maintain the prohibition.
  MR. CHAPLIN: If I may be permitted to say so, I would wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the attitude of resistance which he has taken up against the proposal of the hon. Member for Dundee—a proposal which, I am satisfied, if it were accepted, would lead to nothing but the re-introduction of disease into this country. I was heartily glad to hear the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, which has left little for me to say. Ninety-nine out of every 100 agriculturists in the country will feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his speech, and for the decision arrived at. The hon. Member for Dundee said there was a widespread feeling in favour of his Motion; but, as far as my knowledge goes, I must give to that statement an emphatic contradiction. [Sir J. Leng: Scotland.] That may

  1251
  be in Scotland, but even then it must be limited. So far as I know the feeling elsewhere, I must give the statement the most absolute contradiction in my power. What are the grounds upon which the hon. Member asks us to accept this proposal? The hon. Member said that the season for importing store cattle was coming to an end. So it is; but what of that? There is any amount of store cattle to be had from Ireland; and if his proposal were adopted it would be to the injury of the farmers in Ireland. He says that the action of the right hon. Gentleman has depressed the price of meat in Dundee. I had thought the hon. Member for Dundee was a Free Trader, and represented a largely-populated burgh in Scotland, and I had imagined that the last thing on which he would have founded a complaint against the Board of Agriculture was that their action had resulted in a reduction of the price of meat for the people he represents in Dundee. The hon. Member said, on the authority of the High Commissioner, that Canada was absolutely free from disease. Well, after my experience of similar statements made to me when in office by the Representatives of the United States, I am obliged to take these rather interested assertions cum grano. My experience is that those statements are almost without exception incorrect. The hon. Member has challenged me to explain some actions of mine two or three years ago, and I am glad of this opportunity of doing so, because it gives me the opportunity of replying to a speech delivered by the Commissioner for Canada some short time ago, and which has only been brought to my notice since this Debate commenced. The High Commissioner is reported to have said that when Mr. Chaplin had the responsibility for dealing with this matter, the experts of the Board reported, in October, 1890, that four cases of undoubted pleuro-pneumonia among Canadian cattle had been found. I desire now to give the most emphatic contradiction to that statement. No such statement was made to me. The High Commissioner then goes on to say that two years after I declared at the Chamber of Agriculture that pleuropneumonia had never existed in Canada, and that Canada had always been sup-
  1252
  posed to be free from pleuro-pneumonia, and that under previous Administrations Canadian cattle had been allowed to come in. That was my opinion then, and it is my opinion now. It is the duty of the officials to report every case of the disease, and if there were four undoubted cases introduced into Great Britain from Canada in 1890, unquestionably they would have been mentioned in the Veterinary Report for that year. There were no such cases mentioned, and, therefore, I think I have satisfactorily met the challenge of the hon. Member for Dundee. Three or four years ago I was able to induce Parliament to sanction measures for extinguishing the disease. Enormous sums have been spent to stamp out the disease, and we are now within measurable distance of the complete extirpation of it from the United Kingdom. But last October the disease was re-introduced into Scotland by Canadian animals, with such results that it spread to some 70 or 80 centres in Scotland, and was only got rid of by an expenditure of £10,000 or £12,000. After all the money that has been spent, and the success which has been achieved, are we to throw away the results by re-admitting these cattle into this country upon the demand of the hon. Member for Dundee? My own experience on this question has greatly disappointed me in regard to the attitude of the Scottish farmer. When I proposed first to deal with it by Act of Parliament, there was no part of the country from which I received more effusive promises of support than from the Representatives of Scottish farmers. But when the Act came to be put into operation, and I had to impose severe restrictions on the movement of cattle, and do other necessary things to make the Act effective, there was no part of the country from which I received so much opposition, or in which so many difficulties were thrown in my way. Although I did succeed in practically extirpating the disease, there are very small thanks due for any assistance I received from Scotland. The question seems to me to resolve itself into this: Are the Member for Dundee and the Scottish farmers to decide what is or is not contagious disease, or are the experts of the Department to do so? These farmers are interested; the experts are not.
  SIR J. LENG: The Scotch Veterinary Authorities.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member has named two Scotch Veterinary Authorities who differ from the experts of the Board of Agriculture; but between these two gentlemen and the experts of the Board there has always been something like a war of opinion on this point. But, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gardner), the decision of the experts of the Department, is supported by the great weight of authority received from the Royal Veterinary College; and I believe that, with the exception of these veterinary surgeons in Scotland, there is in the profession absolutely no difference of opinion on the subject. There is also no doubt of the existence of the disease in the United States, and with the enormous frontier which Canada has to the States it would be impossible for any Government to prevent the passing of animals from the one country into the other. So long as that is the case there must always be risk of the disease making its way into Canada. For these reasons, I would venture to offer to my right hon. Friend a word of warning in his communications with Canada. The first and most important thing is the interest of agriculturists in this country; and now that we have advanced so far towards extirpating the disease, we should adopt every guarantee that it shall not be re-introduced. I do not believe that for a long time to come it will be safe in any circumstances to admit animals from the Continent of America. I think it is not altogether fair that the head of the Government Department should have the responsibility of having this duty placed upon him. The responsibility should be taken by Parliament itself; and, therefore, the best and wisest course of all would be to prohibit for the time being by legislation—it would be easy to repeal it whenever it is safe to do so—the importation of animals into this country, except for the purpose of slaughter, from any country in the world.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeenshire, E.)said, he would like to say a few words in order that the Committee might be put in possession of what was the real contention of the agricultural community of Scotland on the subject, because an attempt had been made by
  1254
  the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin), and also by the President of the Board of Agriculture, to attribute to them motives by which they were not actuated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) told them that the Scottish farmers wanted to be persons who should decide what was disease and what was not. In the same way the President of the Board of Agriculture said that the Motion was an attack on the scientific advisers of his Board. He (Mr. Buchanan) disclaimed any such ideas on the subject. The agricultural community of Scotland had no desire to attack the permanent officials, still less did they claim that the farming community, and not experts of the Board, should determine what was disease and what was not. Nor were those who were urging forward this Motion making any attack on the Contagious Diseases Acts themselves. That was entirely foreign to the view held by the great body of Scottish farmers. The farming community in the East and North-East of Scotland shared with the Harbour Authorities and other Bodies interested in cattle shipping the desire that the restriction should be removed. What the contention had been, and what had been the subject-matter of the resolutions moved at the recent meetings in Scotland, was that accepting, as they did, the decision of the Board of Agriculture, in the circumstances which induced them to pass this Order as justifiable in every way, and that the cases were clear cases of contagious pleuropneumonia, they held that from that time till now the President of the Board of Agriculture had not taken such opportunities as he might have taken to keep the country fully informed of the progress of information on the matter, and of the grounds upon which he still continued to enforce this restrictive order against the importation of the Canadian cattle. What they had been desiring to ascertain was what action had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman to see whether precautions, if they were necessary, could be taken in Canada to prevent the migration of disease from the United States, and also to make a more strict inspection of cattle before being put on board vessels in Canada itself. The right hon. Gentleman had said that out of 25,000 or 30,000 beasts inspected pleuro-pneumonia had only been discovered in two of the

  1255
  animals. These cases, it was said, occurred in a single week, at the end of May. What they (the Scotch Members) had been desiring to ascertain was what action had been taken by the right hon. Gentleman to see whether precautions, if they were necessary, could be taken in Canada to prevent the migration of disease from the United States, and also to make a more strict inspection of cattle before being put on board vessels in Canada itself. The right hon. Gentleman told them that on the 21st July the Department had addressed a Resolution on the subject to the Canadian Government. The gravamen of the charge at the meetings held at Dundee, Aberdeen, and other places was that the right hon. Gentleman had laid before the country no information at all as to the grounds upon which he sought to maintain the restriction enforced against Canada, nor had he informed the House until this evening what action had been taken in conjunction with Canada to secure the free importation of these cattle. What the President of the Board of Agriculure directly stated was that he thought Canadian cattle should be put on the same basis as the United States cattle, and they were prohibited. What they wanted to ascertain was that the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to carry out what they believed was his desire—that a speedy method might be obtained for restoring the importation of Canadian cattle into this country, so long as it did not endanger the health of the cattle in this country. One other question he should like to ask. He understood that some time subsequently to this Order animals arriving in this country from Canada and slaughtered here were subject to special inspection, and that had been discontinued. In answer to a question on the subject before, the right hon. Gentleman said Canadian cattle were put in the same category as regards inspection as United States cattle. That was just what they did not want. They wanted Canadian cattle to be kept separate from United States cattle. They looked upon this inspection of slaughtered Canadian cattle as a wise precaution by the Board of Agriculture with the view of testing the reality of the existence of disease amongst Canadian cattle, and as showing direct evidence of the right hon. Gentleman's desire to withdraw the restriction
  1256
  as soon as possible. They would like to know why that special inspection had ceased, because there were no acts which he could point to which led them to believe that even by next season, or at an early date, the restriction upon the importation of Canadian cattle should not be removed. He thought the Scottish agricultural community in this matter, so far from being impatient, had been exceedingly patient. He (Mr. Buchanan) was present at a deputation in January or February last, and they then learned from the right hon. Gentleman that he would do his utmost to see whether means could not be found for permitting the importation of Canadian cattle. But now they found, in answer to another deputation a few weeks ago, that very few steps had been taken, and that the removal of the restrictions was further off than ever. It would not, therefore, be wondered at that men who were so sorely afflicted should get a little restive at what they thought was an inordinate and an unreasonable delay. This opportunity having been obtained of discussing the matter in the House of Commons, they hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them credit that they had none of the nefarious objects in view attributed to them by his predecessor—namely, that they were disposed in any way to advocate the Board of Agriculture embarking in any course that would involve the risk of introducing this virulent disease into this country, but they did not want that a large trade should be grievously injured and that a large agricultural interest should be also grievously injured, when with safety to that interest the importation of Canadian cattle might be continued to the benefit of the whole community.
  SIR J. CARMICHAEL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)wished to say a few words on this subject, as he had been a member of the two deputations which had waited on the right hon. Gentleman. On the second occasion the right hon. Gentleman had told them—as he had told them tonight—that he approached the subject with an earnest desire to abolish the restrictions, but that he had found facts brought to his notice of such great importance that he could not but feel justified in continuing the restrictions indefinitely. The right hon. Gentleman had gone further, and had said that he

  1257
  was sure, when the Papers were before the House and Members had seen them, they would agree that he had acted rightly and would endorse his action. That was an appeal which he (Sir J. Carmichael) had heard with confidence, and he had thought it right to wait until they had the information. But that was now several weeks ago, and he had hoped that to-night the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to tell them on what date they might expect to see the Papers. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that some delay had been occasioned in regard to Papers from Canada, and that the fault did not lie with his Department. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not give them Papers from his Department as an instalment? A correspondence had been commenced with Canada, and no doubt it would continue for some time; but the House might lie made acquainted with so much of it as was in the possession of the Department, so that hon. Members might form an opinion on the matter before the Session closed. He agreed very much with what the last speaker had said. A good deal of the irritation existing in Scotland was due to the fact that they had no information before them. He had every confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers, but he thought the President of the Board of Agriculture would help them a great deal if he would give them some idea as to the date upon which he would put the facts before them.
  MR. W. WHITELAWremarked that the question of the importation of Canadian cattle was a very serious one, not only for Scotland, but for other parts of the United Kingdom. Nobody wished to have unhealthy cattle brought into the country, and the whole reason why he and others objected to the exclusion of Canadian cattle was that they were convinced that they were the healthiest cattle that could be obtained. It had been proved to the satisfaction of those who had dealt both in home-bred and Canadian cattle that the latter not only paid better, but were more healthy than the former. With regard to the case of the Scotch cow which was supposed to have been infected by a Canadian cow, the hon. Member for Dundee (Sir J. Leng) had suggested that it was the Scotch cow that had given the disease
  1258
  to the Canadian cow, whilst the President of the Board of Agriculture had said it was the Canadian cow which had infected the Scotch cow. In his (Mr. Whitelaw's) opinion both these views were wrong. He did not believe that either of the cows ever had pleuropneumonia at all. He believed they had both suffered from bronchial pneumonia. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Gardner) that this was not the place in which to make an attack on the Veterinary Department of the Board of Agriculture; but he did wish to test those opinions by the facts and by practice as opposed to science. Last March he (Mr. Whitelaw) contended that time had proved that the disease was not pleuro-pneumonia, and that argument held good more than ever now. Had it been pleuro-pneumonia the disease would now have been prevalent in Canada, for it could not be supposed that every animal that was suffering from it had been imported into Great Britain. However eminent the veterinary experts were, they might possibly have made a mistake. The Committee would remember the very great mistake that was admittedly made by the veterinary advisors of the Board of Agriculture two or three years ago in a case of supposed Texan fever. The right hon. Gentleman had told the deputations he had received that he would be very glad to receive suggestions. At the request of a very competent agricultural authority he (Mr. Whitelaw) had made a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the other day. It was to the effect that several cargoes of Canadian cattle should be landed and kept, alive in quarantine under the strict supervision of the Board of Agriculture. It had been said that such an experiment would occupy too long a time. No doubt it would take a long time to prove that there was no pleuro-pneumonia; but if pleuro appeared, the cattle need not be kept a very long time. If a considerable number of the cattle had pleuro, it would, in all probability, show itself in a short space of time. The right hon. Gentleman said it would not be a sufficient test. Could the right hon. Gentleman say what would be a sufficient test? He would press on the right hon. Gentleman the urgent necessity of returning to the system of

  1259
  special inspection. The people of Scotland did not want other cattle if they could get Canadian—and if those cattle were really healthy. They were being made to suffer very largely for the sake of the country just now, and he thought that whilst that was the case any expense to which they were put through this special inspection in what at the best was only a very doubtful case should be borne by the country. There was reason to believe that there had recently been a case of undoubted pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. If that were so, he should like to know if any steps were to be taken to treat Ireland in the same way as Canada bad been treated? He knew the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to say that Ireland was an integral part of the United Kingdom, and should be treated in the same way as England and Scotland. But when they in Scotland were told that they did not need Canadian cattle, and could go and buy English and Irish, their reply was that their experience was that a large percentage of English cattle had got tuberculosis and that there was pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland.
  MR. H. GARDNER: That is absolutely wrong.
  MR. W. WHITELAWsaid, he had a letter from an agriculturist in Scotland saying—
  "Now that Ireland is again the centre of a genuine case of pleuro-pneumonia, we shall watch with interest to see whether Mr. Gardner's advisers will show sufficient impartiality to counsel him to act with the same stringency towards importations from Ireland as towards those from Canada."
  The statement was not that pleuropneumonia was in Ireland, but in a cow which had come from Ireland, which was the same thing. If there was any danger of the importation of the disease into Scotland from Ireland, he held that Ireland should be treated in the same way as Canada. It was said even if there was no pleuro-pneumonia in Canada it was in the United States, and could be imported thence into Canada, and they were told that it was impossible for Canada to prevent United States cattle from crossing the frontier. If there was smuggling from the States into Canada it must be done by either Canadian or American dealers. But he did not think it was possible that that could be done across the frontier by the American dealers, because, in order to make the
  1260
  trade pay, it appeared to him that the smuggling would have to be carried on on a scale which would make it certain that it should be found out. He was of opinion that few American dealers did any smuggling. But his reply to the allegation that anything of this kind was done for the purpose of trade was that it was hardly conceivable that any dealers would risk the complete destruction of the trade of importation to this country by a step such as that which had been suggested. If the Canadian dealer did it he was cutting his own throat; and he did not think that that was a policy that any dealer was likely to pursue by choice. He had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the motives for keeping these restrictions in force. He did not think there was anyone who would seriously suppose that his object was to increase the trade of the Irish farmers. That idea, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, received very little support from the Scotch Members. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was taking steps, however, in relation to the matter, and he was sure he would be only too 'glad to act in any way that would sustain the proposition he had laid down. He hoped the negotiations would soon come to a conclusion, and that they would have some definite information as to these steps, and as to whether there was reasonable security for the restrictions being removed and cattle from Canada being brought to this country. Until they had a full Report before them they could not judge, but he trusted the Report would soon be in their hands.
  MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Wood-bridge)said, he would only detain the Committee for a very few minutes. He was anxious to express the feeling of the agriculturists of England with regard to this question, and more especially that of those in the Eastern part of the country. They bought most of their cattle in the Eastern Counties, and were always glad to get them, not caring where they came from, so long as they paid their money. They got many of the Canadian cattle, and were perfectly well satisfied with them; but he desired to say that they were most jealous with regard to the introduction of diseases. They were grateful for the legislation that had taken place in regard to contagious

  1261
  diseases. He well remembered the difficulties they used to suffer from the foot-and-mouth disease, and its communication to their flocks and herds; and he could say that those for whom he spoke favoured anything that tended to guard against the introduction of such diseases. The result of the legislation he referred to had been that there was an increase in the supply of meat, and that prices had been lowered. He hoped that the Minister for Agriculture would stand firm in this matter. He was perfectly willing that he should open the ports again so soon as he was thoroughly satisfied that there was no danger; but he hoped he would stand his ground firmly and not open the ports until the means at his disposal assured him that it was safe to do so. Strong pressure would, no doubt, be brought to bear on him, not only by gentlemen interested in importation, but also by those who would have it that there was something in the action of the Minister which was in the nature of Protection. He thought the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was resisting the proposal, in these circumstances, to throw open the ports, was one entitling him to the thanks of the agriculturists of the country. He was glad to think the right hon. Gentleman had backbone, and would not admit cattle until he was assured that there was perfect safety in admitting them.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, he would like just to say a few words, after what had been said by the present Minister and the late Minister for Agriculture, and also after what had been said by the hon. Member for Dundee. The only object of the Amendment was to open the ports for the introduction of pleuro-pneumonia. [Cries of "No, no!"] That was the way it occurred to him. Fourteen years ago they opened their ports to foot - and - mouth disease, and the result was a cost of many millions of money to the people of this country. If store cattle were wanted he would like to say that they down in Essex had a good supply, and that hon. Members from the North should come down and buy them. They had a supply and could not dispose of them. Hon. Gentlemen who supported this proposal seemed to him to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. For his part, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman, in adopting his
  1262
  present policy, had earned the salary which the country granted him, and, if he came down to Essex, though they differed from him on other points, they would show him that they were grateful for what he had done.
  MR. FURNESSsaid, he had listened with great interest to the speeches which had been made by the late Minister and the present one. He felt greatly interested in this matter, because he was the first who introduced store cattle from Canada to this country. He decided many years ago to send out a well-known expert to furnish a report upon this question. He had instructions of a specific nature, and the result of his visit to Canada was that cattle were brought to this country from Montreal. He (Mr. Furness) distributed these animals amongst the farmers of the North of England, and the result was to justify the continuance of the trade. Although he was not in the trade himself, he was glad to see it extend, not only among the farmers of the North of England, but also among those of Scotland. The development of the trade was so great that it had reached gigantic proportions, and that it was now receiving the attention of this Committee. He was bound to say that he had heard nothing in the statement of the Minister for Agriculture which could justify him in interfering with that trade, fie could quite understand that a Protectionist like the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) would like to destroy the trade; that was practically what his speech to-night showed he was anxious to do; he had made a demand of that kind. In this matter the interests of Canada, as well as those of the enterprising North Country farmers, had been ignored entirely. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford was not prepared, when in Office, to prohibit the importation of cattle; and why? Because he knew he would not be supported in his action. It had been stated to-night that there was not a case of pleuro-pneumonia in Canada at the present time. The hon. Member said his authority was the High Commissioner. The right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to accept the authority of Sir Charles Tupper for the fact that there was no contagious pleuro-pneumonia in Canada at the present time;

  1263
  but they had the evidence of gentlemen interested in the trade that, out of the large number of cattle imported this year, only four cases had been found, and that went to show that there was no justification for depriving the North Country and Scotch farmers of Canadian store cattle, and carrying out a reactionary and Protectionist policy. The late President of the Board, in his speech in November last, said that Canada was always supposed to be free from this disease. He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman justified himself in face of this statement. He fully admitted that the Contagious Diseases Law had done much for the country; but he was no believer in infallibility, and neither, he thought, was the farmer; in a matter of this kind he maintained their right to be heard. They were told that the Veterinary Department of the Board of Agriculture were to be the judges, but the trade of this country would never have been built up to its vast dimensions if it had been at the mercy of the officials of any Government Department. He was sorry that the Minister for Agriculture should be allowed to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford by encouraging him in his views; and he did trust that, although the Session was coming to a close, they would yet be able to persuade the Government to reverse the policy that had been pursued for the past 12 months.
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)said, they were all, of course, greatly interested in their flocks and herds, and, in his opinion, the Board of Agriculture deserved the thanks of the whole community for having so well kept out disease from their shores; whereas, if the views of certain hon. Gentlemen opposite were carried out, cattle would be at once admitted about which there was great suspicion. Of this the veterinary surgeons of the Board of Agriculture had no doubt. There was no hardship in slaughtering at the ports of debarkation, because the meat came into the country all the same, and excellent meat it was; and, moreover, it was a mistake to suppose that agriculturists were thereby deprived of store cattle. There were plenty of store cattle in England and in Ireland; and if there was a scarcity in Scotland, which he was surprised to hear, why did not
  1264
  Scottish feeders proceed to England or Ireland and buy store cattle where they were a perfect drug in the market? It was an entire mistake to say that the Amendment was in the interests of agriculture; the whole aim of agriculturists—English, Irish, and Scotch—at present was to keep their flocks and herds free from disease, and the only way to do that was by placing power in a Central Authority. What had been accomplished in this way was the most successful thing the Board had ever done. With regard to what had been said by the Member for Dundee, he would ask him to tell his farmer friends to come down to the South of England before the winter came on and they would get store cattle in any numbers at very low prices indeed.
  MR. CAMERON CORBETTsaid, it seemed to him that the best way to satisfy the Department as to the origin of this disease was by adopting the proposal of Sir Charles Tupper—namely, that experts should be sent out from the Department to Canada, at the expense of the Canadian Government, to inquire for themselves and see whether the disease existed there. The President of the Agricultural Department promised the deputation that he would take the suggestion into consideration. It would be interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether the suggestion had been considered, and what course he proposed to take in regard to it. There was one remark made by the right hon. Gentleman to which he should take exception. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to labour under something like a Fair Trade fallacy, because he said the consumer had not been affected by the restrictions placed on the importation of Canadian cattle. It was an axiom with Free Traders that you could not put any restriction on the import of our food supply without the consumer being affected. It was possible that the price of a commodity might not rise; and even if it fell, it fell less than it would otherwise fall on account of the restriction. The one fear in the large towns was that the right hon. Gentleman would necessarily give more consideration to the demands made by certain agriculturists than he was likely to give to the interests of consumers in the large towns.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.)said, that the agriculturists of England wished to support the President of the Agricultural Department in the action he had taken in this matter. The hon. Member for Dundee had brought forward this Motion, and had been supported by hon. Members for Perth and Glasgow. He did not suppose that there were half-a-dozen farmers in any one of these constituencies. In fact, as the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow had shown, this was, to some extent, a question of town against country—a question of cheap food. It had been shown over and over again that the question of the importation of live stock could no longer be considered a question of food supply, because food could be brought over much more easily and cheaply, and in a better condition than in the shape of frozen meat. With a few exceptions he should like to see the import of live stock put a stop to on account of the cruelty with which the trade was carried on. Most hon. Members had read a pamphlet in which Mr. Plimsoll described the cruelties and horrors of the shipping trade in live cattle. The Motion had been entirely supported by hon. Members, speaking not for agriculturists, but for cheap food—a matter which did not enter at all into the question. He felt certain the farmers of Scotland could not be so selfish as to wish to run the risk of importing disease into this country. The Scotch farmers had had an exceptionally good year. In England, on the contrary, everything was very bad; and if the President of the Agricultural Department was so foolish as to fall in with the desire of the towns and permitted disease to be introduced things would be worse still. The live stock of the farmers of England was the best in the world. Never had live stock been so cheap as it was at present in England. Farmers hardly knew what to do to keep their stock alive through the winter, and they would only be too glad to sell to the farmers of Scotland at very low prices.
  MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)said, the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated that this was a question solely between the towns and the agricultural districts. As representing a purely agricultural constituency contain-
  1266
  ing many dairy farmers, he desired to support the position taken up by the hon. Members for Dundee, East Aberdeenshire, and Perth. As the matter had already been fully discussed, he would content himself with asking the Minister for Agriculture a question. The light hon. Gentleman had made a plucky speech, but it would not altogether give satisfaction in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this restriction should be temporary. His constituents wished to know what chance there was of the restriction being removed? and it would give them some satisfaction if a hope could be held out that it would be removed at no distant date.
  COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)said, he believed this question was really between the whole country and the shipping interest. The whole force of the movement came from shipping owners who wished to make some money, very naturally, out of the importation of Canadian cattle. It was very natural, too, that hon. Members representing ports should advocate the importation of cattle. But let them look at the position of the farmers. The farmers had to pay very heavy rates to have the disease stamped out, and they had to pay heavy taxes to the Central Authority to keep up the cordon against the disease. That policy, he was glad to say, had been thoroughly successful. He wished to say, in conclusion, that there was a little place called Ireland, having 4,000,000 of cattle, which ought to be considered; and as the Irish farmers did not wish to see disease admitted into the country after the expense that had been gone to to stamp it out, he hoped the Minister for Agriculture would continue to add lustre to his name by keeping their cattle free from disease.
  MR. H. GARDNERsaid, it was evident from the Debate that this was not a Party question. Advocates and opponents of the Motion were found together side by side on both sides of the House. There were only one or two matters on which it was necessary to supplement his previous statement. He regretted as much as anyone that the Papers had not been laid on the Table before. So far as his Department was concerned, the Papers were ready; but the delay was unavoid able, as on the day on which he intended to lay the Papers on the Table he was

  1267
  informed by the Colonial Office that a long communication had been received from the Canadian Government which ought also to be included in the Papers. As to his following the advice of his own veterinary advisers, it must be remembered that no other veterinary experts were equally responsible for the advice they gave. They were told they had made mistakes. The result of those mistakes was that the country was absolutely free from disease. As to the trade of Canada, Returns showed that its exports of cattle continued to increase. Nothing would give him greater satisfaction than to be able to remove the present prohibition, and he should welcome the day when that was possible. He appealed to the Committee not to prolong the discussion, which had now lasted along time, and to the hon. Member for Dundee not to press his Amendment.
  SIR J. LENGsaid, in view of the appeal made to him by the Minister for Agriculture, he did not propose to press the matter to a Division. Regretting as he did that the Committee had not the Reports to which allusion had been made, he was also sorry that the President did not take the opportunity three or four weeks ago, when the second deputation from Scotland waited upon him, to offer the explanations he had now given. It would have had the effect of modifying the views of Scotch agriculturists in the matter. He thought the Agricultural Department would do well to follow the example of the Board of Trade, by issuing a monthly publication containing information of this kind for the benefit of the country. It had been said that this was a question of town against country. He could inform hon. Members that, though he was the Representative of the City of Dundee, he was the mouthpiece, to a great extent, of a meeting held on Tuesday last in Dundee, at which there were a larger number of agriculturists than had ever gathered together in the city before, and by which the views he had conveyed to the Committee had been vigorously expressed. One excellent effect of the discussion would be to put an end to the political aspect of this question in Scotland, for it had shown that the question was not a Party question. An endeavour had been made in
  1268
  Scotland to show that the action of the Government in prohibiting the importation of Canadian cattle was done entirely in the interests of Ireland. They had evidence, however, that night that the preponderating interest in the matter was not the Irish interest, but the interest of the English agriculturists. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he merely wished to ask a question whether the report in the newspapers with regard to a modification of the Charity Commissioners' plans as to St. Paul's School was correct?
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSONsaid, he desired to call attention to the action of the Charity Commissioners in connection with the foundation of Christ's Hospital. In the new Scheme put forward in 1890 by the Charity Commissioners it was laid down precisely to whom the presentations of the scholarships in the foundation should be given. The Commissioners only left to the Governors 40 of the presentations, which were to be reserved for the sons of naval officers in poor circumstances, and others distinguished in Literature, Science, Art, and the service of the Crown. Immediately on the publication of the Scheme the Admiralty wrote to the Charity Commissioners pointing out that for 100 years presentations had always been reserved for 50 sons of naval officers. The correspondence which followed showed that the Charity Commissioners had stated that to give these 50 presentations to the sons of naval officers would entail an expenditure of £2,000 a year, and in order to get that money they had applied to the Almoners of Christ's Hospital for a grant out of certain sums of money which had not been taken into account in the original Scheme. The matter had been going on now for years. He had asked several questions in reference to the matter, and had always been told that financial difficulties stood in the way. But that was not the point. There was a great number of presentations in the foundation at the present time, and what was urged was that as in

  1269
  the past so in the future 50 presentations should be maintained for the sons of naval officers, these presentations to be in the gift of the Governors of Christ's Hospital. Never before was there the likelihood of a greater number of widows and orphans of naval officers in poor circumstances, and it would be a great boon if free education was given to the children on the foundation of Christ's Hospital.
  THE PARLIAMENTAKY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): I wish I could give the hon. Member a more satisfactory answer in the sense of doing this service to the sons of naval officers. I should like just to point out that the Scheme was promulgated and discussed in the Public Press, and during that time no notice of objection was received by the Charity Commissioners with regard to the provision for the sons of naval officers. The Commissioners were bound to consider the Trust, and the Trust alone; but they are still willing to make provision in the new Scheme in the direction which the hon. Member and others desire. A modern endowment of £3,000 could not be touched at the time of the Scheme; but that matter is now in the hands of the Law Officers, and the Charity Commissioners trust before long to be able to deal with that sum. I think I can promise the hon. Member that when the new Scheme comes up the claims of the sons of naval officers will be considered. It would mean the addition of nearly £2,000 to the expenses of the Christ's Hospital Charity, an expenditure which they cannot possibly meet at present. I hope, however, that the new Scheme will meet all the requirements, and that the sons of the naval officers of the Victoria will be given the larger share of the 40 presentations at the disposal of the Governors. I trust the same will be the case with regard to St. Paul's School at Hammersmith, and particularly in respect of the disposition of the money for the raising and maintenance of two schools— one for boys and one for girls—in accordance with modern requirements.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSONsaid, he hoped they would hear no more of the financial difficulty, and that the 50 presentations should in the future as in
  1270
  the past be retained to the sons of naval officers.
  COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness)said, the hon. Gentleman had given them no explanation of the reason that induced the Charity Commissioners altogether to lay on one side the long-established claim of naval officers to have those 50 presentations to Christ's Hospital. The hon. Gentleman said they had no right in law to this. He (Commander Bethell) did not know the period of time which would give them a right in law, but for a very considerable time they had been accustomed to make these presentations, and the Charity Commissioners in making their new Scheme ought not to have set aside these gifts to naval officers. The hon. Gentleman held out some hope of a revised Scheme being placed before the public and being considered, but he failed to say when he thought the revised Scheme was likely to be taken into consideration, and when, therefore, some of the older customs would be re-established. Naval officers, naturally, had felt themselves much aggrieved on finding this taken away from them. To a poor profession like the Navy, in which officers were in great straits to get their children educated—this was a most desirable boon. He regretted that it had been taken away, and he also regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not stated more definitely what would be the proposal of the Charity Commissioners, and whether the profession might expect that the scheme would take effect shortly, or was a scheme that would be again postponed. If the hon. Gentleman, in half-a-dozen words, could tell them whether the scheme was likely to come into operation shortly, he was sure it would do much to relieve the anxiety of naval officers, who, for several years, had naturally felt much aggrieved.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,)said, he thought that the Committee would hardly expect him to apologise for or defend the conduct of the Charity Commissioners in 1890; and as three or four years had passed since then, hon. Members had had every opportunity of raising the question. He was sure that a large number of

  1271
  persons, both inside and outside the House, would be glad not to hear any J more about the financial difficulty; hut children could not he educated without finances. There were 700 children already in Christ's Hospital, and the Governors found it as much as they could do to educate and clothe these with the finances at their disposal. He had already said that the Commissioners were doing their utmost to secure the £3,000 which was now accumulating and lying idle, and as soon as they could secure that an amended scheme would be proposed. In that scheme he could promise, on behalf of the Commissioners, that every possible consideration would be given to the sons of these naval officers. More than that he could not promise, and more than that the Committee would not expect him to say.
  MR. S. WOODS (Lancashire, Ince)rose for the purpose of calling attention to the Stationery and Printing Vote. The case to which he referred was of a very grave character, where the right of people to combine, and also their right to receive fair wages, had been seriously interfered with by their employers. The particular case to which he referred was the case of Messrs. M'Corquodale and Co., who, he found, held contracts with the Government to the extent of £37,000 per annum. He might say this matter was brought under his notice about six weeks ago, and there was a feeling and a very natural desire that a matter of this kind ought to be settled by personal interview with gentlemen representing the Department of the Treasury. He at once entered into communication with the right hon. Gentleman, and since that time he placed several questions upon the Paper of the House. The letter which he sent to the Secretary to the Treasury would explain the case, perhaps, in more explicit terms than he was able to do to the Commit te and was as follows:—
  "8th June, 1893. To the Eight Hon. Sir John Hibbert, M.P.—I am desired by the Typographical Association, Wigan Branch, to bring before your notice the following case of apparent injustice to the printers of Messrs. M'Corquodale and Co., printers, Newton, who appear, from documents, to do a portion of the work for the Government, and before taking any further action in the matter I would esteem it a favour if you would inquire into the following allegations and let me have your reply.
  1272
  The allegations made are (1) that a number of the employés of Messrs. M'Corquodale joined the Typographical Trade Union at the beginning of this year, over 50 in number; (2) as soon as that fact became known to the manager of the firm, Colonel Wood, between the 21st March and the 6th April last, 10 of the most prominent men were discharged and the others got notice to leave, but rather than be discharged they signed an agreement that severed their connection with the Society. The other members of the firm in the houses at Leeds, London, and Glasgow were allowed to join the Printers' Typographical Association. I should be glad if you would make full inquiry, and, if possible, remedy the grievance of which the men complain."
  To that letter, he believed, the right hon. Gentleman gave his full attention; that he entered into correspondence with the firm, but the reply the right hon. Gentlemen was only able to send him was of the most unsatisfactory character. He then put a number of questions on the Paper, but the right hon. Gentleman was not able to give any better reply to them. He now wished to explain to the Committee what this meant. Messrs. M'Corquodale and Co., as they all know, were very large printers and paper manufacturers. As he had already stated, they held contracts with the Government to the extent of £37,000 per annum. Early in this year members from the Typographical Union of Wigan, it appeared, went to Newton and formed a branch of their Association there, which was joined by some of the employés of the firm of Messrs. M'Corquodale. Immediately that came to the knowledge of their employers 10 were discharged and 50 others were intimidated, with the result that at the present time they had no Union at all at Newton. What was the effect of that upon the men? First of all, these men worked longer hours than the average hours that were worked in the Lancashire towns, and their wages were less. He had a list of the wages paid in 14 of the Lancashire towns surrounding Newton. At Ashton-under-Lyne the men were paid 33s. for 52 hours; Blackburn 31s. 6d. for 54 hours; Bolton 33s.; Burnley 30s.; Bury 30s.; and so on with the rest; but at Messrs. M'Corquodale's they received 28s. per week for 54 hours. The average pay of the 14 towns in Lancashire was £1 12s. 1¼d., whilst Messrs. M'Corquodale's was 28s. per week. He might say that for a long time the

  1273
  Typographical Association had been trying to form a branch at Newton. He believed that 10 years ago an effort of the kind was made, and Mr. M'Corquodale, his son, and others of the firm promised the men should have full liberty of action with regard to combination for self-protection; but immediately the men took action means were taken to intimidate them by discharging some of the men. The common impression, especially amongst the printers, was that the object of thus acting with the employés of this firm was, first, to intimidate the workpeople; secondly, to keep down the wages below their normal rate; and the third object of the firm was to underestimate in public contracts all the other printers in the country, so that the other printers, whether in London or the Provinces, had not the slightest chance, in offering for contracts, to compete with this firm. The discussions that had taken place, and the Resolutions carried by the House in the past, justified him in believing that hon. Members would not allow any firm to have exceptional privileges and opportunities, such as this firm had, to drive out of the market all the respectable printers in the trade. Whilst he had the greatest possible respect for the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this question, unless he received a satisfactory answer to the effect that these men would get their legitimate rights, he should feel bound to move the reduction of the Vote by £700, and, as a protest, to take a Division upon it. He felt sure that hon. Members, whether interested on the side of capital or on the side of labour, would lie disposed to do justice to these working men, who were asking for nothing but what was right—namely, fair wages, reasonable hours, and fair treatment. He therefore begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £700.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £80,000, for the Stationery Office and Printing, be reduced by £700."—(Mr. Woods.)
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I do not complain of my hon. Friend bringing forward this question, because I know full well he is not satisfied with the answer I was able to give him on the
  1274
  subject. But I rise as representing the Stationery Department to reply to my hon. Friend, and I have no object in this matter except to ask that there should be fair play upon this question. 1 do not want to take sides either on behalf of the Trades Unionists or on behalf of the non-Trades Unionists; what the Treasury has to do is to see whether they are carrying out the law, and whether this is a case in which they have a right to interfere. The fact is that this house belongs to M'Corquodale and Co., and is situate at Newton, in Lancashire, which is a country place, not a town, and, therefore, cannot properly be compared with the other towns named by my hon. Friend. I merely state that as one matter in the consideration of the question. The M'Corquodales have had this house in operation at Newton for 47 years, and during the whole of that time it has been what is called a Non-union house; at this house they employ 700 workpeople. Of these 700 workpeople, men, women, and children, there are only 80 who are compositors, and who are brought within the terms of the charge of my hon. Friend. When this question was first brought to my notice I asked the firm to give me an explanation of what had taken place with respect to the dismissal of these men. I was told by the firm it was perfectly true that they had discharged 10 men who belonged to the Typographical Association at Wigan. The firm say that their house having been for this long period of time a Non-union house, when they discovered that these 10 men belonged to the Typographical Association, and that they were agitating with the other men employed there, they, in their desire to continue this house as a Nonunion house, were driven to the necessity of giving notice to these 10 men. There were some 40 other men who also joined this Union, and they were not dismissed for being Unionists. There is another point I ought to state on behalf of this firm. They say they had representations made to them by their oldest and best workpeople that they desired the house should not be made a Union house. ["Oh, oh!"] I am stating what the firm told me, and I am obliged to believe they would not state what is not the truth, and they say that they were advised by

  1275
  their oldest and best workpeople not to consent to the house becoming a Union house. I do not want to say one word against Trades Unionism. I myself am a great admirer of Trades Unions, and of what they have done for the country. I acknowledge their efforts have been of the greatest value; that they have raised the rate of wages, and reduced the number of hours for work in this country. Whilst I acknowledge that, I, at the same time, must express my great regret that it should not be possible for Union and Non - union men to work together comfortably in the same place. I express that regret the more strongly because I think, from what we have seen in various parts of the country, that when strikes have taken place they have generally been on the question of Union and Non-union men; and therefore, on looking at this question, I have to look at it as affecting the interests of -.both parties, and as in this case the Non-unionists are the strongest, their interest is deserving of consideration. But in saying that, I do not wish to say a word against the Union men. I regret, as I have said, that action was taken to dismiss and send away those 10 men. Personally, I should have preferred to see the two sets of people working together in harmony. Now, my hon. Friend has said there was a question of lower wages and of longer hours. The hours are the same at Newton for the work of the whole firm as are the hours in London of Union houses; and I may say in passing that Messrs. M'Corquodale show they cannot have very strong feelings on this subject, as they have a house in London that is Union and a house in Leeds that is also a Union house. I would say that if they have the right of liberty of action in having a Union house in London and another in Leeds they have just as much right, if they think proper, to have a Non-union house at New ton. My hon. Friend quoted Blackburn, Oldham, Wigan, and other places. I admit the wages are larger there, but they are all towns, and Newton is a local place—almost a village. I have known it almost as long as I have lived, and you cannot deal with Newton the same as with one of the populous towns of Lancashire. And I would like to draw attention to this point. I
  1276
  have a book issued by the Typographical Society which gives the hours and wages of every place under their own Rules. I find that the wages at Newton are 28s. for 54 hours, which are lower than they are in London. But at Aylesbury—a place under the Society's Rules, the wages are only 26s. for 58 hours, four hours more than are worked at Newton. At Exeter, which is a town, the wages are only 24s., and they work 52½ hours, or one and a-half hours less than at Newton. At Kendal, a town in Westmoreland, the wages are 25s., and they work for 55½ hours, or one and a-half hours more than at Newton. At Maidstone, in Kent, the wages are 28s. for 54 hours, the same as at Newton. I say if it is fair for the Typographical Society to fix these wages and hours in these places which are under their own control and Rules, I do not think there is much to complain of in the hours worked at Newton and the wages paid there. I would mention as an argument in favour of this firm that at this place very little printing is done. My hon. Friend says they have contracts for £37,000. That is perfectly true, but they are not for printing; the only contract they have for any printing is in respect of envelopes and Savings Bank Deposit Books. I have a statement from the firm that during the last 12 mouths the amount under contract for envelopes paid by the Government was £55 17s. 5d., not a very large amount when you take into consideration the contract for £37,000. The amount for the binding contract was £3 11s. 6d., and I have not the amount with regard to the Savings Bank Deposit Books. Though I regret, as I said before, that it was necessary on the part of the firm to dismiss these men, though I regret that action as strongly as my hon. Friend does himself, I say this firm has a right to conduct its business in the way it thinks best for its own interests. But while I say that I do not want to say we have not the power, as a Government, if we make contracts with houses like this, of interference. Let me read to my hon. Friend what the Resolution is that was passed by this House—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of the Government, in all Government contracts, to make provision against the evils recently disclosed before the Sweating Commis-

  1277
  sion, to insert such conditions as may prevent abuse from sub-letting, and make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as is current for competent workmen."
  I say this house is not a sweating house; there is nothing to show that any of the work has been sub-let, and the Treasury are of opinion—and I agree with the view expressed by the Treasury —that this Resolution does not enable us to interfere with this house. And while I say that, I say, on behalf of the Stationery Department and the Treasury, that they have always, to the best extent of their power, carried out that Resolution. The Stationery Department have issued Circulars to every contractor where tenders were asked for, stating the provisions of that Resolution; they have been placed in the contracts, and therefore I think I may say they have loyally carried out the Resolution passed by this House. I have laid the facts before the Committee. I do not wish to take a strong line on one side or the other. I regret what has taken place with regard to the dismissal of these men; but I say we have no right to interfere in this case in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.
  MR. WOODSsaid, his right hon. Friend had admitted that the men had been discharged when they had been only carrying out the law of the country, which gave them the right to combine to protect themselves. He could quote from the Circular of the Typographical Association of 10 years ago that the same thing took place, and that the average hours worked were 54, and that the workmen had to work five hours' overtime before they were paid overtime wages. He did not consider the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman at all satisfactory; and if he withdrew his Amendment he should consider he had made a humiliating surrender of the rights of the workmen.
  MR. AUSTIN (Limerick, W.)said, after the explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury he thought the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Woods) must command a good deal of sympathy in that House; and if the hon. Member pressed the matter to a Division he (Mr. Austin) should go into the Lobby with him. He desired to bring forward the question of Government printing in Ireland, which
  1278
  was a subject that had agitated the printers for a considerable time. Questions had been put to the Secretary to the Treasury on several occasions during the present Session, without, however, any satisfactory result. A deputation had waited upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland some time ago on the same subject; but again no good result had followed. He wished to draw attention to the firm known as the Queen's Printers in Ireland, which was a house conducted on the boy labour system. They employed something over 100 men, and they had 67 apprentices and 21 unskilled workers at machines. These employés got very low wages. There were some Society men employed by this firm, which only gave them work when it was driven to the necessity of employing them; and, of course, if a Society man could get work elsewhere, he would not accept work from the firm referred to under such conditions. The Dublin Typographical Society had waited upon this firm time after time; but their representations had been totally ignored, and the Society thrown overboard altogether. The Rules of the Society were never recognised by this firm, and the system under which the printing work was executed could not be paralleled in any part of the United Kingdom. The answer that had been given by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. T. Hibbert) showed more than ever the necessity for the working men to organise if they were to have justice done them. Another matter he wished to mention was the intermediate education printing. This printing was never put up for competition to the other Dublin houses, and it was now being executed entirely by unskilled labour. The only portions of that printing that were put up to competition were the result sheets, which came to a very small item. He thought it was the duty of the Government, when they were giving out contracts, to put them up for public competition. No particular house should have a monopoly; and if any monopoly had existed for years it was high time to do away with it. Coming to the advertising, he wished to point out that the Government advertised in an Irish newspaper which was produced almost solely by boy labour. Four men were employed by this parti-

  1279
  cular newspaper, who were required to work for a lower rate of wages than was recognised in Dublin. He thought it should be the duty of the Secretary to the Treasury to inquire into these matters at once, and see that Government advertisements were not given to a journal conducted on such a principle. The same observations applied to the bookbinding trade. Not a single book used in the national schools in Ireland was produced by Unionist labour. Every book turned out was produced by boys, with the aid of unskilled labour, and these boys, in the end, were turned out as very indifferent workmen. They, in most cases, afterwards emigrated to England, where, as well as at home, they were able to command a very small figure in the labour market. The work which they were able to turn out, as he had said, was of a very indifferent character; and the result was that ultimately they found themselves thrown on the ratepayers for their support. That was the result of the system pursued with regard to Government printing in Ireland. He might mention that the information in his possession came direct from the Typographical Society, of which he had been a member for over 20 years. He knew the circumstances under which the work was being executed, and he could vouch for the accuracy of everything he had stated. He, therefore, hoped lie would have some more satisfactory answer from the Government than that which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury on this important subject.
  MR. FENWICKsaid, he regretted that his right hon. Friend should have undertaken the defence of this Company, especially after his admission that 10 of their servants were dismissed really for having joined a Trade Union. He deprecated as much as his right hon. Friend did workmen resorting to force to compel unwilling fellow-workmen to join a Trade Union, because he considered that the efficiency of a Trade Union rested on the voluntary character of the Association; but he equally deplored similar pressure being put by employers on their workmen to compel them not to join a Trade Union when they wished to
  1280
  do so. If employers dismissed men for joining a Labour Association they did so-with perfect immunity; but if workmen refused to work with Non-union men and intimidated them they made themselves amenable to the law. He would give the right hon. Gentleman a case in point. Two years ago a number of Trades Unionists in Glasgow intimated to their employer that unless certain workmen of the firm were made to join the Trades Union they would cease to work for him —meaning, of course, that they would tender legal notice to terminate their contract. The employer immediately sued these men in the Sheriff Court, and got a verdict against them, and the men were sent to prison simply because they told their employer if such workmen were not dismissed or made to join the Trades Union they would cease to work for him. That case clearly showed there was one law for the employer and another for the workman. He strongly deprecated any force exercised by workmen to compel their fellow-workmen to join the Union against their will; but he equally deplored and condemned the action of employers who forced their workmen out of employment for the simple reason that they had joined a Trades Union. His-right hon. Friend had also admitted that the wages paid by this firm were less than were paid in the cases referred to by the Member for Ince; but he said that the firm of M'Corquodale and Co. was not a fair comparison with other firms, because the work was done in a small country village. But his right hon. Friend ought to remember the effect of low wages paid by the firm in the district of Newton, because it was a fact that these low wages kept down the wages in the same industry in the neighbourhood. He maintained that the work of the Government ought to be done under the best possible conditions, and for fair remuneration; and that was clearly not done in this case. Again, in London, three firms — Harrison, Darling, and Pigott—were doing Government work, and were paying their workmen 2s. a week less than other firms were paying —36s. instead of 38s. a week, the latter being the acknowledged rate of wages. How was it possible for good employers, who desired to pay their workmen fair wages, to compete for Government work

  1281
  if such firms as he had mentioned were permitted to pay 2s. a week less than the standard rate of wages? Messrs. Harrison and Darling were doing most confidential work for the War Office and the Admiralty, and their workmen ought to receive proper remuneration, so as to place them beyond the strong temptation of making improper use of the information that came before them.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT, interposing, said, that these three firms had contracts which were in operation before the House of Commons Resolution was passed. But when these contracts were again open for consideration the representations that had been made would be considered.
  MR. FENWTCKsaid, he was aware of that; but one of the points that he complained of strongly was that the Government made such long contracts, that they were not able to conform to the ever-changing conditions of the labour market; and in these cases three years must pass before effect could be given to the Resolution of the House of February, 1891. He sincerely hoped the Treasury would press this matter on the attention of those who were favoured with Government contracts, and would see that in every case fair wages were paid, and reasonable conditions of employment guaranteed to the workmen.
  MR. BURNSsaid, he had listened with great surprise to the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in defence of the untenable position he had taken up in the light of the Resolution of February, 1891, and again unanimously confirmed at the commencement of the Session of this year. He contended that the vagueness and generality of that Resolution certainly did permit a Government at all unscrupulous in dealing with labour matters to get out of what he considered the moral and economical obligation that that Resolution, read in the most generous sense, put upon any Government or Minister that had work to do under it. He maintained that the offences of which the firm of Messrs. M'Corquodale had been admittedly guilty brought them within the scope of that Resolution. The Resolution sought to make provision against the evils disclosed before the Royal Commission on the
  1282
  Sweating System; to prevent the abuse arising from sub-letting, and to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as were generally accepted as current for competent workmen in each trade. This was not an attempt on the part of a Trade Union to dictate that none but Union men. should be employed; it was not a case in which a Trade Union asked for a fancy rate of wages and used its power to impose conditions of labour; but this was an attempt on the part of 10 men out of 700 to exercise the right of combination in order to prevent the firm perpetuating those abuses which before the Royal Commission on Labour and on the Sweating System were proved to follow when workmen had not an undisputed right to combine. What did the Royal Commission on the Sweating System prove? It proved that, where boy labour existed work was bad, and scamped work prevailed; that unskilled labour lacked the power of organisation, and did not receive the wages that would support it; that where the power to form a Union did not exist there sweating prevailed; and that where a Union had been formed and had been abandoned the rate of wages fell in proportion to the intimidation and pressure on the part of the masters to induce men not to belong to Unions. In these cases they had it proved by the right hon. Gentleman that Messrs. M'Corquodale did dismiss 10 men for joining the Union; and it savoured of the pre-factory days to have the right hon. Gentleman get up and say he thought they were within their right to do such a thing. What would be thought of a Union that had its members working under a Government firm if they struck and intimidated their men to the extent that this Government printer had intimidated Union men? The fact that only 10 men were dismissed proved that the men had some justification for belonging to the Union. These men were the sentinels of Labour, and were determined to have the Government conditions complied with; and the firm dismissed them on the plea that it was not a good thing to have Union men and Non-union men working together. He was positively convinced that the men were dismissed because the firm knew that they would find out the

  1283
  weak spots in their arrangements and prove them guilty of the offences the House had on two occasions decided to put down. Not only in the case of this particular firm, but in London and in Ireland, firms that did printing for the Government imposed conditions on their workmen that would have deserved the condemnation of the Sweating Commission. It was absurd to say that because the work was done in a small country town like Newton the men should not be paid the same rate of wages as those in other largo towns. After the admission made by the right hon. Gentleman, he did not see why the firm of M'Corquodale should be kept on the list of Government printers, unless they at once stipulated that they would give no preference to either Union or Non-union men, and that if the workmen desired to combine they should be permitted to do so. The only real way out of this sweating difficulty was for the Government to follow the example set by the Governments of France, Germany, the Colonies, and America, by establishing printing works of its own, where the work would be done under the Trade Union conditions by employés directly engaged. The profits of the middleman ought to be eliminated. Hail-way Companies who had a large amount of printing to do were doing it themselves, and thus eliminating the middleman, whilst Local Authorities also recognised the wisdom of eliminating the middleman and doing their own work under decent conditions; and if the same thing were done by the Government, the sweating evils would disappear altogether. The only way to save the time of the House from periodically discussing these Trade Union grievances was for them to insist in future that their work should be done under the conditions insisted upon by the Resolution of that House, and not according to those desired by a section of bureaucratic permanent officials, who wanted the contract system against the wish of the House. Until they took these permanent officials metaphorically by the scruff of the neck they would never solve this Labour problem, and the evils of the sweating system were sure to crop up.
  MR. S. BUXTONdesired to say a few words in this Debate, as he had a personal, and he might say a paternal,
  1284
  interest in the matter under discussion. The object of the Resolution of February, 1891, and of other Resolutions of that House, was to settle once and for all that the Government, as an employer, ought to set a good example to other employers of labour. It was pointed out, when the Resolution of 1891 was under consideration, that in a large number of cases Government contractors were induced by circumstances to sweat their profits out of the wages of the employed, and that Trade Unionists were not able to work under these contractors, because they did not pay what Unionists held to be the fair rate of wages of the House desired to establish as a principle was that there ought to be no bar to prevent Trade Unionists from doing work under Government contracts. He should certainly consider it would not be carrying out the spirit of the Resolution of the House if an employer dismissed men from his service simply on the ground that they were Trade Unionists or wished to become Trade Unionists. The Government would consider that any preference given to a Non-Unionist against a Unionist in regard to Government printing would be, to a large extent, against the principle of that Resolution. As regarded this particular contract, he had been authorised to say that this was a running contract, and six months' notice was required to terminate it; and that when notice was given of the termination of the existing contract, the question of Unionists and Non-Unionists would be taken into consideration, and one of the terms and conditions of the renewal of the contract, if it were renewed, or in giving it out to another contractor would be the insertion of a clause that no preference should be given as between Unionists and Non-Unionists. With regard to the question of wages, the Secretary to the Treasury would give his best attention to any facts which his hon. Friend could bring before him with a view to seeing whether the statements made by Mr. M'Corquodale on the subject were correct. But, assuming the figures quoted to be correct, the rate paid was practically that recognised by Trades Unions. If, as the hon. Member contended, Messrs. M'Corquodale, because of the low wages paid by them in the village of Newton, were able to compete

  1285
  unfairly with employers in the largo towns and to obtain a large amount of Government work, that would, in his opinion, be entirely contrary to the principle of the Resolution of the House. His right hon. Friend would be guided solely by the Resolution of the House; but he could not go beyond it. If the House wished to extend the Resolution, he, for one, would not oppose that. But the extension of the Resolution was another matter. He did not think the hon. Member would improve the treatment of the question by going to a Division in which he would be beaten; and ho, therefore, hoped be would rest satisfied with the assurances that had been given.
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, there was a further question to answer.
  MR. S. BUXTONbogged pardon. With regard to the other questions raised, they would receive the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury. He assured the Committee that the Government were desirous to carry out both in spirit and in letter the Resolution of the House of 1891.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)said, the hon. Gentleman hail climbed down from the position taken up by the Secretary to the Treasury, who might be supposed to have fully inquired into the circumstances of the case, and who had given them to understand that his information convinced him that this was not a case for interference. He denied that the Resolution had been imperfectly acted upon by the late Government; on the contrary, he felt convinced it had been most strictly acted upon in every Department of which they had control. If the House went beyond the Resolution of 1891 and inquired whether men were Union or Non-Union, and whether rates of wages were such as the Union approved, it would be going further than Governments had ever gone in times past and would be sotting an inconvenient precedent for the future. There was still a lingering regard for the taxpayer in this House. Was the Government of the day not to make the best terms it could on behalf of the public whom it represented? He submitted that those old-fashioned rules ought not to be forgotten and banished to another planet. Depend upon it such a departure from
  1286
  sound political principles would come back to them in an awkward shape when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to impose fresh taxation, which would be the inevitable result. This country could not compete with other countries; employers could not compete with their rivals abroad, and the great industries of this country could not be maintained if they artificially interfered with trade matters, and were no longer to buy in the cheapest market. Though the Government had not stood to their guns, he would, nevertheless, support them. It was the duty of those who had been in Office to stand by those who were in Office in defence of the taxpayer.
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, the extremely old-fashioned support which the right hon. Gentleman had given them would convince the Government of the wisdom of accepting the extension of the principle of the Resolution of 1891, as contended for by his hon. Friend. The House was a little behind the best Local Authorities in its action upon this question. He himself belonged to more than one Local Authority which would undoubtedly interfere in a case such as had been presented to the House, and some at least of those were Local Authorities with a Conservative majority. The point, then, was, what would the Government do when this case came before them again? The Under Secretary rather expressed a personal view than pledged the Government, and before the Motion was withdrawn be would ask for a more definite promise on the subject.
  MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)said, he thought the House would hardly be satisfied with the statement made on behalf of the Government. They had not heard from the Government that it was their intention to act upon the principle of the Resolution passed by the House. It was through the Trade Unions and through the action of purchasers alone that the practice of sweating could be got rid of. The duty of the Government was clear in the matter. It was that the Government should prefer Union firms to Non-Union firms. [Cries of "No!" and "Hear, hear!"] Well, how were they to meet the practice? He did not think the statement made by the Government was all that was wanted.

  1287
  It was personal rather than official, and he would like to have a further assurance.
  MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)said, the House had for many years pronounced in favour of Trade Unions, and, therefore, where a firm turned away its men because they belonged to a Trade Union they ought not to be employed by the Government, because they were violating the law of the laud. The question of wages in a particular trade in a particular district was regulated by the Trade Unions, and, therefore, the Government should accept the rate of wages ascertained by the Trade Unions as the proper rate which they ought to pay.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, some more definite promise had been called for, He had said that he believed all firms had a right to deal with their own workpeople, but he could not help regretting that a firm in the employment of the Government should have discharged 10 of their workpeople because they were Union men. In his opinion, Government work should not be given to firms who were not prepared to deal equally with Unionists and Non-Unionists. He would undertake that the question would be reconsidered, and reconsidered in this way: that the Government would be justified in refusing to enter into contracts with firms who were shown to have acted as this firm had done.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, consequent upon what the right hon. Gentleman had said, he should like to ask whether firms which had been boycotted by the Trade Unions would be refused Government employment?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the Government would deal equally with the Unionist and Non-Unionist firms.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, it might often happen that firms employed by the Government would employ Non-Union men, and he wanted to be quite clear on the point whether these firms would be in any worse position than other firms— those employing Union men. It was clearly the intention of the last Government that wages current in the district should be paid, whether that happened to be the Union rate of wages or not. He did not know whether there was any change now.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he merely wanted to be clear as to the preference to be given in such cases as he had mentioned.
  MR. KEARLEYasked whether the Government would do an act of justice by urging upon M'Corquodale and Co. to reinstate the 10 men whom they had dismissed for joining a Trades Union for protective purposes. He understood that other men in their employment had been threatened with similar treatment for doing the same thing. If the Government did not give a pledge to use their influence with this firm to get them to reinstate the men, he trusted that the hon. Member would divide the Committee on his Motion.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I certainly cannot give any such pledge. I have no objection to make favourable representations to the firm, but I do not think myself justified in taking the course suggested.
  MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)asked to have a definite statement as to what the position would be if that or any other firm took the same action in similar circumstances? Would the Government be content, as they had been in the present instance, to accept the explanation of the firm, or would they at once communicate with the firm and inform them of the Resolution of the House, and use their influence to prevent the carrying out of any injustice to their Trade Unionists?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: If anything such as the hon. Gentleman indicates were done it would be a breach of contract on the part of the firm. I see no difficulty in carrying out the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
  MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)said, he wished to draw attention to a point the Government had overlooked. An hon. Member opposite had said that certain firms were boycotted by their own men. As he (Mr. Howell) understood, the Resolution would not touch a case of that kind at all, that being a matter altogether between the men and the firm.
  MR. WOODSsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for the answers he had given to inquiries made from various parts of the House. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when

  1289
  the present contracts terminated, unless M'Corquodale and Co. withdrew the prohibition, the contracts would not be renewed.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas understood to signify assent.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would give six months' notice to the firm?
  MR. WOODS: We do not want him to break present contracts. On the understanding I have mentioned, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. DALZIEL: There is another matter upon which I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. I desire to press him for a declaration as to the intentions of the Government with respect to the Report presented by the Committee appointed to consider the question of the Parliamentary Debates. For the information of hon. Members who may not have given attention to the Report, I may say that the main points of it are these: First, that in future all speeches shall be reported in full instead of a discretion being left in the hands of the contractor as under the present system. Another recommendation is that the reports of proceedings in the House shall be issued on the day after they take place and be available for Members in the Vote Office, and that they shall be issued on the second day along with the Parliamentary Papers. The Report recommends that the right of revision which has hitherto been enjoyed by Members shall practically be taken away. They will, however, have the opportunity on the day following the proceedings of referring to the report in the Vote Office, and in the case of any obvious error they will be able to make a representation to the editor of the Debates on the subject. The Report also recommends that better accommodation should be provided for the official reporters; that the contracts in future for printing and reporting should be completely and entirely separated; that an official should be appointed by the Treasury to superintend the printing of the Debates; and that lie, in turn, should be under the control of a Committee appointed by the House.
  1290
  These are the several features of the Report, and I now beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as to how far the Government are prepared to go in carrying out the recommendations?
  MR. J. BURNSsaid, he wished to call attention to another point in connection with the Stationery Vote. He happened to be a member of a Public Body which had recently been advertising for candidates for certain posts, and on one occasion they had received answers from 157 candidates. The testimonials and applications of 50 or 60 of these candidates were written on Government foolscap paper from different Government Offices. It seemed to him that the House of Commons had no right to supply foolscap paper for every one of its clerks and officials who were anxious to improve their position. Further, he had learnt from a constituency not 100 miles from the constituency he (Mr. Burns) represented that note-paper bearing the House of Commons stamp had been used in 14,000 circulars addressed by a Member of Parliament to his constituents. He put it to the House that, generous as the British taxpayer was, a protest should be made in his behalf against this wholesale employment of Government stationery. Such employment of Government stationery was a mean and shabby action, and he trusted that the Government would put a stop to it.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I would suggest to my hon. Friend (Mr. Dalziel) that at this late hour (11.45 p.m.) he should not request us to consider the Report of the Committee on Parliamentary Reporting. The subject is one of great importance, and it is one upon which, I think, we ought to have the benefit of the views of the Leaders of the various sections of the House, and of hon. Gentlemen in all quarters. I would venture to suggest to the hon. Member that the discussion should be deferred until the Stationery Vote conies on in the ordinary course. By that time hon. Members will have had an opportunity of maturing their views. This Report recommends very large changes and alterations in respect of the reporting of the Debates. It recommends for instance, that a full report should be given of the speech of every hon. Member, and that the report should be in the

  1291
  nominative case—that speeches should not be reported in the mode hitherto adopted. That would be a considerable change. The whole matter was threshed out by a strong Committee upstairs, who were unanimously in favour of the principles recommended in the Report. But I do not think it would be right to make that change without giving hon. Members a full opportunity of considering it, and without allowing the Treasury time to consider how far the state of the finances will allow of its being carried out.
  MR. DALZIEL: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is most important that we should hear from all quarters of the House an expression of opinion as to this Report, because I am inclined to believe that the recommendations contained in it are likely to carry us much further than most hon. Members are aware. I must, while agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman generally, ask him if he will be prepared to give us an opportunity of considering the Report this Session in time, if necessary, for that Report to be acted on, and for notice to be given to the present contractors?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: That is quite necessary. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Battersea, I must say that the custom alluded to by the hon. Member is most reprehensible, and I hope that it will not be continued.
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)said, he desired to call attention to the arbitrary exercise of its rights by the Crown in the New Forest. The matter arose in this way—the Crown sold some timber in the New Forest, and the purchasers placed two steam engines in one of the glades to cut the timber up—in the Holmesleigh Lawn Glade. Great damage was done to the pasture; and so agistors of the forest took out a summons against these men for damaging the pasturage belonging to the commoners to be heard in the Court of Verderers, who were the representatives of the commoners. Upon this the Crown, reviving an almost obsolete Statute, called upon the verderers within 10 days to answer certain interrogatories requiring the production of deeds and maps. It was impossible for this to be done in the required time, and he asked that a little more grace should be
  1292
  given to the verderers. He could not expect the House to take very great interest in this matter, but he had always found that there was amongst Members rather an affection for the New Forest as one of the best open spaces in the Kingdom, and he had been asked to place the matter before them on behalf of the commoners. He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could allow the verderers a little more time to reply to the interrogatories? They might be able to do so in a month's time, but even then it would involve considerable labour. If further time were not given they would prefer to drop the action rather than attempt to do that which was impossible.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he was not acquainted with the particulars of the case, but he would consult those officials who were familiar with the facts, and, if possible, would give the hon. Member a reply to-morrow.
  DR. MACGREGOR (Inveruess-shire)said, he was anxious to direct the attention of the Committee to one or two cases of hardship in the administration of the law in the Highlands. He could not go fully into the case at this late hour, but he would appeal to the Secretary for Scotland whether he could not temper justice with mercy in the case of the four men, constituents of his (Dr. Macgregor's), who were now suffering punishment out of all proportion to the offence they had committed? He had already called attention to the matter, but the Secretary for Scotland had not seen his way to liberate the men. The case was one of great hardship which should not be tolerated. Who were these Highlanders? They were men who deserved well of their country. For the last century and a half there had not been a war or a battle in which they had not taken a brave and heroic part, and in that way had helped to promote the renown and prestige of the Empire. Why, then, should they be denied a little bit of ground to grow potatoes, which, indeed, had been promised them? It was in the effort to obtain this bit of laud that these men technically broke the law, and for this they were sent to prison for two months. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a highly eulogistic description of the Highland character

  1293
  two years ago, which the hon. Member read to the House; moreover, the mother of the Prime Minister was a Highland woman, and the Secretary for Scotland himself was half a Highlander, and other occupants of the Treasury Bench had Highland blood in their veins. Blood was thicker than water, and a little sympathy should be shown to these men. They were not criminals, but respectable, decent people who had made a mistake in the law, and were now suffering for it. He was sorry to say that on former occasions the Sheriff Substitute of the district had been guilty of oppressive conduct. Only a few years ago a fisherman was found going home with a salmon accidentally caught in his net while pursuing his occupation in the open sea. For that alone he was sent three weeks to gaol. Unless he (Dr. Macgregor) got a definite promise from the right hon. Gentleman that he would reconsider the matter and liberate these men he would take the first opportunity to-morrow, if possible, of calling attention to the case again.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,)said, that in regard to the last case, whether the salmon was caught accidentally or otherwise, the Government would support an Amendment on the Fishery Bill to come before the House which would place the Scottish population on the sea coast in the same position which the English and Irish population enjoyed now. The panegyric which the hon. Member had quoted could not, however, he was afraid, be allowed to affect the decision of a Minister whose duty it was to exercise the prerogative of mercy. The very serious fault committed by the four men was one it was absolutely necessary, in the interests of justice and public order, to severely punish. It was no chance riot, but a piece of preconcerted lawlessness. By what might be described as the sort of piracy that used to go on in the Highlands, a man who had taken a farm was treated by these men with violence which not only put him in danger of his life, but deprived him of his lawful rights.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg your pardon—there was no personal violence.
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, there was; but, in all the circumstances, he was quite unable to diminish the punishment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)said, he understood that the Government were quite prepared to give some opportunity to-morrow to discuss certain Irish questions which ought to be discussed on the Vote on Account. They would, he understood, be prepared to allow a couple of hours towards the end of the Sitting, and would move the Adjournment before 5 o'clock to-morrow, if necessary, for the purpose. Under those circumstances he would not recommend that any opposition should be offered to the taking of this Vote.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at To of the clock; Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SHERIFF COURTS CONSIGNATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 430.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. Balfour, Clackmannan, &c.)*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. Balfour, Clackmannan, &c.) moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which he said was a purely Departmental one.
  SIR H. MAXWELL (Wigton)regretted that he could not allow the Bill to pass.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (SWINE F'EVER) BILL.—(No. 427.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,)*THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER, Essex, Saffron Waldon) moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said the measure gave effect to the wishes of agriculturists in the country that the Government should take over from the Local Authorities the suppression of swine fever. The Bill accordingly transferred the duty of stamping out the disease to the Board of Agriculture. The time was very opportune for allowing the Bill to come into operation, because the outbreaks of swine fever were fewer than they had been for some years. The Government proposed to give a sum of £50,000 to

  1295
  this desirable object. This Bill would relieve the local rates of the sums they now subscribed to stamp out swine fever, which it was generally admitted was money wasted, because it had no effect. But there was an appeal to the Local Taxation Fund, and it was upon that fund, if there was any expense, that it would finally fall.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. H. Gardner.)
  MR. CHAPLIN, on rising, was received with cries of "Agreed!" "Agreed!" from the Irish Benches.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, he objected to the Second Reading in consequence of the cries with which the right hon. Gentleman was greeted from the Benches opposite.
  It being after Midnight, and Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CON- FIRMATION (LONDON) (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (by Order).—(No. 419.)
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Bill read the third time, and passed with Amendments.

  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (no. 2) [REMISSION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of certain loans made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the Rosslare Harbour Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make provision for certain purposes relating to Local Loans. —(Sir John Hibbert.)
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).
  Return presented, — relative thereto [ordered 21st June; Major Rasch]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 360.]
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE, No. 33).
  Copy presented,—of Ordinance, No. 33, Aberdeen, No. 3, Supplementary to Ordinance, No. 26 (Aberdeen, No. 2. Regulations as to Application of Parliamentary Grants, as to Salaries, and for the Institution of a Fee Fund, and for other purposes) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 361.]
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE, No. 34).
  Copy presented,—of Ordinance, No. 34, Edinburgh, No. 8 (Regulations for Degrees in Music) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 362.]
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE, No. 35).
  Copy presented,—of Ordinance, No. 35, Edinburgh, No. 9 (Regulations for Degrees in Science in Public Health) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 363.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1273 (Buda-Pesth), 1274 (New York), and 1275 (St. Petersburg) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 297 (Sicily) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TREATY SERIES (No. 12, 1893).
Copy presented, — of Provisional Agreement between Great Britain and Servia respecting Commercial Relations. Signed at Belgrade, 4th July, 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  SEAHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  (Queen's Consent signified), Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  WATH-UPON-DEARNE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 242 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  MERSEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS BILL.
  Against, from Sheffield; to lie upon the Table.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Against, from Linlithgow and Grangemouth; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State regulation, from Halifax (7) and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE (EXTENSION TO WOMEN) BILL.
  In favour, from Aberdeen; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Clitheroe; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NEW FOREST VERDERERS' MEMORIAL.
  Paper [presented 30th July] to be printed. [No. 341.]
  GLEBE LOANS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 1st August] to be printed. [No. 342.]
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Paper [presented 2nd August] to be printed. [No. 343.]
  BOARD OF TRADE (LABOUR DEPARTMENT) (CHANGES IN WAGES, ETC.)
  Copy presented of Report and Statistical Tables relating to Changes in Rates of Wages and Hours of Labour in the United Kingdom, 1897, with comparative statistics for 1893–96 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL EXPORTS, ETC.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 14th June; Mr. D. A. Thomas]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
  Copy presented of Report, with Minutes of Evidence, of the Committee appointed by the Treasury to consider the advisability of establishing a National Physical Laboratory, together with a Copy of the Minute appointing the Committee [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return presented relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 263, of Session 1897) [ordered 17th May; Sir Henry Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 344.]
  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS).
  Copy presented of Balance Sheet setting forth the Assets and Liabilities of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt in respect of Trustee Savings Banks on the 20th November, 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 345.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Copy presented of Twenty-seventh Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1897–98 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 3rd May; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 346.]
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, 1897–8.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 18th July; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 347.]
  POOR RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 18th 7uly; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 348.]
  LOCAL TAXATION (ENGLAND) ACCOUNT, 1897–8.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 18th July; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 349.]
  LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894.
  (Accounts under section 1 (7) of the Act), Return presented relative thereto [ordered 18th July; Mr. T. W. Russell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 350.]
  LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented of Part II. (Accounts of County Councils and Pauper Lunatic Asylums); Part III. (Municipal Borough Accounts, etc.); Part IV. (Accounts of Metropolitan Vestries, District Boards, etc.); and Part VII. (Summary) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 351.]
  LIQUOR LICENSING LAWS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented of Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on the Liquor Licensing Laws, and Minutes of Evidence taken before the Commissioners, with Appendices and Index, Vol. VII. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLICE ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented of Correspondence relative to the refusal of the Certificate of the Secretary of State to the River Tyne Police Force for the year ended 29th September, 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PREVENTION OF CRIMES ACT, 1871. (LICENCE WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS.)
  Copy presented of Licence granted by Her Majesty to Mary Ann Sprackland, a Convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Mary Ann Sprackland to be at large, on condition that she enters the Royal Victoria Home, Horfield, Bristol [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented of Licence granted by Her Majesty to Mary Jane Stretch, a Convict under detention in Aylesbury Prison, permitting the said Mary Jane Stretch to be at Large, on condition that she enters the Royal Victoria Home, Horfield, Bristol [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 17.
  Return ordered "of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 17, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon during the Session of 1898 (in the same form as, and in continuation of, Parliamentary Paper, No. 387, of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 25).
  Return ordered "respecting application of Standing Order No. 25 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 388, of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered "of the number of Divisions of the House in the Session of 1898; stating the subject of the Division, and the number of Members in the majority and minority, Tellers included; also the aggregate number in the House on each Division; distinguishing the Divisions on Public Business from Private; and also the number of Divisions before and after midnight (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.176, of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return ordered "of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bilk, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during the Session of 1898; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House but not by the House of Lords; the number passed by the House of Lords but not by this House and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed, and rejected in either House of Parliament (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.180, of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in the Session of 1898; with the total number of signatures in that year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.181, of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Select Committees appointed in the Session of 1898, including the Standing Committees and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed, to serve on each and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended;

  1027
  the total expense of the attendance of Witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.178, of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of days on which the House sat in the Session of 1898, stating, for each day the date of the month, and day of the week, the hour of meeting, and the hour of adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after midnight; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.177, of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return ordered, "showing, with reference to the Session of 1898, (1) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Private Members had precedence; (3) the number of other Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government Business had precedence; (4) the number of Sittings at which Government Business, had precedence under a Special Order of the House; (5) the number of Saturday Sittings; (6) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (7) the total number of Days on which the House sat; (8) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of Days in Supply (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 389, of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Returns ordered, "of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in the Session of 1898, classed according to the following subjects:—Railways, Tramways, Tramroads, Subways, Canals; and Navigations, Roads and Bridges, Water, Gas, Gas and Water, Improvement, Police and Sanitary Regulations, Corporations, etc. (not relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations); Ports, Piers, Harbours, and Docks; Churches, Chapels, and Burying Grounds; Markets and Fairs, Inclosure and Drainage, Estate, Divorce, Naturalisation, and Miscellaneous:"
  "Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, which in the Session of 1898 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the Selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each Selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the preambles of which were reported to have been not proved and in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:"
  "Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in the Session of 1898, have been referred by the Committee of Selection, or by the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee; the number of days on which, each Member attended:"
  "And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 0.162 of Session 1897)."—(Dr. Farquharson.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Motion made—
  "That the Lords' Amendments be considered." (Mr. Atkinson.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I desire to call the attention of the Committee of the House to what I consider to be a serious infringement of the privileges of this House, and I consider that there ought to be some protection of the rights of the House of Commons in this matter. Now, I do not attach much importance to the Amendment of the House of Lords, to which I am going to refer, except on principle, for I consider that a serious invasion of our privileges has been made by the manner in which the Lords have dealt with the question of malicious injuries. With regard to the alteration made on page 3, we have had no opportunity of considering that question. The Local Government Bill is simply a transfer of the powers from one body to another, and it is not intended to create any new power in it, does not create new powers, and this question was never mooted in this House, or considered on the Report stage in this House, but it has been imported into this Bill in another place under circumstances which I think reduce this House to a condition of mere servitude to the other House, and to a position of absurdity. If anyone will take the Lords' Amendment on page 3 there will be1 found a long Amendment extending the powers with which malicious injuries may be dealt
  1030
  with, and there is underlined a proviso which provides—
  "Provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates by such extension."
  Now, Sir, when this Bill passed the House of Lords on the Report stage and the Committee stage, no such, words were in the Bill, but upon the Third Reading of the Measure in that House, these words were inserted. Thanks to the vigilance of the officials of this House, they certainly did endeavour to protect our privileges, and out of respect for the protest made they inserted in another place these words, which are underlined. I should like to understand who is responsible for the stage direction of this House for these extraordinary words—
  "The words enclosed in brackets and underlined are proposed to be omitted, and the words in italics to be inserted by the Commons."
  This is the advice dictated by the House of Lords in order that they may give thing with one hand and take it away with the other, thus rendering themselves ridiculous. The thing itself is bad enough, but the headline placed there certainly gives a very strong indication of the absurdity of the position. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that you would, under ordinary circumstances, make a pronouncement from the Chair in reference to these words only for the fact that a saving clause has been inserted, and we are in that position now, taking the Lords' Amendment as a whole. The House of Lords has stated that there is to be an extension of the powers which will throw the cost of malicious injuries on to the rates. Now that is a line which rather stultifies them, and we should disallow the Amendment take as a whole. I do not propose in any way to enter upon the merits or the demerits of this question, but I will make this observation, that if we are to allow this extension and make it so wide that when you come to the question whether the tenant has kept the covenant in his lease against dilapidations or repairs, it is a very wide question whether more depreciation of that kind and questions of ordinary wear and tear will not come before the court to decide as to whether they have been done maliciously. The only other observation occurring to

  1031
  me is on the question of principle as regards Galway borough. I understand that the Government are going to take a firm line on the ground of Galway borough on account of the fact that it has a tendency to create a new taxing body other than the taxing body which before existed, and which the House of Lords had no business to interfere with. If Galway is sacrificed as a county borough it seems all the more necessary that we should stick up for our privileges in regard to malicious injuries. Sir, there is one other observation on a question of privilege which I desire to make in this case, and it is an important observation which I hope will be considered by Her Majesty's Government. They were good enough to agree to an Amendment of mine in this House giving over to the Corporation of Dublin the pawnbrokers' licences, amounting to over £4,000, but in the House of Lords they have inserted an Amendment giving to the townships of Rathmines and Kingstown a portion of the pawnbrokers' licences collected in that area. Now, I did think that I might have kept the Government to their pledge to give the entire amount to the Corporation of Dublin, and though the House of Lords has struck out that clause I understand that it is to be reinstated in the Commons. As regards the council of Kingstown, I am very glad indeed that the Government have seen their way to give an additional £800 a year to that town, and therefore I have no objection to the Amendment which the Government propose to make. I would like, however, to suggest to the Government that they should add to the clause which the Lords have inserted on the Report stage and which was struck out on the Third Reading, a proviso in reference to pawnbrokers extending the hours under which they now work. I think it would be a reasonable thing confined from 10 to 4 in the winter, and in the summer 10 to 7, and I think at least the winter hours should be made the hours all round, or, as an alternative, they should allow the Police Commissioners at Dublin to wink at an evasion of the law, and permit the hours to be extended in the case of pawnbrokers, as in the case of all other classes of trade. Finally, the Government have been good enough to insert an Amendment as regards the in-
  1032
  firmaries of the borough of Cork. I have considered this question from the point of view of privilege, and I do not think it affects it in the slightest degree, and I thank the Government for having made that change.
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 19, after 'Act,' insert 'and of those enactments sections one hundred and thirty-five and the following sections of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, so far as unrepealed, shall extend to the case of maliciously setting fire to destroying, or injuring property of any description, whether real, or personal, in like manner as they apply to the setting fire to, injuring, or destroying the particular descriptions of property specified in the first-mentioned section. (Provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates by such extension.)"
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I trust the House will not allow an evasion of this kind. The words as we see them on the Paper are nonsense, and the Government only propose to make them sense by leaving out the last proviso. The Lords have no right to make such an Amendment in the Bill, and I should like to ask whether or not this is a matter which the Lords have no power to do in a direct manner. I should like the House to have some expression of opinion from the Chair upon this subject.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I may add, for the information of the House, that Mr. Gladstone most strongly protested against this practice in a record which he has left upon this subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: The precedents of such a method are so clearly established that I cannot say that it is a breach of privilege. It is open to the Government or the Member in charge of the Bill to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the proviso. It is not a point of order for me to decide upon, because, if the Amendment were agreed to in the form in which it appeared upon the Paper, no pecuniary charge could result from it. All I can say is that, while can well imagine cases in which such an Amendment ought not to be made, it is a matter which must stand on its merits, and upon which the House must decide.
  MR. DILLON: On the Report stage of the Bill there was an Amendment which would have had the effect of casting an additional burden upon the rates, and you ruled, Mr. Speaker, that we were obliged to recommit the Bill in respect of those clauses. Now, it does seem to me to be a very extraordinary proceeding on the part of the Government, after having decided in the House of Commons that they could not move clauses or Amendments throwing additional burdens on the rates, that now at this late stage of the Bill the Government are going to accept from the House of Lords a clause which will undoubtedly throw an increased burden upon the rates. Now, Sir, this clause provides for an extension of the power of allowing compensation for malicious injuries. Now, we all know that compensation for malicious injuries is paid from one source only, and therefore, if the clause is operative at all, it can only be operative by increasing the burden of the rates. But even if it be within the power of the Government on a point of order to accept or move such an Amendment as that now before the House, they ought not to take such a course, because it is certainly expenditure which is not in accordance with the general spirit of the discussions upon this Bill in this House, and it is a great straining of the practice of this House. Well, now, Sir, what are the motives which justify this proposal? If the Government are going to accept this I think they are bound to make some statement of the grounds on which they propose to allow the House of Lords to open up a matter which, as the honourable Member for North Louth has said, was not opened up at all in the course of the Debate on this Bill. Now, this is a proposal to extend the provisions of a very serious Act, and we consider it an extremely objectionable code of laws which apply to Ireland, and not to this country, and it is a proposal to extend them in a way which I venture to say will take a very keen lawyer to appreciate the force of. To what extent they may go, in order to be easy and clear upon the point we should have to examine very carefully the wording of the Acts and all the possible effects of the clause that is now before us. Sir,
  1034
  if the Government could give some reasons for this departure some public purpose might be served by the present clause; but they have not made the smallest attempt to do anything of the kind, and they have not said a single word in defence of their attitude. I humbly submit that under these circumstances it would have been much better to give way to the objection of those who consider that this proposal is very close to the border of being disorderly proceedings, and, as Mr. Speaker has said, entirely against the spirit of the relations between the two Houses.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The honourable Member who spoke last and the honourable and learned Member who preceded him have entered a protest upon a question of privilege. Now, I understand that the proceedings of the House of Lords in respect to this Amendment are quite in harmony with a practice which has been accepted by this House for more than a generation. I think, therefore, that the discussion on this technical point might now give place to a discussion upon the actual merits of the Lords' Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What we desire is that the Government should tell us that they will in some way limit the very wide sweep or scope of this clause, and let it be confined to eases of felony or where the offence was of a criminal character. I am willing to waive considerations as to the irregularity of the action of the Government if we can get something solid or some limitations which will leave things exactly as they are. If we pass these words we shall have no opportunity of amending the clause, because we shall have amended the words in the final portion of the clause. Now, I ask whether I am right or wrong in that contention, for it appears to me, from the usual practice, that if we begin by omitting the words,
  "provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates by such extension,"
  we shall then have passed all the other Amendments. I presume it might be done by a proviso, but I should desire to do it in some other way. But let us

  1035
  hear from the Government on this point. Do the Government really now accept at this hour of the day a change in the Law which for 60 years has been administered, and every word of which has been subject to as much discussion as the Statute of Frauds itself? Now, under section 135 of the Grand Juries Act of 1836, we all know what the decision would be. The case I take is this. Take the case of a house: there is a bog, and I commence to out it for turf without leave. Why, the landlord could go and get an injunction for committing malicious injury to his property. This would be a case for malicious damage, and, instead of going to the grand jury or the Vice-Chancellor for an injunction, he could go to the judge of assize for malicious damage committed upon his property, although the tenant has only done it for the purpose of cutting turf. That would not be a crime, and yet you could go before the county court judge to restrain the tenant from doing this. I must say, Sir, that I think this thing is vicious in every respect. It is vicious as an invasion of our privileges, and in order to get on and let us get through our work, I should be glad if the Government would be content with striking out those words.
  MR. ATKINSON: The object of the Lords' Amendment is to place the law as to compensation for malicious injuries upon a rational and scientific basis. Nothing at present could possibly be more anomalous than the position in which people are placed by the Grand Juries Act. For instance, while a man can get compensation for injuries done to a barge laden with stores, he could get no compensation whatever if the cargo had been discharged. He could get no compensation for damage to a yacht and some other cases which are provided for under the 20th section, which are cases in which no compensation can be given, although the persons whose property is injured are justly entitled to compensation. Honourable Members opposite held that the words of the Amendment were too wide, and might admit claims for compensation in cases where it ought not to be granted. Now, I should like to meet the honourable
  1036
  Member for Louth's suggestion by substituting for the words—
  "provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates," the words, "provided that this shall not extend to any case except where the act done was a crime within the Malicious Injuries to Property Act, 1861."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does that apply to salmon poaching?
  MR. ATKINSON: No; but it gives the man a right to seek compensation for nothing which would subject the perpetrator to prosecution for a crime. Surely it would be absurd to say that where the injury is a crime, and the perpetrator can be sent to prison for committing it, the owner of the property injured can receive no compensation.
  MR. DILLON: But it is the law in England.
  MR. ATKINSON: It is not the law in England, because the law of compensation for malicious injury does not exist in England. We desire to make the law of compensation exactly similar by allowing compensation in both cases.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right honourable Gentleman kindly read the malicious injury section?
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes. Section 22 deals with damage done to growing trees, the next section with fruit or vegetable produce, the 24th with other kinds of produce, and the 25th section with other descriptions of malicious injuries. I submit that if we insert a proviso confining the procedure to cases in which the perpetrator could be prosecuted for a crime there will be no occasion for a wider application.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I must object very strongly to the argument of the learned Attorney General. This Amendment stows cleanly that it is an attempt to legislate by sentiment. But now, Mr. Speaker, in this Bill there are about 50 Acts of Parliament inserted, although the scope of the Bill was, as I understood it, that the powers should be transferred from the grand juries to the county councils. In reference to this matter the curious thing is that these

  1037
  legislators who wish to amend this Act in all its imperfections have left it for 65 yeans on the Statute Book. But if they wish to amend this Act, then let them do it in a proper way, instead of introducing such a clause in this Bill, which only refers to local government. Even these cases of compensation for malicious injuries are transferred to a higher tribunal. I have, in speaking before, only directed the attention of the House to a question which I considered was a breach of privilege, and which view is supported by the great authority of Mr. Gladstone in reference to this—what shall I call it?—I must use respectful language in respect to this clause, which is to be left out in order to put the law in order. We know the differences existing between one party and another, and I call it a fraudulent trick. Here is an Amendment which is calculated to destroy the individual liberties of this House by the device,
  "provided that no additional charge be thrown on the rates by such extension."
  If this clause were left out, which they ask us to leave out, the Bill would be simply absurd. Here it is proposed to allow the House of Lords to tax the people, and the House of Commons is subservient enough to yield to that kind of thing. I know the practice has been in vogue for 30 years, but it has been protested against again and again, and by none more strongly than by Mr. Gladstone himself. As regards this clause, we must ask some gentleman of great Parliamentary experience to ransack his recollections, and to find out a parallel in dealing with this general matter by simply introducing some particular Amendment as in this case. The thing, Sir, is wrong, and it would be, I say, highly detrimental to the House of Commons to yield to such a thing as this. It is one of the most ill-drafted Acts that have ever been passed for some 30 years. It is legislation by way of reference throughout, and if it had not been by way of reference this Amendment could not have been inserted. If the House of Commons had taken the same course as that which is adopted by this Amendment, which we are now asked to accept, this Bill could not have been got through in any way. It is contrary to the spirit of the Bill, and it is an inno-
  1038
  vation of the Bill. It is a palpable invasion of our rights, and nobody with any respect for the procedure of this House could yield the privileges for which they have fought in former days. I hope this House will not accept such a specific Amendment, for it is contrary to the rules of legislation to amend a particular phase and a particular section of a Bill which only transfers powers from one body to another. If the right honourable Gentleman had followed this example he knows perfectly well that this Bill could never have been passed. If the House of Lords wish to amend these Acts, let them do it in a proper form. I am sure that the First Lord of the Treasury would have been the very first to say, having regard to the Bill as a whole, to public time, that this must not be done. I draw the First Lord of the Treasury's attention to this fact, because we cannot really protest too strongly against this system of applying from one tribunal to another.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: There are two points in this discussion upon the point of order to which my honourable Friend who has just spoken has referred, and I would ask the permission of the House to say a word on that subject, because undoubtedly a subject which touches our relations in another place is a matter which ought to be very closely watched. But at the same time, while I think nobody can complain that this question has been raised, it does seem to me that the point which has been spoken of, although it has not been done for the first time, I think there have been far too frequent instances of it lately. Apparently it is one of those things which have grown up in order to get over the difficulties which occasionally arise, and must arise, in communications between the two Houses in regard to matters of taxes or of rates. I find upon this question that there is a case which appears to me very nearly, if not entirely, on all fours with the case in point. When the Irish Land Bill of 1887 was introduced into the House of Lords, certain clauses were put in the Bill. Now, under the Act of 1885 and the National and Local Loans Act of 1887, advances to tenants are allowed out of a fund with which the Lords did not deal, for it provided that

  1039
  those advances should be made out of the Irish Church Fund service, and there was a sub-section inserted by the Lords. That was done in the Commons, and it was agreed that those advances should come out of the fund as desired by the Lords. I think we shall all agree that this question ought to be closely watched, and we have been informed that Mr. Gladstone, a very high authority, is to be cited, as showing that this is a practice which should be closely watched. I have not had the opportunity of looking up the facts myself, but I am informed that on one occasion, if not oftener, Mr. Gladstone himself was obliged to fall back on this very device which arose in regard to certain difficulties between this House and the House of Lords. I want to say just one word upon this Amendment. We had a very long discussion in this House with regard to this clause, from a very different point of view, but evidently honourable Members, especially those who hold high positions in Ireland, will regard questions of this kind from the point of view from which we regard them in England. It has been pointed out that this class of legislation is entirely unknown in England, and one cannot help hoping that in proportion as improved government advances in Ireland the extension of this class of legislation will have a tendency to diminish. I think we ought to be thankful to the Attorney General for accepting what is undoubtedly a considerable modification of his ideas. The great evil of this class of legislation is the temptation it gives to a man to trump up charges of injury against his neighbour, towards whom he may bear a grudge. The House ought to be very careful not to admit to an unnecessary extent a class of legislation which has always been regarded with suspicion, and which he hoped would soon disappear in Ireland as it had in England.
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I do not want to go into the principles of this legislation now, but I may say that it undoubtedly originates in the particular class of offences which were supposed to prevail in Ireland—I mean agrarian offences. You have elaborate and detailed provisions in the law to meet malicious classes of injury, and to
  1040
  attempt to extend that provision to all classes of injury—such as a boy breaking a window—is not to make the law scientific, but to introduce a new principle, which I do not suppose prevails in any other part of the world. As the clause now reads, it says certain sections of the Grand Juries Act, 1836, shall extend to the case of maliciously setting fire to, destroying, or injuring property of any description, whether real or personal. It is clear that the words "or injuring" are not what this House intended, and I trust they will be omitted. That, in my opinion, would be enough, and the application of the Amendment can be confined to cases where there are indictments. Offences against property are not increasing in Ireland, and most forms of property are as safe there as in any country in the world, and I suggest that the House should disagree with this Amendment as a whole, or that it should be greatly cut down.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The proposals of the Lords will improve the law, provided it is sufficiently safeguarded; the Government have already suggested one safeguard and the honourable Member has just made another suggestion. The honourable Member has urged that only cases where there are indictments should be considered. There is certainly something to be said for that, and I think it will be regarded as a satisfactory compromise if I, on the part of the Government, agree to the striking out of the words in the Lords' Amendment, and substitute the following—
  "Provided that this Act shall not extend the application of the said sections to any case except where the malicious act done was a crime punishable on indictment under the Malicious Damages Act, 1861."
  Mr. DILLON: I do not think that is a satisfactory compromise, but I have no desire to hinder the progress of the Bill, and content myself with making a strong protest against the Amendment, even as amended.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That the House do agree with the Lords' Amendment to leave out clause 19, and insert

  1041
  clause (A), namely:—'(A).—1. A county council may prosecute for any penalty under section six of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882. 2. The provisions of section eleven of the said Act (defining ancient monuments to which this Act applies) and section one of the Ancient Monuments Protection (Ireland) Act, 1892, shall have effect as if they were herein re-enacted with the substitution of "county council" for "Commissioner of Works"; but this enactment shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the existing provisions of the said sections as respects the Commissioners of Works.'"
  MR. T. M. HEALYsuggested that the following words of clause 19 should be retained—
  "Where any ancient monument or remains are being dilapidated, injured, or endangered, the county surveyor of any county shall report the same to the county council."
  He said it was generally farmers who injured or endangered ancient monuments, and it would be a check upon them, if they knew that the county surveyor would be brought down upon them by their neighbours.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am quite agreeable, provided that after the words "ancient monuments or remains" there is inserted "within the meaning of this section."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is very hard to get the better of you English.
  Question put, and Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Question put—
  "Page 16, line 16, after 'council,' insert 'and in the case of the borough of Galway Town Improvement Commissioners.'"
  "Line 27, after 'borough,' insert 'and to the Galway Town Improvement Commissioners.'"
  "Line 29, leave out 'time of election.'"
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the House to the fact that this is a breach of privilege, because it creates a new rating authority in the borough of Galway. It, therefore, is not in order.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would respectfully suggest that the Government should amend the Bill so that Galway should be put in the position, of which it never ought to have been deprived, of having a Mayor and Corporation and burgesses,
  1042
  even although it does not become a county borough.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not see how such an Amendment can be moved. The Lords' Amendment is one which I cannot put to the House. I do not see how it can be amended.
  MR. BALFOUR: I move to disagree.
  Amendment disagreed with.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 27, after 'borough,' insert 'and to the Galway Town Improvement Commissioners.'"
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 29, leave out 'time of election.'"
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 13, at the beginning of the line, leave out to the end of the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 19, line 5, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert, 'two councillors.'"
  Motion made, and Question put—
  "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Balfour.)
  MR. DILLON: This raises a question concerning district councils and boards of guardians in Ireland which has been often debated before, and in opposing the Amendment, I confess I am astonished at the action of the Government in agreeing to it. In one respect, they seem to have learned wisdom from the Debates in this House, because they have not extended the two-member provision to the county councils. But, in spite of the fact that in this House, both in the Committee and Report stages, this whole question was discussed at considerable length—in spite of the fact that the majority of the

  1043
  Unionist Members from Ireland objected to this provision, as certainly not calculated to improve the Bill, but rather to do it mischief—in spite of the fact that the Nationalist Members unitedly were opposed to it, and in spite of the fact that the Irish Minister himself said, in his judgment, that it would injure the Bill; and while, further, the First Lord of the Treasury stated on both occasions that it would not improve the Bill, but rather have the reverse effect—in spite of its condemnation by the grand jurors of Kildare, and other grand jurors, I repeat, that, after all this, I am astonished at the Government's attitude. In the House of Lords the Unionist peers divided on the subject, while one or two of them said that, in their judgment, the change would be for the worse, and would certainly be no improvement to the Bill; but, in spite of this concensus of opinion, and especially of that of the representative of the Government who has piloted this Bill to the House of Lords, we are asked to adopt this Amendment, although it was twice negatived in the House of Commons, and left an open one in the House of Lords. This is what I call an unparalleled proceeding. What were the grounds on which this matter came before us? It was supported, as far as I can remember, on one ground, and one ground only—namely, that by the insertion of this provision, of two members for each constituency, you would secure, or at least open the door to the introduction, upon these new local bodies, of the representatives of the old ex officio guardians and grand juries. I do not remember that any ocher argument was used. It was not contended by those who supported the Amendment that, apart from the representation of the minority, it was a proposal calculated to improve these bodies as working bodies. On the contrary, the unanimous opinion was against it, and it was said that it would make them more unwieldy and less practicable. But certain honourable Members declared that the gentry of Ireland, and the ex officio guardians were desirous of serving their country, and the only way of doing it was under this proposal, by which a district would be able to elect one Home Rule member and one anti-Home Ruler. Well, now, Sir, I wish, first of all, to
  1044
  deal with that argument, and I say deliberately—I may be wrong, I may be right—that the insertion of this provision in the Act will have an entirely opposite effect to that which it is intended to have. If the ex officio guardians and grand jurors are going to come before the electors in that capacity, and as representatives of the old minority, then I warn them that they will be defeated and routed. They will not be elected in any of the constituencies where the Nationalist Party are in the majority, as the representatives of the old minority who have hitherto monopolised local government in Ireland. That was not the spirit in which we were appealed to by the Minister for Ireland and the First Lord of the Treasury to adopt this Bill. We were asked not to scrutinise a man's past or present political opinions, but to take a man for what he was worth, and a local man, who was willing to work for the interest of the locality in which he lived. Speaking on behalf of the southern provinces in Ireland, and for those districts and municipal corporations where they have had majorities and power, they have not shown a spirit to act politically. I believe, myself, that if the spirit in which the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary for Ireland, on this particular point, appealed to the people of Ireland when the Bill was introduced, and in the course of its various stages of passing through the House—if that spirit had not been made manifest, there would have been shown, in the progress of these elections, that desire for separation which has been urged in the past. When you come before the people and say, "We are determined to force"—or, at all events, by a system of manipulation, and a provision specially put into the Bill, to get on to these bodies the ex officio guardians and grand jurors—I say, when you take up an attitude of that kind, I think you do wrong. If we are to be told that these old guardians and grand jurors are to be forced upon us, then I say you are running into danger. Sir, I venture to offer a word of advice to those who are advocating the adoption of this Amendment, and it is this: that they ought to abandon the principle of going before the people as the representatives of the minority. The

  1045
  only principle on which these boards can be worked is to give the people a voice and a fair share in the control of their affairs. I have now explained my reasons for opposing this proposal, and I would ask, how will it affect the efficiency of the boards? We are entitled to address to the Government a strong word of warning on this aspect of the question. It is a great question, without doubt. You take a people like the Irish people, who for so long have been shut out from that training in local government which has been part of the English people's life for generations and generations, and you give them a system which has this defect in its constitution. Is that fair? We are entitled to ask, nay, to demand of the Government that, unless their judgment has been convinced in favour of this provision, and which, I maintain, is calculated to injure the working efficiency of these local bodies, and increase the dangers of maladministration, that should be rejected. If it is introduced, the result will naturally be to get up in agitation for the application of the same principle to other boards. We should have a bad system everywhere, and against which we are always protesting. We have had an example of a numerous board, the vast majority of whom never attended the meetings when ordinary business was transacted, and only attended when there was a job to be done. I say this proposal will increase the number of the public boards; it will injure their efficiency, and it will divide the responsibility as regards the different districts between two representatives, where one existed before. I can anticipate that the people will refuse to be bullied, or driven into electing these men, as this Amendment provides for, and its adoption will increase the difficulties of administering the Act, so far as the Boards of Guardians are concerned. I say, solemnly and seriously, that if this perfectly useless provision is persisted in, it will be against the opinion of an overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, including more than half of the Unionists of Ireland, and will considerably shake the confidence of the people in the Government.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The honourable Gentleman
  1046
  began by expressing some surprise at the course which the Government has taken in moving that this House should agree with the Lords in this Amendment. I think there is no foundation for that surprise, for, if I accurately remember what took place on the discussion in this House, I gave a clear indication of the exact course we should pursue, supposing an Amendment of this kind were carried in another place. Sir, I have never concealed from the House that I do not regard this Amendment with any very large amount of favour. I do not base on it any great hopes for obtaining that representation of certain classes in Ireland, which everyone in this House, I think, desires to see. But I do not think that the honourable Gentleman gives due weight to the arguments which may be urged, and legitimately urged, on that side of the question. He looks at the prospect of members of the existing grand juries going before the new electoral bodies, and appealing to them for election, as the representatives of a minority. I think that those members of the existing grand juries who are anxious to carry on administrative work in the place of their residence will come forward, not on the ground that they represent the defunct grand juries, but as men of business intimately acquainted with the work to be done. The idea which the honourable Member appears to have, that the constituencies are to be bullied and driven into electing these members, is surely rather extravagant. I am not aware that any machinery exists by which that operation could be carried into effect. The controlling argument, which, as I understand, moves the minority to desire this Amendment, is that they feel that in the boards of guardians, where there already exist men who have served their districts for many years, it would be quite useless to expect that such men would be ousted to make room for someone else, who, however great his qualifications, would not have the same long service to recommend him. They hold—and the argument is one which has both weight and substance—that if there are to be members for the district, the existing guardians will be able to retain office, and there will be room for another guardian as coadjutator. I admit that if the Bill

  1047
  were drawn according to my opinions, I should adhere to the system of single-member constituencies, which has been found to work well in this country. But I think the House ought to have a great regard for the feelings and legitimate aspirations of those who are being disestablished by the Bill. Honourable Members opposite will sympathise with the feeling that if we can render this great revolution acceptable to the class which is being disestablished, it is only right that we should do so. I quite agree that we ought not to pay too high a price for it; that we ought not to destroy the efficiency of the Bill for that object; but I do not think that this Amendment would in any sense destroy the substantial efficiency or advantage of the Measure. Therefore, Sir, for my own part, I shall adhere to the pledge which I gave to the House on the last occasion when this question was discussed. In my judgment, as I said then, we ought to pay deference to the feelings of the minority, who are disestablished, and all the investigations I have been able to make show that this Amendment is in harmony with the views of the minority. For that reason, I ask the House to agree to the Lords' Amendment.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICE: There is one aspect of the case upon which I should like to be enlightened by the Attorney General, and that is as to the numerical effect it will have upon the different wards in Ireland. The case, as stated by Members who represent Irish constituencies, is that it is perfectly possible, by doubling the whole representation, not only to increase the difficulties which at present exist, but also, in regard to ministers of religion, of getting adequate representation. These difficulties are not at all imaginary. Moreover, the numerous county boards who carry on business in a very small board-room, might become almost unmanageable. The effect of this clause is to introduce the very difficulties which certain honourable Members say it will avert. Why should you suppose that because you give two members to an electoral division instead of one, 50 per cent, of the voters will alter their opinion? They say it will increase the Orange majority; that in the Presbyterian dis-
  1048
  tricts it will increase the Presbyterian majority; and that in the Roman Catholic and Nationalist districts it will increase the Roman Catholic and Nationalist majority. I venture to say that this Amendment springs from Members representing a small corner of Ulster, and no doubt they calculate it will give them an increased majority; but they do not think of the minority in other parts of Ireland. The result will be that the majority everywhere will be increased by this Amendment, which is supposed to protect the minority. The day is not far distant when the grand jury element in the south of Ireland will see that their position is not to be strengthened by artificial safeguards, and provisions, and clauses in Acts of Parliament, but by identifying themselves, as their predecessors have done in past generations, with the wishes and aspirations of the people.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I quite understood my right honourable Friend the Leader of the House to say that if this Amendment, which he did not approve of himself, were carried in the House of Lords, he would accept it, and he has now fulfilled the pledge which he then gave. We have a united Nationalist opposition to it.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: No, not all.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Well, almost; all the Nationalist Members who follow the honourable Member for East Mayo are opposed to it. I look upon that as being rather in its favour, because I think there must be some very good principle underlying it to induce honourable Members to oppose it. I do not know why the honourable Member for East Mayo appears to think that it would be greatly opposed to the minority in Ireland. A large majority of the minority in Ieralnd—and by that I do not mean the Protestant or Unionist minority, but the minority representing large cess-payers, more largely composed of Catholics than Protestants—are in favour of it. I think they ought to know their own business, and I venture to say that a large majority of that minority, which includes men of all classes, creeds and politics, are in favour of this Amend-

  1049
  ment. That is my opinion, gathered from representations made to me. The honourable Member for East Mayo appears to imagine that when these councils are established the Irish grand jurors will come forward as candidates representing the grand jurors. We intend to place ourselves before the electorate in the same way as other honourable Members. Every man who stands for any constituency always holds himself to be the best possible man, and that is the position in which Irish grand jurors will stand. They will point out that they have had experience as magistrates, and they will appeal to the common sense of the Irish people on the ground of their experience of the working of county administration, and they have done their work in the past efficiently and cheaply. I venture to say that when they make that appeal the Irish people will see very great force in it. I repeat—I may be wrong—but I think it is very probable that when the constituencies gratify their political proclivities by electing a man of their own political views they will exercise common sense and elect for the second seat a man of business habits and training, who will do the work efficiently.
  MR. DILLON: Would I have any chance in North Armagh?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: If the honourable Member mends his ways I think he would, but I am afraid he never will mend his ways, and I cannot hold out any prospect to him of finding a seat in North Armagh. Then, again, this Amendment would give a chance of women being elected to the council, as is done in this country. I think that would be a great benefit, and I can only say I believe that by passing this Amendment and agreeing with the Amendment of the House of Lords it will have the effect of bringing the law into confusion. Even constituted as they are at present, boards of guardians are in a state of confusion. In passing, I may say that a description is given in a Galway paper of a meeting of guardians there, and it said that the prize-fight ended by a large man hitting a small man on the jaw.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We have that in this House.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The paper went on to say that after this the board went on with its business as usual. I believe it will be found that the men who will have the most leisure, which will enable them to attend to the business of the council, will secure the confidence of the electors. I cannot conceive a very poor man leaving his farm to attend to these boards; the man of leisure and means will be the man who will attend; but I think it will be well to give these constituencies an opportunity of satisfying their political consciences, and then of choosing the best men. But I do not believe in nullifying one vote by sending an opponent to the council with him. As Irishmen are not entirely bereft of common sense, I believe and hope that political questions will be decided outside the board rooms, because I cannot conceive that Irishmen will not see that it is cheaper to forget these political differences and work for the common food of their country. That, I believe, will ultimately take place. I represent the feeling of a great majority of the ratepayers of Ireland, of all classes and creeds, in supporting the Lords Amendment.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Sir, we have just heard from the honourable and gallant Gentleman that he had an understanding with the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that in the event of this Amendment being moved by the Lords it was to be at once acceded to. The honourable and gallant Gentleman takes good care that his views are placed before the proper quarter, and the consequence is that this Amendment is inserted at the will of the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, and those Members of the other House who agree with him. I do think, Sir, that the honourable and gallant Member has not taken the best course in bringing about that forgetfulness of the past which we, at all events, wish to see brought about. He tells us, in the first place, that he believes that, with two members, one would be elected representing each political party, but he takes to himself, or to those who agree with him all the best men in Ireland.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Quite so.
  MAJOR JAMESON: Sir, I thoroughly disagree with the honourable and gallant Member. If this be his view as to introducing harmony, I can hardly see it. I protest most strongly against this Amendment, and I hope that it will go to a Vote, and be rejected.
  The House adjourned for the usual interval at 2.15.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I have opposed this proposal before, and although it looks like flogging a dead horse, I do wish to occupy the time of the Committee for a few minutes, in order to record my humble protest against the acceptance of this Amendment. I agree with what my honourable and gallant Friend says, that the larger cesspayers in Ireland are uneasy at what they conceive to be the prospect of having their pockets handed over to administrators chosen by the smaller cesspayers, but I think they are looking for a remedy in the wrong direction, and they seem to demand an artificial arrangement which would not meet the difficulty. What I regard as the very essence of this Bill is that everyone will be bound in his own interests to assist the operations of the county councils in every way, and the less we hear about religion and politics the better. I regret this Amendment, because I think it will now go before the people of Ireland, call it by what name you like, as an artificial arrangement to provide against what a certain class in Ireland fear. I must say I exceedingly regret in the first place that this Amendment was introduced in the House of Lords, and that the Government feel themselves compelled to accept it. Now, the origin of the Amendment is, I think, based on the interests of a very small handful of men in particular districts and under particular circumstances in Ireland. I do not think it has been brought forward on any general or broad grounds of policy at all. Those most active in local affairs in Ireland who occupy positions in particular districts as chairmen of boards of guardians argue from the interests of their particular districts up to a kind of general policy. I think they are making a mistake, and that they will find it out. I think, whatever the origin and cause
  1052
  of this proposal, the mode to which expression has been given to it in the Amendment is both illogical and unwise. If it be to secure the representation of the larger ratepayers—I will drop the word "landlord," as I do not wish to introduce any question of that sort—if it were based on a purview of the whole position it would come down to us with a proposal for dual constituencies for county councils. The county councils will, after all, be the most important bodies; they can interfere with the district councils, and therefore I cannot understand the position taken up by my honourable and gallant Friend and others who support this Amendment. Does it mean, and I very much regret it if it does, that the larger ratepaying class have abandoned all hope of being represented on the county councils? If it does not, why come down to the district councils to obtain representation by an artificial arrangement? I cannot too strongly emphasise that. If your contention is that, unless you have some special arrangement under the Bill with regard to constituencies, you will have no representation on the district councils, then it appears to me you have abandoned all idea of serving on the county councils, which, I think, is to be deplored. You say, "Give us this dual representation on the district councils, and we will get in and have that influence and power which belongs to the larger cesspayers." But does the Committee realise what this means? If, on the one hand, you abandon all idea of being represented on the county councils, and are content by a side arrangement to be represented on the district councils, what will be the position? The larger cesspayers are to have very considerable interest in the district councils and are to have none in the county councils, and by that means friction will be set up between the two bodies, each represented by a different class. Therefore I think that the policy which has resulted in this Amendment is very short-sighted. I quite recognise that one may protest in vain in this House. I quite see the position the Government are in, but if it comes to a Vote, which I do not suppose it will, I shall certainly vote against the adoption of this Amendment, because I

  1053
  feel so strongly the confusion of ideas and the narrowness of view by which it has been formed. In conclusion, I think you are placing the larger cesspayers in Ireland in a very difficult position by this Amendment. I think the history of its introduction in the House of Lords and its acceptance by this House will be taken from one end of Ireland to the other as an attempt to coerce the judgment of the electors, and I fear it will have the effect of starting the Bill on wrong lines. I believe myself that most people in Ireland, whether they be large or small ratepayers, do not fully realise the change this Bill is going to make in the local government of Ireland. They are full of perplexity and doubt, and some uneasiness, and I think that is a very unhealthy feeling for all classes in Ireland in which to set to work on this Bill. But by this Amendment you hoist once more the flag of class, and in that way confuse the issue, and instead of the people taking the position as a pure matter of business there will be party elements, class elements, and even religious elements. That is to be deplored. I ask myself what is to be the attitude of those in Ireland who really and sincerely wish that this Bill may bring about a new state of things, and may bring class and class together to transact business without friction or strife? I think the position win be a difficult one. What will be the tendency of the Press, which has enormous influence in Ireland, and which is being worked in such watertight compartments that really each section only represents the narrowness, of particular views. One section of the Press will rejoice that the Lords have at the last moment raised up safeguards in the interests of a certain class, and other sections of the Press will say that this is an attempt to force on them representatives they did not want, and who ought to be opposed, and so I fear it will result in a condition of things not in the interests of the country. I think it is the duty of every patriotic man in Ireland who is presumably provided with a seat by this Amendment—I say it with all humility—to co-operate with those who entirely differ from him, and that he should only come forward with the Knowledge and assurance that
  1054
  the rest or the community desire him to stand. That is the only position he ought to take up. I thought it would be a fair field and no favour. I certainly expected that in most parts of Ireland what is called the grand jury class might not at first obtain representation, but I thought, if they were wise and if they gave all the assistance they could to their fellow-citizens who had not the same experience and opportunity, that they would ultimately obtain representation. I think this duty is clear. I think the best course for the grand jury class, who really desire to benefit the country under the new state of things, is to co-operate with their fellow-countrymen in finding capable business men, and to give them all the assistance they could outside. They cannot get on themselves under present circumstances at all events, but with their better education and wider experience they should assist others in making the machinery work, and I am quite certain that the time will come, despite this Amendment, which I regret and deplore, when we shall all be working together to make this Bill work well.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, in approaching this question of single-member divisions, I would say I was a very strong opponent in 1884 and 1885 of the transaction which took place in the year between the Marquess of Salisbury on the one hand and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean on the other, whereby the whole of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with the exception of a few double-member boroughs, were carved out into single-member districts. I think I voted against the Third Reading of that Measure, because I know the single-member division was constructed by Lord Salisbury purely as a Conservative device, in order to prevent the popular classes from having their due weight in the country. Our House of Lords, for some reason best known to themselves, have now swung round in Ireland to the very opposite extreme, not as regards county councils, but as regards district councils. The first observation I would like to make with reference to this Amendment, which was so strongly opposed by some of my honourable colleagues, is to remind them that they have assented, as regards towns,

  1055
  to a far more sweeping proposition, because by giving our assent to the fact that town councils shall go out en masse what have we done? We have provided not for two-member constituencies, but for three-member divisions, whereas we know the very acme of political science would be to have a single-member division only. Well, Sir, I have always been against single-member divisions, and I remain an unrepentant sinner, and consequently, when the House of Lords, in their legislative wisdom, have inserted in this Bill a proposal for two-member divisions, without any regard whatever to such questions as have been raised, I feel it my duty to give their Lordships—but for this train and trip only, as the American tickets observe—my hearty support. I should like to say one word on the general merits of this question. I feel that there is a great deal of force in what the honourable Baronet the Member for Yarmouth has said. I think, to a large extent, he is right in his view. I think he has much more senses—if he will allow me to discriminate between two such pillars of the State as himself and the Member for Armagh—I think he has much more sense than the Member for North Armagh, and therefore, perhaps, I may be excused for differing in this matter from the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, having regard to the bearing of this Amendment upon the fortunes of the Conservative Party in this House. In a few years, owing to the infinite mercy of Providence, we shall all be dead and in our graves, and that being so, I look at this Measure, not from the point of view of what is going to happen in the country in the next eight or ten years, but from the point of view that we are building up a system for all time. Feeling, as I do, that in this Amendment there is some chance for those having different opinions from those we ourselves hold being brought into these boards, and believing, as I do believe, that the proper course for a Nationalist Irishman is to try and abolish all grievances existing between one class and another, believing that when we do that the country will see that it is their true interest to make an amalgamation for a national government in that country, and that the bringing together of different sections on these
  1056
  boards is the best way to dissipate ill-feeling and class distinction—for that reason I think I may regard this Amendment as being highly in the interests of the Nationalist Party in Ireland. Well, Sir, there is one objection which has been, named, which, of course, I admit to some extent. It is said, "Oh! you overman these boards." That is to some extent true. But I do not follow the argument that when you have to rely upon the common people you get an unintelligent class. If you want to find intelligence you must go to the poorer classes. If you take all the men of intelligence and education who form the boards of the railway companies and banks of the country—all these are the greatest fools in the country. When you want to get real political intelligence you must go to the people, the flannel jackets; and I venture to say that if the result of this Amendment be to put two men in flannel jackets on any board of guardians instead of one, I do not think the board of guardians will suffer. So much for the general merits of the question. May I now descend from this high level of politics to discuss vulgar detail? Sir, this Amendment, as I understand, creates a curious technical distinction between towns and the country. If anyone will look at the beginning of the Amendment they will see it is only to affect a rural district. If you look at the next clause—clause 24—you will find that in any urban district the guardian for any district electoral division shall be elected by the local government electors for that division. Sir, it appears to me, therefore, that the result of this Amendment will be that in rural districts you will have double-member constituencies, and therefore give double the number of guardians in urban districts. I take the case of Dublin, or the case of Cork. Sir, I should like to know, is not the result of this Amendment this: that whereas you double the number of guardians outside in the rural areas, the city districts will be left with their existing complement of members? Am I right or am I wrong in that?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I propose to disagree with the Lords' Amendment a few lines lower down and that makes the thing right.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Of course that knocks the bottom out of my last argument.
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, circumstances prevented my being in the House when this question was brought on before, but I took occasion to read very carefully what was then said, so far as it was reported, and I have listened to the course of this Debate, and the result is to confirm what I gathered took place on the former occasion, and to confirm my opinion in favour of the Amendment. I cannot say I think it is of the utmost importance. I do not think it will make much difference one way or the other. I deprecate altogether the argument of the honourable Member for East Mayo, and the honourable Member for Yarmouth, that this provision will excite party passion, party vehemence, and religious strife, and result in the introduction of the worst feelings into the election of boards of guardians. Now, there is no machinery in this Amendment to give a minority a member at all. It is purely a matter of practical expediency. Are you likely to have a better board with two members allotted to each division, or if you have only one? I should have thought in this matter we might nave been guided by the light of experience, and we have had a large experience of this country of the result of double representative constituencies. An honourable Member referred just now to the fact that some of the English constituencies are still represented by two members. What is the practical effect of that circumstance in the composition of this House, and the representation, in the shape of members, there? It very often happens that where a constituency is very nearly equally divided, the effect is to return a member of each party, reducing, it might be said, the effective vote o that constituency to really nothing, but introducing into the House of Common two members, both representatives of the local feeling, and really ensuring a much fuller representation of local feeling. But that was not the general effect. The general effect was, not to bring in two men of different parties, but two men of the same party, but with this very material difference, that they represented different shades of opinion of the same
  1058
  party. Thus, if you had a moderate Liberal and an advanced Liberal, you had a better representation of the same constituency. I apply this to the proposed constituencies which will have to elect the members on the boards of guardians in Ireland. You will not often find, if the contests are to be waged on party lines, one representative of one party, and another representative of the other party, brought in as members of the boards of guardians. Every Nationalist is not an exact duplicate of another Nationalist.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Hear, hear!
  MR. COURTNEY: There are differences of temperament, and you will find, even in those constituencies where both members are Nationalists, the same members are somehow or other complementary to one another.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Not always.
  MR. COURTNEY: No, not always—supplementary. You will find it in this way: you will have a man who is more akin to the priesthood coming in with another, who is more indifferent to the priesthood. So also in those parts where there is Conservative representation. You will have a diversity in the contribution of the sentiment and feeling of the neighbourhood to the boards of guardians—to the improvement of the boards of guardians. We have, as I say, experience of the thing, in history and in this. House, and that experience is wholly confirmatory of the argument I am now using as to the advantage which is secured by double-member constituencies. I think boards of guardians will be improved in Ireland by the two members. Now, as to the representation of the ex officio guardians. If the honourable Member for Mayo is going to excite feeling in Ireland, if he is going to denounce or attempt to bully the electorate, or control them, he may, of course, excite feelings which will defeat the good results which might otherwise accrue. But the machinery of the Bill lends no power for doing it. It only enables the electorates in particular divisions to have the good fortune to return two members instead of one. Now, suppose you have got in the

  1059
  division a gentleman who has already served—you have in relation to the board of guardians, an ex-officio member who may have done good work. If he is able to appeal, not as ex-officio, not as a landowner, not as a person belonging to the rich classes, but if he comes forward and appeals for election as a man knowing some of the duties, and as one who is determined to give the best of his ability and time and leisure to the conduct of rural affairs, the answer he might receive to-day is: We should be glad to elect him, but we cannot refuse to elect our old member, who has done well. But a man might come forward in that way in the future, as a man on his own merits, not as the representative of a class; and I have some confidence they will not refuse to elect such men. In the same way I lay considerable stress, in relation to this matter, on the point urged by the honourable Member for Armagh—the introduction of women to boards of guardians. You will be able to bring in all their knowledge, their care, their abilities, their special qualities, very easily, by means of this proposal. I acknowledge fully that there is a possible difficulty in the suggestion of over-manning the boards of guardians. You may make them too big, and find difficulty in preserving order; but, as far as I can make out, that is not very serious. Boards of guardians have been, pretty big, and I do not think there will be any overcrowding, such as is conceived. I think the guardians, those elected, will be able to work together with perfect harmony. On the whole, I confess I feel great satisfaction in the fact that the Lords have introduced this Amendment, and that the Amendment, as I hope, will receive the approval of this House. I join with the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth in regretting that the same was not adopted with respect to the county councils, but I am content to have the experiment, so far as it goes. We have not got to the bottom of local government. It is clear, from the changes that have been made in the electorate of governing bodies of towns, we are still in the experimental stage, and this is an experiment from which I expect the best possible results, especially if it is approached in a calm, business-like way, and it is not put to the
  1060
  people as an attempt to secure privileges for a class.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Considerable weight, Mr. Speaker, latterly attaches to the opinions of the right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down upon all questions of representation; but, Sir, personal observation and inquiry in Ireland satisfy me that the majority of the Irish people do not hold the views that he has just expressed in this particular matter. On the contrary, Sir, I feel confident that the unfortunate decision which the Government have arrived at, to accept this Amendment, will be received with a very general feeling of regret among all classes in Ireland. In my humble judgment, doubling the numbers of these district councils will not only entail a large amount of additional trouble upon the localities concerned, and make these bodies inconveniently cumbrous and unwieldy, but, Sir, the knowledge that this provision has been inserted with the deliberate intention of conferring an artificial advantage upon a particular class is certain to provoke political friction; for, Sir, such an Amendment as this, coming from such a quarter, will most certainly lie interpreted in Ireland as a direct invitation to place politics in the forefront of these elections. Therefore, Sir, if the Irish grand jury class really desire that politics should be kept in the background in these contests, which, I venture to think, should be their aim and object, in their own interests, no method, Sir, could have been adopted more likely to defeat that object. Now, Sir, as my honourable Friend the Member for East Mayo has pointed out, some of the grand jurors in Ireland have recognised this fact, and are strongly opposed to any such proposals. For instance, Sir, the grand jury of the county of Cork, by far the largest and most important county in Ireland, have unanimously passed a resolution condemning double-barrelled representation. For myself, Sir, I should be sorry to see the resident Irish gentry excluded from seats upon any of these new councils. There are many resident gentlemen in the county of Cork, some of them in my

  1061
  own constituency, whose assistance would be very valuable, and whose services, should they be tendered, will, I trust, be available. But, Sir, speaking as a resident Irishman, with some knowledge of the Irish character, I am convinced, Sir, that this result would be more satisfactorily obtained by putting confidence in that spirit of fair play which is so strong a characteristic of the Irish people, and not, Sir, by encouraging and inciting them to perpetuate political animosities, and to class distinctions, by setting up a worthless and fictitious safeguard, which cannot fail to prove a permanent source of irritation, because, Sir, it will be regarded, and rightly regarded, by my fellow countrymen, as further evidence that this British Parliament places no reliance upon their sense of justice and
  toleration. I therefore, Sir, strongly, deeply, regret that the Government have decided to accept this Amendment.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Sir, what the honourable and gallant Member said does not appeal to my mind as bearing upon the discussion. It is impossible to suppose that, by introducing a question of this kind, anybody who does not desire to take offence could have offence offered him. I heartily concur in what was say by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, that this will give an opportunity which nothing else will give to increase the number of women engaged in the administration of local affairs in Ireland.
  The House divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 64.

  AYES.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fry, Lewis

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Garfit, William

  Myers, William Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Bagot, Capt. J. F.

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gorst Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manc'r)

  Goschen,RtHn.G.J.(St.G'rg's)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bartley, George C. T

  Greville, Captain

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Ed.

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

  Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, James

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Bond, Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Roche, Hon. James (E. Kerry)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)

  Saunderson, Col. E. James

  Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich)

  Howard, Joseph

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lafone, Alfred

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cochrane, Hon T. H. A. E.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Llewelyn, Sir D. (Swansea)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Verney Hon. Richard G.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Denny, Colonel

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Drucker, A.

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  McKillop, James

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fergusson,RtHn.SirJ.(Manc'r)

  Milton, Viscount

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Monk, Charles James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  More, Robert Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  NOES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Allen, W. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, Sir John

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Randell, David

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbysh.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, Capt. J.(Forfarsh.)

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Souttar, Robinson

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Caldwell, James

  Lloyd-George, David

  Ure, Alexander

  Carew, James Laurence

  MacNeill, John Gordon S.

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  McEwan, William

  Wayman, Thomas

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Maddison, Fred.

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  Colville, John

  Maden, John Henry

  Wilson John (Govan)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Woodall, William

  Crombie, John William

  Moss, Samuel

  Woods, Samuel

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork)

  Davitt, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Kelly, James

  Mr. Dillon and Captain Donelan.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Harwood, George

  Perks, Robert William

  Question put. Agreed to.

  Amendments proposed—
  "Line 37, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 39."
  "Line 40, after 'give,' insert 'in a district electoral division.'"
  "Page 20, line 13, leave out 'election of,' and insert' choosing.'"
  "Page 20, line 25, after 'Act,' insert 'but subject as hereafter provided by this Act.'"
  "Page 20, line 25, after 'be,' insert 'during the term of and.'"
  "Page 20, line 27, leave out 'division,' and insert 'district.'"
  "Page 20, line 28, leave out 'divisions,' and insert 'districts,' and in same line, before 'district,' in each case, insert 'county.'"
  "Page 20, line 31, leave out from 'of to 'shall,' in line 33, and insert 'the commissioners of any town.'"
  "Page 20, line 34, after 'Act,' insert 'but subject as hereafter provided by this Act.'"
  "Page 21, line 12, after 'the,' insert 'expense of the.'"
  "Page 22, line 10, after 'by,' insert 'an order of.'"
  "Page 22, line 21, leave out 'revision in,' and insert 'alteration of financial relations in Part Four of.'"
  "Page 22, after clause 31, insert clause (B)—
  "(B) There shall be transferred to every urban and rural district council the business of the board of guardians under section one hundred and fifty of the Public Health Act, 1878 (which relates to the execution of the regulations made when Ireland appears to be threatened by any formidable epidemic, endemic, or infectious disease), or under any enactment amending or extending that section,
  1064
  and section three of the Epidemic and Other Diseases Prevention Act, 1883, shall be repealed."
  "Page 24, line 11, leave out 'rural.'"
  "Page 27, line 37, after 'district,' insert 'or for adding an urban sanitary district to a rural sanitary district, or for enlarging the boundaries of an urban county district.'"
  "Page 28, line 18, after 'county,' insert 'at large.'"
  "Page 29, line 29, after 'county,' insert 'or other.'"
  "Page 29, line 43, after 'Act,' insert 'or in the case of money derived from trust funds, then by the specific trusts affecting those funds.'"
  "Page 30, line 2, after 'union' insert 'urban.'"
  "Page 30, line 10, after the first 'union,' insert 'urban.'"
  "Page 31, line 19, after 'and,' insert '(iii.) In respect of urban charges; and.'"
  "Page 31, line 26, after the first 'and,' insert 'urban or.'"
  "Page 35, insert clause 54 after clause 51."
  "Page 36, line 24, after 'shall,' insert 'except where under the terms of his contract he is not entitled to make any deduction from his rent in respect of rates.'"
  "Page 37, line 16, after 'council,' insert 'including the town clerk of a county borough.'"
  "Page 37, line 23, leave out 'secretary of the county council,' and insert 'said secretary.'"
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 38, line 1, leave out 'the fair rent for a holding, 'and insert 'a fair rent in a rural district.'"
  "Page 38, line 9, after 'rate,' insert 'and where the Land Commission after the appointed day fix a fair rent for a holding, they shall record in the schedule specified in section one of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, the standard amount as defined in the preceding section both for poor rates and county cess, and the benefit in respect of the holding deemed to have been received by the landlord and tenant respectively out of the agricultural grant.'"
  Ms. T. M. HEALY: I venture respectfully to say that this Amendment is ridiculous. In the first place it is wrong, because it does not include the county councils, and it should run, "or a fair rent, as fixed by the county court judge for a holding." And when we come to the bottom of the Amendment to say that they shall regard the benefit in respect to the holding as deemed to have been received by the landlord and tenant respectively out of the agricultural grant, is nonsense. The amount to be received out of the agricultural grant, whether it be 6s. 8d. or £1 6s. 8d., is actually received; there is no deemed to be received about it. It is a question of cash coming out of the pocket of the public and going into the private pocket of an individual. There is no deeming about it. There is some catch about these Amendments. It is a most remarkable thing that the House of Lords is always so anxious to interfere with anything they think will operate at all against their own interests.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Transpose clause 54 to follow clause 51."
  "Line 18, after 'made,' insert—
  "Provided that the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to a rate under a local Act in any county borough, if the council of that borough by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose so resolve."
  "Page 39, line 26, leave out 'light.'"
  "Page 41, line 37, leave out 'two counties,' and insert 'more counties than one.'"
  "Page 43, line 26, after 'loan,' insert 'raised.'"
  "Page 43, lines 27 and 28, leave out 'relating to the relief of the poor,' and insert 'above in this section mentioned.'"
  "Page 45, line 6, leave out 'took place,' and insert 'came into force.'"
  "Page 45, line 15, after 'area,' insert 'within the meaning of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and Bridges Act, 1876.'"
  "Page 45, line 17, leave out 'appeal,' and insert 'revision of the apportionment.'"
  "Page 46, line 28, leave out 'either by a separate rate or.'"
  "Page 46, line 29, after 'charge,' insert 'but a council in lieu of raising the amount required to meet the same by means of the poor rate may, if they think fit, raise it by levying a separate rate.'"
  "Page 49, line 21, leave out 'or,' and insert 'whether in making an order or in confirming an order made by a county council, and in the exercise of.'"
  "Page 49, line 22, after 'order,' insert 'district electoral divisions or.'"
  "Page 49, lines 25 and 26, leave out 'so far as conveniently may be,' and insert 'except in any case where the preservation thereof would cause substantial inconvenience.'"
  "Page 50, line 29, at end of clause add as a fresh sub-section—
  "Such changes in the Ordnance map as appear to the Lord Lieutenant in Council to be rendered necessary by this Act, or any Order in Council made thereunder, shall be made through the Commissioner of Valuation in manner directed by the Lord Lieutenant in Council."
  "Page 51, line 34, leave out the first 'the,' and insert 'those.'"
  "Page 51, line 36, after 'Acts,' insert '1871 to 1894.'"
  "Page 54, line 15, after 'justice,' insert 'or the discharge of his or their duties.'"
  "Page 55, after 'urban,' insert 'county.'"
  "Page 55, line 14, leave out 'general.'"
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 56, line 11, after 'shall,' insert 'without prejudice to the reasonable use thereof for any purpose connected with navigation.'"
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am going to suggest to Her Majesty's, Government that they should leave out the word "reasonable" with reference to the canals; "use" is quite sufficient. The canals are far more important than the trackways.
  MR. ATKINSON: I fail to see that any injury can be done by the insertion of the word "reasonable." I fail to see that any harm can be done by saying "the reasonable use of a canal.
  The Amendment was agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "Page 57, line 1, after 'this,' insert 'or any other.'"
  "Page 58, line 36, after 'surveyor,' insert 'or surveyors.'"
  "Page 59, line 39, leave out from 'council' to the end of the sub-section."
  Amendments agreed to—
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 61, line 34, after clause 84, insert clause (C)—
  "(C) An officer holding a pensionable office, whether the superannuation allowance is payable out of the poor rate, or any town rate, or other local rate, shall not be disqualified for receiving such an allowance by reason only of his having acted, whether before or after the passing of this Act, as an officer of a school attendance committee under the Irish Education Act, 1892."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I suggest to the Government that, although this Amendment is in many ways desirable, it is so drafted as to cast a reflection upon a considerable number of persons in other offices. I think it is undesirable to throw a reflection upon such a large body of officers, and trust the Government will see their way to amending this in some way.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, lines 7 and 8, leave out 'the regulations made by this section or.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 62, line 16, after 'Dublin,' insert 'or of any urban district within the county of Dublin.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 63, line 12, leave out 'tramway.'"
  "Leave out clause 90, and insert clause (D)—
  "(D) Section thirty-eight of the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, shall have effect as if the words 'of not less than two-thirds' were omitted therefrom."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 64, line 1, after 'in,' insert 'the council of,' and leave out 'council.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, lines 12 and 13, leave out 'ordinary day of retirement of the mayor,' and insert 'twenty-third day of February.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 14, leave out 'section,' and insert 'sections three and.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 15, after '1876,' insert 'and the day next before the day of the said quarterly meeting shall be substituted for the thirtieth day of November in section five of the said Act.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  I Amendment proposed—
  "Page 65, line 16, after 'or,' insert 'other.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, line 6, after 'peace,' insert—
  "(2) Every such chairman who is by virtue of this Act a justice of the peace shall, in his capacity of justice, but not otherwise, notwithstanding anything in the other provisions of this Act, be subject to the same restrictions, disqualifications, and power of removal by the Lord Chancellor as any other justice of the peace."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, line 11, after 'secretary,' insert 'or clerk.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 66, line 29, after 'made,' insert 'in like manner.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 67, line 11, after 'period,' insert'—
  "(2) In a district electoral division comprised in a Parliamentary borough in which the freeholders vote for the Parliamentary county and not for the Parliamentary borough, the names of the freeholders, that is to say, the persons entitled in respect of a freehold, leasehold, or copyhold qualification within the Parliamentary borough, shall be entered in a separate list, and that list shall form part of the local government supplement in the said division; but nothing in this enactment shall alter the right of such freeholders to vote for the Parliamentary county, or confer on them a right to vote at a Parliamentary election for the Parliamentary borough."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 72, line 7, after 'to,' insert—
  "(a) The making of registers of electors according to street order."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 74, line 8, leave out 'town and township commissioners,' and insert 'commissioners of a town.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed.—
  "Page 76, line 28, after 'thereof,' insert—
  "The expression 'revising banister' has the same meaning as the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885.
  "The expression 'high constable or collector of a barony' includes a collector for a district of a barony appointed under the County Cess (Ireland) Act, 1848."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 76, line 34, leave out 'for,' and insert 'in respect of.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 77, line 22, after 'district,' insert 'division.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 78, line 15, after 'passed,' insert—
  "The expression 'Medical Charities Acts' means the Acts so defined by the Dispensary Houses (Ireland) Act, 1879, and includes the-last-mentioned Act."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 18, leave out 'one councillor,' and insert 'two councillors.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 20, leave out 'shall at the first election have,' and insert 'may at the first election give.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 33, leave out 'and township.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 80, line 36, after 'district,' insert 'and of commissioners of each town.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 2, leave out 'borough,' and insert 'of a city or town.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 81, line 33, after 'matter,' insert 'other than one affecting qualification.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 82, line 4, after 'Act,' insert 'and the rules made thereunder.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 83, line 27, after 'remuneration,' insert 'allowance or compensation.'"
  Question, put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed!—
  "Page 83, line 38, leave out 'one month,' and insert 'six weeks.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 84, line 12, after 'officer,' insert 'who can be employed under this scheme.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposedl—
  "Page 85, line 5, after 'of,' insert 'or for the purposes of.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 85, line 28, after 'Act,' insert 'provided that any county or district council may, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, make a special agreement with any of such existing officers respecting the terms and conditions on which he may continue to hold his office, and the remuneration which he shall receive therefor.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposedl—
  "Page 87, line 28, insert 'except as respects a medical officer to whom the Medical Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Act, 1869, applies.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 88, line 7, leave out from 'under' to 'of,' in line 8, and insert 'a scheme made in pursuance of this Part.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 91, leave out lines 7 to 12."
  "Page 91, line 15, after 'forty,' insert 'so far as unrepealed.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed.—
  "Page 93, line 19, after 'cork,' insert 'Galway.'"
  Amendment proposed—Page 95, after line 6, insert—

  41 & 42 Vict. c. 26

  …

  The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878

  Section twenty-one.

  Amendment proposed—Page 95, after line 20, insert—

  51 & 52 Vict. c. 10

  …

  The County Electors Act, 1888

  Sub-section three of section four.

  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 95, line 31, after 'seventy-four,' insert 'and.'"
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 95, line 32, leave out 'and,' and insert 'sub-section two of section seventy-six, section.'"
  Amendment proposed—Page 97, after line 7, insert—

  3 & 4 Will, 4 c. 37

  …

  An Act to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the Church in Ireland

  Section seventy-two.

  3 & 4 Will. 4 c. 78

  …

  The Grand Juries (Ireland) Act, 1833

  Section seventy-four, from "Provided always" to the end of the section.

  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 98, leave out line 11."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed.—
  "Page 94, line 15, leave out from 'pawnbrokers' to 'plate,' in line 22."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 96, line 42, after '1872' insert 'The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860 to 1896.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 99, line 4, after 'to,' insert 'received to any.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 100, leave out line 55."
  "Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—Page 101, after line 34, insert—

  11 & 12 Vict. c. 69

  …

  The Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1848

  Section two from "Provided always that" to the end of the section.

  Amendment proposed—Page 101, after line 38, insert—

  16 & 17 Vict. c. 38

  …

  The Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1853

  Section one from "Provided always that" to the end of the section.

  Amendment proposed—Page 105, after line 42, insert—

  39 & 40 Vict. c. 76

  …

  The Municipal Privilege Act (Ireland), 1876

  Section four, from "the council of the city of Kilkenny" to "county of the town of Drogheda."

  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 107, line 31, leave out from 'from' to 'and,' in line 33, and insert 'that no deduction on account of' down to 'provided also.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 107, line 40, leave out from 'to' to end of line 44, and insert 'from the rent paid by him.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposedl—
  "Page 108, line 41, leave out from 'eleven' to end of line 45."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposedl—
  "Page 109, line 36, after 'eleven,' insert the words 'not being more than sixty years and.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 112, lines 7 and 8, leave out 'and from "upon oath" to "administer."'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposedl—
  "Page 112, line 25, leave out 'section forty-five.'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 112, line 37, after 'thirty-six.' insert 'and in section thirty-eight the words "not less than two-thirds of."'"
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 112, line 42, leave out from 'nineteen' to 'and' in line 46."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 114, line 9, leave out from 'charged' to 'section,' in line 11."
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "As a Consequential Amendment to the Bill, page 48, after clause 65, insert the following clause—
  "The duties payable by pawnbrokers under section sixty-six of the Dublin Police Magistrates Act, 1808, and the Act therein mentioned, in any part of the police district of Dublin metropolis, shall be payable to and be collected by the council of the borough or county district where the place of business of the pawnbroker in respect of which the duties are paid is situate, and the amount so received by such council shall be applied in and of their expenses in the execution of this Act, and the receiver mentioned in the said section shall cease to have any concern with the said duties."—(Mr. Atkinson.)
  MR. ATKINSON: I beg to move the Amendment.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  This concluded the Amendments.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I suggest to the Government that the Bill should be reprinted in its amended form at an early date. There is the greatest anxiety in Ireland to see the Bill in its final shape, and I am sure the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will appreciate the force of my suggestion. Them, I wish to make a further suggestion. This Bill makes an enormous number of changes in the law, and it is very desirable indeed that a revised volume of amended Statutes should be brought out. I beg, in conclusion, to congratulate the Chief Secretary, whose absence through illness we all regret, and I also wish to congratulate the Irish Attorney General, whose action in regard to the Bill covers him with credit.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it is only right that I should say that, while I will do my best in the matter, I have no direct authority to make any promise as to the printing of the Bill. I regret that the Chief Secretary is not able to be present at the last stage of the Bill, but things have gone so smoothly that his absence has not been felt.
  Ordered, that Mr. A. J. Balfour, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr.
  1078
  Solicitor General for Ireland, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Sir William Walrond, Lord Stanley, Lord Balcarres, and Mr. Dillon be the Committee, to draw up reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Mr. WODEHOUSE (Bath) in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)
  Amendment proposed—

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

    CLAUSE. 1
    "Page 1, line 12, after 'age,' insert 'if the teacher is a woman of sixty years, and if the teacher is a man.'"
    MR. LOYD: In moving to reduce the age for the retirement and pension of female teachers from 65 years to 60, I need hardly say, Sir, that I am not actuated by any hostility to this valuable and important Bill. But, owing to the late period of the Session, the House has granted to the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President a dispensation from making any such explanatory statement as, I believe, is usual at the Second Reading stage of a Bill of this complexity. That, Sir, is my excuse for occupying but a very few minutes of the time of the Committee in calling attention to this matter, which is one of very great interest to the parties immediately concerned, the female teachers throughout the country, and also of very great interest to those who believe that the efficiency of voluntary education is the primary object of this Bill. Now, Sir, it is obvious that the effect of a system of pensions is twofold. In the first place, it has the effect of eliminating and withdrawing from tuition those who have reached the prescribed age. In this respect the Bill will have valuable results, as it stands. But, on the other hand, a pension scheme

    1079
    has the effect of retaining in the ranks of the profession the teachers who have not reached that age. Now, what would direct the attention of the Vice-President to is this: is it desirable to hold out a strong motive to the women teachers, in the hope of getting their full pension, to hold on until they reach so advanced an age as 65 years? I am aware that there are disablement and breakdown clauses in this Bill, beginning at clause 2, which are very beneficial to a certain extent, but these breakdown clauses can only be put in force at the instance of the teachers themselves, and the female teacher in that case would have to "satisfy the Treasury" that she had become permanently incapable, owing to infirmity of mind or body, of being an efficient teacher. Well, Sir, that would not reach the case of a plucky but incompetent woman holding on for her full pension long after the time when, in the interests of education, it was desirable that she should retire. I hope, having compressed my remarks into the narrowest limits, I have left time for the Vice-President, if there are insuperable objections to this Amendment, to give us something more than a mere negative reply to my suggestion. I am sure any remarks or explanation he thinks fit to vouchsafe to us on this very important question will be received with very great interest, and I believe any such explanation when understood will add to and promote the satisfaction with which the Bill has been received throughout the country.
    SIR J. GORST: I think it would be impossible to introduce at this stage so far-reaching an Amendment as that proposed by my honourable Friend. No doubt the question of the age at which it is desirable to allow of retirement on superannuation is one that is open to consideration, and that has been fully discussed. A further alteration would upset all the calculations and arrangements which have been made, and the Bill would have to undergo great changes. I therefore hope my honourable Friend, who wishes well to the Bill, will not press his Amendment I would remind the honourable Member that the Bill contains a breakdown clause under which a teacher per-
    1080
    manently incapacitated would receive generous treatment.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think there is a great deal in the criticiem of my honourable Friend, for the limit of 65 will be found in a great number of cases to be unnecessary.
    SIR F. POWELL: I hope the House will allow me to repeat the regret which I expressed on the Second Reading that the age has been raised to 65 years. The Committee carefully considered these cases, and as this is not a time of the Session for the reconsideration of financial proposals, I hope my honourable Friend will be content with simply making his Motion.
    Amendment withdrawn.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to move as an Amendment the omission of subjection 3, namely—
    "If the Education Department find that the average emoluments of the certificated teachers of either sex calculated in the prescribed manner exceed by 10 per cent, the average amount of those emoluments as stated in the Report of the Education Department made in 1892, they shall certify accordingly to the Treasury, and the Treasury may by warrant increase the rate of contribution of the teachers of that sex to the deferred annuity fund under this Act by an amount not exceeding 5s. a year for each full 10 per cent, of the excess."
    At this late period of the Session I quite recognise the inconvenience of raising a Debate that may occupy a considerable amount of time, but it is, I think, a matter of great importance to ascertain at this stage what is the real meaning and object of the Bill; and, therefore, I have put down this Amendment with the object of asking my right honourable Friend what is the meaning of the Bill. It is extremely difficult for an ordinary Member to find out what it means. I have done my best, with the assistance of some of my honourable Friends, to understand the meaning of this sub-section of which I move the omission. In the first place I should like to warn honourable Members that the "average emoluments" of teachers referred to in the first line of the sub-section does not refer to the

    1081
    average paid to any particular teacher, as anybody might imagine, but to the average emoluments of teachers as a whole. It is suggested by this subsection that where the average emolument of the teachers as a whole has increased since the year 1892, a larger contribution shall be exacted from the teacher, if the Treasury so orders, than was prescribed by the Bill. The first question that occurs is why the year 1892 is taken. The only reason, we can think of is that it was the year of the Report of the Select Committee. That does not appear to have anything to do with this provision, as certain Acts of Parliament passed since 1892 have modified or increased the emoluments of teachers, and therefore I do not understand why the year 1892 was taken. I should like to point out with regard to this clause that it gives an option to the Treasury to increase the amount of contribution by the teachers whenever it is found that their average emolument has been increased. Why is that proposal made? I confess I have great difficulty in understanding it. It might be argued that the Voluntary Schools Act has increased the emoluments of teachers, but that is no reason for increasing the contribution of teachers to the superannuation fund. I must point out that this Bill practically leaves it in the hands of school boards to raise the contribution of every teacher throughout the country. Why should that be so? Why, for instance should we allow the London School Board, if it chooses, to increase the amount of its teachers' salaries, with the result that every teacher throughout the country will be obliged to make a larger contribution to the superannuation fund than if the London School Board had no done so? That appears to me to be an absolutely indefensible proposition, and I shall be very glad if the right honourable Gentleman will do me the favour of explaining why the Government have made it.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Council whether, in calculating the average of the emoluments of the teachers, he has included the salaries paid to the teachers in the higher-grade schools, part of which is
    1082
    paid out of the rates and part, by the Science and Art Department. I maintain that that should not be done under this Bill, and if those salaries are included an injustice must be done to teachers in the country Board schools, as they will be required to contribute a higher rate than they should properly be called upon to pay.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,: In reply to the honourable Member, who asks whether, in calculating the average of the emoluments, we included the salaries paid to the teachers partly by the Science and Art Department, I have to say that, in fixing the contributions which teachers will pay to the superannuation fund, the salaries of certified teachers in respect of their services in public elementary schools will be distinguished from the salaries received from the Science and Art Department by teachers in higher-grade schools. The noble Lord asks why the year 1892 was taken. It was taken because that was the date to which all the Departmental calculations related, and the teachers' contributions towards the superannuation fund will be one-fortieth of the average salaries received by them at that date. Well, now, I do not think the noble Lord need be alarmed by the possibility of the great school boards materially increasing the average salaries of their teachers. Even if the London School Board were to do so, the clause to which he objects would not have any practical operation until the average salary was raised 10 per cent., and no single school board not even that of London—could effect a rise of so much. What is much more likely to cause a rise in the average emoluments of the teachers is putting a stop to the small salaries of £30 and £35, and so on, received by many teachers in country districts. I think the Voluntary Schools Act will put an end to them, but the contribution of the teachers has been fixed at such an amount as teachers can be fairly expected in all ranks of the profession to pay. Of course, if the average salary of the teachers is increased it would be only fair that their contribution to the superannuation fund should be increased, so that they should get a

    1083
    larger pension, not out of the consolidated fund, but out of the result of the own contributions and thrift.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether this Bill contemplates a general rise in teachers' salaries throughout the rural districts? Because, if so, I fear there would be an alarming increase in the expenditure, as there is great difficulty in getting teachers for rural districts on any terms.
    SIR J. GORST: I think the honourabl and gallant Member will see that the calculation does not involve an increase of the salaries of teachers, rural or otherwise, and the only thing the Bill provides is that if by extraneous means their salaries should be increased, their contribution to the superannuation fund should be raised. I do not think it is fair to ask me on the spur of the moment to explain the mode in which the Department will discriminate between the salaries of elementary school teachers and teachers in higher-grade schools.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I really must say that the right honourable Gentleman, having brought this Bill before the House, ought to be prepared to explain its details.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I bound to say that I think my honourable and gallant Friend has a right to receive an explanation of the rules which the Education Department and the Treasury will frame to carry out the Bill, which is a Supplementary Education Bill. I would remind my right honourable Friend that it has been usual that the machinery rules under a Bill of this kind should be laid upon the Table of the House for a certain number of days, and it seems to me that that course should have been followed in this instance. I do not desire to move an Amendment in this respect, but that makes it all the more reasonable that my honourable and gallant Friend should obtain an explanation from the right honourable Gentleman as to the principle upon which a distinction will be made between higher-grade and public elementary schools.
    Sir J. GORST: I thought I had stated very clearly the principle on which the rules will be made. There are some schools in this country which are clearly elementary schools, and the whole salary of teachers in those schools will be taken into consideration. But there are other schools which are partly elementary and partly higher-grade, and in those cases only the portion of the salary due for his services as an elementary school teacher will be taken into consideration, and what he receives as an art or science teacher will not be taken into account.
    Amendment negatived.
    SIR F. POWELL: I beg to move the Amendment which I have put on the Paper—
    "Page 3, line 4, after 'ninety-two,' insert 'printed in the schedule,'"
    for the purpose or providing that the Report of the Education Department for 1892 with reference to the average emoluments of certificated teachers should be included in the Bill, in order to avoid the inconvenience, which is such a blot on our legislative system, of having to refer to one or more Acts of Parliament to make another clear. The document is one of great length, and it would, I think, be a great hardship to managers and teachers to be compelled to refer to it elsewhere, and therefore I propose that this document, which is referred to in the Bill, should be printed in the schedule.
    MR. COHEN: I only rise to make one observation—I refer to the teachers' difficulty in getting access to the document. My right honourable Friend has said they are always accessible; they are costly and troublesome, and I think it is most desirable that the effect of the clause should be made clear without reference to documents, which might not be easily procurable.
    MR. COURTNEY: I should like to support the appeal to my right honourable friend who has charge of the Bill, to try o make it a Measure complete in itself.
    MR. CRIPPS: Supposing you get an ascertained figure, surely that ascertained figure ought to

    1085
    be inserted without reference to a Report. It may be true that the teachers may very carefully ascertain what the average amount is, but there are a very large number of people, managers, and others connected with these school questions, who do not know the amount, and they will have difficulty in ascertaining it. I support my honourable Friend, and I hope that if he goes to a Division upon it the Bill will be made complete in itself. We ought to be able to ascertain from the face of the Bill what the figure really is.
    DR. CLARK: This legislation, by reference to a previous Act, makes it no Act at all. In the law courts it is always done by reference to another Act which can be construed by the court. The only other case I know is where you have appointed a Commission. It was done in the Scotch Education Commission, and the Cambridge and the London Commissions; you referred them to a Report, which they could see, to ascertain the general lines taken. I hope the honourable Baronet will press the Amendment, and let us know what we are doing.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. We shall undertake, as far as we can, that certain definite words shall be inserted in another place to show precisely what is meant by the words of the clause.
    SIR F. POWELL: After the strong assurance I have now received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I feel justified in withdrawing the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put—
    "That the clause be added to the Bill."
    Agreed to.
    MR. CRIPPS: Before the clause is added, I should like to say one or two words upon it. In passing a clause of this kind no guarantee is to be taken as against the concessions made to teachers, either as regards their salaries or as regards their efficiency. The right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President
    1086
    stated that the Bill was founded on the Report of Sir Richard Temple's Commission of 1892, and also upon the Departmental Report of 1894. I should like to point out that the weighty recommendations issued have been overlooked altogether. It is stated that you should see what conditions were to be imposed upon teachers, such as the question of salary and the question of efficiency. It is surely a great omission, when, for the first time, you recognise the claim of the teachers to be paid by the Treasury, that we have no safeguards in clause 1 of the Bill. Here you are for the first time acknowledging that the teachers are to become pensioners of the State. The State ought to have taken some precaution as regards the salaries to be paid. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than what exists at the present time. You have these salaries raised, and settled by a lot of different bodies—sometimes school managers and sometimes school boards. Consider what the teachers have done. I do not think it is right to put their own representatives on these school boards, which have to deal with the question of teachers' salaries. I refer more particularly to the School Board of London. Of course, it is popular enough to propose to pay teachers larger salaries than at the present time. You have on the London School Board two parties about equally balanced in educational matters, and you have as representatives of the teachers those who are always giving their votes on the side of the increase. Take the salaries at the present time. In London I think they are high enough. We do not want to increase the salaries, we want to increase the efficiency. We pay too much attention to the question of the increase of salaries. I think it is a great blot on our system that the teachers of our National schools are not better equipped for their work. It is not what we ought to have in our educational system. I think it is a great mistake to have lost this opportunity—this great opportunity, to my mind—of putting this question of teachers' salaries and teachers' efficiency on an altogether higher and more desirable basis. In my opinion something of this kind ought to be done. First of all, you are here for the first time recognising a principle which I have always advocated, as regards

    1087
    our educational system—the principle of the payment of teachers by the State. You are making your first great step in bringing them within the ranks of our great Civil Service. If you do that the Treasury ought to have some control over the scale of salaries. You ought to have regularly graded salaries, not depending upon the caprice of any particular district, but graded in accordance with rules laid down by the State and applicable to the whole country. One would thus avoid the scandal of representatives of teachers being elected on school boards in order that they may bring forward this question of the increase of salaries. It would be of advantage to the teachers themselves if they paid attention to the interests of education rather than of salaries. I hope they will turn their attention away from this question of salaries. We are here giving £600,000 a year in pensions to the teachers of this country, excluding Scotland. When we are giving that amount you ought also to have an increased guarantee as regards efficiency. So far as this Bill is concerned, the only test is what is called physical efficiency. That ought not to be the only test. Just as we have registered teachers entitled to various scales of pay, you ought to have a system of registered teachers in which the Education Department ought to have more stringent rules as regards tests of efficiency. I should like both these matters carefully considered, both a general scale of salaries, and also, as near as possible, a general scale of efficiency. I think, if these two guarantees had been introduced this Bill would have been an enormous step in advance as regards our whole educational system. We are throwing away the opportunity. You are giving with the one hand, and having no guarantee of efficiency on the other. I am afraid it is too late to discuss so important a point, that goes to the whole basis of our educational system in the future. I wish to joint out ray view, that, at any rate, this Bill might have been made the occasion of settling two of the great difficulties of our educational system.
    MR. YOXALL: I will point out to the Committee that at the present moment the Education Depart-
    1088
    ment has the teachers, their qualifications, their examinations, and their whole professional career from boyhood or girlhood always entirely in its own hands. All that the honourable Member wishes in regard to the efficiency of teachers can be done at present by the Department apart from legislation.
    LORD CRANBORNE: The honourable Member seems to think that the Education Department has power to limit the salaries of teachers in Board schools.
    MR. YOXALL: I referred to their qualifications.
    LORD CRANBORNE: That was not the point. The point was that there ought to be some power given in return for the large sum of money the country is granting to the teachers. I do not desire to say one word against the teachers. I do not say they are overpaid according to their ability. The question is whether they are not of too high a class for the elementary work which they have to do. Of course, they think they are entitled to be paid for the very great ability which they display. Having gone through an expensive training, they naturally looked for the highest salaries they could obtain.
    MR. BRYCE: Many of us would regard it as one of the greatest misfortunes that could happen if anything were done to limit the power of school boards to reward the excellent services on the part of the teachers. I protest against the theory the noble Lord seems to hold that anybody is good enough to be an elementary teacher.
    LORD CRANBORNE: I never said any such thing.
    MR. BRYCE: Then I am very glad the noble Lord did not. Very high qualities are required to teach elementary subjects. It is more difficult to teach children who come from homes where there is no intellectual atmosphere than it is to teach children in secondary schools. It would be the greatest mistake if the Committee proceeded on the assumption that in elementary schools it is work for which good pay ought not to be given.
    MR. BARTLEY: I heartily agree that the Government are losing an

    1089
    opportunity, by passing the Bill in the state in which it is now brought in, of putting the salaries and status of teachers on a more satisfactory basis. There is no doubt whatever that this Bill is a new departure in the status of the elementary school teacher. It is giving them, public pensions, and it is, practically speaking making them public servants. Inasmuch as that is being done, it is reasonable that opportunities should be taken for doing away with some of those anomalies which my honourable Friend referred to. As it is, the school board teachers have the casting vote practically on their own salaries. That cannot be a right state of affairs in the interests of the teachers or in the interests of education. I regret extremely that the Measure has been brought in at the end of the Session, when it is impossible to amend it, and when it cannot be properly considered, and when this opportunity is lost of putting the teacher on a more satisfactory basis.
    Question put—
    "That this clause stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 3, line 4, after 'body,' insert 'or failing strength.'"—(Mr. Crombie.)
    MR. CROMBIE: A the Bill at present stands, no provision is made, so far as I understand, for the case of a teacher who has broken down through failing health. I would like to ask the right honourable Gentleman if the words in the clause, "incapable owing to infirmity of mind and body," would include the case of a teacher who ha broken down through failing health. I it does include, a case of this kind, would it not be wise to make it clear by accepting my Amendment?
    SIR J. GORST: The words in this Bill are the words used in the Superannuation Act.
    MR. CROMBIE: Does it include the case to which I have referred?
    DR. CLARK: It is clear that the words "incapable owing to infirmity of mind and body" will include a case of failing strength. I think the honourable Member ought to be content.
    MR. CROMBIE: I withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put—
    "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 14, leave out 'for each complete year,' and insert 'multiplied by the number of complete years.'"—(Viscount Cranborne.)
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My object in moving this Amendment is to make the clause clear to the ordinary layman, and to ensure that the increase of 3d. for each year shall be given. I do not think it possible for any ordinary Member of Parliament who has not very carefully studied the Report of the Select Committee, on which this Bill was founded, to have the least conception of the meaning of sub-section (a), which reads us follows—
    "The rate of superannuation allowance for each complete year of recorded service may be increased in the case of a man by 3d., and in the case of a woman by 2d., for each complete year of recorded service served before the commencement of this Act."
    For some reason or other the Government have, I suppose, been anxious to

    1091
    make the Bill as short as possible, and they have made it very obscure. Of course, the reply will be that the Department will interpret it, but, really, they might as well have stated that the pensions were to be given, and then added "Abracadabra," and said they would interpret it. The Vice-President should explain to the Committee exactly what the financial proposals of the Bill are. That is usual in a comprehensive Measure of this kind.
    SIR J. GORST: I do not think the clause can be misunderstood. Its meaning is perfectly clear. The alteration proposed by the noble Lord is in one sense a harmless one, because the clause, as altered by the Amendment, will mean exactly what it means now.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: What does it mean now?
    SIR J. GORST: It says exactly what it means—that the superannuation is 10s. and 3d. extra for each year.
    MR. DILLON: May I suggest that the clause be sent to the Foreign Office?
    MR. CRIPPS: I am one of those persons who have experienced great difficulty in trying to understand subsection (a). Might I ask the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President if it means that a teacher who has had 40 years' service will get £40 a year? I understand that a teacher with 40 years' service at the present time would not be entitled to any pension, but under this Bill he will get £40 a year from the Treasury.
    SIR J. GORST: When he is 65.
    MR. CRIPPS: If that is so, there is no doubt the words proposed by the noble Lord would make it very much clearer than the words at present in the Bill. As a matter of fact, the intention of the Bill is made as difficult as possible to understand.
    MR. GEDGE: My interpretation of the sub-section is totally different to that of the honourable and learned Member.
    MR. BARTLEY: I quite agree with my noble Friend who has moved this
    1092
    Amendment, that the sub-section ought to be worded in such a way that any ordinary person could understand it. At present there are two or three different ways of reading it, and the teachers are doubtful as to what amount of superannuation they will get.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think I am entitled to an assurance from the right honourable Gentleman that he will make that sub-section clear.
    SIR J. GORST: I give you that assurance. I will make it as clear as possible.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put—
    "That clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.
    MR. CRIPPS: I desire to raise a question upon this clause, and I do so by moving to leave out the words—
    "Providing that any question arising as to the application of any section of the Act should be left to the decision of the Department."
    I contend that there should be a right to an appeal to the law courts. By inserting the words—
    "and the decision of the Treasury or Education Department on any question so referred shall be final,"
    you practically oust the courts altogether, and I should like the Vice-President to explain why he desires to include these words.
    SIR J. GORST: This Bill follows the universal practice of Parliament in granting pensions to subjects, and the words are on all fours with those used in the Superannuation Act.
    DR. CLARK: Under the Superannuation Act, nothing is paid by the person who receives the pension. Under this Bill the recipients of the pensions will have to contribute largely towards them, and I think they should have some legal remedy as to questions arising between themselves and the Department.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put—
    "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 9 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.
    Question put—
    "That clause 11 stand part of the Bill."
    Motion agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate how this clause will affect parochial school teachers and the teachers appointed under the Act of 1872.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: This Bill proposes to treat parochial school teachers, and the teachers appointed under the Act of 1872, in precisely the same way. In this Bill they will have the option of coming under the Act, and thus losing the rights they may at present possess, or, they can keep their rights and not come under the Act. The clause
    1094
    provides that nothing in this Act shall prevent school boards giving superannuation allowances to teachers, except in cases where they choose to come under the provisions of the Act.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 8, line 13, leave out 'management' to end of clause."—(Mr. Crombie.)
    MR. CROMBIE: In moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I wish at the outset to distinctly say that the Amendment in no way alters the financial machinery of the Bill, or asks for any new legislative privileges. All that is asked is that certain privileges we have in Scotland by the existing legislation should be left to us, and not taken away by this Bill. Scotland differs from England in this respect, that under the Education Act of 1872 school boards in Scotland have the right to give pensions to teachers. This right has been largely used, and the present state of matters in Scotland is exceedingly satisfactory. In the towns these pensions are large, though in the country they are sometimes small. In the towns many of the teachers would be actually better off under the prevailing system than they would be under the pension scheme of this Bill. I know it may be said that it is optional to teachers whether they accept the Bill or remain as they are, but there is a certain fallacy under that argument. I cannot help thinking that this Bill will have a certain moral effect on school boards, who may say the Government had offered teachers a certain pension, and, if the teachers refused to accept it, may then decline to grant a higher allowance than that fixed by this Measure. In this way existing teachers will be very likely to suffer rather than to benefit by the passing of this Bill. If the Government left to the school boards power to supplement the pensions given by the Government, the teachers and education itself will benefit. Now, Sir, I ask the Government to strike out these words. It will not only remove existing grievances, but it will enable school boards, if they choose, out of their own pockets, to supplement the pensions of teachers. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will reconsider the

    1095
    Amendment, which I do not think will interfere with the school boards.
    MR. CALDWELL: I think the Committee forget that the teachers in Scotland have nothing whatever to complain of in regard to the provisions of this Bill. The teachers of Scotland at the present moment have an opportunity of obtaining pensions from the school board out of the local rates. The Bill says to them that though they may retain their present right, which they are entitled to under the Act of 1872, the provisions of this Bill are more favourable, and they might come under it. What the Bill says is this, "You cannot have both." What has taken place in Scotland? They wished to have both; they sent down a deputation here, and tried to induce the House to give pensions, both out of the local rates and from the State. Then arguments were used in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was told that he had no interest in the matter, for it was not money that was coming out of the Imperial purse, and the House was told that he might allow this to be done. Of course, if the local ratepayer of Scotland is saddled with a burden he is quite willing to pay, and if the teacher in Scotland has the same, right us the teacher in Great Britain all over to a pension out of the Imperial funds, there is no reason why the school board should be asked to supplement that pension. I am very glad that this Bill gives the right to a pension to the voluntary school teacher, and that there is no question of any preference between one teacher and another. It is a fundamental principle that there is no kind of influence to be brought to bear upon members of school boards to get one teacher or other a big pension out of the local rates. It is another thing to go away and say the one section of teachers might have a pension out of the local rates and the other out of the State. The voluntary school teacher would say that the board school teacher, in addition to the right to a pension under this Bill, is also to have another pension by the generosity of the school board. The voluntary school teacher will have no claim to a pension of this kind. That is an injustice, and an Act of Parliament does not maker less an injustice. These denominational
    1096
    schools say they pay rates. The Roman Catholics of Scotland are payers of rates the same as any one else, and why should they be saddled with, pensions to teachers of another class, when their own teachers get nothing out of this Bill. This Amendment will serve the very opposite purpose than that intended by the Bill, which is hat every teacher, no matter what his alary may be, no matter whether he is to voluntary school teacher or a board school teacher, should be treated exactly alike I hope the Government will not introduce an Amendment that will have different effect. Let me call the attention of the Lord Advocate to what we have already passed. You have already decided, by sub-section 4, that the local teacher appointed before 1872 is not to have it. Here would be an anomaly. If you pass this Amendment you would practically leave the teacher appointed prior to 1872 in a very much worse position. The best teachers would be left in a worse position than some of the existing teachers. We would have this state of matters carried on in Scotland for a period of 40 years, because 40 years would have elapsed before the existing teachers all died off.
    CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: My honourable Friend below me has entirely missed the situation. He assumes that Scotland should retain the right to have a school board pension would conflict with the right of having a pension under this Bill. So far as the school board pension is concerned, nothing here has anything to do with it. The school board pensions are left to the discretion of the school boards. If the local ratepayers are dissatisfied with what the school board does, they, as the constituents of the school board, can turn them out and get them replaced. What I would put before the Government is this. You are introducing this system of pensions in England and Scotland, and surely it is fair to ask them to take into consideration the state of public opinion in Scotland. Scottish school boards have been in the habit of giving pensions largely in excess of the pensions under this Bill. In the discussion on this Bill it has been admitted that these pensions are calculated on the basis of being applicable to all teachers. In Scotland there is this

    1097
    difference, that many of the schools under the school board teach much more advanced classes. As the right honourable Gentleman knows, the range of education, therefore the range of teaching, is wider than in England, and the qualification of the teacher is higher. These things have been taken into consideration. We did not ask for a penny more under this Bill. There is no doubt that the allowance proposed to be taken under this Bill will be taken into consideration by the school board. This responsibility should be left to the school boards of Scotland. You should trust those local authorities in this matter, and there is no special reason now for withdrawing the confidence reposed in them by Parliment up till now. They should be allowed to retain the power at their discretion to supplement, pensions under this Bill. After all, this Bill is conceived in the interests of the teacher. It is conceived primarily in the interests of education generally. There are many provisions I should like to have had occasion to suggest to the Committee. In the school boards in the rural districts it would be a very slight extra burden to supplement the pensions under this Bill by £5 or £10. It might make all the difference between the supercession and the retirement of the teacher. It might be great boon that retirement under other circumstances should be facilitated. But in the interests of education, and having regard to the state of public opinion in Scotland, I would ask the Government to consider this question further.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: The Member for Lanark said that the scheme of the Bill is to have one system of payment which shall not alter according to the salary of the person who got it, and which shall be met partly by his own contributions and partly by the contributions of the State. That scheme would scarcely work well alongside a scheme which gives an optional pension to be paid out of the rates At the same time we felt that it might be said to be hard on the existing teachers, that it actually took away from them such rights as they had under the law as it stands. Accordingly the Bill provides for an option, being left in ever case, but that option must be exercised
    1098
    in one direction or the other. They have a year to think about it, and during that time they must make up their minds either to stand upon their legal rights as they exist now, in which case they were not damnified, or to come under this Act, in which case they must give up their legal rights, which they had under the general universal system which obtained. Therefore I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman.
    MR. BRYCE: I regret the statement of the Lord Advocate, and I cannot help hoping that he will give some further re-consideration before matters reach a final stage. I do not think he has appreciated the point put by my honourable Friend, who pointed out that the teachers might be damnified if they did not accept. It was just because of the fear that he might fare worse that my right honourable Friend brought forward that Amendment. I say again that this Amendment does not propose to impose a penny of an additional charge upon the national Treasury—there is not the slightest intention of that. It is simply proposing that the school board shall retain the power they have now of marking their sense of good service by giving a liberal pension. I cannot see why the Lord Advocate should refuse that.
    MR. SOUTTAR: I sympathise with all teachers, and especially with Scotch teachers. If anything, I consider it reasonable; but I do not think that two pensions are reasonable for any teacher to accept. I believe the Scotch school boards will take precisely that view, because Scotch teachers will be quite pleased to be put in the matter of pensions on an absolute parity with English teachers, and they must choose, whether they like it or not, between a pension given by local authorities under the existing Act, and a pension under this Bill. For my part, I think that the pension under this Bill will be very much to their advantage. It will be best for them as individuals. It would prevent all the anxiety which many of them feel with regard to the future, for at present, under the existing Acts, though it is sometimes a hand-

    1099
    some one, it always depends upon the good will of the local authority. It was with reference to that, so far as concerned Members of Parliament, that mention was made of "lobbying." It is a very unsatisfactory position to be dependent upon the good will of "lobbiers," I think it would be very much better for the teaching profession that there should be absolute uniformity in the matter of pensions. I know something about the Civil Service, and the pensions are framed on the same principle as this. Everybody there, whether his career has been a humble one, or whether he has been a lieutenant-governor, is rewarded with a pension calculated on the same lines. It is perfectly true that some teachers in the cities have large salaries, and, of course, these are the ones who expect large pensions. But they are not the ones who in reality ought to have large pensions; it is the humble teacher who has had to confine his work to districts where he would not be capable of supplementing his pension. Pensions are either sufficient or insufficient. If sufficient, the teachers ought to be satisfied; if insufficient, they should be raised, and a general system would work better in the long run. If there is a Division, I shall certainly vote for the Bill.
    DR. CLARK: When I look at the Conservative Party in this House I remember that one of their cherished doctrines is that vested interests should be respected—that if you made any change, you should respect the vested interests of those who had acquired certain rights. I do not see why existing rights should be taken away from Scotch teachers. My honourable Friend who has spoken is wrong so far as the Indian Civil Service is concerned, because it is according to the number of years, and you give large pensions to those who have large salaries and small pensions to those who have small salaries. So far as Scotland is concerned we occupy a different position. I daresay the scale you get from England is as much as you could get from England. If this Bill stands, all you have done will only be to have lifted up the English and Irish standard. You have pensions in Ireland and as far as male teachers are con-
    1100
    cerned this new scheme for England will be equivalent to Ireland. It will not be so for females. So that, after all, you lift up England to the level of Ireland. How do we stand otherwise? In Scotland we have had for 300 years a national system of education. In 1872 we made two changes. You made the teacher the servant of the school board, and his right to a pension was to be at the discretion of the school board. That has acted very badly, because the members of the school board have not acted wisely. They have kept inefficient teachers, because they were not prepared to give a pension. I cannot understand why the Imperial Parliament should abolish these vested rights. If the present teachers in Scotland prefer to have the optional clause of the Act of 1872, under which the school board may give them a pension of a better character, they should be allowed to have that option. Less will be given from the Imperial Exchequer than in England. You respect the vested interests of the present men appointed since 1872; you leave them as they are. They were appointed at a certain salary, and the school board had the option of giving a pension. Why do you now take that away from them? Anything they get will only be from the local rates of the board, and the Government cannot be affected financially. Why should you practically repeal that permissive clause of the Scotch Act? I hope the honourable Gentleman will take a Division upon this.
    MR. J. PARKER SMITH: I am sorry the Government do not see their way to accept this; but I think there is room for expressing an opinion on the matter. My honourable Friend talks about two pensions. I should like to point out that in this respect more money is necessary, because, under the clause, while it forced existing teachers to an option, it leaves the school board free, in regard to future teachers to give them any pension they liked in addition.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I rather agree with my honourable Friend that the words will require some alteration, and I will see that the alteration is

    1101
    inserted in another place. Even then the Bill will provide that, so far as existing teachers are concerned, they will have the option to take one or the other, but not both. So far as future teachers are concerned, they will come under the Act whether they like it or not.
    MR. J. PARKER SMITH: I assume that is the intention of the Government, and that the right honourable Gentleman will consider it. It would be more satisfactory if we had that correction before us now. I think this Scotch clause has been drawn out rather hurriedly. I am in favour of the Scotch teachers being dealt with in the same Bill, but there are other points in the Scotch clause which ought to be considered. For example, I might draw the right honourable Gentleman's attention to the fact that there are no public elementary schools in Scotland, and that the whole recorded service of teachers under this Act is the service of public elementary
    schools. Seeing that there are no public elementary schools, that reduces the number of teachers.
    DR. CLARK: I take it that you intend to repeal that clause of the Act of 1872?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I do not suppose that we shall do it by any repealing clause.
    MR. BRYCE: I think, as the Government have promised to re-consider the wording of this clause, it would be worth while to emphasise what was said by my honourable Friend that this Scotch clause, if it stood alone, would apply to all the teachers of the school boards. I know that is not the intention of the Government.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 47.—(Division List No. 274.)

    AYES.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

    Bagot, Capt. J. F.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Fry, Lewis

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

    Garfit, William

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Banes, Major George Edward

    Gedge, Sydney

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Godson, Sir A. Frederick

    Purvis, Robert

    Barton Dunbar Plunket

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Bethell, Commander

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bill, Charles

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Haslett, Sir James Horner

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Butcher, John George

    Heath, James

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

    Caldwell, James

    Howard, Joseph

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Souttar, Robinson

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Kenyon, James

    Strauss, Arthur

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans'a)

    Verney, Hon. Richard G.

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Warkworth, Lord

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Loder, G. W. E.

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I of W.)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Colomb, Sir J. C. Ready

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Colville, John

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    McKillop, James

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Courtney, Rt Hon. L. H.

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R. (Bath)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Milton, Viscount

    Wyndham, George

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Monk, Charles James

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Denny, Colonel

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Murray. Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Drucker, A.

    Myers, William Henry

    Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Nicholson, William Graham

    NOES.

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. H. H.

    Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

    Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Joicey, Sir James

    Roche, Hon James (E. Kerry))

    Billson, Alfred

    Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

    Smith, J. P. (Lanark)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Lambert, George

    Spicer, Albert

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Brigg, John

    Lloyd-George, David

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Lough, Thomas

    Ure, Alexander

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    M'Ghee, Richard

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H.

    Maddison, Fred.

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Crilly, Daniel

    Maden, John Henry

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Moss, Samuel

    Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Perks Robert William

    Healy, T. M. (N. Louth)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.Crombie and Captain Sinclair.

    Hogan, James Francis

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Randell, David

    Resolutions agreed to.

    The clause was then added to the Bill, and the remaining clauses having been agreed to, were also added, and the Bill was reported, without Amendments, to the House.

  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Upon the Order for Committee upon this Bill,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that this Bill will take more time to-night than ought to be given upon a Wednesday sitting, and under those circumstances, I must, with great reluctance, postpone this Bill until to-morrow, in the hope that the House will get through the other business on the Paper.
  The Order was postponed.

  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I have an Amendment upon the Paper with regard to this Bill. We suffer under a similar grievance, and this Bill can scarcely relieve us as it is at present. Even if it was re-committed, I should very much doubt if we could make it quite satisfactory. To the Nonconformist mind, no doubt, it is satisfactory to a large degree; but we do not accept the designation of Nonconformist. This Bill
  1104
  provides for places of worship, and places for the solemnisation of marriage in the hands of trustees or guardians, but those words are not applicable to the Roman Catholic churches. No doubt, many of them are in the hands of trustees, but are under the administration of the Church Government. The Bill, as at present drawn, appears to me to require that the celebrant of the marriage shall be the rector of the church. Now, in many places in England, by reason of the poverty and the scattered population of Roman Catholics, very large districts are covered by a church or chapel, that it would be practically impossible for the rector, in addition to the other celebrant, to be present on every occasion that a marriage was solemnised. I understand that the right honourable Gentleman will meet me in this matter by the insertion of some words, but the reason I put my Amendment down upon the Paper was to indicate that the position of the Roman Catholics in England is very different from that of the Roman Catholics of Scotland and Ireland. The Roman Catholics in those countries, are not under the disabilities from which the Roman Catholics in England suffer, and I think the position of the Roman Catholics in England should be made to conform with that of the Roman Catholics in Scotland and Ireland; inasmuch as the Government have made this Bill a Government Measure, and that we are prepared to accept it as an interim Measure for ourselves, and we are anxious to assist our Nonconformist friends in their difficulty. I hope the Government will next Session introduce a short

  1105
  Measure dealing with the disabilities under which, the Roman Catholics in this country now suffer, and put them in the same position as the Roman Catholics of Scotland and Ireland. I beg to move that the Bill be re-committed.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It would not be possible, in the scope of this Bill, to do what the honourable Gentleman desires. That must be a matter for subsequent legislation. With regard to his other point, I shall be prepared to amend the Bill upon the Report stage in such a manner as to ensure that the Roman Catholic Church shall receive the advantage of the Bill, and in that view I will accept his Amendments.
  The Motion was, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: We are prepared to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. The Amendments standing on the Paper in my name have been framed after consultation with the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton and the honourable Member for Louth. They cover the points brought forward in Committee with reference, among others, to the officiating minister. That there should be more than one authorised person for the same building, and that the authorised person shall have power to issue certificates, so that there shall be no difficulty in the persons married getting their marriage lines.

  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 1, line 5, after '1898,' insert 'and may be cited with the Marriage Acts, 1811 to 1886.'"
    "Page 1, leave out lines 6 and 7."—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 12, leave out 'January,' and insert 'April.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 1, line 15, leave out 'shall and.'"
    1106
    "Page 1, lines 15 and 16, leave out 'from and after the date of the commencement of this Act.'"
    "Page 1, line 18, after 'or' insert 'certificate and.'"
    "Page 1, lines 22 and 23, leave out 'as is required by the said Act.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 2, line 2, leave out 'as defined in section one of tins Act.'"
    "Page 2, line 5, after 'or,' insert 'certificate and.'"
    "Page 2, line 6, leave out 'shall,' and insert 'does.'"
    "Page 2, line 8, leave out 'pursuant to section thirteen of this Act.'"
    "Page 2, lines 10 and 11, leave out 'it shall be lawful for.'"
    "Page 2, line 11, leave out 'and he is hereby required to,' and insert 'shall, subject to the provisions of this Act.'"
    "Page 2, line 13, after the first 'in,' insert 'accordance with.'"
    "Page 2, line 15, leave out from 'registrar,' to 'shall,' in line 18."
    "Page 2, line 19, leave out 'a.'"
    "Page 2, line 19, leave out 'form of.'"
    'Page 2, lines 20 and 21, leave out 'in the Second Schedule to,' and insert 'prescribed by rules under.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 1.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, after line 10, insert—
    "For the purposes of this Act, as applied to Roman Catholic registered buildings, the words 'trustees or governing body,' shall include the bishop or vicar-general of the diocese."—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 2, leave out from end of line 31, to 'and,' in line 34, and insert 'authorised person hereinafter mentioned.'"
    "Page 2, line 35, leave out 'person shall officiate at or solemnise a marriage,' and insert 'marriage under this Act shall be solemnised.'"
    "Page 2, line 36, leave out 'under this Act, unless he has been,' and insert 'except in the presence of a person.'"
    "Page 2, line 38, leave out 'and it shall be the duty of,' and insert 'or of some other registered building in the same registration district (in this Act referred to as an authorised person).'"
    "(4) Where a person has been so authorised in respect of any registered building."
    "Page 2, line 39, leave out 'every registered building to,' and insert 'that building shall, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    "Page 2, line 40, before 'person,' leave out 'the,' and insert 'a.'"—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
    "Page 2, line 42, after 'situate,' insert—
    "(5) Section thirty-five of six and seven William the Fourth, chapter eighty-six, shall apply in the case of an authorised person under this Act in like manner as it applies in the case of a rector, vicar, or curate."—(Mr. Perks.)
    "Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 4, inclusive."—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 3, line 6, leave out 'shall not be,' and insert 'is not.'"
    "Page 3, line 6, after 'or,' insert 'certificate and.'"
    "Page 3, lines 7 and 8, leave out 'person officiating at the said marriage,' and insert 'authorised person in whose presence the marriage is solemnised.'"
    "Page 3, lines 12 and 13, leave out 'such duly,' and insert 'the.'"
    "Page 3, line 13, leave out 'as may officiate at the marriage.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    "Page 3, line 18, after 'requested by,' insert 'authorised person or.'"—(Mr. A. O'Connor.)
    "Page 3, line 22, at end, insert as new sub-sections—
    "(2) A marriage under this Act shall not be solemnised in any registered building until duplicate register books have been so supplied.
    "(3) If the Registrar General is not satisfied with respect to any building registered, or proposed to be registered, for the solemnisation of marriages therein, that sufficient security exists for the due registration of marriages under this Act and for the safe custody of marriage register books, he may in his discretion attach to the continuance on the register or registration of the building a condition that no marriages under this Act shall be solemnised therein.
    "(4)Section thirty-five of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1836, shall apply in the case of a person having the custody of a marriage register book under rules made in pursuance of this Act, in like manner as it
    1108
    applies in the case of a rector, vicar, or curate."—(Sir B. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 3, line 23, after 'or,' insert 'certificate and.'"
    "Page 3, line 23, leave out from the second 'be,' to 'and,' in line 25, and insert 'kept in the prescribed custody.'"
    "Page 3, line 26, after 'register,' insert 'books.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 3, line 28,, leave out from 'If,' to 'refuses,' in line 30, and insert 'any authorised person.'"
    "Page 3, line 32, leave out from 'marriages,' to 'he,' in line 35."
    "Page 3, line 37, leave out from 'pounds,' to 'and,' in line 38, and insert 'or on conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.'"
    "Page 3, line 39, leave out from 'be,' to end of clause, and insert 'an authorised person.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 4, lines 1 and 2, leave out 'and registrars.'"
    "Page 4, line 5, leave out from 'Act,' to end of clause."—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 4, line 13, leave out 'under section five.'"
    "Page 4, line 18, before 'authorised,' insert 'now.'"
    "Page 4, line 18, leave out from 'by,' to end of clause, and insert 'law.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.
    Amendments proposed—
    "Page 4, line 21, leave out from the first 'the' to 'building,' in line 23, and insert 'authorised person for a registered.'"
    "Page 4, line 32, after 'shall,' insert 'in accordance with rules under this Act.'"
    "Page 4, line 37, leave out 'at,' and insert 'of.'"
    "Page 4, line 41, leave out from 'kept,' to end of line 9, page 5, and insert 'in the prescribed custody.'"
    "Page 5, after line 9, insert—
    "Section twenty-nine of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1837, shall apply in the case of an authorised person in like manner as it applies in the case of a rector, vicar, or curate.'"
    "Page 5, line 16, leave out 'person so authorised as aforesaid,' and insert 'authorised person.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendments agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 20, leave out 'Provided always that.'"—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 14.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 5, line 26, leave out from 'Act,' to end of clause."—(Sir R. Webster.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I move that the Bill be re-committed in regard to the clauses—
    "So much of sections thirty-nine and forty-two of the Marriage Act, 1836, as punishes the solemnisation of or renders void any marriage by reason of the absence of the registrar is hereby repealed in respect of any marriage authorised by and solemnised in accordance with this Act.
    "The Registrar General may, with the approval of the Local Government Board, make rules with respect to—

    "(a) the forms to be used for the purposes of this Act;

    "(b) the custody of documents required for the purposes of this Act;

    "(c) the duties of registrars, superintendent registrars, and authorised persons under this Act;

    "(d) any matter which may under this Act be prescribed:

    and generally for carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.

    "(1) On the issue of any certificate for a marriage to be solemnised in accordance with this Act, the parties to the marriage shall pay to the superintendent registrar of the district
    1110
    in which the registered building selected for the marriage is situate, an additional fee of six shillings and sixpence if the marriage is by licence, and otherwise a fee of four shillings. Provided that not more than one such fee shall be paid in respect of any one marriage.

    "(2) Where there is only one registrar of marriages for the district, who was appointed before the passing of the Act, the superintendent registrar shall, at the end of each quarter, pay the fees so received by him to that registrar, and where there are more such registrars he shall, at the end of each quarter, divide the amount of the fees so received by him among those registrars in accordance with rules to be made under this Act.

    "(3) This section shall not continue in force for more than ten years from the commencement of this Act, and shall not apply to a district unless there is acting therein a registrar of marriages appointed before the passing of this Act."—(Sir R. Webster.)

    "Page 6, leave out schedule 1."—(Sir R. Webster.)
    "Page 6, leave out schedule 2."—(Sir R. Webster.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: I report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
    MR. GEDGE: Upon the Second Reading of this Bill I pointed out a number of mistakes which ought to be looked into and put right. I now wish to thank the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General for the way in which he has gone into the matter and met the objections which were pointed out on the Second Reading. Everything that I pointed out has been taken notice of, and I beg leave to second the Motion of the right honourable Gentleman that the Bill be read a third time.
    The Bill was read a third time.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  This Bill passed through Committee, and was read a third time.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  The House went into Committee upon this Bill, and clause 1 having been agreed to,
  Upon clause 2,
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I press the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation as to three cases which appear in this clause, and which, I think, are sufficient to attract attention, and require some explanation. The first case was that of a man who borrowed a sum of £140 under this Act. A remission of debt has been made of £137 16s. 9d., so that he practically only repaid £2 out of a debt of £140 borrowed by him to improve his holding. Then I turn to the loans under Lord Ashbourne's Act and I find that a widow was lent £2,500 for the purchase of her estate, and a very large amount has been remitted. It discloses a very serious state of things that these large amounts should be advanced by the Land Commission under these circumstances. The landlord has got that £2,500; he has got his money in his pocket, and the British taxpayer has had to find it. In the third case the borrower has been let off £58 6s. 11d. I say it is not in the interest of the tenants at all that these loans should be made. The Land Commission should not be allowed to advance these large sums in this way, and I hope that the right honourable Gentelman will say that he will take steps to see that the Land Commission, should not be allowed to advance these extravagant sums. They are shown to be excessive by the remissions which the Government have had to make. I await the right honourable Gentleman's explanation with some curiosity.
  MR. HANBURY: In the cases which the honourable Gentleman has referred to I may say the Government does not forego its right to recover. We do not forego anything. This Bill does not affect our position, but as the honourable Gentleman requires information as to these three cases I will say, in the case of the man who borrowed the £140, he was evicted when he had only paid £2 3s. 3d. He was afterwards made bankrupt, and has since died. In the next case the holding was sold in
  1112
  1887 to another person, who also soon fell into arrear, and the holding was again put up for sale in 1890, when there were no bidders. A caretaker was placed in charge by the Commissioners, who could not find a purchaser until 1897. As the purchaser would pay nothing beyond the remaining instalments of the annuity, the arrears of £545, including £394 for interest, are treated as irrecoverable. In the remaining case the purchaser purchased 72 acres for £815 in 1890, repayable by an annuity. He soon fell into arrears, and the holding was offered for sale in 1892, but there were no bidders. The holding was taken possession of by the Commissioners, and worked at a loss until 1897, when it was sold at the nominal price of one shilling, in addition, of course, to the remaining instalments of the purchase annuity.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I can only say, in my opinion, the Treasury ought to take the matter up, and that loans of this kind, involving such large losses, should not be allowed to be made.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Secretary for the Treasury has given the usual stereotyped answer, and I, in reply, will ask a stereotyped Question. Does he know of a single case where the Treasury, when it has had to write off a debt of this kind, has ever recovered a single farthing?
  MR. HANBURY: I can answer that by another Question. Does the honourable Gentleman know of a single case where money has been recovered from a bankrupt who has died.
  MR. CALDWELL: The right honourable Gentleman knows perfectly well that in cases where a debt has been written off it has never been recovered.
  The clause was agreed to.
  The remaining clauses were agreed to.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will reprint this Bill. We do not know what has been done in the last ten minutes, and how the Bill has been reconstructed?
  MR. HANBURY: All the Amendments are really for the same purpose, and were only necessary because the Bill has been drafted in an old form not now used.
  The Bill was reported to the House.

  OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
  The first four clauses were agreed to.
  To move the following clause—
  "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any outlay incurred in connection with relief works."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. DILLON: Upon the Second Reading of this Bill the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General stated that the expenditure of relief in Ireland would be, roughly, about £60,000, and it is proposed to charge about £10,000 of that £60,000 to the distressed unions. Now, the object of this clause is to prevent that being done, and if it is added to the Bill the Government will necessarily be obliged to pay the whole of the money. I know perfectly well what the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General will say, and that is, if this Bill is not passed the money expended for the relief of the poorer unions will have to be paid out of the Guardians' pockets, but I think the Government ought to pay the whole of the £60,000 instead of charging £10,000 to these unions. I am astonished at the attitude of the Government in this matter. I am surprised that the House does not give expression to a strong feeling of disappointment at the way in which they have dealt with it. Nobody can accuse the Government of being unduly liberal in the relief of the distress in Ireland They have been obliged to pay £60,000 in relief works, and up to the present the invariable course has been that the cost of relieving distress has been borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and certainly not by the poorest of the distressed districts. There has been, however, an attempt made in the present Session to start an entirely new policy, which consists of throwing a portion of the cost of relief upon these wretched districts. leave it to the sense of justice of the honourable Members of this House to say, is there any rhyme or reason in throwing £10,000, out of the £60,000 which it has been found necessary to spend in relief, upon the wretched rate payers of these distressed districts, who if they have not suffered from actual starvation themselves, have been suffering from a condition bordering upon starvation; the consequence of which has
  1114
  been that the capacity for the payment of rates has been enormously lessened in the case of the ratepayers who have not actually been reduced to the lowest extremity of starvation. In order to carry out their new policy the Government are proposing now a system, of throwing upon these unfortunate unions a share of this expenditure. Now, there is one clause in the Bill to which the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General referred, which is an improvement, and that is clause 3, which gives power to the guardians of these unions, in case they should find it impossible to produce their share of the expenditure in one year, to borrow the necessary sum and spend it over a period; but I condemn the whole policy of the Government, because they feel that they cannot, in common justice, throw the expenditure upon the unions and enforce the payment in one particular year, and therefore they introduce this clause to enable the Guardians to borrow the money and spread it over a period. I think it is very unreasonable. No doubt it would be better than enforcing the payment of the sum in one year, but it is obvious from that very provision that the Government feel that they are not right in the line they have taken in saddling these unfortunate districts with this expenditure. But this has been done in pursuance of the policy of the Government. If the Government refuses to accept my clause I shall not at this hour go to a Division, but I do urge that they should look carefully into the financial state of these unions before they decide that they shall pay this charge. I say it is a cruel and monstrous thing to condemn these unfortunate and unhappy people to a long struggle against bankruptcy and insolvency, and I do urge the Government to examine carefully the conditions of the unions before they enforce this policy.
  MR. BALFOUR: As the honourable Gentleman has stated that he will not take a Division at this hour of the evening I shall not discuss the question; but I think I ought to point out to him that his provision is inconsistent with the Bill we have already passed. The principle underlying the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman has been discussed

  1115
  at great length, upon no less than three previous occasions, and upon each occasion he has taken the sense of the House upon it. I do not think, under the circumstances, that we should take the sense of the House upon this question for the fourth time to-night. I will, however, state for the satisfaction of the honourable Gentleman that the Irish Government are quite willing to undertake to make a careful investigation into the financial conditions of the unions before any conclusion is arrived at. I hope that will satisfy tin hoourable Gentlemen, and I will say that, at all events, the provisions of this Bill are to be, and will be, carried out with the utmost regard to the conditions of the unions concerned.
  Amendment negatived.
  The Bill passed through the Committee without amendment, and was read a third time.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments reported, and agreed to, to be communicated to the Lords.
  SUPPLY [2ND AUGUST].
  Resolutions reported.
  SUPPLY [2ND AUGUST].
    CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1898–9.
      CLASS VII.
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,200, 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, 1899, for the expenses in connection with the Public Funeral of the late Right Honourable W. E. Gladstone."

      CLASS V.
      "2. That a sum, not exceeding £270,181 (including a supplementary sum of £41,500), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
      1116
      year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
      "3. That a sum, not exceeding £612, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for Expenses in connection with the Suppression of the Slave Trade, and the Maintenance of certain liberated Africans."
      "4. That a sum, not exceeding £40,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Subsidies to certain Telegraphic Companies."

  NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1896–7.
  Resolutions reported.
  "1. That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1897, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—(a) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £346,604 6s. 4d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £416,964 16s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £70,360 10s. 5d.; (b) That the receipts in aid of certain Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £57,377 10s. 2d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £45,115 3s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £12,262 6s. 5d.; (c) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure, are as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  £373,729

  1

  4

  Total Deficits

  315,630

  17

  4

  Net Surplus

  £58,098

  4

  0."

  "2. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorized the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriations in Aid,

  1117
  in respect of the same Services; and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1896–97. Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  …

  Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard and Royal Marines

  …

  32,718

  16

  8

  …

  5,957

  6

  7

  2

  …

  Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

  …

  94,193

  4

  5

  53,497

  6

  7

  3

  …

  Medical Establishments and Services

  …

  10,620

  8

  0

  …

  872

  4

  6

  4

  …

  Martial Law

  388

  17

  7

  …

  …

  29

  11

  2

  5

  …

  Educational Service

  …

  2,317

  19

  7

  2,190

  0

  1

  6

  …

  Scientific Services

  402

  4

  1

  …

  …

  1,461

  11

  3

  7

  …

  Royal Naval Beserves

  …

  23,708

  16

  0

  …

  68

  3

  0

  8

  …

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:—

  Sec. 1

  …

  Personnel

  59,347

  11

  6

  …

  372

  12

  9

  Sec. 2

  …

  Materiel

  248,633

  2

  1

  …

  …

  29,808

  5

  10

  Sec. 3

  …

  Contract Work

  …

  92,769

  11

  4

  …

  319

  0

  5

  9

  …

  Naval Armaments

  …

  14,793

  12

  7

  …

  3,951

  7

  8

  10

  …

  Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

  …

  142,328

  14

  3

  …

  424

  14

  11

  11

  …

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  22,697

  14

  0

  …

  …

  2,222

  18

  5

  12

  …

  Admiralty Office

  1,195

  16

  10

  …

  478

  0

  7

  13

  …

  Half-pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

  …

  3,513

  13

  11

  200

  13

  0

  14

  …

  Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

  8,901

  0

  1

  …

  277

  6

  3

  15

  …

  Civil Pensions and Gratuities

  2,460

  9

  4

  …

  83

  10

  11

  16

  …

  Additional Naval Force for Service in Australasian Waters

  42

  16

  0

  …

  278

  0

  0

  Amount written off as irrecoverable

  2,534

  14

  10

  346,604

  6

  4

  416,964

  16

  9

  57,377

  10

  2

  45,115

  3

  9

  Net Surplus,

  £70,360

  10

  5

  Net Deficit,

  £12,262

  6

  5

  Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

  £58,098

  4

  0

  "4. That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1897, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz.:—(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £125,621 0s. 1d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the Estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £282,574 16s. 8d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £156,953 16s. 7d.; (b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £28,324 12s. 7d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £169,950 2s. 11d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants
  cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services."
  "3. That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
  for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £141,625 10s. 4d.; (c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services, and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  423,388

  19

  4

  Total Deficits

  124,809

  12

  5

  Net Surplus

  £298,579

  6

  11."

  "5. That the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated appropriations in aid, in respect of the same Services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
  "6. That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

  SCHEDULE.

  Number of Vote.

  Army Services, 1896–97. Votes.

  Gross Expenditure.

  Appropriations in Aid.

  Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  …

  Pay, etc., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments)

  2,264

  0

  4

  …

  …

  12,936

  19

  2

  2

  …

  Medical Establishments: Pay, etc.

  …

  4,563

  14

  3

  …

  165

  11

  6

  3

  …

  Militia: Pay and Allowances

  …

  12,261

  1

  7

  …

  1,836

  18

  7

  4

  …

  Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances

  1,264

  2

  7

  …

  8

  14

  0

  5

  …

  Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

  6,121

  4

  6

  …

  31

  2

  6

  6

  …

  Transport and Remounts

  72,864

  18

  11

  …

  …

  24,639

  3

  3

  7

  …

  Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

  …

  27,681

  10

  4

  …

  11,595

  3

  4

  8

  …

  Clothing Establishments, and Services

  14,075

  4

  9

  …

  24,410

  19

  5

  9

  …

  Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

  …

  199,552

  8

  0

  …

  105,396

  3

  10

  10

  …

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Cost, including Staff for Engineer Services

  …

  17,478

  3

  8

  …

  9,474

  5

  10

  11

  …

  Military Educational Establishments: Pay and Miscellaneous Charges

  198

  7

  11

  …

  …

  2,135

  0

  2

  12

  …

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  5

  5

  10

  …

  …

  1,649

  5

  11

  13

  …

  War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

  …

  4,674

  4

  6

  …

  121

  11

  4

  14

  …

  Non-effective Charges for Officers, etc.

  24,421

  5

  6

  …

  1,728

  18

  9

  15

  …

  Non-effective Charges for Men, etc.

  …

  16,863

  14

  4

  2,029

  2

  11

  16

  …

  Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

  3,822

  15

  10

  …

  115

  15

  0

  Balances irrecoverable

  583

  13

  11

  125,621

  0

  1

  282,574

  16

  8

  28,324

  12

  7

  169,950

  2

  11

  Net Surplus,

  £156,953

  16

  7

  Net Surplus,

  £141,625

  10

  4

  Surplus surrendered to the Exchequer

  £298,579

  6

  11

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 18th day of July last,
  1120
  Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at 7.35.