Sitting of 23 May 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  GREAT NORTH OF SCOTLAND RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (WEST RIDING LINES) BILL [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  BAKEWELL GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  KEW BRIDGE AND APPROACHES BILL.
  (Queen's Consent signified); Read the third time, and passed.
  EAST HAM IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read a third time.
  HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL.
  As amended, to be considered upon Friday, 10th June.
  MID-KENT WATER BILL.
  As amended, to be considered upon Friday, 10th June.
  SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  USK VALLEY RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  (By Order); Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, 9th June.

  MESSAGE TO ATTEND THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
  The House went; and, being returned,
  MR. SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to Special Juries Act, 1898; Bail Act, 1898; Metropolitan Commons (Barnes) Supplemental Act, 1898; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1898; Lancashire County Council (Bridges) Act, 1898; Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund Act, 1898; Midlothian and Peebles District Board of Lunacy (Water Supply) Act, 1898; Mersey Docks (Various Powers) Act, 1898; Agricultural Company of Mauritius Act, 1898; Guy's Hospital Act, 1898; Patriotic Assurance Company's, Act, 1898; Tyne Improvement (Constitution and Works) Act, 1898; Aberystwyth Gas Act, 1898; Folkestone Gas Act, 1898; City and

  293
  South London Railway Act, 1898; Eastern Telegraph Company's Act, 1898; Saint Matthew, Bethnal Green (Church Rate Abolition) Act, 1898; Upper Assam Tea Company's Act, 1898; Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Act, 1898; Swansea Gas Act, 1898; City of Waterford Gas Act, 1898; Chipstead Valley Railway Act, 1898; London and North Western Railway (Steam Vessels) Act, 1898; Whitwick and Coalville Gas Act, 1898; Hartlepool Gas and Water Act, 1898; Edinburgh Merchant Company Act, 1898; Norton and Halton Roads Act, 1898; Edinburgh and District Waterworks Act, 1898; Marianao and Havana Railway Company's Act, 1898; Morley Corporation (Gas, etc.) Act, 1898; Great Orme Tramways Act, 1898; Mersey Docks (New Works) Act, 1898; Hart's Divorce Act, 1898.

  BELFAST HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
  To be read a second time upon Monday, 13th June.
  BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  DUNDEE CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MARKET HARBOROUGH GAS BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  POWELL DUFFRYN STEAM COAL COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.

  EAST AND WEST WALES RAILWAY BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading—
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon District): Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the Motion that stands in my name, and I do so upon two or three grounds. With regard to the scheme itself, I understand that the Committee had sufficient evidence as to the desirability of making a railway of this kind. It is a scheme for making a railway across central Wales, to Aberystwyth, and other popular summer resorts, and bringing them more or less into direct communication with the Midlands. The Chairman of the Committee, in giving the decision of the Committee, said that the preamble had not been proved, and he used the following words—
  "The Committee fully recognise the enormous public advantages which would accrue from an undertaking of this character if carried nut on the proposed lines,"
  and anyone who examines the facts must come to the same conclusion as the Committee came to on that particular point. First of all, the railway proposes to serve a district which is not served at the present moment by any line of railway, neither the Cambrian, nor the London and North Western, nor the Great Western; none of these lines tap this district at all. It is a very, very large and important district—one of considerable mineral resources—and it contains a large agricultural area. If there were a railway of this kind the mineral resources could be opened up, and the agricultural products would have a more accessible market than they have at the present moment. Then there is another point with regard to that. There is absolutely no local opposition to the

  295
  scheme. On the contrary, all the landowners along the line support it emphatically. The largest landowner through which the line would run, Lord Lisburne, sent his agent before the Committee to say he was in favour of it. The proposed line would run something like five or six miles through his estate. He could not, however, give it financial support, for the simple reason that he is but a life tenant, and was, therefore, not in a position to make arrangements with the company which he would otherwise have been glad to make. All the local authorities support the scheme. The county councils of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire, and Cardiganshire—the county councils for the three areas through which the line would run—without distinction, have a, most unanimous feeling in favour of the scheme, and anyone who is acquainted with the district must know that it will make an enormous difference to this country, whether a railway of this kind is made or not. Therefore it is beyond all matter of doubt that the Committee, so far as the first part of their decision was concerned, were right in saying that it would secure enormous advantages to the public of these three counties. Why, then, was the scheme rejected? It was rejected purely and simply upon financial grounds. The only evidence the promoters adduced in support of the financial portion of the scheme was that nearly £70,000—I believe £68,000 is the exact figure—had been already promised to be subscribed to the ordinary share capital of the company. But not only that—there was, in addition, the evidence of the Great Western Railway manager, who stated that he was prepared to recommend to his directors that they should work the line in perpetuity at 60 per cent. Now, that was the whole of the evidence, and the Committee did not consider that it was sufficient. I do not, of course, intend to criticise their decision. Probably, upon the evidence, they could do nothing else than come to the decision at which they arrived. My object in moving this Motion is to ask the House to give the promoters another opportunity this year of proving that they have sufficient financial support to carry the scheme, and I do this on behalf of the local Member, who is unable to
  296
  be present to move this himself. The whole of the district very strongly supports this scheme, and the promoters assure me that if another opportunity is afforded them they would be in a position to prove to the same Committee that the financial support to be given to the scheme is perfectly adequate for the purpose of a railway of this character. I do not suppose that they would be able at the present moment to give particulars, but if only another fortnight or three weeks be given them, and if the Bill be re-committed to the same Committee, the time will be perfectly ample for them to make their arrangements. All I ask the House to do is to send the Bill back to the same Committee again, in order to enable the promoters to adduce fresh evidence, which they believe will be forthcoming, for the purpose of proving that they are in a position to finance this scheme properly. I make an earnest appeal, especially to the members of the Committee, on behalf of the locality. It is a matter of great importance to the locality, and I hope that the members of the Committee will rather go out of their way to give the facilities I ask in order to enable this scheme to go through in the course of the current year. The district is in really a very bad way. The mines have been closed, and there used to be some very large mines there, and very paying ones, but they have been closed purely and simply owing to foreign competition, which has sent down the price of lead and other minerals. These mines are so many miles away from a railway station that the heavy railway carriage makes it an utter impossibility for them to successfully stand against foreign competition. If there were such a line as this running through the heart of this district, it would open up these mines again, and enable hundreds and thousands of small peasant proprietors, who are now compelled to go to South Wales as labourers, to work their own farms, and by that means the agricultural prosperity of the district would be, to a certain extent, restored. I do hope that, in the interests of this district, the House will allow the promoters to have another opportunity of satisfying the Committee with regard to the financial soundness of their scheme, and of their

  297
  ability to properly carry it through. This they are asking on their own responsibility. If they are not prepared with fresh evidence then they are not asking the Committee to come to any different decision upon the evidence which has already been adduced. They simply ask for an opportunity of adducing fresh evidence, and stronger evidence, as to the financial support of the scheme, which they believe they will be in a position to adduce. If this resolution is carried, and they go before the Committee, an dare not prepared with that further and stronger evidence, then the Bill will be again thrown out, and probably the promoters will be punished by being mulcted in costs. With that grave responsibility resting upon them the promoters ask for the re-committal of this Bill, and I earnestly trust that the House will see its way to concede their request in this important matter.
  MR. W. JONES (Carnarvon,): I beg, Sir, to second the Motion. In addition to what my honourable Friend has said as to the local authorities being in favour of this scheme, and as to its bringing the district into communication with Manchester, Birmingham, London, and other towns, I can say that it would bring us into communication with the South Wales colliery district. Now, that is an important consideration, because just now the cost of bringing a ton of coals from South Wales to this district is 25s., whereas, if this railway were made, it would be just about 5s., or a little under. In addition to that, there is another consideration. All the lead mines in this district are not disused. A few only—some of the old mines—may have gone out of use, and may have become unworkable, but this is considered to be the best lead district in Great Britain, and I have heard within the last few hours that a wealthy Belgian capitalist is opening up negotiations for working this district. Besides, if this line were made, it would bring London, and some of the more important watering places, into closer touch with this district by three hours. Just now, it takes nine hours to go from London to Aberystwyth, and by this line it would take six. The line opens up facilities for trade, and it opens up facilities for better communica-
  298
  tion for the people. The consensus of feeling in favour of the Bill in the locality is exceedingly strong, and I hope that the House will give some heed to that feeling by at least allowing the Bill to be re-committed.
  MR. NEWDIGATE: Mr. Speaker, I must ask the indulgence of this House before venturing to hope that the House will not accede to the appeal of the two honourable Gentlemen who have just spoken. The Chairman of the Committee ought really to ask the House to reject this Motion, but unfortunately he is absent at the present time. In the first place, I should like to thank the honourable Member for the Carnarvon district for the exceedingly kind way in which he spoke of the opinion of the Committee on this Bill, and I can assure the House that that opinion was not arrived at hurriedly, but it was only arrived at after considering every possible piece of evidence that could be put before us. We were all agreed as to the value of the proposed line; we all thought if would open up a rich mineral and agricultural district, and that it would also lead to enormous advantages to the surrounding district; but I venture to urge to the House that in granting a monopoly—which we should have been doing had we passed this Bill—we must first of all ascertain and make certain in our own minds that we are granting a monopoly to persons who have got some backing behind them. Unfortunately, whatever evidence was brought before us could not satisfy us that there was that backing which every concern of this description should have. Perhaps I may tell the House in a few words what happened. The capital which was asked for for the purpose of forming this railway was the sum of £700,000 in £10 shares, and they asked for borrowing powers up to£230,000. What was brought before the Committee on the 5th May was that the deficit had been placed at £23,800. In addition to that, Sir William Ingram, whose absence I am sure we all very much regret, had promised to subscribe the sum of £10,000, and then some other gentleman, whose name was net given—
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: His name was given—Mr. Barrow.
  MR. NEWDIGATE: I was coming to that; that happened the day after. This gentleman was supposed to have a largo sum of money to place for the working of this railway. On the 5th May we were not satisfied with the financial aspect of this Bill, and we told the promoters so, and we adjourned till the following day; and we requested that on the following day some statement should be made to us giving better promise of financial support than had already been placed before us. What happened next day? With the exception of an additional sum of £20,000, which was promised by Mr. Burrow, who is a mortgagee of the Milford and Manchester Railway, there was no more capital promised. The honourable Member for the Carnarvon district made a great point of the manager of the Great Western Railway Company promising to work the railway; but what was it he really did? The general manager of the Great Western Railway Company came before the Committee, and, as my honourable Friend has mentioned, said that his company were prepared to take the line over and work it if 60 per cent. of the profits wore paid to them; and then the Chairman put this very pertinent question to Mr. Wilkinson—whether he would be prepared to advise the Great Western Company to advance the necessary capital to enable this scheme to be worked, and the answer given was a most decided no. It was the same with everybody who was interested in the scheme. The honourable Member has mentioned Lord Lisburne. Well, Lord Lisburne has something like 40,000 acres, and enormous benefit would accrue to his estate if this line were built. My honourable Friend said that he was not able to give financial support to the scheme because he was only a life tenant, but surely if this line were such a good thing as the promoters make out, he would have been willing to place a small sum at their disposal. I sincerely hope, as do all the Members of the Committee, that perhaps next year, when this Bill is brought before a Committee of this House again, that better financial proposals may then be brought forward, because the Committee are all of one mind in hoping that this railway will be made, but I do venture to suggest to the House, and to appeal to the House, that we have given the subject
  300
  every possible consideration and attention, but when we found that the financial proposals were inadequate—and even at the present moment the honourable Member for Carnarvon, who can always by his eloquence make a case appear good, whether it is good or bad, cannot assure us that the promoters will have better proposals to lay before the House. We could not pass the Bill, and I hope the House will support the Committee in the action we took. I thank the House for so kindly listening to what I have had to say on this matter.
  MR. EVANS: It is not necessary for us to argue upon the very clever speech made by the honourable Member who has just sat down, whose courtesy on the Committee everybody acknowledges. It is, however, necessary that this railway should be built. That was admitted by the honourable Member. It is a mere question whether or not another opportunity should be given to the promoters of carrying out this public work, which, would be for the public benefit. The honourable Member who has just sat down, took some trouble, which I can assure him was absolutely unnecessary, to defend the Committee, as if some aspersion had been cast upon its conduct. As I understand it, no one at all denies that the Committee did a proper thing, and came to a right conclusion upon the evidence before them. I myself had an opportunity of listening to some of the evidence with regard to the public character of the undertaking, and I heard also what took place with reference to the financial proposals. The sole object of the promoters in asking for the recommittal of the Bill is that they should not be prevented from finding the necessary money, as I believe my honourable and learned Friend has satisfied himself that they can do, and from laying their case before the Committee again this year. This railway will really be for the benefit of that part of the country. It is a very useful scheme, making as it does Aberystwyth three miles nearer London than it is at the present moment, and I do not think it should be lost to the public for another year if the promoters are prepared to satisfy the Committee that they are able to carry the

  301
  matter out to a financial success. This proposal to go before the same Committee shows, not only the financial capacity of the promoters, but then belief in the decision to which that Committee came. It is quite clear that these promoters were not promoters of railway Bills of an ordinary kind. I believe they were a company which has already spent a considerable sum of money in the neighbourhood of Aberystwyth, which runs up to £150,000 or £160,000, and it may be that they did not consider it to be absolutely necessary to show that they could finance the undertaking to the fullest extent, and the time that the Committee gave them was only a few hours—from one day to the next—and it is quite impossible that in that time, if they had not given the necessary consideration to the matter before, they were able to satisfy the Committee that the thing was financially sound. They are asking now for another opportunity of doing so, and I hope that the House will give them that opportunity. What is the result of the two alternatives? If they go back before the Committee they must do one of two things. They must either satisfy the Committee, or fail to satisfy the Committee. Surely nothing would be lost by that, and I am certain that the Committee would not grudge another sitting for that purpose. That is what will happen if this Motion is carried. If it is not carried, the result will be that for a whole year this undertaking, which is admitted on all hands to be desired for all services of the community in the locality, and to be an undertaking which, will be enormously for the public benefit, will be delayed. Under these circumstances I do trust that the House will accede to the request of the promoters.
  SIR T. GIBSON CARMICHAEL: I was a Member of the Committee to which reference has been made, and that is my excuse for saying a word or two upon this matter. The honourable Member for Carnarvon District has asked that the Committee should spend a little more time in considering this Bill. Personally, I think we should be perfectly willing to give up any extra time. My honourable Friend who has just sat down suggested that probably
  302
  only a day would be required, but I am not so sure of that, because, although it has not been referred to this afternoon yet, we have not heard the case which may be made out against the Bill; so far we have only heard the case of the promoters. It was pointed out that the Committee were unanimously of opinion that this scheme would probably be a good thing for the country; but, on the other hand, we were certain that the financial proposals put before us were not such as to warrant us in passing the preamble. The next day, after the promoters had had time—a short time, but still some time—to see whether they could improve their position, they made certain statements to us, and then the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the financial proposals were in no way improved. We are now told that they are not prepared to give any financial statement at this moment, but that probably in a fortnight or so, after they have bad time to go into the city and consult financiers, they may be able to come forward with such proposals as would warrant us in passing the preamble. I have no great Parliamentary experience, Sir, but it seems to me that very likely somethings of that sort might be done every day in regard to any private Bill which was thrown out in Committee on financial grounds, and it does seem to me, especially at this comparatively late period of the Session, that it would be a pity if this Bill were to be re-committed on such merely suppositious grounds as those. If better financial proposals can be made during the next fortnight, I cannot help thinking that they also might be made before next year. I must confess, as a Member of the Committee, that it struck me as strange that none of the gentlemen who, I believe, would undoubtedly benefit—landowners, and owners or lessees of mines, property which would yield a large sum of money—were willing to advance any money towards a scheme which would put so much in their pockets. I hope that the House will agree with the action which the Committee took, and will endorse that which the Committee believed to be right.
  COLONEL A. LOCKWOOD: I regret to have to oppose this Bill, but I do so on extremely simple grounds. The honourable Members who advocate this proposal are brave men struggling with adversity, and I am bound to say that they have made a gallant fight; but the question is a very simple one. The Committee rejected the Bill because the promoters had not sufficient money. That is, I am afraid, a common complaint with many people. What is more, they not only had not sufficient money then, but they cannot delimit the time when they will have it, although I think some suggestion has been made about a Belgian capitalist and lead—a gentleman who was anxious to invest his capital in this railway, and which I have no doubt would benefit the place very much. But the Committee especially rejected the Bill for the reason that there were not sufficient funds then, and these funds are not forthcoming now. Then there is another rather important point, and that is that the witnesses for the opposers of this Bill have naturally returned to the country, and should this Bill be re-committed, the opposers would be put to further expense in bringing those witnesses back again. I cannot help thinking that this request is almost unprecedented and unreasonable—if anything unreasonable can come from Wales. In this instance, it seems as if honourable Members have forgotten the trouble taken by the Committee. This decision was arrived at after four days' patient investigation, and now we are asked to re-commit the Bill, which would involve the necessity of further expense on the part of the opponents in bringing their witnesses again to London. I trust that the House will not accept the Motion under these circumstances.
  SIR J. PEASE: I have only come in to listen to this Debate without knowing anything about the question. My honourable Friend on my right said that he had had very little experience of Committee work in this House. It so happens that I have had upwards of 40 years' experience on one side of the Table or the other—some-
  304
  times promoting Bills and sometimes sitting in judgment upon them. But I think it is almost an unheard-of case, where a Committee has deliberately given an opinion, not so much on the merits of the Bill itself as on the financial aspect of the scheme which have been laid before it, to come back again to this House, and ask that the Bill shall be re-committed in order to give the promoters time to improve their financial proposals, in order to carry out the scheme. This Bill must have been deposited last November. The plans must have been here last December, and they have had from that day to this time to consider their financial prospects, which the Committee have condemned as unsuitable to the occasion. Now, the honourable and gallant Member opposite spoke about impecuniosity being a common complaint, but in this case it is not so much that the promoters are impecunious as that the scheme does not bike in the district through which the railway is to go. What would this House do, if in every case of compulsory purchase the parties were to do what these promoters are doing? This kind of thing would lock up the district against the proper development of a scheme for which money would be found on a proper financial basis. It is really to be hoped that the House will pause before it recommits this Bill. If it re-commits this Bill it seems to me that it opens a door for an enormous amount of what I may call "back lash" in legislation. The duties of a Committee would never terminate, nor would the labours of this House ever come to an end.
  MR. GODDARD: As a member of this Committee, I have some diffidence in speaking of this matter, as I am not very familiar with the practice of the House in similar cases. I think, in view of the general agreement of opinion on the part of all the local authorities, and all the local representatives of the district, that there is in this case an exceptional reason for some more consideration being given to this Bill. As has already been said, the Committee were of one mind in regard to the usefulness of the proposed line, in regard to the direction of it, and also in regard to the prospects

  305
  of it after hearing the evidence of the Great Western manager. There were no two opinions with regard to that point. As has been said, the main difficulty was that the money promised for the promotion of this line was altogether inadequate, and, although those who are now asking for the Bill to be re-committed have not quarrelled at all in any sense with the decision of the Committee on that point, it was the only reasonable decision to which the Committee could come; although, for my own part, I differ from my colleagues on that particular point, because I considered it was quite possible for additional financial arrangements to be made in the time that would elapse between the Bill leaving the Commons and going to the Lords.
  MR. NEWDIGATE: I would like to point out to the House that when this question was before the Committee the honourable Member never took the trouble to divide upon that point, nor to have Ins objection recorded in the Journals of the Committee. I think the honourable Member is treating the Committee rather badly on this point.
  MR. GODDARD: It is true that I did not divide the Committee. There would
  not have been much sense in that, when the numbers were three to one; but I do not think that any Member of the Committee mistook my meaning in regard to it, or that I hesitated to express my opinion. I am sure every member of the Committee will know that to the very last I took the view which I have expressed here, that it would be a wise and proper thing to allow the Bill to go on. Now, Sir, I take it that the arguments that have been brought forward by the honourable Member for the Carnarvon District would not have been brought forward unless he had very good reason for saying what he did. He said that here were improved financial arrangements almost ready. Perhaps he is not willing to commit himself to any definite sum, or any definite contribution—but I do not think he would make such a statement if he had not known that there was a reasonable prospect of it coming about. Vs it is not a very long matter, I think the House might, in a case like this, considering the unanimous opinion of all he local authorities, re-commit this Bill.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 178.—(Division List No. 115.)

  AYES.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

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

  Baker, Sir John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Billson, Alfred

  Gourley, Sir Edward T.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Blake, Edward

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Bronkfield, A. Montagu

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Caldwell, James

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Carew, James Laurence

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Collery, Bernard

  Hayne, Et. Hn. Chas. Seale-

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Colville, John

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Crean, Eugene

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Daly, James

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  Davitt, Michael

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Chas.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Dillon, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Shee, James John

  Doughty, George

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Spicer, Albert

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Engledew, Charles John

  Lough, Thomas

  Steadman, William Charles

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Fenwick, Charles

  McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn. 'sCo.)

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Field, William (Dublin)

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Flynn, James Christopher

  McCartan, Michael

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Alt (Glamorgan, E.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Tully, Jasper

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr.

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Milbank.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Yoxall, James Henry

  NOES.

  Aird, John

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (M'ntrose)

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.

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

  Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex)

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Flower, Ernest

  Newark, Viscount

  Asher, Alexander

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fry, Lewis

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Greville, Captain

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Purvis, Robert

  Beach, Rt.Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Rankin, James

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Bethell, Commander

  Hazell, Walter

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Bond, Edward

  Hornby, William Henry

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

  Round, James

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Mdsx.)

  Howard, Joseph

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrond)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Savery, Sir Joseph

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brunner, Sir John T.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joicey, Sir James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs. N.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Usborne, Thomas

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Long, Col. V. W. (Evesham)

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Walrond, Sir William Hood

  Collings, St. Hon. Jesse

  Lowther, J. W. (Cumberland)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wayman, Thomas

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Lubbock, Et. Hon. Sir John

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

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Wedderbarn, Sir William

  Crombie, John William

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

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

  Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

  McCalmont, H. L. B.(Cambs.)

  Wentworth, Brace C. Vernon-

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm,E.)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Denny, Colonel

  McEwan, William

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. D.

  McKillop, James

  Woodall, William

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Maden, John Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arey

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mappin, Sir Frederick T.

  Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ. (Manc.)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Mr. Newdigate and Sir

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Monk, Charles James

  Thomas Gibson-Carmichael.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  The Resolution brought forward on Friday was agreed to.

  NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  YEOVIL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  GREAT GENERAL RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill of Session 1897 and the Harrow, Uxbridge, and High, Wycombe Railway Bill of Session 1897 be referred Railway Bill of this Session.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
  Ordered, That the Chairman of Ways and Means be discharged from attendance on the Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2), Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Pilotage Provisional Order, Gainsborough Gas, Drogheda Gas, Crystal Palance Company, Cromer Gas, Easton and Church Hope Railway (Extention of Time), Bombay, Bareda, and Central India Railway Company [H.L.], and Liskeard Corporation Water [H.L.] Bills, and that Mr. John Ellis be appointed Chairman of the Committees on the said Bills.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to confer additional powers on the Court of Teinds in Scotland with
  310
  reference to the alteration of the sites of parish churches, and of the districts attached, and with reference to collegiate charges."

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAIL- WAY (WALES) BILL [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act for conferring further powers upon the London and North Western Railway Company in relation to their Chester and Holyhead Railway; and for other purposes."
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act for conferring further powers upon the London and North Western Railway Company in relation to their own under-taking, and other undertakings in which they are interested jointly with other companies; and for other purposes."
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Halifax to construct additional waterworks, tramways, street widenings, and improvements; to confer further powers with respect to their gasworks undertakings; to amend some of the provisions of the local Acts in force within the borough; and for other purposes."

  FOLKESTONE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act for the granting of further powers to the Folkestone Waterworks Company."
  That they have agreed to—
  Amendments to—

  EDINBURGH AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.] MORLEY CORPORATION GAS BILL [H.L.] GREAT ORME TRAMWAY AND TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.] MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL [H.L.]
  Without Amendment.
  ATTENDANCE OF CHILDREN AT SCHOOL (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to further amend the law of Scotland with respect to the attendance of children at school."
  HAMILTON WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act for authorising the Hamilton Waterworks Commissioners to make and maintain additional waterworks, and for conferring further powers upon those Commissioners; and for other purposes."
  BACUP CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Halifax to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes."
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  KETTERING WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  FOLKESTONE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  HAMILTON WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BACUP CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (HACCONBY FEN) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  MR. SPICER: Before this Bill is read a Third Time I should like to say a word or two, because if it passes in its present shape it will do great injustice, and will entail a very heavy loss on a charity which is now doing extremely good service. This Bill gives the Government power to purchase certain lands for police court purposes, and part of these lands which it is thus authorised to obtain are the property of the Bishopsgate Foundation. This is the foundation with which the late Rev. Mr. Rogers was so closely identified, and he was the means of re-organising it in 1891. It is now placed on a broad and liberal basis, and is doing splendid work in the way of a technical institute in the City of London, and during the last six months of its career no less than half a million attendances were made. If this Bill goes through in its present shape it means that part of their land, which has recently been let with the consent of the Charity Commissioners on a building lease for 90 years, on very favourable terms, will be taken from them, and the money so obtained will have to be invested in Consols, so that there will be a direct monetary loss, and the charity will be unable to do as much work as they otherwise would. Although I do not intend to divide the House on the question, I do venture to ask whether the Government are not prepared to give some extra consideration, in view of the nature of the charity and in view of the work that it is doing. It is not as if the Government were dealing with a private individual. It is dealing with a charity that is effecting large good in the City. There is no other institution of the kind, and by taking this land you are confining its operations, because the difference between the amount now received from the land the Government propose to take and the interest from Consols which the money will have to be invested in is a very large

  315
  difference, and will be a serious loss of income; and then, in addition to that, there is the loss of the value of the reversion that would accrue to the estate. Therefore I venture to ask the Government whether it is not possible to give rather more generous terms in the purchase of this estate than they would do in the case of a private individual.
  MR. COLLINGS: I hardly understand my honourable Friend to oppose this Bill, which is for the compulsory acquisition of land for the purpose of the police service. There is no practical objection, I understand, on the part of the trustees to the Government acquiring this land—it is merely a question of the price to be paid for it. I take it that my honourable Friend wishes the House to insert some clause by which that price should be settled. But my honourable Friend is, of course, aware that all questions of price and compensation are settled under a section of the Lands Clauses Act. Before the court which is provided for by that section every argument that can be advanced on the one side or the other may be advanced. My honourable Friend can himself attend, and state in the witness-box the reason why the price should be as high as he wishes it to be; but I think he will see, as the Committee did upstairs, that it will be impossible for this House, without the information before it which would enable it to settle what the price should be, to enter upon the consideration of a question of that character. That will be left to the court, which will take into consideration all the arguments that can be brought before it, and will decide the question as to what is a fair price to be paid by the Receiver General. I hope, therefore, that my honourable Friend will be satisfied with the explanation I have given, and not prolong this discussion.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the borough of Ashton-under-Lyne, and the urban district of Dukinfield, and to the city of Chester."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill No. 228.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Dewsbury, Haworth, Leeds, and Stourbridge."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill No. 229.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cheltenham (2), Fulwood, Salford, and Worthing, and to the Hanley, Stoke, and Fenton Joint Hospital District."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill No. 230.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the parish of Lambeth and to the Newhaven and St. Olave's unions."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill No. 231.]

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  "To confirm Provisional Orders of the Secretary of State under the Military Lands Act, 1892."
  Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brodrick and Mr. Powell Williams.
  Presented, and read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill No. 232.]

PETITIONS.
  ADULTERATION (FOOD PRODUCTS) BILL.
  In favour: From Shipley; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment: From Whitby and Honiton; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES REGULATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Against: From the Mining Association of Great Britain; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  Against: From Burry Port; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Bath, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Hastings; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour: From Bellshill, Greengairs, Bothwell, Kames, Clydebank, Dundee, Kirkfieldbank, Droughty Ferry, and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  ISLANDS OF CUMBRAE AND BUTE.
  For the erection of fortifications: From Helensburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Against: From Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  In favour: From Studley, Redditch, Cambridge, and Lincoln; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERAN- NUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Dundee; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Partick; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Bellville; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Suithians, Redruth, Portreath, Sheffield (2). Mount Hawke, Burrows, Bolingey, South Downs, Northampton, Anvil Corner, New Marske, Leicester, Four Lanes, Aldeburgh, Wolverhampton, Manaton, Leicestershire, Rodmell (2), Tamerton, Eves, Over Wyresdale, Lancaster, Pool, Buckhorn, Holsworthy (2), Brampton, Marhamchurch, Tunbridge Wells, Durham, Willington, Waterhouses, St. Helens, Parton, Hastings (2), Durham (2), Ashwater, Piercebridge, Chesterfield, Old Chesterton, Ledbury, Darlington (2), Brilley, Glasgow, Newport, Bromyard, Ivegill,

  319
  Stanhope, Hopkinstown, Rotherham, West Hartlepool, Gainsford, Beaumaris, Bodedern, South Hetton, Arnside, Winston, Kew, Titley, Rock Ferry, Deptford, and Caister; to lie upon the Table.

  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Against: From Partick; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Against: Of David Johnston; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS.
  Copy presented, of Fifteenth Report of the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, with Appendices, for the year 1897 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (SNAEFELL LEAD MINE ACCIDENT).
  Copy presented, of Reports to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by C. Le Neve Foster, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, and A. E. Miller, Esq., M.E. on the circumstances attending an underground fire which occurred at the Snaefell Lead Mine, Isle of Man, in the month of May, 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2100 to 2103 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, Nos. 457 and 458 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Statistical Abstract for the principal and other foreign countries in each year from 1886 to 1895–6 (Twenty-fourth Number) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (EXCEPTIONS TO QUEEN'S REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of list of exceptions to the Queen's Regulations as to pay, non-effective pay, and allowances during the year 1897–8 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MUNICIPAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Return showing the population in 1891, the valuation, area in acres, and rates on land, in 1896, of the towns and townships in Ireland that have defined boundaries."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210].

  ELECTRIC LI HTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum, stating the nature of the proposals, contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 211.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No 12) Bill.—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No 212.]

  ELECTRIC ENERGY (GENERATING STATIONS AND SUPPLY).
  Report from Joint Committee, with minutes of evidence, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 213.]

  TENURE OF DWELLING HOUSES ABROAD.
  Address for "Copies of Reports to the present time by Her Majesty's representatives abroad upon the system of tenure of dwelling Louses in the countries in which they reside (in continuation of Commercial, No. 36, 1884)."—(Mr. Field.)
QUESTIONS.

  OLD EXCISE OFFICE, BROAD STREET.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, at what date the Old Excise Office in Broad Street was closed, and whether the land was sold at that time or subsequently; and, if so, to whom and for how much; whether he knows of any reason why the annuity of £500 in respect of that property was not redeemed or conveyed to the purchaser at the same time; and whether this annuity, which has now been paid for over 130 years, can now be commuted?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am unable to ascertain the exact date at which the Old Excise Office in Broad Street was closed. The chief office of the Inland Revenue has been at Somerset House since October 1852. The property was sold in May, 1853, for a sum, including interest, of £108,318 7s. 4d., but I do not know who was the purchaser. The annuity to which the honourable Member refers, which is paid under the Act 8 Geo. III., c. 32, was not a charge upon the property, but on the Revenue of Excise. It could only be commuted by arrangement with the parties to whom it is paid, and I do not know whether any proposal for commutation was made at the time when the property was sold.

  ARCHITECT TO THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to the Architect to the Education Department, what amount he annually received in fees from public departments in addition to his three salaries amounting in all to £1,105; whether he is also allowed to carry on a private practice; and whether it is intended, as vacancies occur, to abolish the system of payment partly by salary and partly by fees in this and similar appointments?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. W. HANBURY,): The architect does not in feet receive any fees from public departments in addition to the three salaries specifically provided in the Estimates. He is entitled to an allowance of three guineas a day when employed in the inspection of sites and buildings for the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Department, and £30 is annually provided for that purpose in Class III., Vote 8, of the Civil Service Estimates. But the architect has not yet been called upon to perform the duty and has not drawn the allowance. I am informed that the footnote to the Estimate for the Education Department, which states that he is occasionally employed by the Charity Commissioners, is no longer accurate, and ought to have been omitted. The architect

  323
  is allowed to carry on private practice. I cannot give any general undertaking that payments partly by salary and partly by fees will be abolished in all such appointments when vacancies occur. Whether an inclusive or a retaining salary is to be preferred must depend upon the special circumstances in each case.

  PERPETUAL PENSIONS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all perpetual pensions have now been commuted; and, if not, how many and which of them remained uncommuted; and what is their total annual value; and whether there is any reason why the process of commutation should not now be carried to a conclusion?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Full details of all perpetual pensions and other charges were laid before the Select Committee, which inquired into the question in 1887. The only commutations since effected, and reported to the House by Treasury Minute, have been the payments to the Duke of St. Alban's, Lord Downshire, Lord Ex-mouth, and the Heritable Usher for Scotland. The payments in respect of copyright compensation to the Scottish Universities have also ceased to be made, being merged in the annual vote of £42,000 to those institutions. The reason why the process of commutation has not been carried to a conclusion is that the Treasury are practically precluded by the action of the House from offering more than 27 years' purchase, and such an offer is not attractive in view of the fact that it needs a good many more years' purchase to establish the equivalent of Government securities.

  SANITARY CONDITION OF KIRKTON, INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that in the report of the medical officer of health for Inverness-shire for 1897 the medical officer states
  324
  that the sanitary condition of the village of Kirkton is so defective that, unless active measures are at once taken, he is strongly of opinion that a destructive outbreak of typhus fever or diphtheria, such as has already occurred in Skye and the Outer Islands, is to be apprehended; and will he say what steps the local authorities propose to take in order to avert this danger?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The local medical officer reported as stated in 1897. I am informed that the chief source of danger to the public health has already been removed, and that arrangements have been made on an extensive scale for improving the sanitary conditions of Kirkton. The sanitary inspector hopes to find the works completed at the time of his next inspection. I may add that the total number of deaths in the district in 1897 was 13, and the average age at death was 83; there was no infant mortality, and one individual, a pauper, reached the age of 105.

  STORNOWAY AND STROME FERRY MAILS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state how often during the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September, 1897, the steamier carrying Her Majesty's mails between Stornoway and Strome Ferry was late in her arrival at Stornoway and Strome Ferry respectively, and how often the delay exceeded half an hour at each place; and will he state the maximum delay on any one occasion?
  MR. HANBURY: During the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September, 1897, the steamer carrying the mails between Stornoway and Strome Ferry arrived late at Stornoway 114 times, the delay exceeding half an hour 59 times. In the same period the train was late 157 times, and it is probable, therefore, that this unpunctuality was chiefly due to the train and not to the steamer. At Strome Ferry the steamer was late 34 times, the delay

  325
  exceeding half an hour 15 times. The maximum delay occurred on the voyage from Stornoway on 16th April, when, owing to weather which was described as "very stormy," the arrival at Strome Ferry was 3 hours 15 minutes after time.

  WATER SUPPLIES AT HIGHLAND RAILWAY STATIONS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, although the Highland Railway Company promised the Board of Trade as far back as May, 1894, that the railway stations on their line should have a proper supply of water, the medical officer for health for Ross and Cromarty, in his Report for 1897, states that Strathcarron Railway Station is still without a supply of potable water; and will he take steps with a view to the requirements of the medical officer of health being complied with without further delay? I beg at the same time to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for Ross and Cromarty, in his Report for the year 1897, points out that the Nigg and Fearn railway stations are still without a supply of potable water; and, having regard to the fact that the Highland Railway Company have promised on several occasions during the last few years to provide a supply, will he take such steps as will ensure the matter being attended to without further delay?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The subject-matter of the honourable Gentleman's two Questions, which I will answer together, does not fall within the administration of the Board of Trade, but I have been happy to make inquiry of the railway company, and learn from the general manager that at Nigg the company have done their best to obtain water, and have sunk two wells, but that the water in both is reported unsuitable for drinking. The district committee of the county council recently held a meeting to consider the formation of a water district, and the company attended and
  326
  promised to join in any well-considered scheme. At Fearn I am told the supply is adequate and of as good quality as is obtainable. With regard to Strathcarron, the general manager says that water is obtained from a running burn near the station; he adds that he has seen the officer of health, and at his suggestion will provide a filter as a tentative measure.

  PAUPER LABOUR AT OLD GRAVEL LANE WORKHOUSE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the guardians of St. George's-in-the-East are compelling aged male inmates of their workhouse in Old Gravel Lane to work at picking oakum, the material being old rope as thick as a man's fist and almost as hard as wood, and in some cases to labour at this kind of work for nine hours a day; and also that the same guardians allow to aged inmates of respectable character only one day's holiday a month, which may be either a Sunday or a week day, but that on other Sundays such inmates are only permitted to leave the workhouse between the hours of 9.30 a.m. and 1 p.m., and are then required to bring back a signed certificate of attendance at Divine service; and whether he will inquire into the facts and take steps to induce the St. George's guardians to comply with the spirit of his circular letter, dated 31st July, 1896?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL' GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): I am informed that certain of the inmates who are unable or unwilling to do other work have been employed in oakum picking. The statements in the Question as to the character of the material and the work are denied, but I have informed the guardians that it appears to the Board to be desirable that, so far as circumstances permit, oakum picking by the inmates of the workhouse should be discontinued, and that, in the case of aged inmates of respectable character, leave of absence might well be allowed on week days more frequently than is now the case.

  SIERRA LEONE RISING.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the name of the special commissioner whom he proposes to send out to make inquiries on the spot into the circumstances connected with the rising in the Sierra Leone Protectorate.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): No, Sir; not yet.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Will the right honourable Gentleman be able to state the names before the adjournment for the Whitsuntide Holidays]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: No, Sir; I shall not be able to do so. There is no immediate hurry, as the honourable Gentleman knows, as the rains have not yet commenced.

  AVIEMORE BRANCH OF THE HIGH- LAND RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Highland Railway Company have yet furnished time tables indicating the extent to which the Stornoway mail will be expedited by the opening of the new Aviemore line about the 1st July next.
  MR. HANBURY: The answer is No; but the Post Office is in correspondence with the Company upon the subject.

  BENBECULA MAILS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Benbecula mails are conveyed to and from the island viâ Lochmaddy and Lochboisdale, and will he state whether there is anything to prevent arrangements being made for landing the Benbecula mails at Petersport Pier, which was constructed under the Highlands and Islands Works Act?
  MR. HANBURY: The mails are very small, and it would not be desirable to add to the length of the passages of the boats from Oban by including a call at Petersport in their time tables. Besides, there is difficulty, it is believed, in approaching Petersport.

  POST OFFICES ON LICENSED PREMISES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that there are upwards of 20 places in Scotland where the Post Office business is conducted on premises licensed to sell beer or spirits to be drunk on the premises, will he arrange for premises of this description to be regarded as ineligible in the case of any new Post Offices which happen to be established?
  MR. HANBURY: It is not possible to give any general undertaking, as in some parts of Scotland the only houses available for Post Offices are these licensed houses. But whenever it can be done without public inconvenience, the Department avoids using them for Post Offices.

  PROMOTIONS OF LEEDS PRISON OFFICIALS.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the promotion of Mr. Bartle, Storekeeper of Leeds Prison, to be a deputy governor was recommended by the Commissioners of Prisons on the ground of opening up a fresh channel of promotion for members of the clerical staff; and whether any other promotions of members of that staff to the rank of deputy governor have been made?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): Yes, the promotion was made on the ground stated, and nine similar promotion have since been made.

  CRETE.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received information whether the British Commandant at Candia has allowed the Turkish regular troops to advance and occupy positions hitherto outside the cordon, including the height of Juktuki, which directly dominates the village of Kuri Kasteli; whether the Bashi-Bazouks are allowed to pass freely through the Turkish lines; whether recently they out down the olives belonging to a Christian village near the British post at Anopolis; whether the servant of an English traveller was recently seized by the Turks in Candia, and thrown into a loathsome dungeon; and whether Colonel Chermside, on being appealed to, refused to interfere, saying that he was there to co-operate with the Turks?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): The latest information that we have received leaves a different impression from that which is conveyed by the allegations in the Question. On 6th May Sir Herbert Chermside wrote that at the request and with the consent of both parties British troops had occupied three advanced positions, 7, 10, and 12 miles beyond the cordon. The Christians had at once entered into constant communication, and were working unarmed in the neighbourhood of the posts to which also unarmed Moslems proceeded with confidence. As regards the native irregulars or Bashi-Bazouks, Djevad Pasha had given orders for their withdrawal from the cordon into the town; and the senior British naval officer has informed us that he proposed to ask Djevad Pasha to go round to Candia to see that his orders were carried into effect. I have received no information or complaint concerning the incident mentioned in the fourth Question; and, without being aware of the context, I can offer no opinion as to the alleged statement by Sir Herbert Chermside in the fifth.

  HEAST (SKYE) ROAD RATES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocates whether he is aware that the
  330
  township of Heast, situated on the shores of Loch Eshort, in the parish of Strath Skye, is absolutely inaccessible by road, and that, although the population of about 90 have to obtain all their supplies from Broadford either by foot passenger or man and horse, vehicles being impracticable, the people have recently been summoned to appear before the Sheriff Court at Broadford on the 17th instant for non-payment of road rates; and can he arrange for warrants not to issue until such times as the people have roads?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed that Heast is within 3½ miles of a good public road, from which it is reached by a track, originally constructed at the expense of the Highland Destitution Committee. Three years ago the district committee offered to form this track into a regular road to be maintained out of the rates, but the people both of Heast and of the neighbouring townships refused their consent. I cannot undertake to delay the issue of the warrants.

  TOURMALINE PRISONERS.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consul General at Antwerp has recently been pursuing inquiries in Belgium with a view to obtain evidence against the prisoners of the Tourmaline, at present remanded for trial at Tangiers; whether this course of action by the Consul General referred to has been undertaken at the request of Her Majesty's Consul at Tangiers, where these prisoners are about to be tried; and whether such proceedings spring from instructions from the Foreign Office or have the countenance or sanction of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
  MR. CURZON: The necessary steps have been taken for the preparation of the case in question, which is now before the Consular Court at Tangier, but in the interests of justice I must decline at the present time to enter into details.
  MR. KEMP: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Stats for Foreign Affairs if any steps have already been taken, or whether the Government will be prepared to take steps, to secure to the English Tourmaline prisoners redress for the maltreatment they have received?
  MR. CURZON: This point will receive consideration later, when fuller information has been obtained, and when the explanations of the Moorish Government have been received.

  LARNE POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL J. MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any decision has yet been arrived at regarding the post office at Larne; and, if so, whether it has been decided to reconstruct the old or to build a new office?
  MR. HANBURY: No decision has yet been arrived at, but a proposal for the reconstruction of the present office is about to be put forward which, it is thought, will prove to be satisfactory.

  PALMISTRY.
  CAPTAIN PHILLPOTTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the advertisements that are now being publicly displayed in the streets of certain persons who profess to tell fortunes by palmistry and other means; whether such practices are illegal; and if he proposes to take any steps to suppress the same?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My attention had not been called to these advertisements before I saw the Question of my honourable and gallant Friend. The practice of palmistry is not in itself illegal; an offence is only committed where there is the intention to impose. Suspicious cases are watched by the police, and, wherever there is evidence that fraud or imposition is being practised, they will prosecute the offender.

  COMPANIES BILL.
  MR. BEGG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when the Companies Bill is likely to be read the first time in this House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am unable to say.

  CHANNEL MAIL SERVICE.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in connection with the occasional delays in the Channel Mail Service, he will consider the advisability of limiting the period of the detention of the mails at Dover to six hours when the mail steamers are unable to enter Calais Harbour, and cause the mails to be dispatched viâ Boulogne, seeing that Boulogne Harbour is rarely impracticable at the same time as Calais Harbour?
  MR. HANBURY: As I have already informed the honourable and gallant Member the whole matter is one for concerted arrangement between the French and English Post Offices and the Railway Companies concerned. Some time must necessarily elapse before a definite understanding can be arrived at, because the North of France Railway Company, who are the contractors for the day mail service, are unwilling to pledge themselves to use the Boulogne route until they have had some experience of the working of the steamers which they are having constructed.

  SUGAR BOUNTIES CONFERENCE.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed Sugar Conference will meet on the date originally fixed (7th June); and who will be the delegates of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. CURZON: It is the hope of the Belgian Government that the Conference will meet as announced on June 7th. I am not in a position to give to-day the names of all the British delegates, but they will be announced at an early date.

  LITERARY SEARCH DEPARTMENT, PROBATE REGISTRY.
  MR. TRITTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the deficient accommodation in the Literary Search Department of the Probate Registry, that the room set apart holds only about 12 students, that seats have to be booked a week ahead, and then only two in each week, and that the room is closed for six weeks in August, September, or October; and whether he can make more satisfactory and convenient arrangements for literary inquirers?
  MR. HANBURY: The President of the Probate Division informs me that he is endeavouring by rearrangement to provide two more seats than at present. I understand that it is not possible, owing to the character of the building, to add any space, to the existing rooms or to provide accommodation elsewhere. The obstacle to opening the Literary Search Department all the year round is stated to be the impossibility of providing the necessary supervision and attendance without adding to the existing staff of the Registry. But the hours of attendance of the staff during the long vacation, which had a few years before been extended from four to six on five days of the week in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee of Inquiry, were reduced last year from six to four in opposition to the wishes of the Treasury. In view of that proceeding I cannot regard an increase of staff as essential for the present purpose. But the decision as to the facilities to be afforded to the public rests with the President, and not with the Treasury.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL.
  MR. C. M'ARTHUR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can approximately state the date when the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Hill, as amended by the Standing Committee, will be considered; and whether it is intended to make provision
  334
  for a contribution out of the national exchequer towards the expense of lighting the coasts, in view of the national importance of the light service and of the benefit derived therefrom by Her Majesty's Navy?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE; No, Sir, I am unable at present to say when the Bill will be taken, nor am I in a position to answer the latter Question in the sense desired by my honourable Friend.

  COMMON CRAZING RIGHTS IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has considered the complaints of some of the commoners of the parishes of Castor and Ailesworth, in Northamptonshire, who have had grazing rights, as to the inadequacy and unsuitability of the land allotted to them in the award under the enclosure made his year; whether he is aware that it is alleged that the money equivalent of a grazing right would be fairly estimated at £16 10s. an acre, whereas the land allotted as an equivalent to the right has been at the rate of 1 1–3 acre, at an outside value of 30s. an acre, and that the small commoners who formerly had the right of grazing on the best lands near the villages have now had lands allotted to them remote from the villages, and of inferior quality; whether tile Commissioner has acted consistently with the regulations of the Department in assigning land to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and other large landowners who were entitled to common rights on the same scale as to the poorer commoners whose livelihood depends on these rights; and whether, having regard to the representations of these commoners, the Board of Agriculture will take the necessary steps to re-open the award, and assign further land to the common right owners so aggrieved?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): The reply to the three

  335
  first paragraphs of the honourable Member's Question is in the affirmative; but after careful consideration of the Reports made by the Valuer and the Assistant Commissioner, by both of whom the matter was investigated locally, I came to the conclusion that the value of the common rights in question had not in any way been under-estimated by those officers. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible for me, in justice to the other interests concerned, to re-open the award made in the matter.
  MR. CHANNING: I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is not a fact that better land has been assigned to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in lieu of their rights under the award, and would it not be possible to readjust this matter by communication with the Commissioners?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: No, Sir. The award is one which was made after most careful consideration, first by the Valuer, then by the Commissioner of my Department, and, finally, by the head of the Land Division of the Board of Agriculture. I have every reason to believe that the dissatisfaction is extremely limited in extent, and that, on the whole, the award is a fair one.
  MR. CHANNING: I will draw attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  ORANGE ADDRESSES TO THE QUEEN.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of addresses presented to Her Majesty the Queen, on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee, by various Grand Lodges, representing half a million of Orangemen; and if there would be any objection to lay copies of these Addresses upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: A number of Addresses were received from Orange lodges, but I am not aware how many members they represented. The
  336
  Addresses were in due course submitted to the Queen; and it is not possible for me, nor, I think, would it be usual, to lay copies on the Table of the House.

  FINES ON CORONERS' JURORS IN YORKSHIRE.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the alleged short notices of inquests and hasty summoning of jurors stated to have been practised by the coroner for the districts of Idle and Windhill, in Yorkshire, and to the fact that a fine of 40s. was imposed upon a householder because, in arriving at an inquest 10 minutes after he had received notice, he was deemed by the coroner to be late; and whether steps can be taken to ensure reasonable notices of inquests being given by the coroner to the local police to enable them to obtain the attendance of suitable jurors with reasonable length of notice to the householders summoned?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have made inquiries into this matter. The coroner informs me that he has never inflicted a fine on a defaulting juryman in the district mentioned. I see, from a newspaper report, that the fine to which I understand the honourable Member to refer was not actually imposed. The coroner has received no complaints of insufficient notice having been given, but I understand that such has been the case in several instances, and I have reminded the coroner of the importance of giving the fullest possible notice.

  POSTAL CHARGES FOR THE IRISH MAIL
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that extra postage is required to be paid upon letters and newspapers intended for despatch by the Irish night

  337
  mail if handed in at London central offices after 6 o'clock for letters, and 5.30 for newspapers, and that newspapers must be paid on at letter rates if handed in after 5.30 p.m.; and whether, in view of the fact that the Irish mail does not leave Euston until 8.20 p.m., arrangements can be made to allow of posting letters and papers at later hours than is now the case?
  MR. HANBURY: Late fees are required to be paid upon letters and newspapers intended for despatch by the Irish night mail if posted at London central offices after 6 p.m. for letters and 5.30 p.m. for newspapers. For newspapers the late fee at the Chief Office, St. Martin's-le-Grand, is ¼d. up to 6.45 p.m., and ½d. up to 7.15 p.m., but newspapers for the Irish night mail with a late fee of ½d. may also be posted at the West Central District Office up to 7.45 p.m., and at the North Western District Office up to 8 p.m. There is no late posting at other district offices for these newspapers. If, however, newspapers are paid at letter rates, they are, of course, entitled to the same advantages as letters. The hours of posting in London for the night mails are already as late as it is possible to make them, and the Postmaster General regrets that no extension of time is feasible in the case of the Irish mail.
  MR. FLYNN: Could it not be arranged for newspapers to be posted at a later hour than 5.30?
  MR. HANBURY: I will see if that can be done.

  STRABANE CANAL.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the defective condition of the canal at Strabane, in the county of Tyrone, to the detriment of trade in that locality; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken or are about to be taken by the Board of Trade to remedy the grievance; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Yes, Sir, I have received complaints as to the condition of this canal, and they are now under my consideration, but, as the canal is not owned or managed by the Board of Trade, I cannot say what steps it will be possible to take in order to bring about a removal of the grievance.

  SHELLFISH AND SEWAGE.
  MR. LODER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he expects to be able to introduce the Measure dealing with sewage contaminated shellfish alluded to by him recently in replying to a deputation?
  THE PRESIDENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I should be glad of the opportunity of introducing a Bill on this subject whenever the progress made with other business warrants me in doing so, but I am afraid I cannot say more than that.

  MALTA GARRISON.
  COLONEL J. MCCALMONT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Stats for War whether an increase of eight non-commissioned officers has been sanctioned to each of three companies of Garrison Artillery now serving at Malta to bring them to higher establishment; and whether 24 non-commissioned officers have been sent out from home to fill these vacancies, thus depriving the junior non-commissioned officers of those companies of promotion which they naturally look for; and, if so, what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the grievance complained of?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): A certain number of non-commissioned officers had to be sent out with the large draft of men sent on augmentation. Twenty-four were so sent,

  339
  who will absorb some of the promotions in the batteries due to the augmentation, but a much larger number of promotions will remain to be made, and will benefit the men now serving.

  DANGEROUS INDUSTRIES.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if he contemplates the appointment of an additional inspector or sub-inspector for the North Staffordshire Potteries district, whose duties shall be confined entirely to the Potteries, and who shall reside permanently in the district; and whether, if he makes such an appointment, he will select a person for the post who has a practical knowledge of the pottery trade, and who is thoroughly conversant with the conditions in which it is carried on?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The district inspector, who resides in the Potteries, is already by long experience thoroughly conversant with the conditions under which the several processes of the trade are carried on, with the dangers incurred, and with the structural appliances and administrative measures best adapted for prevention of injury to health in each branch. I have given him the assistance of an additional junior inspector, also resident in the district, which will entitle him to give full attention to the pottery works and to the enforcement of the special rules.
  MR. WOODALL: Perhaps it will be convenient for the right honourable Gentleman to say whether he is now prepared to name the scientific experts to whom he proposes to confide the promised inquiry into the deleterious consequences attributed to the use of lead in the glazing and decoration of pottery; whether he will state the terms of the reference on which their investigation are to be conducted; whether he has caused inquiries to be made as to any steps that have been taken under the direction of Continental Governments in a similar direction; and when the result of such inquiries will be made known?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have appointed two experts—one of them a chemist, Dr. Thorpe, the head of the Government Laboratory, the other a medical man, Dr. Oliver, who has served already on several dangerous trades committees. I have left the scope of the inquiry to some extent to the discretion of the experts, who will be able to follow up any line of inquiry which seems likely to lead to useful results. The main point, however, will be to ascertain the extent to which various materials recommended as harmless substitutes for carbonate of lead are free from the dangers attending the latter. The suitability of these materials for the purposes of the trade is mainly a question for the manufacturers, but it is possible on this point also the experts may render some assistance. Inquiries have been addressed to the Chief Foreign Governments on the subject mentioned, but their replies have not yet been received.
  MR. DAVITT: May I ask whether the head inspector in charge of the Potteries district is not the official under whom the district hag fallen into its present condition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No doubt the danger has increased of late, but constant attention is being paid to it, and I am sure that I have no inspector more thoroughly conversant with the work and better able to advise on the subject.

  POWERS OF PARISH MEETINGS
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in a rural parish the parish meeting have exclusively the power of abandoning the Lighting and Watching Act of 1833, assuming that the Act has been in force for over three years in the parish?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The question is not one which I have any jurisdiction to determine, but if the facts whim have suggested it are submitted to the Local Government Board the matter will be considered by them.

  RAT WORRYING.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case before Mr. Sheil at Westminster, in which a man was charged with cruelty to a rat by worrying it with a dog while held captive by a string; whether he is aware that it was held that, as the animal was not a domestic animal, it was no legal offence; and whether he would take into consideration the advisability of so altering the law as to make all such cases amenable to justice?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, my attention has been called to this case and the magistrate's decision. The point is one which I have already noted as a proper subject for legislation when an opportunity occurs.
  MR. LUTTRELL: Is the right honourable Gentleman prepared to introduce a Bill?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: If I saw a Bill on the subject I should be anxious to give it careful consideration; but, as the honourable Gentleman knows, the subject is not free from difficulty.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE CORK UNION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Cork Board of Guardians originally admitted those tenants of labourers cottages whom they recently sought to evict as agricultural labourers; that some of them have been in possession for several years, and were described as agricultural labourers in the agreements which they signed on getting possession; whether the guardians have now the right to declare them not to be agricultural labourers on the ground that they seek for other work when they are unable to procure agricultural work; whether the Local Government Board is the proper authority to decide on a legal basis whether a particular tenant has ceased to
  342
  be an agricultural labourer within the meaning of the Labourers Acts; and whether it was when representations were made to them for the erection of additional houses that the guardians sought to declare that the tenants occupying some of the existing houses are not agricultural labourers?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): The guardians originally accepted as tenants the persons referred to in the first paragraph. They have been in possession of the cottages for some years, and were probably described as "agricultural labourers" in the letting agreements. With regard to the second and third paragraphs, the duty of determining whether the tenants of, or applicants for, cottages are "agricultural labourers" within the meaning of the Labourers Acts devolves upon the sanitary authority and not upon the Local Government Board. With respect to the fourth paragraph, I must refer to my answer to the honourable Member's previous Question of the 2nd instant on this subject.

  TENDERS FOR KILKENNY MILITARY BARRACKS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a contract has been made for the building of military barracks in Kilkenny; what is the amount of the contract, and who is the contractor; whether the contract was advertised in the local Press; and, if not, why were local contractors not given the opportunity of tendering; was the contract advertised for tenders; and, if so, where; when will the work begin; and whether the fair wage clause is in the contract?
  MR. BRODRICK: Assuming that the contract referred to is that for the erection of a block of married soldiers' quarters at Kilkenny, the name of the contractor is Mr. T. A. Walsh, of Kilmallock. The contract was not advertised, as, in accordance with custom,

  343
  selected contractors competent to execute the work were asked to tender. The work will be commenced forthwith. The fair wage clause is in the contract. The amount of the contract is confidential, and cannot be stated.
  MR. O'BRIEN: How did the authorities come to the conclusion that there was no contractor in Kilkenny who could carry out the work satisfactorily? Why were not local builders asked to tender?
  MR. BRODRICK: Our information was that there was no local man who could undertake so large a contract.

  O'SULLIVAN v. HUNT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the suit of O'Sullivan v. Hunt, tried before the Lord Chief Baron and a special jury at Dublin on the 20th instant, in which the plaintiff, who was head mistress of the Leislip National School for 28 years, pot a verdict for £221 10s. for wrongful dismissal and slander against the Very Reverend Canon Hunt, P.P., manager of the said school; is he aware that Mrs. O'Sullivan was dismissed at a moment's notice without any justifiable complaint against her as a teacher, and thus deprived of her means of living and the opportunity of completing the three years' time qualification to entitle her to the maximum retiring pension; whether, in view of the very high certificates as a teacher which Mrs. O'Sullivan holds and all the circumstances of the case, he will see that the Board of National Education will allow her the full pension to which, but for this illegal dismissal, she would have become entitled in a few years; whether under the rules of the Board of National Education in Ireland managers have this power of dismissing teachers without any right of appeal; if so, whether he proposes to make any change in the system for the protection of teachers against the exercise of that power?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Question has been referred to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland,
  344
  by whom it will be considered at their meeting to be held to-morrow.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Will it be any use repeating the Question to-morrow?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; I could not get the reply in time.

  THOMAS BOLDER, OF THE ROYAL IRISH REGIMENT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with regard to the case of Thomas Bolger, who was enlisted in the Royal Irish Regiment at Clonmel on 28th March, he being under 18 years of age at the time, and together with his father has claimed his discharge on the ground that he is not of legal age, will he explain on what grounds his discharge has been refused, and whether he will order his discharge?
  MR. BRODRICK: The case of Thomas Bolger, who gave a false age on enlistment, was referred to the General Officer commanding the Cork district, who, acting upon the powers vested in him by the Queen's regulations, ordered the soldier to be retained in the Service, as he was up to standard in every respect, and likely to make an efficient soldier and as he was desirous of remaining in the Army. He was only four months under age at the time of enlistment.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: May I ask whether, in view of the fact it has been proved he was under age when he enlisted, he will now be discharged?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. He desires to remain in the Service; it is his father who wishes to have him out, and under the circumstances, he cannot be granted his discharge.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Then I tope he will desert.

  MARYBOROUGH PRISON VISITING MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the note appended to Vote 20

  345
  of Class 3 of the Civil Service Estimates, to the effect that the post of visiting medical officer of Maryborough Prison is to be abolished on vacancy, may be accepted as correct; and whether, if the post is not abolished, it is to be kept for soma particular person or will be open for the appointment of the best qualified candidate?
  MR. HANBURY: The note to which the honourable Member refers was added to the Estimate in connection with a revision of the salary of the resident medical officer at Maryborough Prison in 1896. That officer's salary was sanctioned by the Treasury on condition that the office, of visiting physician should be abolished on a vacancy, and that the resident medical officer should then be required to undertake whatever extra duty there might be. I am not aware of any intention to depart from that arrangement.

  ADULTERATED COFFEE FROM MORTIMER'S STORES.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a communication from the vestry of Paddington relative to the failure to obtain a conviction against the proprietor of Mortimer's Stores, 161, Praed Street, for selling as coffee a mixture found on analysis to contain 50 per cent. of chicory, and as butter a mixture containing 88 per cent. of margarine; whether he has been informed that the summonses were served by the warrant officer of Marylebone Police Court, leaving them at the shop, 161, Praed Street, and that the magistrate decided that this was not a service in accordance with section 20 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and section 10 of the Amendment Act, 1879; whether he has been informed it has been ascertained that the defendant is somewhere in Australia or New Zealand, and that he has no address in this country other than his stores in various districts, and that the same difficulty was experienced in 1896 in connection with a purchase of coffee from the same defendant, in the same shop, and which
  346
  coffee was found to be adulterated with 60 per cent. of chicory; and whether he will make such provision in the new Bill it is proposed to introduce, or will introduce such amendments in the present Act, as will enable local authorities who are anxious to carry out the law to enforce it against those who so persistently sell adulterated food products?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I do not find that I have received any communication as to the matters referred to, but, assuming that the facts are as stated, they shall have my consideration.
  GENERAL LAURIE: May I explain I have just received a communication stating that the facts were only sent to the President of the Local Government Board on Saturday, and I can therefore easily understand he has not seen them. I will repeat the Question when he has had time to consider them.

  LIMERICK NEW POST OFFICE.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, to state what steps have been taken towards the erection of a new post office in the city of Limerick, tenders for which were advertised nearly two years ago; and whether the intention will be carried out of erecting a new edifice, or has the project been abandoned?
  MR. HANBURY: I regret that I am unable to report any progress in the scheme for a new post office at Limerick. The Board of Public Works have the matter still in hand, but they are not yet in a position to make a definite recommendation. The intention of erecting a new edifice has not been abandoned.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: When will the Report be received?
  MR. HANBURY: I am afraid I cannot say.

  POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS IN ULSTER.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, if he will consent to a Return showing the number of post office vacancies which have occurred in the province of Ulster since 1880, together with the number and names, the years of service, and the religion of the respective candidates; also the names of the successful candidates, together with their years of service and their religious denomination?
  MR. HANBURY: NO. In no case do the records show the religion of any post office candidate.

  POACHING CONVICTION AT GODSTONE.
  MR. CUBITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of William Charman and son, of Lingfield, who were convicted of poaching by the Godstone magistrates in August last; whether the same bench declined afterwards to reconsider the case, although the Charmans were prepared to bring more evidence in their defence; and whether he can take any steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Yes, my attention, has been called to this case. The justices had no power to reconsider the case, and so informed the defendant. A further memorial has been recently received in the Home Office, in regard to which inquiries are still pending.

  PROSPECTIVE BUILDING LAND NO THE LAND TAX.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of prospective building land, the present annual value of which does not exceed £5, but which will be raised above the £5 if buildings are placed upon it,
  348
  and thus become again liable to land tax, he will introduce provisions into the Finance Bill to enable the owner to redeem the land from land tax upon the basis of what the land tax would be on the same land supposing the present exemption under £5 were not given under the Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Where land to which the exemption will apply has been brought into assessment since 1896 it will be kept in assessment every year, and the amount of the tax assessed upon it will be written off from the quota. No special provision, therefore, will be necessary to enable the owner at any time to redeem. Where the land has never been assessed it is the intention of the clause to provide that it shall not come into assessment at all, so long as the conditions of exemption continue to apply; and no redemption can, therefore, be effected until it has been actually brought into assessment.

  INDIAN CANTONMENT REGULATIONS.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Shoreditch Division of Hoxton, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the New Cantonment Act and the New Cantonment Rules, the drafts of which were sanctioned by him in his dispatch of the 8th July, 1897 [C. 8538]; and whether he will also lay upon the Table any correspondence which has taken place in reference to the treatment of soldiers in cantonments, in pursuance of the last paragraph in the dispatch referred to?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): I have no objection to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the Act and of the Rules referred to. The correspondence is not yet complete, but when it is I will consider whether it can be laid on the Table.

  MEMBERS AND THE PRESS.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is possible to provide a room in the Palace of Westminster, other than the Members' Lobby, where honourable Members can convey their views to representatives of the Press?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,: No, Sir; I am afraid there is no vacant room in the House which I can devote to the purpose suggested bf my honourable Friend.
  MR. DUNCOMBE: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the desirability of excluding representatives of the Press from the Members' Lobby?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  [No Reply.]

  CLONMEL GAOL CONTRACTS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Tipperary, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the contracts for 1898 for meal and flour to Clonmel Gaol, whether the quotations sent in by a local firm were for flour 12s. 5d. per cwt. and for Indian meal 4s 10d. per cwt., and those from a Dublin firm were 12s. 10d. per cwt. far flour and 5s. 6d. per cwt. for Indian meal; whether the Dublin merchant got the contract at the higher prices; and if he will explain why the contract was given to the Dublin firm, notwithstanding that the same articles could have been supplied by the local firm at considerably lower prices?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs. In accepting the tender of the Dublin firm the General Prisons Board took into consideration the quality of the samples as well as the prices quoted. Moreover the successful firm tendered for oatmeal at a rate of 5½d. per cwt. less than that quoted by the local firm. Oatmeal is relatively of more importance than Indian meal and flour, regard being
  350
  had to the quantity of each article used at this prison, and it was considered undesirable, under the circumstances, to separate the three articles mentioned.

  PIER AND HARBOUR LOANS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the amount of loans made under the provisions of the Act 46 and 47 Vic, c. 26, passed in 1883, by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland towards the erection of piers and harbours; how much of that money, with interest thereon, has been repaid; if any remaining unpaid, will he state the localities or persons in arrear of such repayments, and the amounts respectively; and how the money so repaid has since been applied by the Commissioners of Public Works; and if on piers will he state the piers on which it has been applied and the sums expended on each work?
  MR. HANBURY: The Sea Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1883, placed at the disposal of the Board of Works a sum of £250,000 out of the Irish Church Funds, to be applied to the construction of fishery piers and harbours by way either of free grants or loans, with the proviso that repayments in respect of loans should be added to the original fund and be similarly applied. The loan advances out of the £250,000 amounted to £27,264. The repayments of principal and interest in respect of those loans amount up to the present to £23,727. The amount still to be paid for principal and interest is £12,846. The only sum in arrear is £34 6s. 9d., in respect of Greystones Pier, County Wicklow. The sums repaid have not been specifically applied to the erection of particular piers, but a portion of the total has been placed to the account of the original fund, and, with the other money standing to that, account, has been applied to the purposes of the Act, in grants for piers and engineering expenses. There remains a sum of £13,569 in cash, arising from repaid loans still unapplied, and £2,000 of the original fund has never been drawn from the Land Commission, the trustees of the Church Fund.

  PUBLIC GRANTS FOR FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the last grant for the erection of fishery piers and harbours was made under the provisions of the Act 29 and 30 Vic, c. 45, and the Acts therein recited; and whether, since the passing of the Act 46 and 47 Vic, c. 26, in 1883, which granted £250,000 out of the Irish Church Funds for such works, the operations under the 29 and 30 Vic, c. 45, and the other Fishery Piers and Harbours Acts in Ireland have been suspended by the Treasury; and, if so, whether he will say under what Act or why the Treasury so suspended the operation of Acts which were passed by the Legislature for the encouragement of the sea fisheries in Ireland by promoting and aiding with grants of public money the construction of piers, harbours, and other works?
  MR. HANBURY: The last provision made in the annual Estimates for grants for the erection of fishery piers was £2,560, in the year 1884–5. The last sum actually expended out of the Votes was £10 for Carnsore Pier, in 1886–7. Since the passing of the Act of 1883, which made a quarter of a million available for such purposes, the grants under the older Fisheries Acts have practically ceased. No Act was required to allow of this course, as the older Acts merely gave power to expend such sums as Parliament might vote. It is clear that the large expenditure of £250,000 met the requirements for which the small grants out of the Votes were intended to provide. In recent years the policy which has been acted upon has been to add to the value of existing piers by the extension of railway communication rather than spend money on piers without such means of communication.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Did not the right honourable Gentleman state on a previous occasion that there was no money whatever available? Now he says there is £2,0,000.
  MR. HANBURY: I think not.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right honourable Gentleman give a copy of his previous answer?
  MR. HANBURY: I will supply it to the honourable Member.

  CO-OPERATIVE STORES AND INCOME TAX.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount of income tax paid by the Civil Service Store, Edinburgh, and the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Store, Glasgow, respectively, for the past year?
  MR. HANBURY: The information for which the honourable Member asks could not be furnished without a violation of the oath (or declaration) imposed under the Act of 1842 upon the Commissioners, assessors, and collectors of income tax, and also upon the officers of the Inland Revenue, who are concerned in the administration of the tax.

  MILITARY CANTEEN AT THE MURROUGH, WICKLOW.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Dublin Artillery Militia now stationed on the Murrough, Wicklow, have a liquor bar; whether a licence is paid, and how much; whether liquor is sold to civilians on week days and Sundays indiscriminately, and whether the local police have any authority to make an inspection of the licensed premises, like ordinary public-houses?>
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I understand that the fact is as stated in the first paragraph, and that a fee of 18s. 9d. on the canteen licence has been paid in the usual way by the firm holding the contract. I have no information that liquor is sold to civilians indiscriminately. The police exercise every vigilance with a view to prevent illegal traffic, so far as it is possible for them to do so. Without the sanction of the local military authorities they have no power to enter the canteen.

  IRISH LIGHTS BOARD.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill to reform the existing

  353
  Irish Lights Board, or whether it will assist any private Member's Bill for such reform?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This question is one which should be addressed to my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE REFRESHMENT BRANCH.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that on Thursday, 5th May, a clerk in the Central Telegraph Office named Waghorn was taken ill as a result of partaking of food in the refreshment branch of that office, and was released from duty and treated by the official medical officer; whether he is aware that a clerk named Cozens of the same office was taken ill in consequence of partaking of food at the same refreshment branch on Saturday, 7th May, and was forced to seek medical treatment; and whether he will state what measures the medical department, as the responsible body, are taking to investigate the causes of these ill effects of the food supplied by the Central Telegraph Office Refreshment Branch, and what steps they are taking to prevent a recurrence?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that Waghorn, a clerk in the Central Telegraph Office, reported himself ill on the morning of the 6th instant, and attributed the cause to his having dined in the refreshment room on the previous day. He was treated by the medical officer, and resumed duty next day. The chief medical officer reports that for some years past Waghorn has been treated for occasional attacks of indigestion. Cozens' indisposition was nettle rash, which the chief medical officer reports to be generally the result of some indiscretion of diet, although the food eaten may have been quite wholesome. The catering for the refreshment room is in the hands of a committee, upon which the staff is represented; and if anything is amiss, which there is no reason to think, the remedy is in their own hands.

  RYDE POSTAL EMPLOYEES.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether since the issue of the Report and the accompanying recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee, the maximum pay of the sorting clerks at Ryde has been raised to 41s. per week, and if the pay of the town postmen has been proportionately raised; whether a petition, dated 3rd August, 1897, signed by every established town postman at Ryde, praying that their maximum pay should be increased from 24s. to 26s. per week, has been received; and whether the Postmaster General has arrived at a decision on the matter; and, if so, will he cause his decision to be made known to the officers concerned?
  MR. HANBURY: The maximum pay of the sorting clerks and telegraphists at Ryde was raised from 40s. a week to 44s. on the 1st April, 1897, under the general revision of scales of the indoor staff, carried out on the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee. No such general revision of town postmen's I pay was contemplated or recommended by the Committee. The petition of the Ryde postmen has been received and considered. A formal answer will be communicated to the postmen, expressing regret that the circumstances do not admit of their request being acceded to. The wages of sorting clerks and telegraphists are determined by the amount of business. But the wages of postmen depend mainly upon the cost of living, and therefore do not necessarily follow the wages of the indoor staff.

  TRADES UNIONS AND THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Controller of the Post Office Savings Bank has refused to allow a legally constituted trade union of Government workers at Waltham Abbey Royal Gunpowder Factory to open an account in the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if so, will he state the reason for not allowing unions of Government workers

  355
  the same privileges as granted to other unions?
  MR. HANBURY: The objects of the Royal Gunpowder Factory Employees Union, as set forth in the copy of rules furnished by the applicants, did not bring the society within the scope of the Post Office Savings Bank Regulations which are set out in pages 436 and 437 of the Post Office Guide. Registration under the Trades Union Acts does not give a society any statutory right to deposit its funds in the Post Office Savings Bank as appears to be supposed, and only those societies (not being registered friendly societies) are entitled to deposit which can be held to come within the category of charitable societies. There is, of course, no distinction between societies whose members are in the employ of the Government and those formed of other workers.

  STRONSAY PARISH MEDICAL OFFICER.
  SIR L. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the parish council of Stronsay has given notice of dismissal to the parish medical officer, although no grounds of complaint have been made; whether a parish council is within its right in dismissing its doctor without making specific charges; and whether the doctor has any right of appeal to the Local Government Board for an inquiry into the case?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that it is the case that the parish council have given notice of dismissal to their medical officer, and that they decline to furnish him with their reasons. They are within their rights in doing so, and, although I am informed that the Local Government Board have in this case asked the parish council for their reasons, I am not aware that the medical officer has any right of appeal in die matter.

  ST. GEORGE THE MARTYR, SOUTHWARK.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
  356
  for the Home Department whether the inspector of burials has yet reported as to the state of matters alleged to exist in the church and crypt of St. George the Martyr, Southwark?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: A careful investigation has been made by the inspector, but I shall not be in possession of his detailed Report and recommendations for a few days.

  BRITISH AND FOREIGN FLEETS.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Return of the Fleets of Great Britain and foreign countries will be circulated?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): I hope to-morrow—at all events, before the adjournment.

  NEW CANADIAN MAIL SERVICES.
  MR. BOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the prospectus of the Canadian Royal Mail Steamship Company, and to the statement therein contained that the Imperial Government is to contribute an annual subsidy of £51,500 for 10 years from the commencement of the fast Atlantic service which the Company is to undertake; whether such statement is correct; and whether any and what opportunity will be afforded to the House for discussing the matter during the present Session?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have not seen the prospectus, but the statement which, according to the Question, is contained in it is correct. An opportunity will be given to the House of discussing the matter when the Vote for the subsidy is submitted.
  MR. PROVANDasked whether they would have an opportunity of considering this Vote before the subsidy was given?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Yes, when the subsidy is submitted, that is the usual time.
  MR. PROVAND: Will the contract be laid on the Table in the same way as the contracts between the Post Office and the Peninsular and Oriental and the Cunard Companies?
  [No Reply.]

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD AND DRUGS.
  MR. RICKETT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he anticipates the introduction during this Session of a Bill dealing with the adulteration of food and drugs, as mentioned in the concluding paragraph of the Queen's Speech?
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg at the same time to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now state when the Bill dealing with the adulteration of food products will be introduced?
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants,): I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when the Bill dealing with the adulteration of food products, which was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, will be introduced?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: I can answer all the Questions at once by saying that I hope to introduce a Bill on this subject shortly.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TYPE- WRITER.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether application has been made to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury by the Education Department, on behalf of a temporary typewriter employed in that Department, for his appointment to the permanent staff of the Department, or for an increased rate of pay; whether such clerk is a son of one of the staff
  358
  officers of the Department, and whether he has so far been employed without having been certified by the Civil Service Commissioners as regards his fitness in respect of age, health, character, and attainments; and whether the rate of pay asked for is greater than that accorded to a clerk of the second division, entering by open competitive examination, after 15 years' service?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir; no such application has reached the Treasury.

  TENTS FOR BRITISH TROOPS IN THE SOUDAN.
  MR. KEMP: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the troops in the Soudan are provided with small tents only, while there are available in Cairo large Indian tents more suitable for their protection against the heat, and that the supply of filters is totally insufficient; and whether the Government will take action in both these matters to safeguard the health of the troops?
  MR. BRODRICK: The provision of tents and niters to the troops in the Soudan rests entirely with the Egyptian Government, and these arrangements have been left to the discretion of the Sirdar. No complaints have reached the War Office.
  MR. HOLLAND: May I ask whether the Under Secretary of State for War cannot make some inquiry as to whether a large number of cases of death from dysentery have not occurred among the troops which might have been avoided by some expenditure in the direction mentioned?
  MR. BRODRICK: I doubt whether that is so, but I will have inquiry made.

  CONVICT CHARLES NOWLAND.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any representations have been made to him with reference to

  359
  the health of Convict Charles Nowland K 203; whether it is a fact that this prisoner has been suffering for years from acute rheumatic ailments; and whether, in view of this suffering and the enfeebled state of his health, the question of his release will be taken into favourable consideration?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No representations have been received for some time, but it is the case that he suffers from chronic periostitis of the bones of the hand. The state of his health, which is otherwise fair, has been repeatedly under consideration, but has not been found to be such as to justify his release. He is serving a commuted life-sentence for the crime of murder, and his case will come up for consideration in the ordinary course next year.

  TREATMENT OF THE PARSEE FEROZE AT WORMWOOD SCRUBBS PRISON.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Parsee Feroze, now an inmate of a lunatic asylum, was certified as being of sound mind on his reception at Wormwood Scrubbs Prison in November, 1892; whether he underwent several prison punishments while in that prison; what were the exact number and the nature of these punishments; how often was he punished while in Parkhurst Prison; and how many punishments of all kinds did this man undergo from the time of his sentence until he was certified as insane in 1895?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative; the answer to the third. 13, of which two were by birching and the remainder dietary. The answer to the fourth 12, all of which were dietary. No doubts as to his sanity arose until he had been some time at Parkhurst; he was then immediately placed under observation and treatment in hospital, where he remained until he was certified insane. The prisoner's insanity was traceable to a definite cause, which was not imprisonment.

  BAI BUREH.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Bai Bureh, alleging that four of his people were murdered by a party under the leadership of a European for refusing to carry property which this party had seized, and also alleging that the English have been warring against and killing the native Timnehs without cause; and whether Mapolonto, the burial-place of the Timneh kings, has been burnt by the British forces?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I have seen reports of various statements alleged to have been made by Bai Bureh, and among others that he has not intended to make war on the Government, and has never been asked for a hut tax. If this is true it is clear that the tax was not, as was at first supposed, the cause of the rebellion. There is no mention in Bai Bureh's reported statement of any refusal to carry property, and the Governor reports that his other statements are untrue. The burning of a place called Mapolonto has been reported, but there is nothing to show that it was known to be a burial-place.

  ARMY CLOTHING.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Secretary of State for War in October, 1896, ordered a Committee to consider the question of the clothing of the soldiers; and whether any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, consisting of Sir James Alleyne and three colonels of regiments, which reported that the scale of Government issue of several articles of clothing, including boots and trousers, was insufficient?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Question probably refers to an informal inquiry instituted in October, 1896, to consider the question of the clothing of the soldiers. A circular letter was sent to the General Officers Commanding Aldershot District and Ireland, asking for information in regard to the amount paid and compen-

  361
  sation received by soldiers on account of their clothing. The most important recommendation contained in the reports, which dealt with compensation for troops engaged at manœuvres, was immediately adopted.

  BURNLEY MILITARY DEPOT.
  MR. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the decision to abolish the Military Depôt at Burnley is final; whether his attention has been called to the fact that half the original cost of the barracks, when erected at the beginning of the present century, was defrayed by public subscription of the inhabitants of Burnley; and whether the War Department will, in the disposal of the site of the barracks now to be abolished, have due regard to the claims of the public, and give favourable consideration to the representations of the Corporation of Burnley upon the subject?
  MR. BRODRICK: In regard to the first paragraph of the Question the reply is in the affirmative. In disposing of the site the Secretary of State will be quite ready to consider any representations that may be made to him.

  ALLEGED GRUEL TREATMENT OF BRITISH SEAMEN.
  MR. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the brutality alleged to have been practised towards his seamen by Captain Morris, of the British barque Ancyra, on her voyage from Hong-kong to New York; whether he is aware that when the crew reached New York they were bruised, blackened, starved, and affected with scurvy, and they were calling piteously for a doctor; that during the voyage they were attacked in the most brutal manner; and that the implements used were large bamboo clubs, a bucket, an oak club, and the handle of a mop or broom; whether he is aware that Dr. J. A. O'Neill, of New York, after referring to the horrible
  362
  condition of others of the crew, described seaman Edward Thompson as with his teeth ready to drop out of his gums, and with eruptions, and also as having behind his right ear a contused wound, which he said had been made with a belaying pin; whether any report has been received by him on the subject from the British Consul General at New York; if he will make full inquiry into the matter without delay; and whether any steps will be taken to bring the offenders to justice?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No official information has reached me with regard to the Ancyra, but the Consul General at New York has been asked to report the facts of the case. I may state that I have received a letter from the owners, who tell me that their agents in New York and the master, who replaced Captain Morris in command, advise them that the newspapers in New York which started and circulated these reports were not justified in doing so by the facts of the case.

  KILKENNY AND URLINGFORD MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can explain the cause of the delay in establishing a mail-car service between Kilkenny and Urlingford, which was decided upon last October; whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused to the inhabitants of Urlingford and district by reason of the fact that their letters lie in the Kilkenny office from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. every day, and reach them too late to reply sama day; and whether he will see that the direct mail-car communication promised is started at once?
  MR. HANBURY: A mail-car service between Kilkenny and Urlingford for both night and day mails was established many years ago. The question which was under consideration last October was that of improving the hours of the car, with the view of remedying the inconvenience to which the honourable Member refers. Great difficulty has been found in effecting this improvement.

  STOKERS AT THE ROYAL LABORA- TORY, WOOLWICH.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is a fact that, in the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich, stokers who are working a night and day shift, should one be late in starting, he is stopped his time, while the man who does the work gets no extra pay?
  MR. BRODRICK: When a stoker fails to attend at starting time the one who should be relieved remains on duty till the foreman can arrange for his relief. By an arrangement which has been in force since 1893, stokers are paid on a consolidated weekly rating which, in the Royal Laboratory, is fixed so as to cover any occasional extra, attendance. When the contingency thus provided for does not arise the stoker is a gainer by the arrangement. The stoker who does not attend loses pay for the time he is absent.
  MR. STEADMAN: May I ask if the stoker who does the work when the other stoker is absent from duty gets paid?
  MR. BRODRICK: The stoker who performs the work has already been paid by the extra rating, while he who does not do it obviously has no claim to it.
  MR. STEADMAN: What extra pay does the stoker receive for working what practically is overtime?
  MR. BRODRICK: If the honourable Member will put down the question I will endeavour to get the information.

  ROSCREA, ETC., MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can now state the details regarding the arrangement with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for carrying out the contemplated improvement in the mail service to the towns of Roscrea, Nenagh, and Birr; and if there is any probability ox the needed accommodation being afforded to these localities within a reasonable time?
  MR. HANBURY: The Post Office proposals on this subject will be laid before the Treasury in the course of a day or two, and no time will be lost in arriving at a decision.

  RIOTS IN THE YANGTZE VALLEY.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the alleged riots in the Yangtze Valley; and whether, in view of our predominant interest in that region, the Government are prepared to assist the Chinese authorities in maintaining order?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin has reported a riot at Shashih, in which the Customs House, the Japanese Consulate, and Messrs. Jardine and Matheson's house were burnt. There has also been a riot at Sungpu, and the Swedish Mission there driven out, but no lives were lost. Telegraphing on May 16th, Sir Claude Macdonald stated that all Europeans from both places had arrived safely at Hankow. Her Majesty's ship Esk has been sent to Shashih and Her Majesty's ship Phœnix to Hankow. Japanese men of war have also been sent.

  APPEAL FOR JURY REPEAL (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will press forward the Appeal for Jury Repeal (Scotland) Bill, seeing that it is desirable that it should be on the Statute Book by the 1st July, the date of the commencement of the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: As I have reason to believe that the Bill referred to is to meet with opposition, and as the matters dealt with in it form a proper subject for the consideration of the Departmental Committee on Sheriff Court Procedure, I do not think it will be desirable to press it this Session.

  NATAL AS A COALING STATION.
  SIR C. CAYZER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that all ocean liners and steamers trading to South Africa and the East drawing up to 21 feet of water have for some time past regularly taken their supplies of coal alongside the wharf at Durban; that vessels of any draft can be coaled from lighters in the outer anchorage; and that the quality of the coal produced in Natal is well reported on; and whether Her Majesty's ships on the Cape Station will in future coal at Natal instead of taking coal from elsewhere at a greatly increased cost.?
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been brought to his notice that the Natal Government has recently been spending large sums in dredging the port of Durban, with such satisfactory results that the bar depth has been maintained at an average depth of 19 feet 2 inches at low water of springtides, and of 24 feet 2 inches at high water, during the past six months; and whether, seeing the great value of Durban to the Empire as the outlet for the immense coal-bearing areas of Natal and Zululand, he will reconsider the advisability of converting the port of Durban into an Imperial coaling station?
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that during the years 1896 paid 1897 vessels drawing over 21 feet of water used the Natal Harbour, and that there is frequently 25 feet at high water spring tides; that the Admiral in command of the Cape station has telegraphed to the Colonial Government of Natal for 2,000 tons of free coal to be sent to Simons Bay, and that in future all Her Majesty's ships under his command going eastward will coal at Port Natal; and whether, in view of the patriotic gift of 12,000 tons of coal per annum promised by the Colony of Natal, and the strategical importance of Port Natal as a coaling station, the Admiralty will reconsider its decision against converting the port into an Imperial coaling station?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF TH ADMIRALTY (Mr. J. A. CHAMBERLAIN,): Her Majesty's Government appreciate the patriotic gift of 12,000 tons of coal annually from the Government of Natal, and propose to take advantage of it as far as possible; but a regular systematised use of the port for coaling accessibility and safety are primary considerations. It is perfectly true that during the past year or two ships of 21 feet have passed safely into Durban, but the variations of depth on the bar, which is a constantly shifting one, are still so considerable, notwithstanding the steady improvement of recent years, that it cannot yet be stated with confidence that a vessel of this draught will find sufficient depth at all times. Work, which it has taken months of dredging to carry out, may be rendered useless by a short spell of heavy weather from the east. Vessels when once over the bar can coal from wharves. Owing to the difficulty in obtaining Welsh coal, in consequence of the present strike, the Commander-in-Chief availed himself of the offer of the Natal Government, and did make a request recently that 2,000 tons of coal should be sent to Simons Town, Her Majesty's Government paying the freight. He has also arranged for Her Majesty's ships to call at Durban for coal whenever practicable. Her Majesty's ships have for many years coaled in the outer roads of Natal, and the great improvement of the port now enables the smaller vessels to take coal within its shelter. The works still in hand give reason to hope that the port will steadily improve. With the immense number of works already in progress, and the pressing suggestions from various Colonies and from seaports at home as to similarly utilising their ports, it is impossible to give any pledge at this stage as to the particular works which may be next taken in hand.
  SIR C. CAYZER: Will the question be again considered when there is sufficient water at the bar?
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: May I ask whether the Admiralty are aware that several lines of steamships—including the Castle, the Union, the Aberdeen, the Clan, and the King lines—use the Port of Natal as a coaling

  367
  station, and that 30,000 tons of coal is the monthly output for coaling the mercantile marine at that port? Will he also explain what the grounds are on which it is stated that after 24 hours' bad weather the port is inaccessible over the bar?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Perhaps my honourable Friend will give notice of that Question.

  EXTIRPATION OF RABIES.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state what further progress has been made since February last with the eradication of rabies in England; over what districts muzzling orders are still in force; and whether, in view of the probable remission of these orders altogether at some not distant date, he will consider +he desirability of passing this Session the Dogs Regulation Bill, which gives to local authorities power to enforce collar and registration regulations?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: During the last 11 weeks there have been four cases of rabies reported, as compared with 36 in the corresponding period of 1897, and 133 in that of 1896. Muzzling orders are still in force in the Home Counties, districts round Birmingham and Middlesbrough, and in Lancashire, and the West Riding. I should be very glad to secure an early opportunity for the consideration of the Bill to which my honourable Friend refers, for the reason stated in his Question, especially since it is clear that much misunderstanding exists as to the effect and objects of the Bill.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, in view of the approaching dog days, the dogs' regulation will include cats as well as other animals?
  [No Reply.]

  LUNACY (SCOTLAND) REPORT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the Lunacy (Scotland) Report for 1896–97 was issued on 9th March, 1897, will he explain why the Report for 1897–98 is not yet in the hands of Members; and can he say when it will be published?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The date mentioned by the honourable Member is not accurate. The Lunacy Report for Scotland was issued, not on the 9th March, 1897, but on the 4th September, 1897. I am informed by the General Board of Lunacy that their Report for 1897–98 will be transmitted to the Secretary for Scotland for presentation to Parliament about the end of July, and that it will probably be circulated about the same time as last year.

  ROMSKY LICENSING PROSECUTION.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will call for a Report from the Chief Constable of Hants as to the alleged abuse in the administration of justice at the Romsey Borough Bench, in November last, namely, that two justices, by name Mr. Bentley George and Mr. James Cole-clough, the former being the manager and a shareholder in Messrs. Strong and Company's brewery, and the latter the head brewer of the firm in question, sat and adjudicated as justices in a prosecution instituted by the police under the Licensing Acts against a disreputable woman found in the "Bridge Tavern," after closing hours, the property of the said firm, in the said borough, notwithstanding the fact that they were respectfully warned by the superintendent of police, through the clerk to the justices, that they, as interested parties, ought not to act as magistrates in judging the case; whether he will call upon the said justices to explain and justify their conduct; and, if the facts are as stated, whether he will bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, with a view to their names being removed from the Commission of the Peace?
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have inquired into this matter, and the facts appear to be substantially as stated in the Question. I asked the justices for their observations on the matter, and have received from them an explanation which I do not consider to be satisfactory. I have felt it my duty in consequence to address a communication to the justices to that effect.

  MILITARY BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION AT DEVONPORT.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office authorities are aware that the Naval Commander-in-Chief at Devonport has published an official Memorandum stating that in consequence of the absence of troops from the garrisons the customary military divisional parade to celebrate Her Majesty's birthday will not take place this year, and notifies arrangements for holding instead a military parade, under his command, of the blue-jackets and marines by brigades for that purpose, and whether the statement is correct; and, if so, where is the general officer commanding the troops in that district, and what has become of the garrisons?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Infantry garrison at Devonport has been reduced by two battalions owing to the reconstruction of the drainage at Raglan Barracks. The customary military divisional parade to celebrate Her Majesty's birthday will accordingly not take place. The general officer commanding the troops in the district is at Devonport.
  SIR J. COLOMB: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, in view of the paucity of troops in this garrison, it is in contemplation to reduce the general staff, which now costs £9,000 a year, and consists of—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that.

  THE NAVY AND THE MARINES.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Admiral Commander-in-Chief at Devonport has notified his intention to hold a military parade, under his command, on the 24th instant, of naval and marine brigades, the latter consisting of two battalions, one supplied from the ships under the Admiral's command and the other from marines on shore at headquarters under the command of the general officer of the district, and serving under the Army Act; and that marines serving under the Army Act are not liable to be commanded by naval officers while so serving on shore; and will he state under what Act an Admiral is legally entitled to claim the command of marines serving on shore under the Army Act?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The parade will be held with the full concurrence of the general officer of the district at Devonport, who himself suggested the course to be pursued, and put it into general orders. The marines serving in barracks and those serving afloat will form three battalions, all under the command of the marine commandant. All arrangements appear to have been made with the cordial cooperation of the naval and military authorities, and no discordant note has been sounded.
  SIR J. COLOMB: Is it not the case that marines at headquarters serve under the Army Act, and are not, therefore, liable to naval command?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Yes; but this parade will be held with the full concurrence of the general officer commanding. I will supply the honourable and gallant Member with a copy of the Act, under which this is done. I believe the marines would have regretted if they had not been associated with the celebration.
  SIR J. COLOMB: But I want a distinct answer to the Question. Are the marines serving under the Army Act, and not, therefore, liable to naval command?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I repeat I will send my

  371
  honourable Friend a copy of the Act under which the arrangements are being made.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the increasing tendency for naval officers specially trained for operations on the water to take command on shore of marine officers specially trained for operations on land; and whether he proposes to issue any regulations to secure that officers trained for specific duties shall be permitted to assume the responsibilities of their efficient discharge, especially as regards the control and direction of their own men?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No, Sir; I know of no such increasing tendency. I should regret it if there were, but I know of none. The Board does not propose to issue any regulations. The responsibility of making arrangements for the successful accomplishmemt of any operations they may be directed to undertake, must necessarily be left to Commanders-in-Chief or the senior officers in command.

  BICYCLES AND THE DETECTION OF CRIME.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether for every prosecution instituted against a licensed publican in Ireland by an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary a reward of 5 s. per case is given to the constable if he was riding a bicycle when he detected the offence; will he explain why no reward of the kind is given if the constable prosecuting does not use a bicycle; whether there is any section of the Royal Irish Constabulary Police Code authorising this reward; and, if so, what section; for what special reason was this reward to cycling constables instituted; and whether it will be given in future to constables on foot who discharge similar duties?
  MR. G. BALFOUR: The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. The section of the code to which the honourable Member refers is as follows—
  "Whenever any member of the force performs any important duty, such as an arrest,
  372
  detection, etc., by means of riding a bicycle, the case is to be specially reported to the Inspector General, giving full particulars."
  In any such case a small reward might be paid to a member of the force, but each case is considered on its own merits, and the duty must be shown to be more than ordinary duty. The object in giving such reward is to encourage the police to use their bicycles as a means of detection, the cycles being their own property. Rewards for services of exceptional merit are not confined to constables using bicycles, as the honourable Member assumes.

  IRISH STATE PAPERS.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the number of volumes of the State Papers, "Rolls Series," has been so far 219 for England and only 11 for Ireland? And whether, seeing that £1,000 is annually voted by Parliament for the publication of the Scottish State Papers, and that nothing is voted for the publication of the Irish State Papers, he will see that an appropriation is made in the Estimates for the current year for the specific purpose of the publication of Irish State Papers, and that the disparity between the number of volumes published for England and for Ireland will be, as soon as possible, reduced?
  MR. HANBURY: The "Rolls Series" are not State Papers in the technical sense, but documents affording material for the History of the Country before the Reign of Henry VIII. The publication of the series, which began in 1857, is now coming to a close. Of the 244 volumes which have been published, 12 are exclusively Irish, 3 are exclusively Scotch, and the remaining 229, though chiefly English, also throw light upon the history of Scotland and Ireland. We have received no representations as to important Irish documents being still unpublished. The £1,000 mentioned in the Question is provided annually in the Vote for the Register House, Edinburgh, for the publication of Scottish Historical Records, not necessarily State Papers. The Royal Irish Academy, which deals

  373
  with similar documents of purely Irish interest, receives from the State, in money and housing, upwards of £2,000 a year, though it is fair to add that the funds of the society are applicable to other purposes besides the publication of such documents. Private collections of historical documents are dealt with by the Historical MS. Commission, who have recently been engaged on the Ormonde Papers and the Acts of Queen Elizabeth's Council in Ireland. We recently bought back for the Irish Record Office some State Papers of about two centuries back at the sale of the Phillips library. State Papers are being calendared for all the three kingdoms, and up to the present time there have been published 66 volumes of calendars which relate to England and Wales alone; of volumes relating to Ireland as well as England, 40 have been published and 4 are in the press; and of volumes relating to Ireland alone, 18 have been published and 2 are in the press.

  UNCERTIFIED DEATHS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for Inverness in Ins report for the year 1897, in calling attention to the numerous uncertified deaths, states that in the case of six parishes in which the entire number of deaths during the year amounted to 367, as many as 225 of that number were uncertified by a medical practitioner; and will he say whether the Government proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that they have observed the statement of the medical officer of health for Inverness-shire as to the excessive number of uncertified deaths in certain parishes. The question has, I understand, been frequently brought under the notice of the Board, but it is difficult to suggest a practical remedy. As the honourable Member is no doubt aware, the general question of death certification was fully reported upon by a Select Committee of this House in 1893.

  CAUSER WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Dr. John Grant, the medical officer of health for the parishes of Abernethy and Duthill, is quoted in the Report of the medical officer of health for Inverness-shire for 1897, as having expressed the opinion that a supply of pure water should be supplied amongst other places to the village of Causer, in the Badenoch district of Inverness-shire; and, in view of the fact that Dr. Grant further declares that the sanitary condition of the district cannot be regarded as satisfactory in the absence of that supply, will he state what steps the local authorities propose to take in order to meet the requirements of the medical officer of health?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that it is the case that the local medical officer of health for Abernethy and Duthill has expressed the opinion alluded to in the first part of the question. They have no knowledge of the further opinion referred to in the second part of the question, and I am not able to say what steps the local authority proposes to take in the matter.

  OMAGH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of fair rent appeals disposed of by the Chief Commission during the last sitting at Omagh, and also in how many cases were the judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners confirmed reduced, and increased respectively?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There were 93 cases on the list to be disposed of by the Commissioners at their last sitting at Omagh. In 49 of these cases the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were affirmed, in 22 cases they were increased, and in three they were reduced. Of the remaining cases, six stand adjourned, in three cases the originating notices were dismissed, nine were settled by mutual agreement between the parties, and in only one case was judgment reserved.

  AMALGAMATED POST OFFICE CLERKS' PAY.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the maximum pay of clerks in the smaller amalgamated post offices is 34s. to 36s. per week, and the maximum in the larger offices is 54s. to 56s. per week; whether the clerks in the smaller offices have the same duties to discharge and are they in numerous cases kept on duty from 12 to 15 hours per day, in opposition to the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee; and whether he will call for a Return of the hours worked by these clerks with the view of bringing their hours of labour and their scale of pay under the rules regulating the treatment of clerks in the larger offices?
  MR. HANBURY: The maximum pay for male sorting clerks and telegraphists ranges from 50s. to 56s. a week at the larger provincial post offices, and from 34s. to 44s. a week at the amalgamated offices. The offices are divided into groups according to their size and importance, with maxima ranging from 34s. to 56s. a week. The sorting clerks and telegraphists at the smaller offices have the same kind of duty as those at the larger offices, but it is not equally onerous and important. It is not believed that any officers are kept on duty from 12 to 15 hours a day. If they are, it is a breach of the rules which would be immediately rectified if represented by the officers concerned. Such a Return as the honourable Member suggests is not necessary, as the hours of labour and the scales of pay are generally in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee.

  IRISH WORKHOUSE ACCOMMODA- TION.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the population of Ireland approximately when the workhouses were built there, and the population at the time of taking the last census; and whether,
  376
  seeing that the population of Ireland has largely decreased since the workhouses were built, he will introduce into the Local Government (Ireland) Bill a clause giving powers to county councils to amalgamate workhouses where they consider necessary?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The workhouses in Ireland were built between the years 1838 and 1851. The population of Ireland, as given in the Census Returns for the years 1831, 1841, and 1851 was 7,767,401, 8,175,124, and 6,551,970 respectively. The population of Ireland at the last census (1891) was 4,704,750. I am not prepared to introduce a clause such as suggested in the Question, but I may remind the honourable Member that clause 50, sub-section 2, of the Local Government Bill provides that the Local Government Board, on the application of a county council, and after communication with the guardians concerned, may amalgamate unions for the purpose of placing a workhouse at the disposal of the council for an auxiliary lunatic asylum.

  COUNTY COURT JUDGE CRAIG.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that County Court Judge Craig has frequently complained of the extra amount of business brought before him in the way of processes for sums of less than £2; whether he is aware that the reason of plaintiffs preferring the county court for the recovery of small debts is that, as the law stands at present in Ireland, a plaintiff who gets a decree in the petty sessions court has to employ a bailiff at any fee the bailiff demands, whereas if a decree is obtained in the county court the sheriff executes the decree according to an arranged scale of fees; and whether he will introduce a Bill this Session making it imperative on sheriffs of counties to execute decrees obtained in the petty sessions court for the same scale of charges as decrees obtained in the county court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): My attention has been called to the

  377
  matter referred to, and I have been informed by Judge Craig that he made no complaint whatever as to any extra work having been put upon him by the practice mentioned. I am not aware that the county court has been resorted to for the reasons stated in the Question, but it has been suggested to me that small debts are sued for in that court because the plaintiffs and their solicitors prefer that tribunal. It is not intended to introduce this Session any legislation on the subject.

  LETTER DELIVERIES NEAR DUBLIN.
  MR. J. H. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the evening delivery of letters from provincial districts in Ireland has been discontinued in Milltown, Dundrum, Shankhill, Bray, and other places in the vicinity of Dublin, to the great inconvenience of the inhabitants of these places; and will he arrange for the restoration of the delivery?
  MR HANBURY: The letters from the provincial districts in Ireland which formerly arrived in Dublin in time for the evening delivery in Milltown, Dundrum, Shankhill, Bray, and other places are now received too late for that delivery, the trains by which the letters are conveyed being brought into Dublin 50 minutes later than formerly in order to give towns in tine provinces the latest possible dispatch for English letters. The question of postponing the evening delivery so as again to include the Irish provincial letters has been more than once considered, but the delivery would have to be postponed to so late an hour as to become practically useless.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it not the fact that the so-called acceleration of the mails, so far as the Dublin district is concerned, has become simply a public nuisance?
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot say that.

  IRISH SHERIFFS AND SUB-SHERIFFS.
  MR. J. H. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Committee appointed last year under the presidency of Lord Justice Holmes, in reference to the offices of sheriff and sub-sheriff in Ireland, has made its Report; and, if the Report has been made, whether copies can be obtained by Members of this House; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to take any action in reference to such Report?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Report referred to in the Question is a confidential document, and could not be supplied to honourable Members. The Government have not been able to act on the Report, but the matter is engaging their attention.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN DROMORE WEST UNION.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that the Local Government Board of Ireland refused to sanction the erection of a labourer's cottage in Dromore West Union for a labourer named Michael Carvey, of Carrowkilpatrick, Dromard; is he aware that Mrs. Hart, a local landowner, is now prepared to give a site; can he explain on what grounds the sanction of the Local Government Board was refused; and will he order inquiries to be made in regard to this matter, and instruct the Local Government Board to allow the cottage to be erected without undue delay, in case no serious obstacle exists?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member has been misinformed as regards this case. The Local Government Board did not refuse to sanction the erection of the cottage in question; on the contrary, they approved of it.

  BELFAST POST OFFICES.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether he is

  379
  aware that many leading merchants in Belfast suffer grave inconvenience and loss through the want of a post office in Corporation Square; and has application been made for the establishment of a post office in Corporation Square; has the application been considered; and with what result?
  MR. HANBURY: There are already post offices at York Street, Queen Square, and Waring Street, Belfast, distant 465, 489, and 568 yards respectively from Corporation Square. Applications have been considered for a post office in the square, but no suitable premises have yet been obtained.

  KILLALOE QUARTER SESSIONS.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many cases were entered for hearing at the Killaloe Quarter Sessions in the two years ended 31st March, 1898; how many of those cases, exclusive of those settled after entry, were disposed of by the county court judge in Killaloe, and how many were adjourned by him to Ennis; is he aware that litigants in the Killaloe Quarter Sessions district are constantly subjected to serious inconvenience and expense through the adjournment of their cases to Ennis; and can he explain on what grounds cases are being constantly adjourned from Killaloe to Ennis by the county court judge?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The number of cases referred to in the first paragraph is 41. Of these, 19 were disposed of at Killaloe and three were adjourned to Ennis. In two of the adjourned cases the adjournment was by consent of the solicitors for both parties, and in the remaining case, the plaintiff's solicitor was not in attendance when the case was called. The statements in the third and fourth paragraphs appear, therefore, to have been made under a misconception of the actual facts.

  DISTRESS AT CAHIRCIVEEN.
  MR. T. J. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the resolutions passed by the priests of the Cahirciveen Deanery, as published in the Irish Daïly Independent, on the 14th instant, in which it is stated that on the 9th May there were seven patients in the Cahirciveen Fever Hospital from Portmagee parish; whether he can mention the date on which the Local Government Board inspector visited the Island of Valentia, and reported that he had visited and ascertained that every destitute person on the island was relieved; whether temporary relief has been repeatedly given to hundreds of destitute families in Cahirciveen district during the past three months from the Mansion House Committee and other charitable sources; whether he can state the amount of relief these destitute families received from Government aid during the same period; is he aware that the rates in the Cahirciveen Union are at present 9s. in the £ valuation, and that the evils with which the people in this locality are face to face are greatly aggravated by the cessation of credit on the part of the shopkeepers, whose resources are almost exhausted, 38 small farmers owing to one merchant for food alone £850; and whether, under the circumstances, he will relieve the guardians from the provision which compels them to become liable for one-fourth of the money expended in relief works in this district?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On Tuesday last the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin drew my attention to the statement in the first paragraph. There were four cases of fever in the union hospital from the Portmagee district on the 9th May, not seven as alleged. There were, however, on the same date three cases in the hospital from the district of Emlagh. The inspector has visited Valentia Island on several occasions during the winter and spring. On the 26th, 27th, and 28th April he was making inquiries throughout the Cahirciveen Union, and on the 27th, when at Portmagee, which is in the Valentia district, he procured all the information possible from the relieving

  381
  officer and others as to the state of Valentia Island, and satisfied himself that the relieving officer was doing his duty. On the 11th instant the inspector again visited the Island. I have no information as to the extent to which grants from charitable funds have been distributed in the district. The guardians, as the honourable Member is aware, have declined to accept the financial aid offered to them by the Government towards relieving the poor of the union. The average poor rate in the union is this year 2s. 9¾d. in the £. The county cess amounts to 3s. 9d. In the adjoining union of Kenmare, where the average poor rate is 2s. 9d., the guardians have now resolved to adopt the labour test scheme. I have no knowledge of the number of people indebted to the shopkeepers. There is nothing in the circumstances of the Cahirciveen Union which would warrant a departure from the lines on which the scheme of relief measures has been successfully put into operation in districts more congested than Cahirciveen, and in which the poor rates are higher.

  LAND APPEALS IN COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused in the county of Kerry to farmers whose appeals are pending for one-and-a-half years in connection with the Head Land Commission; whether he can state when they last heard appeals in Kerry; and when will they next visit that county?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners last sat in Killarney for the hearing of appeals on the 29th June, 1897, and following days. The list then for hearing contained all cases in which appeals were received prior to May, 1897. The next Sitting of the Appeal Court for county Kerry has not as yet been arranged.

  PEEL ESTATE, COUNTY KERRY.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to
  382
  the Peel estate in county Kerry, whether he is aware that on 13th December last Judge Ross issued a request to the Land Commission under section 40 of the Irish Land Act, 1896, for an inspection, with the view to a sale, of the landlord's interest to the tenants on the estate; whether he is aware that no such inspection has yet been made; whether he can explain the cause of delay; and if he can say about what date the inspection is likely to be made?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The request for an inspection in this case was lodged in the Land Commission on the 1st April of this year, and the matter is now in the hands of the inspector, who will carry out the inspection before the end of the present month.

  SIERRA LEONE HUT TAX.
  MR. MCDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the levying of the hut tax in the British West African Settlements has been condemned by successive Governors of Lagos, Sierra Leone, and the Gold Coast as an unsuitable method of raising taxation, generally calculated to lead to disturbances, he can state the reasons which led the Colonial Office to enforce a tax declared to be objectionable in its incidence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The statement that a hut tax has been condemned by successive Governors of Lagos, Sierra Leone, and Gold Coast is not correct. For the reasons for which the hut tax was imposed in Sierra Leone, I would refer to the statement I made on the 10th instant.

  JEDDAH-MECCA ROAD.
  MR. MCDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the insecurity of travellers between Jeddah and Mecca, and the repeated acts of brigandage committed

  383
  on British subjects on the road, for which redress cannot be obtained; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken to protect Mohammedans who are British subjects journeying on the highways in Arabia?
  MR. CURZON: I have examined the recent Reports of Her Majesty's Consul at Jeddah, but, while he speaks of some acts of petty robbery near Mecca, and of apprehensions entertained in consequence of the enforced isolation of Jeddah, owing to the fear of plague, there is nothing in his Reports to indicate an abnormal state of insecurity or brigandage. On the contrary, he speaks of a rumoured attack upon an Indian caravan as having proved to be quite without foundation.

  VOLUNTEER HONORARY COLONELCIES.
  MR. MCDERMOTT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is able, in the interests of the Volunteer Force, to communicate to the House the steps taken by the Commander-in-Chief to stop the sale of honorary colonelcies of Volunteer regiments, and to cancel the commissions of those gentlemen who have, for monetary considerations, introduced into the Volunteer Force unsuitable candidates for honorary field rank?
  MR. BRODRICK: In reference to the matter alluded to by the honourable Member, the commission of one honorary colonel has, as I have already stated in this House, been cancelled. The resignation of the commanding officer of a Volunteer regiment, who was the channel of communication in this case, has been accepted. The question of taking steps to prevent similar occurrences in future is now under consideration.

  MAGHERAFELT WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the last meeting of the Magherafelt Board of Guardians, whether he is aware that
  384
  Dr. Vesey, J.P., the medical officer of the dispensary, reported to the Board that the surroundings of the well supplying the dispensary pump in Magherafelt and the lane from St. Swithin's Church were in a filthy and unsanitary condition; and whether, in the interest of the public health, the Local Government Board will direct something to be done in the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Local Government Board have directed their medical inspector to visit the locality with a view to urging the sanitary authority to take the necessary steps for the preservation of the public health.

  IRISH REGISTERS.
  MR. M. HEALT: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, after the Local Government (Ireland) Bill is passed, the Parliamentary register and local government supplement will be printed by the clerk of the peace or town clerk, or partly by one and partly by the other; and whether the Bill makes any change in the functions of the clerk of the peace in connection with the preparation of the Parliamentary voters' lists and register beyond adding the local government supplement thereto?
  MR. ATKINSON: The Parliamentary registers, augmented, however, by the names of Peers and women duly qualified as local government electors, will be printed by the clerks of the peace as heretofore, and no change further than is involved in the addition of these names will be made in the functions of these officials. Under the Registration Act of this year, and the rules made in pursuance of it, the town clerks will only require to arrange the lists received by them from the clerks of the peace in such a manner as to be suitable for municipal elections.
  MR. M. HEALY: Does this answer apply to county boroughs?
  MR. ATKINSON: Yes, Sir.

  IRISH MUNICIPAL TAXATION.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will have circulated as a Return or Parliamentary Paper the summary read by him on Monday showing the different methods of municipal taxation in Irish urban areas?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The summary read by me on Monday last was found to require some correction as regards individual towns and boroughs, but the Commissioner of Valuation has now prepared a fuller and more accurate Return, which will at once be laid on the Table. I may say, however, that great difficulty has been experienced in getting these statistics together, and that I am not prepared to guarantee that they are absolutely free from error even now.

  THE QUEEN v. T. AND P. HORRIGAN.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the letter dated this month to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by Mr. James Blackwell, of Askeaton, county Limerick, in reference to an assault case at the suit of The Queen v. Thomas and Patrick Horrigan, in which he asserts that he was struck by the defendants with a two-pronged fork, and his life declared in danger for over 10 days; and that, notwithstanding his depositions, the case at hearing was entered as one of common assault only, and resulted in a fine of only 5s. against only one of the defendants; and whether he will direct an inquiry to be made into the conduct of District Inspector Webster as regards the institution and course of the proceedings complained of, and the action of the adjudicating magistrates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has not been directed to the letter in question. Upon the information before me, it duos not appear that the district inspector acted otherwise than in a regular and impartial manner. I do not propose, nor have I any power, to investigate the action of the magistrates who adjudicated in the case.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: May I ask why it was that this inspector altered the charge from one of inflicting grievous bodily harm to one of common assault, and why the medical certificate was withheld from the magistrate?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice must be given of that Question.

  INDIAN CURRENCY.
  MR. COHEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government have already taken decided stops for the establishment of a gold standard in India; and whether the assent of the Secretary of State in Council and of Parliament is necessary for the introduction of a loan in sterling in London for the establishment of such gold standard?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: NO steps have been taken by the Government of India, since the closing of the Mints in 1893 to the free coinage of silver, in the direction of the establishment of a gold standard. The assent of the Secretary of State in Council and of Parliament would be necessary as a prior condition to the issue of any loan in London for the purpose of establishing a gold standard in India. It is distinctly understood that any general horrowing powers which the Secretary of State may now possess, or may hereafter obtain for railway or other cognate purposes, will not be used for thin purpose.

  AUTOMATIC RAILWAY COUPLINGS.
  MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the enactment by the United States of America of a law compelling the use of automatic couplings on the railways of that country, the number of accidents to employees engaged in coupling and uncoupling vehicles has decreased 45 per cent. in killed, and 28 per cent. in injured; whether he is also aware that during the same period in the United Kingdom the accidents occurring

  387
  in coupling and uncoupling, as shown by the Board of Trade Returns, have increased to a serious extent; and whether he will grant a Return of all accidents occurring during shunting operations on the railways of the United Kingdom during the last 10 complete years, showing in separate columns the number of killed and injured, and distinguishing all the accidents caused by coupling and uncoupling from those due to other causes, and a like Return of the same class of accidents on the railways in the United States of America for the same period, giving the date when the new law as to automatic couplings came into force?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: If the honourable Member will put down a Motion for a return asking for the figures referred to in the first part of paragraph 3 of his Question, I shall be happy to supply them, but I cannot give the American statistics, and the honourable Member must not assume that I admit the accuracy of the statements contained in paragraphs 1 and 2. I may say, in addition, that the matters referred to in the Question, and one or two others connected with railway administration in the United States, seem to me of so much interest that I am considering whether it may not be desirable to make some arrangements for a special investigation of them during the autumn Recess.

  ORANGE DISTURBANCES AT BALLINAHINCH.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN (on behalf of the honourable Member for East Clare): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if Ids attention has been called to a serious riot caused by Orangemen in Ballinahinch on the 12th instant, when hostile demonstrations were indulged in towards the Roman Catholic residents, and windows broker in the houses of Mr. O'Donnell, Mrs. M'Alea, Mr. Patrick Boyd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Russell, and Mr. Keenan, and plate-glass windows were smashed on the premises of Mr. James Murray, J.P., and damage done to the extent of £70 or £80 worth of property; whether he is
  388
  aware that Mr. H. A. Campbell, a recently appointed J.P., was present with the rioters while Roman Catholic houses were being wrecked; and whether he will be called upon to explain his conduct; and whether the Government will cause strict inquiries to be made, and the parties responsible for the riot at Ballinahinch to be prosecuted?
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg at the same time to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the disorderly proceedings at Ballinahinch, county Down, on the 12th instant, whether he can now give further details as to the damage done, the cause of the disorder, the number of persons present in the row, and the number of persons arrested on the occasion?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On Tuesday last I replied to a question addressed to me on this subject by the honourable Member for South Down. The names of the Roman Catholic residents whose property was injured by the mob on the occasion are correctly set forth. I have no information to the effect alleged with respect to Mr. Campbell, but I am making inquiries. A crowd of about 1,000 persons, with six bands, was present in the town on the arrival of the two members of the Orange Party, who had been discharged earlier in the day from Belfast Prison, where they had been incarcerated on a charge of drunkenness and disorderly conduct. The primary object of the assembling of the mob wag to give the discharged prisoners a reception. Proceedings have been instituted against 13 persons for riot, and I am informed that the cases against these persons were adjourned at Petty Sessions on Wednesday until the 30th instant.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask if the Tight honourable Gentleman will cause strict inquiry to be made into the origin of the riot and the action of the police?
  MR. DILLON: Can the right honourable Gentleman explain why the same principle of police administration is not practised in West Mayo as at Ballinahinch?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Will the inquiry extend to the alleged participation of Mr. Campbell, J.P.?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The inquiry will embrace all points.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' WAGES.
  MR. JACOBY: I beg to ask the Secretary in the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will furnish a return of the number of telegraphists who were, on 1st April, 1898, at their maximum wages of 50s., 52s., 54s., or 56s. per week, together with the average service of the same in each of the offices in Schedule A, as compared with the number and average service of the sorting clerks employed in the same class of offices who are receiving their maximum wage?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, Sir; if the honourable Member will move for the Return it shall be granted.

  NANNING.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Sir C. Macdonald on Wednesday, 19th January, 1898, demanded of the Chinese Government the opening of the port of Nanning; that on the 25th January he reported that the French Government had protested against the opening of that port; and that on the 31st January he again reported that the French Chargé d'Affaires at Pekin had spoken very violently to the Chinese Government against it, any further steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter since the 31st January; whether the French Government still maintain their opposition to the opening of Nanning; whether Her Majesty's Government have consequently withdrawn their demand for its opening; and when he expects to be able to lay upon the Table the correspondence relating to the matter?
  MR. CURZON: I am unable at present to make any statement on the subject, or to say whether the Papers can be published.

  MURDER OF YUSSUF YUNNAN.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Porte has yet complied with the demand of the Government for the restitution of the £500, the property of the British Armenian Relief Committee, which was stolen from Yussuf Yunnan, when he was murdered fifteen months ago, and for compensation to the family of the above-named Yussuf Yunnan?
  MR. CURZON: No reply has as yet been returned by the Porte to the application made, by Her Majesty's Ambassador for the restitution of the money stolen from Yussuf Yunnan.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Blue Book (Turkey, No. 2), just published, contains no correspondence, as promised, relating to the murder of Yussuf Yunnan and the punishment of his murderers; and whether the latter have yet been punished?
  MR. CURZON: The Blue Book (Turkey No. 2) relates, as its title indicates, solely to the negotiations for the conclusion of peace between Greece and Turkey. Papers with regard to the murder of Yussuf Yunnan will appear in a Blue Book containing correspondence on the affairs of Asiatic Turkey, which is now being prepared. The persons accused of the murder were condemned to death, but the sentence has been referred to the Court of Cassation for examination.

  THE ARREST OF MR. BARR.
  MR. HEDDERWICK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reparation has been demanded by Her Majesty's Government or has been made by the Porte for the

  391
  arrest and imprisonment, some month ago, of Mr. Robert Barr, the author, on the coast of Syria, while he was engaged in inspecting some ancient ruins, under the protection of a British passport?
  MR. CURZON: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, on hearing of the arrest and detention of Mr. Barr, and certain other British subjects, for 26 hours at Suedia in November last, made immediate, representations to the Porte. As a result of these representations, the Mudir of Suedia, the official mainly responsible, was dismissed, and a note was received from the Porte, expressing regret at the incident, and stating that orders had been sent to the proper authorities to prevent the repetition of such occurrences. In these circumstances, and considering that no pecuniary compensation was demanded by the individuals concerned, Her Majesty's Government considered that the measures taken by the Porte and the apology given afforded adequate satisfaction.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What satisfaction is that to Mr. Barr?
  [No Reply.]

  BRITISH WARSHIPS OFF FREETOWN.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty which of Her Majesty's ships are now at Freetown; and are any other British, warships shortly expected there; and, if so, will he state their names?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The following ships are at Freetown, and in the neighbourhood:—Blake, Fox, Blonde, Sparrow, and Alecto. The Thrush is on her way to relieve the Sparrow, and Phœbe to relieve the Fox. It is not proposed to send any further ships.

  LIGHT-KEEPERS' GRIEVANCES.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what number of
  392
  petitions has been received by the Trinity Board, Irish Lights Board, and Board of Northern Lights since 1st May, 1893, in connection with the grievances of light-keepers; whether the light-keepers have been frequently assured that the matter of their grievances was receiving most careful attention; whether he is aware that, by circular dated 1st January last, they were informed that a sum of 30s. a year, which had been formerly deducted from their pay as part premium or compulsory insurance, would in future be paid out of the Mercantile Marine Fund; whether the contribution of less than 1d. per day has satisfied the light-keepers; whether he can explain why gas stations have been selected for increased pay and oil stations excluded, considering that there is much more work and greater responsibility at a first-order oil station than at a gas station; whether the emoluments formerly valued at £18 have now been valued at £25, thus giving £7 a year to the Mercantile Marine Fund during the whole service of the light-keeper's 40 years; whether he is aware of the general discontent at present existing among the men; and, if lie will make inquiry into the matter, with the view of having the alleged grievances of the service remedied?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Petitions have been received by three lighthouse authorities during the last five years with respect to the grievances of light-keepers in their employ; but I have no information as to the actual number of the petitions. These petitions received the careful attention of the lighthouse authorises, who submitted to the Board of Trade a scale of remuneration, which the Board approved. The principal effect of the new scale is, in the first place, as stated by the honourable Member, to increase the wages of the ordinary light-keepers by 30s. a year and, secondly, to increase their prospective annual pension by £4 13s. 4d. Additional remuneration was also sanctioned in special cases. The Board of Trade were advised by the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House that work in connection with stations where gas is made should receive

  393
  higher remuneration than work at stations where oil only is used. The revaluation of the emoluments is correctly stated in the question. The effect, however, is not to make any addition to the Mercantile Marine. Fund, but to increase the prospective pension of the light-keepers. I have no means of knowing how far the above improvements have satisfied the light-keepers; but I have no reason to think that there is discontent among them, or that they still have grievances which need any further inquiry. May I add that nearly all these questions relate to mere matters of detail, and it would have been much more satisfactory if the honourable Member, instead of putting them on the Paper, had written to me privately for the information.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, no! We want to know as well.

  PIER ACCOMMODATION AT DROMOD.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the Board of Works in Ireland has been directed to the failure of the Shannon Development Company to provide a suitable pier at Dromod, in South Leitrim, for landing and talking off passengers, Dromod being the terminus of the Cavan and Leitrim Railway and Midland Great Western Railway; and whether, in view of the baronial guarantee from Leitrim to this Company, the Board of Works will compel them to carry out their undertaking to have a suitable pier at Dromod.?
  MR. HANBURY: It is found that the connection between the Shannon steamer service and the Cavan and Leitrim Railway can be more conveniently formed by landing the passengers at Rooskey (about two miles below Dromod) than by providing an improved pier at Dromod. A coach service will be established between Rooskey and Dromod stations.

  KIRKWOOD ESTATE, COUNTY ROSCOMMON.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Commission can state what steps have been taken to complete the sale of the Kirkwood estate, in the county Roscommon, to the occupying tenants, proposals to purchase having been signed by the tenants so long ago as the 4th February, 1897?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Land Judge's request for an inspection of this estate was lodged with the Land Commissioners in November, 1897, and the Commissioners made their Report to the Land Judge in the following month. On the 28th March last the judge's order was lodged with the Commissioners, and the offers directed to be made by him to the tenants were communicated to them on the 11th instant. I am not aware whether the tenants have accepted these offers.

  DESERTIONS OF SEAMEN FROM BRITISH SHIPS.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Consuls at New York, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Portland (Oregon), Boston, Rio de Janeiro, Rosario, and Marseilles can be called upon to report in their annual Returns their views as to the causes of the large number or desertions of seamen from British ships in their respective ports, amounting in the aggregate to over 14,000 per annum; the amount of unpaid wages left behind by the seamen so deserting; and what steps, if any, they would recommend should be taken to remedy this great evil?
  MR. CURZON: I shall have pleasure in instructing Her Majesty's Consuls at the ports named by my honourable and gallant Friend to report upon the subject of desertions of British seamen. But I think it will be preferable that these reports should be furnished separately rather than included in the annual reland at Talienwan or in the Leao-tong

  395
  in a position to supply particulars about the unpaid wages, which are dealt with in accordance with section 232 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and the accounts of which are not rendered to them.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will endeavour to obtain similar information as to the causes of desertion of seamen, from the Colonial authorities, in the ports of Sydney and Newcastle (New South Wales), also of Melbourne, Cape Town, and Montreal; the amount of unpaid wages left behind by the seamen; and what steps, if any, they would recommend should be taken to remedy the evil?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: I will endeavour to obtain from the Governments of Canada, New South Wales, Victoria, and the Cape the information desired by the honourable and gallant Member.

  ATTACK ON THE BRITISH VICE- CONSUL, AT SEBASTOPOL.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the result of the court-martial upon the seamen of the Russian Imperial Navy for the gross assault upon our Vice Consul at Sebastopol (C. J. Cooke, Esq.) in February last; whether any suitable apology or expression of regret has been offered Mr. Cooke for the outrage; and whether any reward has been or will be given by our Foreign Office to the Consul's servant, Victor Pauloff, for his courageous defence of the Consul when so attacked, and as some compensation for the serious injuries he, the servant, received while attempting to guard his master?
  MR. CURZON: The court-martial was held on April 29th and 30th, and resulted in a verdict of "Guilty" against the prisoners, who were sentenced to 10 years in the mines of Siberia. On May 18th the Russian Government, in a Note to the British Ambassador, expressed their regret at the deplorable incident of the assault. We hare received no infor-
  396
  mation or recommendation as to the conduct of the Consul's servant.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Will the right honourable Gentleman ask for a Report on the conduct of the servant?
  MR. CURZON: If it in desirable that anything should be done on behalf of the servant the Vice Consul would certainly report the matter first.

  BRITISH SHIPS ON THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many British ships of war are now on the West Coast of Africa, and how many more are under orders to proceed to ports upon that coast; for what specific purpose are these ships sent to these ports; whether any representation has been made by France to Her Majesty s Government in consequence of this collection of war vessels at these places at the present time; and whether he can state what was the number of similar ships stationed at or ordered to these same ports two years ago?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I have answered, and am prepared to answer, questions relative to the despatch of particular vessels to different places for the protection of British lives and interests, but I respectfully submit that it is inexpedient that the general distribution and movements of Her Majesty's ships should form the subject of questions and answers in this House.

  BURMO-CHINESE FRONTIER.
  MR. DRAGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the southern section of the Commission for delimiting the Burmo-Chinese frontier has dispersed; whether any work was done by the section; and whether he can state what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter, in view of the constant disturbances among the Kachin tribes on the frontier?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: The Joint Commission for the delimitation of the Burmo-Chinese frontier, in accordance with the agreement of 1897, commenced work in December last. Upon arrival at Lwalien, in the second section south of the Taping river, a discrepancy between the Chinese and English versions of the agreement led to a difference of opinion between General Liu, the Chinese Commissioner, and Mr. Thirkell Whites which involved references to Pekin, and finally resulted in a postponement of the work for another season. Much valuable information was collected by the Commission. The Chinese Government has been informed that the line will provisionally be regarded as that laid down in the British version of the agreement of 1897, and the map attached to it. Some local opposition on the part of the Kachins was met and overcome, and on March 25th I authorised the Government of India to take any steps considered expedient for the maintenance of their authority within the line of the agreement.

  TYPHUS AT PORTMAGEE.
  MR. J. DILLON: On behalf of the Member for South Kerry I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of deaths which have recently occurred in the Portmagee district from typhus and typhoid; and how many patients are at present in the Cahireiveen hospital suffering from these diseases, and to what cause the outbreak is attributed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The clerk of the union states that there has been only one death recently from fever in the Portmagee dispensary district, and that there are two cases of fever at present in the union hospital from the Portmagee district, and three from the Emlagh district. The disease was introduced into the village in January last by a patient from Ballinskelligs, and other cases occurred owing, it is stated, to milk being supplied from the house in which the patient was under treatment.
  398
  The necessary precautions have been taken to prevent the spread of the disease, and the medical inspector of the Local Government Board is now proceeding to the district to make further inquiries into the matter.

  ALLEGED DEATH FROM STARVATION IN KERRY.
  MR. DILLON: On behalf of the honourable Member for South Kerry I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland whether he can state the result of the recent sworn inquiry into the death of Joseph Griffin, who was alleged to have perished through hunger in Kerry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The evidence taken at the inquiry conclusively proves that there is not the slightest foundation for the allegation that the death of this man was caused by want of food. His wife deposed that he had been delicate for five years, that the day before his death he had his usual dinner of tea find milk, an egg, and bread, and that he then went out fishing, and that there was plenty of bread and flour in the house at the time. He fished all night with his partners and caught 50 fish. He returned from fishing about 3 a.m. and died shortly after landing. The medical officer who examined him deposed that he died of cardiac syncope, and that there was nothing in the appearance of the body to warrant the assumption that he died of want of food. No evidence was given in support of the statement that he died of starvation. His wife denied with emphasis that such was the case. The shopkeeper of the district deposed that she had supplied meal and flour each week to the family, and that the week before Griffin's death they got half a sack of meal and a stone of flour; Griffin paying for the meal and for part of the flour at the time. Griffin possessed a cow and a calf and some fowl, and had received £6 in cash since January from the sale of hay, and from his daughter, who was in service.

  NUGENT ESTATE, COUNTY WEST-MEATH.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the cause of the delay in carrying out the sale of the Nugent (Donore) Estate in county Westmeath, the final notices in connection with which were issued to the tenants by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland on the 17th January, 1896, or has the intention to sell been abandoned?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Registrar of the Land Judge's Court has been informed by the solicitors having carriage of the sale to the tenants on this estate that they hope, before the next sittings of the court, to finally settle the rental, which is a very voluminous document.

  LETTER DELIVERIES AT KINGSTOWN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what period elapses between the arrival of the evening mail boat at Kingstown and the delivery of English letters in Kingstown and the towns thence to Bray?
  MR. HANBURY: There is an interval of 45 minutes between the arrival of the evening mail packet at Kingstown and the commencement of the delivery of the English letters. At Bray the mails arrive at 5.30 p.m., and the delivery begins at 5.55 p.m., the interval thus being 25 minutes. At Dalkey, Killiney, and Ballybrack the English letters are not specially delivered, but are included in the general delivery beginning in each case at 8 p.m.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say there is only an interval of three-quarters of an hour between the arrival of the mail boat and the commencement of the delivery at Kingstown?
  MR. HANBURY: So I am informed.

  DISCHARGES OF SEAMEN AT FOREIGN PORTS.
  MR. J. H. WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a seaman named Thomas Purvis was discharged from the British steamer "Straits of Dover" at Antwerp on the 7th of May, and claimed, under the 186th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, his passage and maintenance, money from Antwerp to Newport, the port of his engagement, and that Her Majesty's Consul instructed the captain of the vessel to pay Purvis 12s. 6d., which was only sufficient to defray hi a expenses to Harwich; whether he is in a position to state if any instructions have been given Her Majesty's Consul at the port of Antwerp that captains are complying with the 186th section in paying the men's fares to the nearest port in the United Kingdom; whether he is aware that in a case tried in the Court of Appeal, with reference to defraying cost of passage and maintenance money, the judge expressed his opinion that the seaman was entitled to have his passage money paid to the port where he was engaged, and also maintenance during time of travelling; and whether he intends to issue instructions to Her Majesty's Consuls advising them that seamen are entitled to have their fares paid to the port of engagement?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I have no information with regard to the case referred to in the Question except such as has been furnished to me by the honourable Member himself, but inquiry shall be made into the circumstances. No instructions in the sense suggested have been given to Her Majesty's Consul at Antwerp. In reply to the last two paragraphs of the Question, I regret to say that legal difficulties have arisen, but the whole matter is receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade with a view to definite instructions being issued to Consular Officers.

  KOHAT SALT DUTY.
  MR. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the duty on Kohat salt was four

  401
  annas per maund up to 1883; whether in that year it was increased to eight annas per maund; and whether in 1896 the duty was increased to two rupees per maund; whether this increase of duty upon one of the prime necessities of life was alleged by the Afridis to be one of the chief grievances which led to the Frontier war: and whether the Government will take the necessary steps to remedy this grievance?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: On the 11th of February last I stated, in reply to a Question, that the Kohat salt duty was raised in 1883 to eight annas, and recently to 32 annas per Kohat maund, which is equivalent to 26 annas per Indian maund, for the reasons given in the correspondence which had then just been presented. It appears from that correspondence that, in the opinion of the Government of India, the increase in the salt duty was put forward by the Afridis as a pretext, alter they had already committed themselves to hostilities. The correspondence also shows that, as I have already twice stated in the House this Session, I propose to await a report on the subject, which I shall expect to receive when trade shall have been re-established for some little time.

  ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  MR. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the officials of the Royal Niger Company are compelled, as a condition of their appointment, to enter into a bond which precludes them, under a penalty of £1,000, from sending to England any news bearing upon the relations of the Company with native tribes or otherwise?
  MR. CURZON: I answered a similar question to this on May 4th of last year. The terms of the bond, which I then quoted, are that the officer will not without the consent of the Company in writing, communicate to the newspapers of Great Britain or other countries or to any outside person official or private any facts whether commercial, industrial, scientific, or political, in connection with
  402
  the Government or business of the Company, or the districts occupied by the Company, or with those he shall have visited or become acquainted with during his employment in the Company's service; and that he will not publish or distribute privately any pamphlet, book or other paper disclosing any such fact.

  MADRAS TENANCY BILL.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNI beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the notification in the Madras Government Gazette, to the effect that the Legislative Council would meet at Octacamund on the 13th May; and whether it is proposed to proceed with the Madras Tenancy Bill at Ootacamund and, if so, how the important agricultural interests affected will have an opportunity of representing their case at this distant hill station?
  THE SECRETARY STATE FOR INDIA: I have seen the notification referred to, but it does not mention the Tenancy Bill. That Bill may, perhaps, be introduced at, Ootacamund, but I have no reason to suppose that its provisions will be discussed in Council elsewhere than in Madras.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: Is not that a new departure?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA: I do not know whether it is a new departure, but it certainly is a convenient practice thus to deal with a public Bill of this kind, for it gives ample opportunity of discussing its provisions.

  VEHICULAR TRAFFIC TO THE DERBY.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has taken any steps to prevent the cruelty annually inflicted upon animals by the overcrowding of vehicles going to Epsom Races on Derby Day?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Special attention is always given by the police on occasions such as that mentioned in the Question, with a view to prevent overloading or any other act of cruelty. The force have full and precise instructions on the subject.

  DISABILITIES OF IRISH ROMAN CATHOLICS.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Attorney General, if, on the Act (as sent from the House of Lords) for promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or become unnecessary, he will advise that certain sections under 31st Geo. III., cap. 32, and 10th Geo. IV., cap. 7, imposing and retaining legal disabilities on Roman Catholics in Ireland, should be included in the schedule to the proposed Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER): It would not be possible to deal with the matter to which attention is called by the honourable Member in the Statute Law Revision Bill, as that Bill is simply to give effect to the work of the Statute Law Revision Committee, and to enable the complete edition of the revised statutes to be published. Any amendment to the law of the kind suggested must be brought about by an independent Bill.

  AWARDS UNDER THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  MR. MCKENNA: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether stamp duty is payable on an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and, if so, whether there is any power to remit that duty without an express enactment by Parliament?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The answer to the Question may depend upon the procedure which is adopted under the schedule. I do not think that any universal rule can be laid down. If stamp duty should be held payable, in any case, express enactment will be required to obtain exemption.

  LONDON MUNICIPALITIES BILL.
  MR. WHITMORE: On behalf of the honourable Member for the Strand Division of Westminster I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state what course the Government intend to take with regard to the introduction of the London Municipalities Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY): I hope to be able to give my honourable Friend a definite answer shortly after the holidays.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to a Bill now on the Order Book of the House of Commons, entitled a Bill to abolish disabilities still affecting Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom; and what steps the Government intend to take with regard to this proposal to repeal 11 sections of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829, and to make it lawful for Jesuits, and other communities of the Roman Catholic Church, to reside in the United Kingdom, and to take and acquire property therein, and to free them from existing restraints and disabilities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY): There appears to be no reason for any Government action in anticipation of the Measure referred to by my honourable Friend.

  EXAMINATIONS FOR LOWER DIVISION CLERKSHIPS.
  MR. BOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to certain representations made during the last few years by headmasters of secondary schools to the effect that the character of the examinations for lower division clerkships is such as to exercise a prejudicial effect on the course of study in the

  405
  schools in which candidates for such appointments are prepared; whether the Civil Service Commissioners have recognised the justice and importance of such representations; and whether any, and what, steps have been or will be taken to alter the regulations for such examinations, so as to give effect to the views expressed by the headmasters?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir. Representations such as those referred to in the question have been received, and have been carefully considered. The Treasury have been in communication with the Civil Service Commissioners on the subject, and regulations embodying a new scheme of examination will shortly be issued.

  THE NATAL GOVERNMENT'S GIFT OF COAL TO THE FLEET.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what proportion the 12,000 tons of coal per annum proposed to be supplied by the Natal Government bears to the ordinary yearly consumption of the squadron on the Cape Station; whether the Natal coal is as suitable to Naval purposes as Welsh coal usually supplied to Her Majesty's ships; and what is approximately the estimated coat per ton of Natal and Welsh coal respectively when delivered to Her Majesty's ships at the headquarters of that station?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The proportion of the coal offered by the Natal Government for the use of Her Majesty's ships is 12,000 tons, as compared with an average ordinary yearly consumption of 40,000 tons. The quality of Natal coal is now under investigation. The price of Welsh coal at Simon's Town is in ordinary circumstances about 28s. 6d. a ton. The price of Natal coal at Durban is about 25s. 6d. a ton. I cannot exactly state the cost of freight between Durban and Simon's Town.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. J. ELLIS (Notts,): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to adjourn the House for Whitsuntide and re-assemble again?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY): It is proposed that the House shall adjourn at the close of the sitting to-morrow until Monday week.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: When will the adjournment be moved—at the commencement or at the end of public business?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We have every reason to hope that the Irish Local Government Bill may be concluded in the course of to-morrow's sitting, and after the conclusion of the Committee stage the motion will be made.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I understand that the right honourable Gentleman will keep a House while Members express their views on things in general as is usual.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We must get the adjournment.

  DEBATE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the appeal made by him to the Loader of the Opposition, and others, not to discuss the general conduct of foreign affairs during the year in the absence of the Under Secretary of State on the occasion on which China policy was discussed, he will fix a convenient day for the Foreign Office Vote?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY): Friday, June 10th, has not yet been allocated; but it must be remembered that it would seem scarcely practicable to have two more Supply lays for discussion on foreign affairs; so it is possible honourable Gentlemen who are interested in these matters may desire a later day. If there be any general wish, I am quite ready to yield to it.

  BRITISH POLICY IN THE FAR EAST.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in Birmingham to the Liberal Unionist Association of that town on Friday last represents the policy of the Cabinet with regard to the Far East, and especially as to the necessity of our forming an alliance with some great military Power, if the future of China is not to be decided without reference to our wishes and in defiance of our interests; whether it is intended to offer our alliance to some great military Power; and, if so, could he state to what Power; whether the proposed alliance is to be offensive and defensive, and to embrace all the territories of the two allies; and whether any representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government by Russia in consequence of the statements of the Colonial Secretary?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY): Any answer to this Question will require a general survey of all our foreign relations, which, I am sure, my right honourable Friend, if he were here, would not be disposed to undertake in answer to a Question, and I must respectfully decline to undertake the task.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I shall afford some Gentleman on that bench an opportunity of giving that survey on the adjournment of the House.

  REGISTRATION OF MIDWIVES.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the resolutions passed by the Council of the Royal College of Surgeon of England, on the 4th instant, approving and adopting the Report of the General Medical Council on the Midwives Registration Bill, brought in by the right honourable Member for Clackmannan and Kinross, in which it is stated that it is desirable that measures should be taken to protect lying-in women of the poorer classes from the grave risk which they now incur from
  408
  the unregulated practice of midwives, many of whom are ignorant and unskilful, and most of whom pursue their calling without due medical supervision; if he is aware that the question of compulsory registration of midwives has been considered by Select Committees of this House in two Sessions of Parliament, and that both Committees have reported unanimously in favour of a system of registration; and whether, having regard to the reports or the Select Committees, and to the opinions recently expressed by the General Medical Council and by the Royal College of Surgeons as to the need for legislation on this subject, he will either give facilities for the discussion of the Bill brought in by the right honourable Member or undertake to deal with it by a Government Bill in the present Session of Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY): The facts are, in the main, as stated, but my honourable Friend has omitted to point out that the Report of the General Medical Council was far from endorsing the methods proposed in the Bill. I am afraid I cannot give a favourable answer to the last paragraph.

  TREATY OF TIEN-TSIN.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, for the convenience of Members, he will print, as a Parliamentary Paper, copy of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, together with copies of such subsequent Treaties, Conventions, and Agreements as will show the existing commercial obligations between this country and China?
  MR. CURZON: The Treaties and Agreements referred to are all contained in Hertslet's China Treaties (with the exception of the revised Burmese Frontier Agreement of 4th February, 1897, which was published last year), and additional copies of that work can be placed in the Library if required. There does not appear, therefore, to be sufficient reason for incurring the expense of reprinting them as a Parliamentary Paper.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce thin year a Bill for the establishment and endowment of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland; have inquiries been made, as promised last year, regarding the establishment, endowment, and government of Continental Universities; and, if so, will Members be furnished with the information obtained; and, has he taken steps to ascertain the views of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of Ireland in relation to the form of constitution and government of the proposed Catholic University which their Lordships would be prepared to accept on behalf of the Roman Catholics of Ireland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on March 28th, to my honourable Friend the Member for South Belfast. In February last I informed the honourable Member for Hanley that a large number of replies had been received from foreign countries on the subject of the provision made for Roman Catholic Education in Universities, and that as soon as the number was completed they would be laid before the House in the form of a Parliamentary Return. I understand that the Return is only delayed by the non-receipt of the German reply.

  DOGS REGULATION BILL.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Dogs Regulation Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY): Not before Whitsuntide.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right honourable Gentleman say when, after?

  LIGHT DUES ON BALTIC SHIPPING.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have considered that one of the effects of raising the light dues on vessels trading to the Baltic, as proposed by their Bill now before the House, may be to cause Russia, Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, which will have this additional charge, placed on their vessels trading between Great Britain and the Baltic, to retaliate on British shipping; and whether the Government can see their way to abandon this proposed increase of light dues as regards the Baltic Sea.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The intention of the Mercantile Marine Fund Bill is not to raise the light dues, but to substitute a uniform charge for the present complicated system. The effect of the Bill will be to considerably decrease the charge on shipping generally, although in some cases there may be an increase; but as the charge is the same for home as for foreign ships, there would seem to be no justification for the retaliation the honourable Member fears.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: Am I distinctly to understand that the light dues on Baltic shipping will not lie increased?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No, Sir; the honourable Gentleman is not to understand that. It may be that comes within the category of exceptions to which I have referred.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: I understood the right honourable Gentleman to say they would certainly not be increased.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: What I said in my reply was that the effect of the substitution of a uniform system for the other system which has been generally complained of is to reduce generally the charge on shipping, although in some directions a slight increase may be made.
  MR. C. H. WILSON: Is the Baltic shipping to pay higher dues? That is what I want to know.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: The honourable Gentleman is much better acquainted with Baltic, shipping than I am.

  SCIENCE BUILDINGS AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.
  SIR F. POWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is prepared to place upon the Table of the House for circulation among Members a copy of the very important memorial recently presented to the Prime Minister signed by the President, Officers, and a large number of Fellows of the Royal Society, praying that the needful expansion of the Science Buildings at South Kensington should be provided for on the west side of Exhibition Road?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (for the FIRST LORD of the TREASURY): It is not usual, I believe, to lay on the Table a memorial presented to a Minister, and I do not think it should be done in this case. There is no lack of means open to my honourable Friend for giving publicity to any document of general interest.

  NEW INFANTRY BATTALIONS.
  GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Stats for War whether it is the intention of the Government, on the formation of the proposed new battalion of infantry, to give the usual grants in order to enable a band and officers' and sergeants' mess to be established; and, if so, what are the respective sums to be granted for these purposes to the new battalion; and what sums were granted on former occasions when new battalions were raised in a similar manner?
  MR. BRODRICK: Grants of £150 in aid of the establishment of a mess and band, and of £30 in aid of the expenses of forming a sergeants' mess, have been approved for each of the new battalions of the Royal Fusiliers, Royal Warwickshire Regiment and Lancashire Fusiliers, and a grant of £30 has been approved for the sergeants' mess of each of the now battalions of the Coldstream and Scots Guards. So far as can be traced the same sums have been granted on former occasions when new battalions were similarly raised, but inquiries are being made at the Record Office for periods anterior to the War Office records.

  WHEAT CULTIVATION IN GREAT BRITAIN.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can inform the House how many acres were under wheat in the United Kingdom during the Crimean War, and how many acres are under like cultivation at the present time; and to what extent home-grown wheat sufficed in the former period for the necessities of the then population, and to what extent at the present time?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: No official information as to the acreage under wheat at the time of the Crimean war is available, but it was probably something like 4,000,000 acres. The acreage last year was 1,939,000. My reply to the second Question is necessarily somewhat conjectural, but according to the best estimate I can obtain the home supply in the years 1854–55 sufficed for the wants of about four-fifths of the population, whereas only one-fifth of the annual consumption is now grown at home. Perhaps I may add that the average price of wheat in 1855 was 74s. 8d. per quarter.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: Can the right honourable Gentleman say what the price is to-day?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am afraid I cannot.

  ESTATE DUTY.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as is stated by Mr. A. W. Soward, of the Legacy and Succession Duty Department, at page 8 of his "Handbook to the Estate Duty," the Inland Revenue authorities have followed the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in claiming and exacting estate duty upon the death of a tenant for life of settled property who had bonô fide released his interest more than 12 months prior to death, save where the life interest was bonô fide released before the Finance Act, 1894, came into operation; whether the effect

  413
  of the saving clause thus introduced into the practice has been that the duty has been claimed and exacted when the deceased died after the Act came into operation, and the life interest had also been released after the Act, while the duty has not been claimed or exacted when the deceased died after the Act but the life interest bad been released before the Act; whether he will state on what date and on what grounds the Board of Inland Revenue came to the decision to adopt in part and to reject in part the advice of the law officers of the Crown; and whether it is in accordance with the usual practice for Revenue Departments, acting by the direction and control of the Treasury, to act only upon the advice of the law officers with such variations us they deem expedient?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The honourable Member correctly describes the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue and its effects in the instance which he takes. The practice in question has been in force since July, 1895. The Board of Inland Revenue have not rejected the advice of the law officers of the Crown, but it is their duty to apply that advice, to the best of their judgment, to the different cases that may arise; and it was on account of the extreme difficulty of doing this in this particular matter that we have throughout desired to obtain an interpretation of the law by the proper tribunals.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In reference to that answer, mar I ask if the right honourable Gentleman will cease the practice? He says the practice was adopted in July, 1895. He was then in office; may I ask if it was done by his direction?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was certainly done with my sanction, and in order to meet cases of great hardship.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It is against the law.

  HARROGATE POSTMAN'S GRIEVANCE.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that W. Smith, town postman of Harrogate, with 27 years' service, was four years ago appointed to do an inspector's duty as head postman in that town; that he performed that duty continuously and without complaint until 1st January, 1898; and that, in order to take up the appointment, he had to give up one of the best walks in the town, the receipts from which in the form of Christmas boxes, etc., were by no means counterbalanced by the special allowance of 5s. weekly attached to his new office; will he explain why, when an inspectorship of postmen was recently created at Harrogate, the duties of which are exactly the same as those satisfactorily performed for four years by Smith, Smith was passed over and a York town postman with no previous experience of the duties of inspector of postmen appointed; and whether he is aware that Smith, in consequence, is now doing ordinary town postmen's work among the men over whom for four years he had entire control; has ceased to receive the 5s. weekly allowance; and that the walk he is now working is less remunerative than the one he relinquished four years ago in order to take up the duties of head postman?
  MR. HANBURY: It is the fact that W. Smith, postman at Harrogate, acted from December, 1893, to January, 1898, as head postman, and received an allowance of 5s. a week whilst so acting. He took up the duties of head postman, but by his own choice, and knew that as head postman he would not in the usual course share in the Christmas boxes given to ordinary postmen. When the increase of work at Harrogate rendered it necessary to substitute for the head postman an officer with the higher rank of inspector of postmen, Smith's claims were duly considered; but as neither he nor anyone else at Harrogate was thought to be fully qualified for the post, it was decided to bring in a postman from York who was reported to be fully qualified. After this appointment had been made, there was no alternative but to return Smith to ordinary postman's duties, and

  415
  to allot to him the particular walk which happened to be vacant. He has been continuously in receipt of the 5s. weekly allowance. The statement in the Question is, therefore, incorrect.

  SUSSIAN PASSPORTS AT TA-LIEN-WAN.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs the following question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether it is true, as stated by the Pekin correspondent of the Times in this morning's issue, that the British Government appears to have acquiesced in the notification to the Consuls at Chifu and Tien-tsin that no Englishman or other foreigner would be permitted to and at Talienwan or in the Leao-tong peninsula without having a passport riséd by the Russian Consul?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; the statement in question is entirely without foundation. On the contrary, we are informed by the Russian Government that the circular in question respecting the risé of passports by the Russian Consuls was issued without the knowledge or the Imperial Government, and that the Russian Chargé d' Affaires at Pekin has been told to instruct the Consuls to withdraw it.

  MR. GLADSTONE'S FUNERAL.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to acquaint the House, with reference to the resolution passed on Friday with regard to the funeral of and monument to Mr. Gladstone, that a telegram has been received from Balmoral to the following effect:—
  "The Queen gives her assent to the Addresses from both Houses of Parliament as to Mr. Gladstone's funeral."
  I presume that a formal reply will be sent in the ordinary course. A letter has been received by the Prime Minister from the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Leeds, writing a behalf of Mrs. Gladstone and
  416
  the family, gratefully accepting the proposed honour to Mr. Gladstone's memory, on certain conditions which will appear in the letter. The letter will be published, I understand, in the course of this evening. The funeral is fixed to take place on Saturday morning. The Duke of Norfolk, as Earl Marshal, is making the necessary arrangements, and a statement in regard to these arrangements will be published in tomorrow's morning newspapers. I wish to give notice that to-morrow I propose to move—
  "That this House will attend the funeral of the Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, on Saturday next, May 28th."
  In order to make arrangements for the purpose I hope the House will waive any notice, and in pursuance of custom on such occasions will at once proceed to appoint a committee to consider the matter. If that be so I would move now—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the circumstances relating to the attendance of this House at the funeral of the late Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, on May 28th, and that the Committee do consist of the following Members:—Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Thomas Ellis, Sir T. Esmonde, Sir W. Harcourt, Sir H. Maxwell, Mr. J. Wharton, and myself; that three be a quorum, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed forthwith."
  MR. J. MORLEY:. There in one question I would like to put to the right honourable Gentleman. It is whether, in the communication which will be made public to-morrow, the arrangements connected with Westminster Hall will be included?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.: I understand that will be so.
  The Motion was agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to communicate to the House that I have received the following telegram from the President of the Chamber of Deputies at Athens. The telegram is dated May 20, but it arrived too late to be read to the House on Friday—
  "In the name of my colleagues of the Hellenic Parliament, I beg you to transmit to the honourable Members of the House of Commons

  417
  the expression of our grief at the loss of that eminent statesman and friend of Greece, Gladstone. He was entitled to the gratitude of the Greek people, and his name will ever be venerated by my fellow countrymen."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Perhaps I may venture to express the hope that you, Sir, will send an appropriate answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  EXEMPTION FHOM THE STANDING ORDER.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved that the House do meet to-morrow (Tuesday) at 12 o'clock.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think we ought to have some more clear understanding of what is going to take place to-morrow. These motions for adjournment are usually taken advantage of by Members to raise questions of interest. I quite understand the difficulty the Government have in finding that the progress with the Local Government Bill is slower than they anticipated, and that they are anxious to dispose of the Committee stage of the Bill before the holidays; but at the same time the right of Members to use the adjournment motion as an opportunity of expressing their views should be remembered. From, this opportunity, however, we shall be precluded, because Committee on the Irish Bill may be continued to 4 or 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that we shall have some difficulty in gaining the attention of the House at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. As far as I am concerned, my attention has not been absolutely fixed on the Irish Local Government Bill. Therefore, I should come perfectly fresh to the matter. In regard to the particular matter to which I desire to call the attention of the House, it is desirable that the First Lord of the Treasury should be here. I am sorry to hear that he is unwell; but I am glad to hear that he is taking sufficient care of his health not to come to the House. If this question cannot be raised on the morrow, an understand-
  418
  ing should be given that a reasonable opportunity should be afforded.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope the anticipations of the honourable Gentleman as to the length of to-morrow's sitting will not be realised, and that to conclude Committee on the Bill it will not be necessary to sit till 4 or 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning. However that may be, I think the honourable Gentleman will see that as he desires to address the House in the presence of the Leader of the House he will not have that opportunity either at the beginning or the end of the sitting, because the health of my right honourable Friend will not permit him to be at the House tomorrow. As I have already stated, if there is any general desire to take the Foreign Office Vote on June 10th, we are prepared to place that day at the disposal of honourable Members for that purpose. I understand that the question the honourable Member desires to raise has reference to foreign affairs, and this would give him an opportunity.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)BILL.
  Considered in Committee—
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith, CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  CLAUSE 54.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 33, leave out from Provided that,' to end of sub-section, and insert—
  "A county council may, with the approval of the Local Government Board, in the pre

  419
  scribed manner order any road which may appear to them to be useless to be stopped up."—(Mr. Serjeant Hemphill.)
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid that the object of the Amendment was to simplify the proceedings by which county roads could be closed up. The clause, as it stood, would not work. After this Bill became law, there would be no road sessions in Ireland, nor would there be any means of presenting the matter to the grand jury. His Amendment followed the language of clause 60 of the Grand Jury Act. It substituted for that, that the county council, with the approval of the Local Government Board, and in the prescribed manner, might order any road which might appear to be useless to be stopped up. This was not a matter of principle, but a matter of procedure.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)desired to point out to the right honourable Gentleman that if the words suggested by him were adopted, the direct result would be to prevent the district council having a voice in the matter.
  MR. M. HEALYthought there was something in the point raised by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Tyrone; and, subject to what the Chief Secretary had said about the district councils having a voice in the matter, he thought it would be desirable to make some such change as the right honourable Gentleman had suggested. So far as he understood, proceeding by presentment was wholly abolished. In the order regulating procedure under the Grand Jury Act, there was no such thing as presentment at all. On the wording of the Bill they would have to go to the grand jury if they intended to stop an old road. He would like some information from the right honourable Gentleman as to whether or not the new county councils would have to make a presentment. So far as he had read, there would be no such thing as a presentment if this Act passed.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILLsaid he might explain that they could not have a presentment sessions for a single iso-
  420
  lated purpose like this. The sessions consisted of a certain number of cesspayers, and they had also a certain number of magistrates associated with them. It would answer any object he had to allow it first to come before the district council and then go before the county council in the shape of an appeal, and then, with the approval of the Local Government Board, have an order made. It would be very easy to have a clause to that effect.
  After some further conversation, Mr. HEMPHILL withdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 35, after 'effect,' insert 'if the prescribed objection is lodged.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there was no need whatever for bringing in the Local Government Board unless some objection were made. On another matter he desired to say that as to the complaint made on Friday he thought it right to acknowledge—after inquiry from one of his colleagues—that the right honourable Gentleman was entirely right in the statement he made, and that he intended in no degree to pass a slur on any Member of the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 36, at end, insert—
  "Provided that nothing herein contained shall be held to compel a county or district council to keep a particular road in repair if both the county and district council consider it, for any reason, unnecessary or undesirable to do so."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
  MR. M. HEALYsaid that at present there was no sort of obligation on the grand jury or presentment-sessions to keep a road in repair. As he understood the practice of the grand jury, it was, in some cases, where the traffic was small, to let it temporarily go to contract on the ground that putting it into repair occasionally was sufficient, and answered all the purposes of having the road attended

  421
  to. The grand jury of county Cork at the last two assizes were given a great deal of trouble by a particular road whose condition came before them, which communicated with a brickyard. The sub-soil was particularly bad for road-making purposes, and the owners of the brickyard had, for the purpose of transporting their bricks, a heavy engine and two trucks, which they put on the road and kept running continually between the yard and Cork. It was absolutely impossible to keep this road in repair with this engine constantly passing over it, and the contractor had to give up his contract. No one could be found to keep the contract; and no money the grand jury could have spent on this road would have sufficed to keep it in repair. To do anything effectual would have cost at least £200. The grand jury spent days in considering it, with the result that the people who had this engine running had themselves to see to the repair of the road. There was the case of a remote locality in which it might be proper for the grand jury to keep it in proper repair by putting it under contract at intervals, so as not to let it altogether lose its character. There was also the other case which he had indicated, where there was extraordinary traffic on the road, and in which the ratepayers were asked to be put to a large expense because a particular industry required the use of the road. In that case the grand jury was under no obligation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,)said there had been no provision or no means of compelling the grand juries in Ireland to do their duty, namely, to keep the roads in repair. They had now altered the law in that respect. There were two alternatives—either to stop a road which was useless and relieve the county from the expense of keeping it in repair, or to keep in repair every road that was required. The Government could not possibly accept this Amendment.
  COLONEL WARINGasked whether it would be possible under this clause to compel the county Down to do
  422
  what they considered the county Armagh had done illegally in regard to keeping certain roads in repair.
  MR. ATKINSONreplied that whenever a road was presented it became a public road, and as such it ought to be kept in repair.
  MR. VESEY KNOXwas not sure that they were not going further than the English law in this section. In England there must be a formal adoption of a road by the local authority before it became a road to be repaired, but he understood that without this Amendment, if any grand jury at any time in the past had had a presentment for the repair of any road, it must be repairable by the county for ever afterwards. For instance, in regard to the Giant's Causeway, about which there had been some litigation, a road had been presented to the grand jury some 30 years ago as a repairable road, and, as he understood, however remote the period of presentment might have been, in the case of any road in Ireland, under this sub-section it became a road which the public authority were bound to repair for ever after, and they would be liable for any accident which might happen through any default of theirs in fulfilling that obligation. If that was so, it was going a great deal farther than the English law, and he thought it was a matter which required some more consideration.
  MR. M. HEALYwished to say, before the right honourable Gentleman replied, that, of course, if the Government would not accept his Amendment, he could not press it, but he thought the discussion had shown that there was a blot in the Bill, and he feared the right honourable Gentleman had not fully grasped what would follow if the Bill passed in its present form. What was a public road? A public road, it appeared, might be any passage dedicated to the public. What did this section say?
  "It shall be the duty of every county and district council, according to their respective powers, to keep all public works maintainable at the cost of their county or district in good condition and repair."

  423
  Now, what was a public work? According to the definition clause of this Bill the expression "public work" means any road or work for which, under the Grand Juries Acts, a presentment might, but for this Act, be made, and so on. In other words, a public work under this section would not require to be a road which had been presented to the grand jury, but it would mean any kind of road which had been dedicated to the public. That was the effect of the definition clause, which said: "any road for which a presentment might have been made but for this Act," and such a road must, after this Act passed, be kept in repair by the county. It was not necessary in order that this liability should be cast upon the county to keep a road in repair that it should have been previously adopted by a grand jury; and if any landowner had chosen for his own private interests to dedicate to the public a passage to his own house, or a passage to any street or any part of the property which he owned, it would immediately become a public road under this Bill.
  MR. ATKINSONdid not think that was meant to be the effect of the definition clause. The intention was that this Bill should merely apply to such roads as might have been presented to a grand jury, and it never was the intention to apply it to paths or passages such as the honourable Member indicated.
  MR. M. HEALYsaid that after the explanation of the right honourable and learned Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 29, line 37, omit sub-section 2."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  MR. FLYNNthought the sub-section conveyed an undeserved reflection upon the local bodies concerned. It provided that—
  "If any district council complain that a county council, or any council complain that a district council, has failed to perform any such duty as aforesaid, the complaining council may, without prejudice to any other remedy, appeal to the Local Government Board."
  424
  It further provided that section 15 of the Public Health Act of 1896 should apply, but he presumed that it referred to cases where matters seriously affecting the public health were under consideration, and therefore this would be a very drastic sub-section, which they ought to be very chary of putting in the Bill. He believed that a county council properly constituted would have due regard to any case presented by a district council, would do what was right for the benefit of the locality and the public at large, and would be actuated by public spirit. But under this subsection, whenever there was a difference of opinion between the smaller body and the larger body, the smaller body would have the right to appeal over the head of the other, and, irrespective of the merits of the case, the Local Government Board could compel the county council to do that which, in its own judgment, it thought would be inexpedient.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURdid not think the clause was open to objection in this respect. In its first sub-section it provided that it should be the absolute duty of every county and district council, according to their respective powers, to keep all public works maintainable at the cost of their county or district in good condition and repair. If a district council persistently refused to do its duty in that regard, or, to take the opposite case, if a county council persistently refused to undertake the maintenance of a public road, work submitted by a rural district council, it would be the duty of the council concerned to represent the facts to the Local Government Board, whose powers to act in the matter were not too drastic. They would be empowered to make, after due inquiry, an order, fixing a limitation of time within which the work must be done, and he very much doubted whether it would ever be necessary for the Local Government Board to go beyond making that order; but, if it were, they would have the power to appoint some other persons to perform the duty. Some power to complain to the Local Government Board, and some correlative power on the part of the Local Government Board to enforce the duty, he thought, was necessary.
  MR. FLYNNdid not wish to press the matter at any length, and as the right honourable Gentleman seemed to think that this power of appeal was necessary he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 1, leave out 'quarterly' and insert 'half-yearly.'"—(Sir T. Esmonde.)
  SIR T. ESMONDEsaid he knew that there was much difference of opinion about this proposal, but he thought that some Amendment in the nature of his proposal was called for in the interest of some county councillors. It was quite easy for county councillors who lived in towns or near towns to attend the meetings of the county council as often as they thought proper to do so, and the council might sit all the year round so far as they were concerned; but when the councillors had to go a long distance, and when, as was often the case in Ireland, the railway communication was not all that it might be, this enactment of quarterly meetings would lead to a great deal of inconvenience on their part. It would also cause a certain amount of hardship to these men, because, after all, probably the majority of the new county councillors would not be very wealthy men. They would have business of their own to attend to, and it would be a very great hardship to them if they had to leave their farms for a fortnight in the year in order to go down to the county town and live there while the county council were sitting. Under the grand jury system that was only done for about four days twice a year. He thought that this question was one which required to be further considered. He knew there was a diversity of opinion upon it on both sides of the House, and if the Chief Secretary did not approve of his Amendment he hoped the right honourable Gentleman would consider the advisability of leaving the number of times of meeting and attendance for each council to decide for itself; for, obviously, while in some counties four meetings a year might be required, in others they would be unnecessary.
  MR. T. H. ROBERTSONhoped the Chief Secretary would see his way not to stereotype quarterly meetings as being absolutely essential. So far as the grand juries were concerned, as a rule there was no necessity for more than two meetings a year, and it had always been found in regard to such public bodies, not only in Ireland, but in this country, that if they were called together more often, instead of increasing the number of attendances they decreased the number of attendances very materially. Therefore he hoped that the Chief Secretary and the Committee would see their way not to compel the councils to hold four meetings a year. It might be that in some counties they would want more than quarterly meetings, but there was no reason why they should be compelled to have quarterly meetings in all cases.
  MR. MURNAGHANthought the proposal of the Government was justifiable, for the duties undertaken by the members of these councils ought to be performed in a proper and businesslike manner. The new members of them would be comparatively inexperienced, as compared with the grand juries, who, however, did their work in an automatic manner, and did not look after the interests of all localities. The new county councillors would be men living in a scattered way throughout the whole country. They would be interested in their own localities, and they would think it worth while to spend a day or two in looking after the interests of their neighbours. He therefore thought it would be a step in the wrong direction to provide that there should be less than four meetings a year. He certainly thought that the Chief Secretary was right in his suggestion that the county councils should meet at least four times a year, and he trusted the right honourable Gentleman would insist upon retaining that provision of the Bill.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONwished to call attention to the fact that the alteration proposed by the Amendment might prevent a road being sanctioned for a whole year.
  SIR T. ESMONDEsaid he had only put down his Amendment now because this was the first occasion on which the question could be raised, though he understood it could be substantially raised at later period.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsubmitted, in the interest of saving time, that the Chairman should rule strictly upon points of order.
  LORD E. FITZMAURICEhoped the Chief Secretary would adhere to his proposal. He thought it would be found that very few county councils could manage their business in fewer than four meetings, and if they diminished the number of meetings they would thereby encourage the tendency to delegate duties to the executive committee. If they did that they would take away from the control of public business by the whole county.
  MR. M. HEALYthought there was some inconvenience in the form of the proposal in the Bill with regard to the county councils, as it did not enact that there should be only quarterly meetings, but simply assumed it. While, therefore, he was in favour of the clause, and hoped that the Government would stick to their point, he did not think they would lose anything by accepting the Amendment.
  MR. J. JORDANhoped that the phrase in the clause sufficiently indicated that quarterly meetings should be held, and trusted that the Chief Secretary would stick to his Bill. In his opinion four meetings in a year were too few rather than too many for the proper conduct of the business of a county. The honourable Baronet had said that many of the new councillors would be poor men having businesses of their own to attend to. Well, all he could say on that point was that if the new men had so much business of their own that they would not be able to attend properly to the business of the county, let then not come forward as candidates or seek to be elected as councillors. He held that any man who allowed himself to be elected to a post of public trust ought to discharge that trust faithfully and honestly, and therefore he gave his hearty opposition to the proposal of the honour-
  428
  able Baronet, and would earnestly support the Chief Secretary in adhering to quarterly meetings.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURheld that quarterly meetings would be a fair average, and that, therefore, he must adhere to this proposal.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  MR. M. HEALYfeared that sub-section 4 of the clause repealing the Grand Juries Acts with respect to memorials other than memorials by a grand jury would have a wider effect than was contemplated by the Government, and hoped they would further consider the matter before the Report.
  Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 55.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Omit sub-section 2."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  MR. FLYNNmoved to omit sub-section 2, directing that—
  "A county council may provide for the performance by a deputy of the duties of any officer in case of his illness, absence, or incapacity."
  He made this proposal now, with the view of raising the whole question on a section of the new clause which the Chief Secretary had promised to bring in, and he desired to provide that the county council should have power to take over and appoint not only the secretary to the grand jury, but also his qualified assistants and clerks.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question does not apply under this clause at all, for it arises on clause 72. If this Amendment is inserted here it will simply prevent the secretary of the grand jury from himself appointing a qualified assistant. Sub-section (b) empowers the county council to appoint—
  "Such assistant surveyors and such further officers as they think necessary for the performances of duties of the council."
  The Amendment as it stands will prevent these officers doing this.
  MR. FLYNN: I do not see that that will prevent the secretary appointing his own assistants, and there is no hardship in that. My point is this: that the Grand Jury Act did not appoint these assistants. I was the secretary of the grand jury who had the power of appointing its own assistants, who were looked upon as temporary clerks, and were not recognised in any way by the grand jury. It is true that sub-section (b) does give the county council power to appoint clerks, and I shall not press my Amendment. I rise, however, on this occasion in order to give notice that on clause 72 I shall have something more to say, because we have a very strong feeling with regard to these assistant clerks.
  MR. M. HEALY: This Amendment raises a somewhat wide question, and I should be glad to get some definite opinion on the question from the Government. The clause as it stands might be greatly improved, and it will be just as convenient to discuss it on this Amendment as upon any other. With regard to the original framing of the Grand Jury Act, there is no doubt that what the Grand Jury Act did was this: it gave the grand jury power to appoint a certain number of officers—I admit it was a very small number—and it was strictly limited to that number. You had the secretary of the council, the treasurer of the county, the county surveyor, and the assistant county surveyor. That embraced all the officers it was possible for the grand jury to appoint. Well now, Sir, of course everybody knows that the affairs of a county could not be carried on or worked with a staff of that kind. Everybody knows that the county surveyor cannot do all his own clerical work. Similarly, the county treasurer of the grand jury would not think of doing all the work himself, and he would want clerks. The Act provided and fixed the statutory salary, which was not a very large one as the Grand Jury Act originally stood, but it has been somewhat increased by recent Acts, and the idea was when the salary was fixed it should be on such a basis as would enable these principal officers to provide them-
  430
  selves with such a staff as would be necessary for county purposes. Well now, Mr. Lowther, on the framing of the Government clause they do not adopt the old system, and they do not wholly adopt the new system. They adopt the old system so far as it relates to the salaries named in the Act. The salary of the secretary to the county is fixed by the council, and so is the salary of the county surveyor; and the Act gives generally powers to appoint such further officers as they may think necessary for the performance of the duties of the council. Therefore you have the disadvantages of both systems. You have on the one hand the principal officers' salary fixed on a basis which presumes that they shall pay out of it a large number of sub-officials, and on the other hand you give power to the grand jury to themselves take into their own direct employment a number of officers who would really have to do the work. I think the convenient course for the Government to have taken would have been to have set up some machinery for ascertaining what the net emoluments of each of these head officers will be—that is, the secretary and treasurer and the county surveyor, and any other officer of that kind whom they have to take over—and fix the salary on that basis for these head officials, and then enable the county to take over under their own direct control these sub-officials whom, up to the present, they have had to employ themselves and pay out of their own salary. At present you have the head officials and the employees under them, who are not the servants of the grand jury; and besides these you will have a number of fresh officials, without any limit to their number, and without any statutory limit as to their remuneration, provided in this section. I think, as I have said before, that the convenient way would be, when you are dealing with these head officials, to fix their salaries as a personal salary, and if they want officials under them—as all of them must, because the whole work of the county, including the preparing of the jury and voters' lists, will be thrown upon them, and the work will not be done by anything like the same staff as at present provided, for that would be simply absurd—I put it to the Govern-

  431
  ment and to the right honourable Gentleman that they will do well to consider a recasting of the whole scheme of remuneration which will get rid of the original idea on which this clause is framed—namely, that some big official can get a sufficiently large salary to cover, not only his own salary, put also a number of other sub-officials.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: After what has been said, I appeal to the honourable Member to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I state that he has already done so?
  MR. TULLY: This Amendment seems to me to tend in the direction of making deputy officials permanent under the county council, and I do not think it is exactly an Amendment to which we can give our support. Nothing has tended more to waste the ratepayers' money than this system of having the work done by deputy. Most of the councils with which I am acquainted have their work done by deputy, and the result is that we seldom see the principal officials at all. I know an official who has been drawing his £400 a year for the last 20 years, and who was seldom in Ireland at all, for he was mostly away in the South of France. Two or three years ago he retired on his pension for discharging his duties in Ireland whilst in the South of France. If this Amendment means that we are to have this system set up under the county councils, I for one shall oppose it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This is in cases where the salaries are paid by the Local Government Board.
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: The honourable Members who have spoken upon this question have brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary matters which he will do well to consider. He has said that the officials of the grand juries have salaries which will enable them to keep clerks or assistants, and therefore I think it is a most important consideration, whenever the Chief Secretary adjusts the salaries, to make arrangements in that respect. I think it is a proper thing that all chief officials
  432
  should have under them some person who will be responsible in their absence. I think this question is worthy of his serious consideration.
  MR. FLYNN: After what has fallen from the Chief Secretary I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At end of sub-section 3, leave out the words 'by the Local Government Board,' and insert 'by a banking company.'"—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: I am not going to waste time on this Amendment, and I only put it forward because I think it will probably be accepted by honourable Members opposite. If there is any objection to it I shall not press it.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is provided for by the Order in Council.
  SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD: In some counties there are more than one chief official with subordinates under them. I want to know is there only going to be one head surveyor, and are the others to be all assistants?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, lines 27 and 28, leave out, 'subject to any statutory limits.'"—(Sir T. Lea.)
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is already extended to all principal officers.
  SIR THOMAS LEAThen I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 27, after 'subject,' insert—
  "In the case of any officer whose salary can be fixed without the concurrence of the Local Government Board."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. M. HEALY: Do I understand that in the case of a secretary to the county council, the county surveyor, or the assistant surveyor the salary could not be altered? Does the statutory limit still apply?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. M. HEALY: Then there is a statutory limit to the secretary, the treasurer, the surveyor, and the assistant surveyor. Now, the assistant surveyor only gets £80 a year, which is a ridiculous salary.
  Amendment agreed to without a Division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 35, leave out from beginning, to 'the county,' in line 36."
  "Page 30, line 36, after 'council,' insert, 'may take from a treasurer when a banking company and.'"—(Mr. (Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendments agreed to without a Division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 38, after 'security,' insert, 'from a guarantee society or company.'"—(Mr. Daly.)
  MR. DALY: The reason I move this Amendment is that, when officers are appointed, either to do the work for boards of guardians or for the county councils, the securities put forward by them shall not be men of straw. The reason that makes me put down this Amendment is that recently in county Monaghan the grand jury appointed cess collectors, and they came before us with a deficiency of £3,000; and when the sureties given were applied to by the grand jury for the deficiency they were found in most cases to be men of straw, who had mortgaged what property they possessed, and the grand jury could not realise anything worth their while of the amount of which the cess collectors were defaulters. My other reason is that when officers become appointed to boards of guardians the officer has to provide his own security, and he has to pay for the execution of his bond. I know, however, that in a great many instances the officer is able to get round the guardians, and get them to pay for the bond. If a guarantee society were appointed, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, it would be much safer for the
  434
  boards of guardians and the county councils in the future. I think I am right in saying that in effect this Amendment of mine is carried out in the same way in England, and I think the right honourable Gentleman needs be under no difficulty in accepting this Amendment, for my object is only to prevent a state of affairs that has happened in Monaghan happening again. I beg leave to move my Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment, for it appears to be a rather strong Measure, which will enable the guarantee societies to run up their terms.
  MR. DALY: As the right honourable Gentleman has stated that this might run up the terms of the guarantee societies, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 40, leave out sub-section 4. (Mr. Daly.)
  MR. DILLON: Under this clause the county council have the power of appointing a secretary to the county council, a county treasurer, a county surveyor, and an assistant county surveyor, and other officers, but under this section they provide—
  "Where any part of the salary of an officer of a county council is paid out of money provided by Parliament, or from the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, he shall not be appointed or removed, nor shall his salary be fixed or altered without the concurrence of the Local Government Board."
  Then the sub-section proceeds—
  "And for the purpose of this enactment part of the payment to every county council, out of the agricultural grant, shall be deemed to be paid in respect of part of the salary of the secretary of the county council, and of the county surveyor, and of any assistant surveyor."
  Therefore, by this sub-section the county council will be in this position; they cannot appoint even their secretary, treasurer, surveyor, or assistant surveyor without the consent of the Local Government Board, nor can they dismiss

  435
  them. Therefore, I should like an explanation of this very wide departure from the English Act. I think that this provision is objectionable in a two-fold sense. It is objectionable in the first place, to take away from an important representative body the power to ensure its servants against the injustice of wrongful dismissal. We know perfectly well that there are a great many public bodies in Ireland who are not permitted to dismiss their own officials, and the result is that their officials are not very civil, and they are by no means very amenable to the direction of those in whose employment they are. Something may be said in favour of that system—though I myself am not in favour of it—when we are dealing with the case of very small and comparatively unimportant appointments; but when we come to deal with very large appointments, then I think it is monstrous that these officials, particularly the officials into whose hands the whole of the administration will fall, should be placed in such a position that they may set their employers at absolute defiance and be backed up by the Local Government Board in that particular. I confess, however, that I attach much more importance to the question of appointment. The Chief Secretary said that this was really to a large extent a purely formal provision, and that he knew that it would be used only to prevent improper appointments being made. Well now, Sir, that is a very extraordinary attitude to take, because it amounts to this: that the Local Government Board at Dublin should have control, and should be able to say what is a proper appointment and what is an improper appointment. There is nothing laid down in the Orders in Council for their guidance, and there is no regulation preventing them using that power arbitrarily. I should like to know why the Government, having undertaken to give to Ireland the same privileges as are enjoyed by this country under the English Act, have departed from it in so important a particular as the appointment of officers. I know that in England the county clerk is appointed by the council, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, but that
  436
  is the only case, and that is so because he has to discharge certain legal duties in connection with his office, and that is the only reason why, under the English Act, he is not appointed by the county council. But these powers which are conferred upon the Irish Local Government Board are not conferred upon the English Local Government Board under the Act. But I will go further and say that, even if they were conferred on the English Local Government Board, it is a much more injurious thing, and far more likely to cripple, and annoy, and embarrass these Irish local bodies to confer such powers upon the Irish Local Government Board than would be the case with the English Local Government Board, because in England such power would only be used in the case of some very scandalous appointment. I refuse to accept from the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland the statement that, in his judgment, the Irish Local Government Board will not use that power.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The first part of the section says—
  "As respects the officers of the county council, the council of a county other than a county borough, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained."
  This does not apply to county boroughs, but it would be open to say that section 4 does, especially when you have regard to the powers conferred under section 17, where it says, at line 19—
  "The provisions of this Act with respect to administrative counties shall, so far as circumstances admit, apply in the case of every such borough, with the necessary modifications."
  The exceptions are only about main roads, etc. It appears to me that this is a section that should be allowed to exist only for a limited period. It may be that, at the opening stage of these county councils, some such provision may be necessary; but I think five years will give the Government all the protection they desire.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This clause does not apply to county boroughs. If

  437
  the honourable Member will look at subsection I he will see that it reads—
  "As respects the officers of the county council, the council of a county other than a county borough."
  County boroughs are expressly excluded.
  MR. M. HEALY: Look at subsection 6.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am quite willing to make it clear that the subsection does not apply to county boroughs. In the case of the county surveyor it is desirable that there should be some check. One consideration, the importance of which it is impossible to exaggerate, is the desirability of having as good men as possible to discharge these duties, and you will get a very much better class of men if you have the support of the Local Government Board than without that provision. Considering how much, after this Bill passes, will be contributed from the Imperial Exchequer to the local authorities in Ireland, it is not unreasonable that some check should be imposed.
  MR. DILLON: The county council appoints the men whom you approve. That is the whole point; and any man who makes himself obnoxious to the Government will have a cross put against his name. We have had from the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a perfect disclosure of the whole policy of the Government. We know now that the Local Government Board and the Castle authorities regard those men as to a large extent their servants; and the men who expect to obtain these local appointments in Ireland will feel it necessary to abstain from giving the authorities umbrage. If the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary were justified in his argument he ought to go further, and take away from all the municipal corporations of Ireland the right to appoint their officers. I have no desire to prolong unduly this discussion, but I hope the honourable Member who moved this Amendment will carry it to a Division, in order that it may not be used as an argument against us in the future that we allowed
  438
  this clause to go through unchallenged, because the time will come when the Government will be obliged to withdraw the greater part of these restrictions.
  MR. M. HEALY: May we take it that this sub-section relates only to secretaries and county surveyors? Because I am not quite sure that there is not a snake in the grass in the earlier subsection.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I hope the Government will remain firm and keep this clause as it stands. I would rather see the county officers creatures of the Local Government Board than creatures of the National League.
  MR. DILLON: Do I understand that no member of the National League is to be appointed?
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Certainly not. I do not wish to see politics introduced at all; but I fear that at first, at any rate, that will happen, and that in consequence the worst possible selection of officers will be made. From what I know of certain parts of Ireland I think it is likely that membership of the National League will be a strong inducement to appointment to these offices. I have had representatives from all parts of Ireland hoping that the officers of the county council will not be absolutely at the beck and call of the League.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I desire to express the hope that the Government will agree to the reasonable representations of the Irish Members on this question, because I feel that, in placing these irritating restrictions upon these bodies, they are doing the very thing that will militate against the smooth working of local government in Ireland. I do not see why the people of Ireland cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs. They have more interest in their own affairs than any outsider can have. Speaking from my own experience, I say that we should not, in the early stages of local government, be hampered with these irritating restrictions. Why should not the local bodies in Ireland appoint their own officials? It is annoying to think that

  439
  these local bodies are there merely to carry out the will of the Local Government Board in Dublin.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that any instance can be pointed out in which the Local Government Board refused their sanction to the appointment of an official, except on thoroughly reasonable grounds. The honourable Member for East Mayo says that the Local Government Board of Ireland is not amenable to the criticism of Parliament exactly in the same way as the English Local Government Board. But I venture to say that under no circumstances would the Local Government Board give their sanction to the appointment or the dismissal of an officer without consulting the Chief Secretary. The thing is absolutely out of the question. And there is certainly no ground for the supposition that the Local Government Board will use their power merely in order to secure appointments for their political friends.
  MR. DILLON: Have the Irish Members ever succeeded in reversing the action of the Irish Local Government Board by bringing a question before the House? The English Local Government Board do not do these things, because they have to defend their action before the House.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: So it is here.
  MR. DILLON: What would be the position if a reduction of the salary of the President of the English Local Government Board were carried by five votes to one of the English Members? Either the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would disappear or the policy would be reversed. But the Irish Members may carry a reduction by five to one of the Irish votes, and it would make no more difference than waiter on a duck's back. We have only the satisfaction of compelling the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to sit on these benches and listen to the Irish Members; but, so far as business is concerned, it is not affected in the least. We have no remedy by officials of the Govern-
  440
  ment; and now the Government propose to put this veto upon the appointment of the county council officers, and the people who look for appointments under the county council will be on their good behaviour so that their names may not become obnoxious to the authorities. The honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh had said that he objected to any of these officers being members of the National League; in his words he would say that all these officers should be loyal men.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: They ought to be honest men.
  MR. DILLON: Does the honourable and gallant Member go so far as to hold that no man is honest in Ireland except he agrees with him in politics? If that is his view his test of an honest man is a man who supports the Unionist Government. That is the root-evil of this system. Whether the Local Government Board exercise this power constantly or not, it is there, and is held in reserve, and is a weapon of corruption. The Government have not attempted to justify it, and I trust that the honourable Member who moved the Amendment will divide the House upon it as a protest.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERappealed to the right honourable Gentleman, having regard to the fact that it was in the interests of everybody that the Act should work smoothly, to make some concession to the honourable Members. The Government had limited the area of choice in the appointment of officers. He thought if they retained the power that no officer should be dismissed by the county council without the sanction of the Local Government Board they would have quite sufficient authority over the county councils, and at the same time would give to each county council a wider area out of which to select the officer. They would by this course give the man who had any political black mark against his name, or anything that might be used with regard to his public conduct in Ireland, the same chance as other men in securing such appointments, and at the same time retain the power of having a voice in the

  441
  dismissal or removal of an officer. He believed if the right honourable Gentleman would make that concession he would remove a cause of friction which was likely to arise under the proposed condition of things.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: The weak point of the grand jury system is that the grand juries have no control over their county surveyors and other officials. As I understand the clause this evil will now be aggravated. It prescribes that there shall be a considerable number of officials who will be supposed to do the work of the Irish county councils, and at the same time be absolutely beyond their control. This is a most undesirable state of things. As far as I can see, this clause carries out the principle which pervades the whole of the Bill. It puts the county councils in Ireland absolutely at the mercy of the Local Government Board. I think that is a very great mistake. I am perfectly certain that the Irish county councils will be at war with the Local Government Board, and that will not be conducive to harmonious working. The Chief Secretary ought to have more confidence in the local bodies he is creating, and allow them a little more independence; otherwise I for one, in common with other honourable Members who sit on these benches, may feel disposed to reconsider my position with regard to the Bill altogether. Instead of giving local government to the Irish people the Chief Secretary is simply putting them under that of the Local Government Board.
  MR. CREAN: I think the Irish county councils ought to be fully trusted with regard to the appointment of their officials. I will give one instance to prove that local bodies in Ireland have not misused that trust in the past. On a recent occasion the Corporation of Cork, of which I was for many years a member, and which is composed or two-thirds Nationalists, appointed a city surveyor. Would it surprise this House to know that they appointed an Englishman and a Protestant to that position? Again, would it surprise this House to
  442
  know that the harbour board nominated by the corporation appointed a Protestant and an Englishman as their chief engineer? And yet the honourable and gallant Member opposite, impregnated with the bigotry of Ulster, ventured to insinuate that politics would interfere with the appointment of officials. But grand juries, on the other hand, never make appointments outside their own clique and religion.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I can give the honourable Gentleman many instances in my own county where Catholics have been appointed cess collectors.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Grand juries never appoint a Catholic to any office.
  MR. CREAN: I therefore think, Mr. Lowther, that Nationalist Members have reason to doubt the bonâ fides of any branch of Dublin Castle dealing fairly with anyone not of their own political thinking.
  MR. J. SAMUEL: There was one statement made by an honourable Member that should not go unchallenged, and that is the statement that in England the system of the Local Government Board having control over the appointment of the officials of local bodies has worked well. Now, Sir, I venture to say that there is not a board of guardians in this country which would not prefer to have absolute control over its own officials. There is a great difference between the appointment of officials under this system compared with that of the municipal authorities in this country, because the municipal authorities have absolute control over the whole of their officials, unless they apply to receive half the salaries of the medical officer of health or the surveyor from the county council. I understand from the latter part of this section, which speaks of the agricultural grant—the agricultural grant is, I believe, £40,000 for the whole of Ireland—that this grant was transferred to the local taxation account, and then handed over to the county councils. Now, in England, I think in many county councils the whole of the officials are paid out of the

  443
  local taxation account. In some of our county councils we have not a single case where the officials' salaries come out of the rates. The whole of the money is provided by Parliament out of the local taxation account under the Act of 1888, and the county councils, with the exception of one official, i.e., the clerk of the council, have absolute power in the appointment and dismissal of the whole of the officials. I say, Mr. Lowther, that there is no county council, there is no rural district council, there is no local board that has self-government in the strictest sense of the term unless they have absolute control over their officers. And if these officials are placed under the Local Government Board you must have continuous friction between the Local Government Board on the one hand and the local authorities on the other. I hope my honourable Friend will push this Amendment to a Division, because the principle is one of very great importance, especially in Ireland, and I think that upon this Question you ought to assimilate the law in England to Ireland, and give the Irish county councils the same power that we possess in this country.
  MR. DALY: If the right honourable Gentleman can see his way to accept the suggestion that the powers under the section should be limited o five years' duration, I would rather lot proceed to a Division. I think here are a good many officials at present in office who would retire at the end of five years. The honourable and gallant Member for North Armagh has spoken about the introduction of politics into county councils, but let me point out to him the recent conduct of a grand jury in Ireland. At the very last assizes there vas a resolution proposed by the grand jury in the county of Monaghan to levy twopence in the £ on account of two collectors of the honourable and gallant Member's political faith who ran away with £2,000 of the county cess. I hope, in view of this disclosure, the honourable and gallant Member will not cast any suspicions on honourable Members on this side of the House.
  Question put—
  "That the words of the sub-section to the word 'he,' in line 42, stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 76.—(Division List No. 116.)
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 42, leave out the words 'be appointed.'"—(Mr. J. O'Connor.)
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I move this Amendment because I think in this Bill the Local Government Board is invested with too much power. As things stand in Ireland at present the Local Government Board has a good deal more power than it ought to have. In every page, in every line of this Bill, the heading is Local Government Board.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to call your attention, Mr. Lowther, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
  A count was ordered, and when 40 Members appeared,
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I was just saying that I move this Amendment in order that the county council might have the privilege of making their own appointments. You will observe that, according to this clause, the Local Government

  447
  Board have not only the power to veto appointments but to interfere in the alteration or fixing of salaries. I think that is giving the Local Government Board too much power. You give some reform with one hand and take half of it away with the other. That is usually the case. I think the Attorney General might concede this point in the absence of the Chief Secretary. What I object to is that the Local Government Board should have the veto on these appointments. The Local Government Board is everywhere—on every page, on every line of this Bill. I beg to move this Amendment.
  MR. ATKINSON: Gentlemen who are acquainted with the proceedings of grand juries in Ireland cannot for a moment think seriously that the county surveyor would be in an independent position if he were appointed by the county council. What chance would any man who faithfully did his duty have of insisting upon contracts being carried out?
  MR. M. HEALY: This only relates to appointments.
  MR. ATKINSON: The only cases are those of the county surveyor and secretary, and anyone who knows anything about what grand juries in Ireland are cannot say seriously that, if he did his duty, the county surveyor would have any chance if the Amendment were inserted.
  MR. JORDAN: I do not see whiting clause should apply to the secretary. If the county surveyor is protected, his assistants, who will be under him, will be sufficiently protected without this clause. But what we are afraid of is that, in giving these appointments, it is dangerous to let the Local Government Board have the power independent of the county council—that, whereas they might have a certain amount of independence, they will act in such a way as to be offensive to the county council. Now, an officer might if he chose, being appointed by the Local Government Board, wholly independent of the county council, stand up and tell the county council that he refused to assist them—that it was outside the
  448
  sphere of his duty. I know a case of a few weeks ago in which a gentleman, who was not the secretary of a grand jury, but who was the secretary to commissioners, refused to assist the commissioners in a certain matter, because he said it did not lie within the sphere of his duty. That is the way the Local Government Board officials might act—to defy the county council. The county council would be at the disposal of its officers, instead of the officers being at the disposal of the county council. I regret that the suggestion made on a former Amendment was not adopted—a suggestion to limit this clause to a term of five years.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I suggest to the Government that there is ample protection in the words "and which shall have such qualification." It occurs to me that the Government might give way on the word "appointment." We have had a great many discussions as to safeguards, but if I were asked what could the county council do, I could only say it can raise taxes. The Government must remember that all existing officers are protected. The present officers will certainly live, in the natural course of events, for 15 years, or perhaps 20 years; and therefore we are dealing with a state of things which will only arise when we will probably have passed out of the sphere—will I say, of politics? It seems to me that the Government have adequate protection in the word "qualification," and that they might well leave out the words "be appointed."
  MR. MURNAGHAN: Mr. Lowther, I can understand officers being independent of road contractors, but why they should be independent of the county council I do not understand. Does the right honourable Gentleman mean to say that the county council would not make its officers attend to their business? What power will they have to enforce their orders according to the present Bill? They will have no power whatever. Unless these local bodies have the control over their appointments, I do not see how it is possible to get your work properly done. Because, instead of being independent of

  449
  the county council, they ought to be subject to it. Is it to the Local Government Board they must look for approval? It is a far-off object, and I think it is a wrong course for the Government to pursue. These surveyors get large salaries, and I do not think there would be any desire on the part of the county council to be arbitrary. The Government are taking an unfortunate step, and I am in full agreement with the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The county council is the body that will have the power of making these appointments and the Local Government Board will only have the power of a veto over the action of the county council. The mere fact that such a power is in existence will have an effect on the county councils, and will prevent them appointing men whom they ought not to appoint or dismissing men whom they ought not to dismiss. It will scarcely over be necessary to exercise such a veto; but, as the fact that it is possessed by the Local Government Board will have a beneficial influence, I am prepared to do away with it. I do not think the powers possessed by the Local Government Board are too great. If a county surveyor were to conduct himself towards the county council in opposition to their wishes, I really think honourable Members should give the Local Government Board credit for exercising a certain amount of discretion and common sense in carrying out their duties. I cannot, therefore, accept this Amendment.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived without a Division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 30, line 43, leave out. 'or.'"
  "Page 30, line 43, after 'altered,' Insert, 'or withheld.'"—(Mr. W. E. T. Sharpe.)
  MR. SHARPE: I think that no salary ought to be altered or withheld without reference to the court of appeal, that is the Local Government Board. I think, when you consider the class of officers they are, their stability and dignity should be
  450
  maintained, and no better way can be provided than by enacting that no interference with the emoluments, whether it be in the nature of fixing or withholding salaries, shall be allowed without the sanction of the Local Government Board. I, therefore, beg leave to move this Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: These words are absolutely unnecessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 14, leave out from 'council,' to 'all,' in line 15, and insert—
  "So far as respects rural districts, and to the clerk of the council of every county borough and urban county district, so far as respects that borough or district."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to, without a Division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 10, at end, insert—
  "And such secretary or town clerk shall receive such additional remuneration in respect of the increase of his duties by reason of the transfer in this sub-section mentioned as the Local Government Board may sanction, such increase not to be less in amount than the amount which would have been receivable by such clerk of the union if such transfer of powers and duties had not been made."—(Mr. M. Healy.)
  MR. M. HEALY: The Act imposes a great deal of abstract duties upon the town clerk. He must make a return if called upon to do it, and he has various other duties placed upon him. My own view is that he should have extra remuneration for voters' lists. There is a special payment for juries and voters' lists, which the clerk of the union gets, and in the Acts relating to juries and voters there are provisions for so much per name on the lists. I have not studied them myself, but I apprehend that it is intended that remuneration in this respect should be given to the clerk and the secretary to the grand jury under the Bill. But, at any rate, the town clerks will not like these extra duties cast upon them without any provision being made for payment.
  MR. ATKINSON: This does not relate to existing officers.
  MR. M. HEALY: If that is so, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 21, leave out 'Lord Lieutenant,' and insert, 'Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The clause reads that an officer—
  "Shall not be appointed or removed, nor shall his salary be fixed or altered, without the concurrence of the Local Government Board."
  As that is drawn it would include assistant surveyors, because assistant surveyors are mentioned in line 24 of the clause, and therefore I do not see where the Lord Lieutenant is to provide for the additional qualification for the assistant county surveyor when it is the Local Government Board, apparently, which is to provide in future for the qualification as in line 1, page 31, of the Act. Observe its absurdity. You provide by line 24 that the county council
  "May appoint such assistant surveyors and such further officers as they think necessary."
  In sub-section 4 of the same clause, the Local Government Board insist that these officers
  "Shall have such qualifications as may be prescribed";
  and then sub-clause 8 goes on to say—
  "That the Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks fit, direct the assistant surveyors to be examined and their qualifications certified by the persons who examine."
  After an explanation from Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, the Amendment, by leave, was withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 31, after 'borough,' insert—
  "'And the amount of any such superannuation shall be paid as expenses of the county or district council.'"
  "Page 31, line 31, at end, insert, as a new sub-section—
  "'The law relating to the treasurers of counties and this section shall apply to the county of Dublin in like manner as to any other county.'"
  452
  "Page 31, line 31, at end, insert, as a new sub-section—
  "'Where a county surveyor, or any resident medical superintendent, or assistant medical officer of a lunatic asylum, is appointed by a county council after the passing of this Act, and at the time of such appointment held a like office in another county or lunatic asylum, he shall, upon ceasing to hold office, be entitled, for the purpose of enactments relating to superannuation, to reckon any previous service as county surveyor or as officer of a lunatic asylum which he might have reckoned if his service had been under the appointing council or committee.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  SIR T. LEA: I beg to move the insertion of the words "or assistant county surveyor." after the word "surveyor" in the first line of the new sub-section. I think a good many grand juries and the new county councillors in Ireland would wish to see some of these gentlemen superannuated. It may very naturally happen that some councils will perhaps want to abolish some of these officials or compel them to remain on under different terms. My proposal would allow a far better arrangement, but we shall not be able to improve it unless a certain number of other officials are superannuated and the benefit is extended to the assistant county surveyors. As it stands it is very unsatisfactory, and I think the right honourable Gentleman might include these words in the new sub-section.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot accept those words.
  MR. M. HEALY: Sub-section 10 reads—
  "The enactments relating to the superannuation of officers of boards of guardians shall, with the necessary modifications, apply to officers of county and rural district councils other than the county surveyor, and any officer of a county borough."
  Does that not entitle him to superannuation on the same terms?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right honourable Gentleman also consider the point which my honourable Friend the Member for St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin raised, that of two officers, one in the county of Cork and the other an officer in the county of Dublin. I think the assistant secretaries to the grand juries in both these cases should

  453
  be included as is the case with the secretary. I think it only fair that these two officers should have the protection which this clause gives to the others.
  MR. MUKNAGHAN: I hope the Chief Secretary will carefully consider this matter, and not listen to this proposal at all, for it would only make them discontented and increase the taxation of the country. The Chief Secretary could not do a worse thing than at the beginning of local government in Ireland to open up new avenues of expenditure and extravagance, and I hope he will not yield to the proposal of the honourable Baronet, for it will only be met with new proposals on the way, and the Bill would become nothing but a burden to the ratepayers.
  SIR T. LEA: After what has been said I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CLANCY: Supposing one of these officers got promotion, would the right honourable Gentleman cut him out?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, I think I should.
  MR. JORDAN: The right honourable Gentleman takes power under this clause of permitting county surveyors and other officers to reckon their time served in another county as having been served in the county to which they are transferred. Will the right honourable Gentleman tell me for my information how the two counties will settle the superannuation allowance. Will it be shared in proportion to the time served in each county, and will each county pay a proportionate share of the remuneration.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No. The superannuation will be charged to the county to which the officer is transferred, and that county takes the risk, and it will be considered by the county at the time of appointment.
  MR. M. HEALY: The transfer of officials is a very common thing you will find out. As a rule there is a system of
  454
  apportionment adopted in England, and ready I think the effect of the right honourable Gentleman's Amendment will be this, that it will prevent any county council from giving the appointment to a properly qualified surveyor.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived without a Division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 4, after 'asylum,' insert 'or is transferred to a county council by this Act.'"—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
  MR. M. HEALY: On a point of order, Mr. Lowther, may I submit that the Amendment is more relevant to the section dealing with existing officers. It relates to an officer transferable under this Act, and is therefore an existing officer.
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: I submit, Mr. Lowther, that it is perfectly relevant to the Amendment of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It deals with the county surveyor, who is transferred to a fresh county.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think the contention of the honourable Member for Cork is right. I do not think this Amendment is in order on this clause.
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: It does not appear to me if it is not in order here that it can be in order later on.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I think it would be best to raise the question in a separate clause.
  Question put.
  New sub-section agreed to without a Division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 33, after 'officers,' should be added—
  "Or the powers conferred by any unrepealed Act on the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council or any other Government department in relation to officers."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. DILLON: What are the powers?
  MR. M. HEALY: The objection to this Amendment is that there is no schedule of repeals.
  MR. DILLON: I do not think it is a right thins to bring in an Amendment of an entirely new character like this.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If there is any suspicion about it I will give it up.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 55 as amended stand part of the Bill."
  MR. M. HEALYsaid he might just-point out that under the new sub-section there was no power to appoint more than one county surveyor. The section under which it was possible to have more was repealed by the Act. With regard to Cork, one county surveyor was not sufficient, having regard to the large amount of work he had to do, and there was no doubt that the limitation of the power of the county council to appoint only one surveyor was, in his opinion, a great defect.
  Clause agreed to.

  CLAUSE 56.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 37, after 'officer,' insert 'who may be resident or non-resident.'"—(Mr. Power.)
  MR. POWERsaid the idea prevailed in many parts of Ireland that the assistant medical officer was to be a resident. He did not know whether that was the idea of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, but the idea certainly prevailed that it was necessary that he should be a resident. In the case of Waterford there was a resident physician and a visiting physician, and an apothecary, who was also a qualified man. The board of guardians there were of opinion that it was quite necessary that the ratepayers should pay the additional expense.
  456
  The board of guardians was the best ever created, and though the ratepayers might think them somewhat extravagant, he (Mr. Power) was very glad they spent their money in the way they did, because their first duty was to the poor. He did not grumble at the expense, but they said it was an absolutely necessary expense, and if that applied to a large district like Waterford, necessarily it would apply to many other county asylums in Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do think in the case of a single medical man that he should be resident, but this is a matter which might be left out really, because the question has been decided by the Privy Council, but section 9 provides for it.
  MR. POWER: Does the right honourable Gentleman intend to convey the fact that there ought to be two resident medical men at asylums?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think it is quite necessary that there should be a resident medical man as well as an assistant.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 52, lines 41 and 42, leave out 'legally qualified,' and insert 'registered.'"—(Sir W. Foster.)
  SIR W. FOSTER: I beg to move this Amendment. I quite admit that the words "legally qualified" carry all that is necessary, but I think it would be better in an Act of Parliament to take out "legally qualified" and substitute "registered," because, although a man may be legally qualified, it is possible that lie may not be registered under the Medical Act.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no objection to this Amendment, the honourable Member being an authority upon these matters.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 31, line 43, leave out 'had experience in the treatment of the insane,' and insert—
  "Served for not less than five years as a medical officer or assistant medical officer in asylum for the treatment of the insane."—(Sir W. Foster.)
  SIR W. FOSTER: I move this Amendment because I consider it desirable that medical officers appointed to superintend asylums should have some experience in the treatment of the insane, and that they should obtain that experience in such an asylum as that to which they may be appointed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This is, perhaps, the greatest slur that anybody could possibly place upon the medical profession. As I understand, if a man is qualified in the art and science of medicine he is qualified to minister to the cure of sickness and disease, and now the honourable Gentleman, himself a leader in the medical profession, suggests that the diploma which medical men get upon their qualifying is actually insufficient to qualify them to take charge of the insane. That should surely be a question for the Medical Board. This proposal is a mere dodge to leave these appointments in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. We have had too much of the Lord Lieutenant in this Bill. This Bill is saturated with the Lord Lieutenant. We are sick of both him and the Local Government Board. A doctor, when he has obtained his diploma, is qualified to kill or cure, and ordinary human subjects have to submit to him either himself, or his blessed child, or his wife. Why are the insane to have a protection which is refused to the sane? According to this Amendment, he is to be provided with a doctor of no less than five years' experience, but a sane man is to be at the mercy of a Mr. Sawbones, a Mr. Ben Allen, or a Mr. Tom Sawyer, who has only been qualified a year. This is an Amendment which has not emanated from the right honourable Gentleman who moved it. It has emanated from a number of interested parties, who have been putting upon us the pressure to which we have been subjected by a number of the Government supporters. I took an early stand against the pressure. I say I want this Bill to pass in such a way that no officer or man employed under it shall have a single complaint. This is another proposal to prevent Catholic emancipation. That is the sole object and intent of the Amendment.
  458
  The right honourable Gentleman is quite innocent of any such intention, I know, but there are a number of young cormorants who get their appointments by backstairs influence, and not because of their knowledge of the treatment of the insane. They know no more about the treatment of the insane than I do, but having got in by backstairs Castle influence, they want practically to be ahead of everybody else; in other words, no Catholic should have any appointment in these lunatic asylums until these gentleman have been provided for. Dublin Castle encourages these lunatic asylums in appointing nobody but those who are not Catholics. The result is that the whole of these institutions are practically nests of Orange jobbery. I strongly oppose.
  MR. LECKYsaid the Amendment was in full accordance with the general opinion of the medical profession in Dublin. The science of attending to the insane was a special science, and those who went in for it were obliged to give up all other practice and devote themselves entirely to it. The present system was that the superintendents were invariably chosen out of those who had long practical experience in the asylums. This was the system the Amendment desired to continue. It had nothing to do with religion; it had simply to do with the science which dealt with insanity, which was exceedingly difficult and exceedingly delicate, and concerning which a vast amount had been learned of late years. Nothing could be more dangerous than that in a country where lunacy was unfortunately increasing the treatment of lunatics should be thrown into the hands of people who had only a very perfunctory knowledge of the subject.
  MR. DILLONsaid he could not support the Amendment, not on the ground stated by the honourable Member for North Louth, but because he objected to placing any restriction on the powers of the county councils as to the appointment of officers. On that account alone he was opposed to any and every Amendment or provision in the Bill restricting the choice of county councils. When he

  459
  came to the question of the principle involved in the Amendment, he confessed he found himself totally at variance with the speech of the honourable Member for North Louth. The honourable Member wag a very great authority on the law, and on matters of law, and he was always prepared to submit to the honourable Members opinion; but with all due respect he ventured to say that his references to the medical profession, to which he (Mr. Dillon) had the privilege of belonging, simply showed that he knew nothing about the subject, especially when he declared that a man who had passed a medical examination to qualify him to practise as a surgeon or medical officer was, therefore, qualified to treat the insane. That only showed that he never passed a medical examination himself. As a matter of fact, the treatment of the insane was a special branch of medical science, and to place a man in charge of an insane asylum who had no previous special training in that branch of the profession was, he did not hesitate to say, a crime against the people in that asylum. Certainly no county council in Ireland which had any sense of duty would dream of appointing a man to take charge or to be an assistant medical officer in a lunatic asylum who had not had a long and considerable training. Five years ought to be the limit of training for a man who would take full charge of a lunatic asylum, apart from any preliminary training. Any man who had had any responsibility in the conduct of these asylums would bear out what he had ventured to say. The curious thing was that only two or three lines down he found an Amendment which went further than the Amendment now proposed. The honourable Member for Derry proposed that a candidate for the post of medical officer in an asylum should have seven years' experience in the treatment of the insane. He proposed to leave out words, and insert, "seven years as assistant medical officer in an asylum." He (Mr. Dillon) should not dream of voting for any candidate who had not had considerable experience in the treatment of the insane. But the present proposal had to do with the tieing of the hands of the members of the county council. Not only did he
  460
  object to the Amendment, but he desired to point out that, as the clause stood at present, the Local Government Board had absolute power, and if the Bill only remained in its present shape there was nothing to prevent the Local Government Board issuing a memorandum to the effect that they would not sanction the appointment of any officer who had not had seven years' experience in some asylum. Therefore, as the clause stood, the Amendment was unnecessary; even if it was necessary, the Local Government Board had the power to make it a question of practice. On the grounds he had stated he objected to the Amendment, but he also objected to the clause as it stood. Although it might produce some slight abuse at the beginning, the proper policy was to throw the responsibility for the appointments on the local bodies, and trust that placing that responsibility upon them would lead to a generous rivalry as to who should get the most competent men for the posts. The other day he read from the Report of tie Lunacy Committee of Inquiry a passage dealing with the subject, in which it was declared that, after investigating the results in the English asylums, they had arrived at the conclusion that the best way to secure the most competent officers for these asylums was to give the local bodies full liberty, and fix upon them the full responsibility.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he could not see himself that the mere fact that certain trusts were reposed in these local bodies was a justification of what had been suggested. He could not think that the clause ought to lead to the conclusion that no restriction should be placed upon them in their choice of skilled candidates. If the principle proposed had been carried out they might as well do away with all Civil Service examinations. He could only say that the Government were willing to accept the Amendment.
  MR. T. M. HEALYwished to insert in the Amendment, "being Protestants," for he held that the Amendment was moved in the interests of the Protestant minority, and that it should be so stated. It was not the experience of the medical officer that they wanted, but his Protestantism.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not accept such an Amendment.
  MR. W. FIELDagreed in the view that the medical officers of lunatic asylums required to have special aptitude and training in order that they may carry out the work with which they were entrusted. And, further, he knew that in some cases there was a certain amount of administrative experience required on the part of the medical officers. But he entirely disapproved of the suggestion of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth, for, in his opinion, what they wanted in a Government Bill was an indication that they were not going to work on any sectarian issue, but in the interests of the country at large.
  SIR W. FOSTERsaid he could have no sympathy with any attempt to limit the appointments to any particular class, and should be sorry if his Amendment should lead to jobbery. He had proposed it with the view of getting efficient officers, and he did not, therefore, wish the choice to be limited only to men serving in Irish asylums. The honourable and learned Member for Louth was quite wrong when he said they ought not in any case to require anything but a medical diploma, or certificate for competency. A medical diploma alone was net sufficient qualification for the post of superintendent. Experience was necessary. His Amendment referred, not to junior officers, but to men who would be placed in the very responsible position of having several hundreds of lunatics under their charge, amounting to what might be called a large colony. He made the proposal not only in the interest of the county council, but still more in the interests of the unfortunate persons of whom these officers would have charge. It was in that spirit that he had moved the Amendment, and he was sorry that the honourable and learned Member for Louth should have imported any other element.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that, as the honourable Member had declared that a medical diploma was not sufficient to qualify for these appointments, he must point out that the Government themselves had appointed as an inspector of
  462
  lunatic asylums a medical officer who had never been inside a lunatic asylum until he got his appointment from the Lord Lieutenant. One of their existing lunacy great guns never had his foot inside a lunatic asylum until he got the job from Dublin Castle. He ventured to say, from his experience of the administration of lunatic asylums in Ireland, that an entire sweeping away of the whole system of lunatic asylums' management was necessary. He quite agreed with the honourable Member for Mayo, that laymen were not entitled to speak upon medical questions with the same assurance as those who had had a medical training; but on this question of lunacy he was not aware that any one of them was more equipped than another. If, however, the honourable Member for Mayo desired to claim a special pre-eminence in that regard, he should be very glad to admit it.
  Amendment put and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 4, after 'The Pauper Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) (Superannuation) Act, 1890, shall apply to every officer appointed under this section,' to insert—
  "With the modification that any officer or servant who has been an officer or servant in any asylum for not less than twenty years, and is not less than fifty years of age, or who in the discharge of his or her duty becomes permanently incapable of executing the office in person from sickness or infirmity of mind or body, shall be entitled to an annuity in the way of superannuation amounting to two-thirds of the annual salary and two-thirds of the annual value of the lodgings, rations, and other allowances payable to or enjoyed by the person superannuated at the time of his or her retirement, and the said Act shall be deemed to be amended accordingly."—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. CLANCY: I confess that my chief object in moving this Amendment is to safeguard the ordinary asylums' attendants, on whose behalf I think a special case could be made out for compulsory superannuation. Their position is in some respects exceptional, and I think the Committee will be surprised to hear that their average number of hours of work each day amount to the extraordinary number of 15, without excluding Saturday or Sunday. This alone, I

  463
  think, should constitute a claim for the consideration of the Government, but they have a further claim to attention, in respect to the peculiar nature of their employment, which is one of constant watchfulness and worry, and often involves even danger of physical injury. I might also say that there is a danger of mental injury, and cases have occurred in which men, in the discharge of their duties as asylum attendants, have received blows on the head, and have suffered so much in consequence that they have been obliged to resign their positions long before they qualified for pensions, and some of them have eventually become insane. This question was investigated by a Committee of the House of Commons several years ago, and the Committee's Report, which, I think, was unanimous, was to the effect that the conditions of service as regards these particular officers are quite exceptional in character, and that a special measure of relief ought to be afforded them at the first opportunity. Since then no effort has been made by any Government to improve the lot of these servants. A proof that their position is really one which a man does not care to have if he can get any other employment is afforded by the fact that not five per cent. of those who have been acting as attendants in lunatic asylums have remained long enough to qualify for a pension under the present law. I may refer to a case of recent occurrence in which several attendants left in a body long before the time at which they would have qualified for a pension. In addition to all this, the salaries of these men and women are very small. I mention that fact to show that there is really no great danger of any unusual burden being thrown upon the rates by making superannuation in these cases compulsory. A Lunacy Bill was introduced into the House of Lords or March 25 of this year by the present Government, and one clause of that Bill, the 20th, was to the effect that—
  "It shall be the duty of the Visiting Committee of every asylum to grant a superannuation allowance to their officers and servants under section 180 of the principal Act, and the allowances to be granted to officers or servants under that section shall not be less than would be granted if he were an officer or servant to whom the Superannuation Act of 1896 applies."
  464
  That clause was introduced on the authority of the present Government in the House of Lords. It recognises the principle of compulsory superannuation, and if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland objects to the form in which I wish him to have this clause, I shall be glad to have his ideas on the subject. But I put forward this clause confidently, hoping that the Government will not reject the idea of giving effect to this principle, considering that they have embodied it in a Bill of their own introduced this year; and also in the hope that the Irish Members who have so often defended the interests of the Irish ratepayers will make an exception in the case of these servants in lunatic asylums. The case is really a strong one, the class affected by it is a comparatively small one, and the conditions of their services are very peculiar, and I do not think that any considerable burden will be thrown upon the rates by ensuring to these asylum attendants the certainty that, after spending a certain number of years in this service, they will not go without some provision for their old age. The terms I propose are that they should have spent twenty years in n lunatic asylum, and that they should be fifty years of age. Of course, if a man is injured in the discharge of his duty I think he ought to be entitled to the same superannuation as if he had qualified by service. I think that anyone who calmly and impartially examines this question will say that a person who has spent twenty years in such service as I have described ought not, in the public interest, to be allowed to discharge his duties any longer, but ought to be superannuated.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This is the first of a good many Amendments of a similar kind, all having for their object a radical change in the superannuation laws, substituting compulsory superannuation for voluntary superannuation, and not merely for special cases, but generally. It will, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to state, at the very outset, what course the Government propose to adopt with regard to these Amendments. We cannot load this Bill with a variety of fundamental alterations of the

  465
  existing superannuation law. I do not go into the question of whether the reasons adduced in favour of this proposal by the honourable Member who has moved this Amendment are good or bad, but I refuse to accept it on the grounds I have mentioned.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I am afraid that the honourable Member for Dublin county has exaggerated the conditions of employment in these asylums. Near my residence we have one of the largest asylums in Ireland, and I know that when a vacancy occurs on the staff of that institution the managers are besieged with applications for the situation. The statements of the honourable Member are, no doubt, made in good faith, but they are not in accordance with what I know to be the practice in the institution to which I have referred.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I do not think it can be denied that the attendants in these asylums perform very arduous and very responsible duties, and that they are not as well treated as they should be. I do not know what the general feeling on this subject may be, but I know that in my district there is a very strong feeling that the men in these asylums are not fairly treated. I think, therefore, that if the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not prepared to accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for Dublin county, he might give some expression of opinion upon the subject. This is a question which creates a good deal of interest in different parts of Ireland, and I believe that the Irish people generally would be much pleased if some improvement were made in the position of these men.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I should not have trespassed upon the time of the House if it had not been for the remarks of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I should like the right honourable Gentleman to understand that there is a considerable feeling amongst Irish Members in favour of providing superannuation allowances for these asylum attendants. Having had something to
  466
  do with the carrying through of the Superannuation Bill of 1890 I should like to see it further extended, and I trust the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will be inclined to give a favourable hearing to this Amendment.
  MR. DALY: I am pleased to gather from the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he is not going to grant superannuation in these cases, because I think the right honourable Gentleman will have the support of the majority of Members from Ireland in the attitude he has taken up. One of the arguments used by the honourable Member for North Dublin was that a Superannuation Bill had been introduced in the House of Lords, but that is an argument I should scarcely have expected the honourable Member to use. I hope, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman will consider the matter carefully before he imposes this additional burden upon the ratepayers of Ireland. In fact, the entire grant will be absorbed if we are called upon to give superannuation allowances to all the officers. As far as I am concerned I am opposed to the Amendment, and I am surprised at any honourable Member representing an agricultural constituency bringing it forward.
  MR. W. FIELD: I regard the position of these attendants at lunatic asylums as one which demands attention. I know, as a matter of fact, a case in which attendants have been obliged to form a trades union to protect themselves; and I say, as one who is acquainted with the labour question, it is a scandal—and nothing short of it—that men should be obliged to work from 12 to 15 hours a day amongst lunatics. It is not many months since I received a deputation from a staff of attendants, and I venture to assert that their hours ought to be decreased, and their remuneration increased.
  MR. TULLY: I am prepared to admit that the duties of attendants are arduous, and their hours too long; but I think we ought to consider, not the poor officials only, but the poor ratepayers. The farmer, the shopkeeper, and the professional man, in a great

  467
  many cases, work harder than some of the officials, though no pensions are provided by Act of Parliament for them. It is one of the scandals of Ireland that we have too many pensioners. Take the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The force consists of only 10,000 men, and there are 6,000 pensioners. If these proposals for superannuation are accepted by the Government, the scandal which has taken place in the case of the police will be repeated in the case of the asylums, the workhouses, and other institutions, and I for one therefore resist the Amendment.
  MR. CREAN: I think something should be done in regard to those cases in which attendants have seen excellent service in an institution and have broken down in consequence of the work. Unless a person is brought into direct contact with these people he is really incapable of judging the merits of a particular case. They are frequently on duty for 16, 17, and even 24 hours at a stretch, and therefore, so far as the Amendment deals with 15 years' service, I am prepared to support it. But there is one portion of it which I cannot support, and it is that portion which gives superannuation to a person breaking down, say, after a couple of years' service in the same way as it would be given to a person after serving 20 years. If an Amendment is introduced limiting the length of time to 10 years, I would certainly be in favour of it. Often, after 12 months' service, an attendant is incapable of continuing in the service, and the Amendment would therefore put us in a rather awkward position, because in a very short time we should have a large number of pensioners. In many instances the terms of service are very short. In one asylum more than half the attendants have not had more than five years' experience. In the course of two or three years many of them go away. It would, therefore, be impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment as it is now on the Paper.
  MR. JORDAN: So far as I am concerned, I cannot see why these officers should be put in a better position under this Bill than they have been up
  468
  to the present time. If they have had very small salaries, why not give them better salaries in the future? It would appear, however, that there is a considerable number of candidates competing for appointments at any time a vacancy occurs. I have no feeling against this class of public servants more than I have against other classes, but if you let in the thin end of the wedge in the case of one class, there will be no end to the claims for similar allowances from other classes. So far as I am concerned, therefore, I shall certainly vote against the Amendment.
  MR. CLANCY: I intend to go to a Division on the question. I will not make any reply to the speeches of the honourable Members on this side of the House further than to say that I think any fear that the House may entertain as to extravagance resulting from this Bill in Ireland may be banished. My opinion is that this Bill will be found to work in an economical manner. The case of the asylum attendants is one in favour of which something exceptional may be said. I must say that it augurs an extraordinary state of mind when we are told that we ought not to take into account special circumstances when they arise, simply because there is a fear of the thin end of the wedge. I think the case of the asylum attendants is a pitiable case. In the interests of common humanity, in the interests of the public service, and in the interests of common justice, this Amendment ought to be accepted. But if the honourable Member for Queen's County (Mr. Crean) thinks the Amendment goes too far, and has any intention of proposing an Amendment which will meet with the satisfaction of those officers, he will not find me in opposition to him.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 234.—(Division List No. 117.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus H. E.

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

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Arnold, Alfred

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Ascroft, Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Denny, Colonel

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Heath, James

  Bemorse, Sir Henry Howe

  Drucker, A.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Bigwood, James

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Bond, Edward

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hornby, William Henry

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Brassey, Albert

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Flower, Ernest

  Kenyon, James

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Kimber, Henry

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Garfit, William

  Lafone, Alfred

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Lawson, John G. (Yorks)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Warde, Lt.-Gol. C. E. (Kent)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Purvis, Robert

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

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

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

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)

  Lowles, John

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lucas-Shad well, William

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm.E.)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  McKillop, James

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Strauss, Arthur

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  More, Robert Jasper

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'dUny)

  Sir William Walrond and

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Farkes, Kbenezer

  Valentia, Viscount

  NOES.

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

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

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hogan, James Francis

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Blake, Edward

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Brigg, John

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burt, Thomas

  Leng, Sir John

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Collery, Bernard

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crean, Eugene

  McDonnell,Dr.M. A. (Qn.'sCo.)

  Shee, James John

  Crilly, Daniel

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Sheehy, David

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  McCartan, Michael

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McDermott, Patrick

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dillon, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McKenna, Reginald

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maden, John Henry

  Tully, Jasper

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Moss, Samuel

  Mr. Daly and Sir Thomas

  Harwood, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Esmonde.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  AYES.

  Bainbridge, Emerson

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  Carew, James Laurence

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

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

  Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

  Shee, James John

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Strachey, Edward

  Dane, Richard M.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.>

  Doughty, George

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Field, William (Dublin)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Price, Robert John

  Mr. Clancy and Mr. Patrick

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

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  O'Brien.

  NOES.

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Daly, James

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Denny, Colonel

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Arnold, Alfred

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hogan, James Francis

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dillon, John

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hornby, William Henry

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Drucker, A.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Barry, Rt.HnAHSmith-(Hunts)

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Benatinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Bethell, Commander

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kenyon, James

  Bigwood, James

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Kimber, Henry

  Billson, Alfred

  Flower, Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lafone, Alfred

  Bond, Edward

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Brassey, Albert

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Fry, Lewis

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Legh, Hon. Thos. W. (Lancs)

  Burt, Thomas

  Garfit, William

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Caldwell, James

  Gedge, Svdney

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gilliat, John Saunders

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

  Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs, N.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lowe, Francis William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Goschen,Rt.Hn.G.J.(St.Geo's)

  Maclure, Sir John W.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm, E.)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  McCartan, Michael

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

  Gretton, John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Collery, Bernard

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  McKillop, James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Maden, John Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Colville, John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Harwood, George

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Milbank, Powlett Charles J.

  Crilly, Daniel

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Heath, James

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Helder, Augustus

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  470

  471

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Mount, William George

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Murnaghan, George

  Seton-Karr, Henry

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

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Whiteley, George (Stockport).

  Newark, Viscount

  Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renf.)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Williams J. Carvell (Notts)

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Strauss, Arthur

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hud'ld)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wylie, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUny)

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Younger, William

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Sir William Walrond and

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Tully, Jasper

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 6, after 'aforesaid' insert 'and with the substitution of the Lord Lieutenant for the Local Government Board.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it fair that the Government at this time of the day—the 23rd of May—should presume to take the power out of the hands of the Local Government Board and substitute the Lord Lieutenant? And that Amendment, Mr. Lowther, appears to have been put down for the first time this morning. The right honourable Gentleman is slipping in Amendments making the Bill worse than it is. As I pointed out to the right honourable Gentleman, there is no such thing as the Lord Lieutenant—there are simply two or three gentlemen in Dublin Castle who call themselves the Lord Lieutenant, and whom we have practically no power to discharge, and now, forsooth, the suggestion is that an officer is not to be dismissed without their consent. I must say that if any Member proposes to take a division on this Amendment I shall cordially support him. Since we have shown a desire to get the Bill through, the Government seems to be endeavouring bit by bit to make the Bill worse than it is.
  Amendment agreed to without a Division.
  Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 57.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 14, leave out 'clerk of the Union' and insert 'executive authority.'"—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell)
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELLsaid if the duties were to be transferred from the union to the district council it was only right that they should take with them the officer who had been for many years discharging those duties; and if the Amendment was carried the result would be that in every county, and in every union in Ireland, with two exceptions, the clerk of the union would become the clerk of the district council, while in Antrim and Cork, the two exceptions, the assistant clerk, who had also been the sanitary officer, would become the clerk of the district council. He thought, therefore, it was an Amendment which did no harm, and certainly it prevented a very great injustice to assistant clerks in the two counties he had mentioned.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  Page 32, line 14, after the first 'clerk' insert and treasurer.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 14, after the second 'clerk insert' and treasurer."'—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 17, after the first 'clerk insert 'or treasurer.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 17, after the second clerk 'insert' or treasurer, and in the case of a clerk.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  Clause 57 added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 58.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 33, after 'cess' insert other than the chaplain and medical officer."'—(Mr. J. H. M. Campbell.)
  MR. J. H. M. CAMPBELL: This Amendment proposes to omit from the operation of this very drastic section the medical officer and the chaplain. Apparently the burden and scope of this section, which seems to be unnecessarily strong, and certainly could be used as an instrument for pressure and hardship against particular officers, is to place any officer, whether the county surveyor, the medical officer, or the chaplain, who has omitted to perform any duty—to make any return, or to give any information, or to do anything whatsoever that he is asked to do, in pursuance of the Act, or in pursuance of the orders of the council—at the mercy of anyone who chooses to go to the petty sessions to take a summons out against him, and to recover a penalty of 40S. I think that is a very great indignity to put upon a professional man like this medical officer, or the chaplain of a workhouse. I would suggest to the Government that they could hardly have intended that this power should be entrusted to anyone to
  474
  be exercised in the way in which it would be exercised according to the terms of the section. The existing power which the Local Government Board have over medical officers is very wide. They can hold inquiries into any complaint which is made against them. They can punish them in a variety of ways. As far as I have been able to ascertain, although, of course, I may be wrong, there is no analogy to this section in the English Bill. The whole section seems to me to be much too severe and much too drastic, and certainly I would ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary to accept my Amendment in so far as it would exclude from the operation of this section men filling the highly responsible position of medical officers or chaplains.
  MR. TULLY: I think the Chief Secretary might reasonably exclude chaplains from the order; otherwise I think it is one of the most useful clauses of the whole Bill. It is the only one which gives any protection to the boards and enables them to secure the performance of their respective duties by their officials. I know several cases where boards have been terribly hampered because the officials have refused to obey the reasonable orders of the boards. I hope the Chief Secretary will adhere to the clause.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I have an Amendment to the same effect as the honourable and learned Member, and I cannot help thinking that this sub-section was not in the clause originally, because if you look at the section it does not seem at all to be apposite to the duties either of chaplain or of medical officer. I quite agree with the last speaker that it is quite right that, generally speaking, the officers of the county councils or of the district councils should be properly subjected to the drastic penalties of this section, but if an officer is required to perform any duty, make any return, give any information, or do any other thing, it appears to me to be very insulting to apply that to a chaplain or to a medical officer. I know as a matter of fact that the medical profession in Ireland, represented by the Irish Medical Association, have been very much

  475
  insulted by its being supposed that if some official omitted to make a return within a given time, or omitted for some reason or other to perform some trifling service, he should be subjected to be prosecuted before the petty sessions, and subjected furthermore to a fine not exceeding 40s., or, in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding 40s. a day during the continuance of the offence. Now, the unfortunate chaplain or the unfortunate medical officer might find himself fined to the extent of £100 for the most trifling thing. But I do not think the county councils would get anyone to undertake the office of chaplain or the office of medical officer if this clause were to remain as it now stands. For that reason, and at the instance of the Irish Medical Association, I have put down this Amendment, though I was anticipated by the honourable and learned Member for St. Stephen's Green. I trust that the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary will accept it.
  MR. DALY: The right honourable Gentleman who has just spoken says that he has moved his Amendment at the instigation of the Irish Medical Association. I put Amendments down at the instigation of nobody. If I put an Amendment on the Paper I put it down because I think it is right.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I have not such a good opinion of myself.
  MR. DALY: I should be very sorry to say anything that would offend the right honourable Gentleman, but at the same time I think this is a very useful clause. Any person who does his duty need not fear it. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will stick to the clause, because, as I have said, I think it is one of the most useful clauses of the whole Bill.
  MR. ATKINSON: This clause has been introduced mainly because all through the Bill several officers have been given duties to perform for bodies which neither appointed them nor were required to dismiss them. There need be no apprehension that persons will not be ready to take up these duties.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: It seems to me that this clause is of a very sweeping character. It puts extraordinary powers in the hands of the authorities. I observe that there is a penalty attacked to any person who omits to perform any duty, make any return, give any information, or "do any other thing." This reminds me of the Coercion Acts of former years. I do not understand the phrase "doing any other thing." Where penalties are being imposed we should have some more definite phraseology than that contained in this clause which is now before the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think the Government are right in resisting the Amendment, but at the same time it seems to me to be a question whether the operation of the clause should not be confined to "wilful" neglect of duty. I am always interested to hear gentlemen say that a clause is a "good thing." Nearly all the Acts that have been passed by this House have been "good things," but when they come to be administered in Ireland they become very bad things. I will tell you what will happen under this clause. There will be a prosecution at petty sessions; if a man is "true blue" the magistrates will let him off; if he is not he will be convicted. Practically, therefore, the operation of this clause will depend solely upon the political colour of the bench of magistrates having the execution of the clause. We all know you can never get a conviction against any gentleman of a particular colour in Ireland. I think it would be sufficient if the word "wilful" were inserted in the clause, but it is entirely too strong as it is. I move as an Amendment the substitution of the word "wilfully."
  MR. ATKINSON: I have no objection to insert the word "wilfully" before the word "fail" in the clause.
  MR. CAMPBELL: Will the Attorney General for Ireland say what person or body is entitled to sue for the recovery of these penalties. I should like some information as to whether a similar provision of this kind is inserted in the English Act.
  MR. ATKINSON: Anybody.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I confess that I am not at all satisfied with the Amendment of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth. My objection to this clause will not be met by merely inserting the word "wilful." The Attorney General seems to think that if a medical officer or a chaplain is ordered to do some duty, and he disregards that duty, there would be no means of enforcing the performance of the duty. I apprehend that, upon either the chaplain or the medical officer refusing to obey the reasonable directions of the council who appointed him, that council would be at liberty to dismiss him, and that that would be a better way of punishing him for that dereliction of duty than the very contumacious way of summoning him before the petty sessions. What is to prevent the county council dismissing either the chaplain or the medical officer who has refused to obey reasonable orders? I submit that there is nothing.
  The Amendment was negatived, and Mr. HEALY'S Amendment to insert "wilfully" before "fail" was agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To insert 'the power of suing for the penalties to the county council or the Local Government Board."'—(Dr. Clark.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.

  CLAUSE 59.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 32, line 42, leave out sub-section 1." (Sir C. Dilke.)
  SIR C. DILKE: The Amendment I rise to move—that sub-section 1 be omitted—is one of very considerable importance, but there is no necessity I think for my troubling the Committee
  478
  with any long speech. This sub-section is one that disqualifies not only the clergy of the Disestablished Church and Roman Catholic priests, but also the "regular ministers of any religious denomination." I very much doubt whether it is possible to define exactly what "regular ministers" would be included under these words. I am told that in Ireland there are many of the Roman Catholic priests who would not themselves desire to be elected as members of these local governing bodies; but, however that may be, I object to the principle of this exclusion. My view, I am bound to say, is that in England the very best members that we have at the present time of boards of guardians and district councils, and in some cases county councils, are clergymen, priests of the Roman Catholic Church, and ministers of Nonconformist bodies. I can speak of them from a rather long experience of them as colleagues on different local governing bodies. My view is that all these exclusions by law are impossible to justify, and that, having given an extended franchise, the electorate should be trusted absolutely.
  DR. RENTOUL: This sub-section is clearly aimed at the priests of the Roman Catholic Church, although in terms it also excludes Nonconformist ministers. The Nonconformist ministers of Ireland take less part in political matters than their colleagues in England do, but I fail to see why the same liberty should not be extended to Nonconformist ministers in Ireland as that which is enjoyed by their brethren in England and Scotland. The point, however, is that this sub-section could not possibly affect any large part of the Protestant clergymen in Ireland, and, therefore, it must be deliberately aimed at the Roman Catholic priests. Why, I ask, should you exclude from local government matters a particular body of men who can exercise an enormous influence among the electors? If the clause were so drawn that it simply prohibited ministers of religion from any intervention whatever in elections, I could see

  479
  some reason in it; but it does not refer to that at all. It leaves them free to support any candidate they like, but they must not themselves sit as county or district councillors. I agree with the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean that ministers of various denominations make excellent and useful members of the English bodies, and there is no reason to doubt that that would be the experience in Ireland. It is very important that there should be nothing in this Act which will create friction, and I am convinced that nothing is better calculated to create friction than this exclusion. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
  MR. DILLON: The conduct of Roman Catholic priests at Parliamentary elections is quite foreign to the issue we have to deal with. The whole question is this—whether the Government can justify their position in departing in an exceedingly important matter from the law of England. Had it been proposed in this House to apply this principle in an Act extending to the whole kingdom the issue would have been still a debatable issue; but in this case the Government are departing from the principle of the English Acts, and that departure involves an insult of the grossest character to the Irish people. On the First Reading of the Bill the Chief Secretary, in dealing with this clause, said that he held the opinion that the election of ministers of religion to the county councils would not tend to economy of administration or the smooth working of the new bodies. That is the only justification that the Government have so far advanced for this subsection. The Government apparently were under the impression, at least one so gathers from that statement, that this provision would be accepted, or at any rate tacitly acquiesced in, by the clergy in Ireland; but a fortnight or three weeks ago, at a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, a resolution was passed protesting against the proposal, although the resolution was prefaced by the statement that it was not likely, so far as the committee could foresee, that clergymen would seek election on these bodies. My own view from the beginning
  480
  was that the priests of Ireland would not, to any great extent at all events, seek to be elected on these county and district councils. Undoubtedly they are very well qualified to look after the interests of the poor, but I feel certain that they will not be anxious for election on the councils. When the Government, however, most unwisely, as I think, put the priests of Ireland into the same category as uncertificated bankrupts and men who have been sentenced for disgraceful crimes, we feel bound to protest against such a slur being cast upon them. True, the provision applies to ministers of all religious denominations, but I agree with the honourable and learned Member who has just sat down that the sub-section is especially pointed at Roman Catholic priests. Whether that be so or not, it is a very serious thing to lay down the proposition that because a man is a minister of religion he forfeits his rights as a citizen, and especially so when you are just establishing these new local governing bodies. What is the object of this exclusion? Believe me, no more foolish, fatuous idea ever entered into the mind of a statesman than to suppose that you are going to diminish the influence of ministers of religion in politics if they choose to enter into politics by imposing disabilities of this kind. It is not by becoming members of these bodies, or even by becoming members of this House, that ministers of religion exercise that influence in political matters which is thought by some to be undesirable. My conviction, therefore, is that if the Government have any such end in view they are making an egregious mistake. If that is not the object, what is it? The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in the speech from which I have quoted, spoke only of county councils; he did not refer to boards of guardians. He thought that economy would not be promoted by having ministers of religion on the county councils. On what ground does he base that? If the interests of economy demand the exclusion of ministers from the county councils, how is it that the interests of economy are to continue to be neglected in the case of boards of guardians? And, again, take the case, of the visiting committees for lunatic asylums. At present those committees are

  481
  appointed by the grand juries, and almost invariably include some ministers of religion. Now, the powers of the grand juries are to be taken over by the county councils. Clause 9 of the Bill contains the provision that one-fourth of the members of the visiting committees may be "persons not members, of the council." How is it that the Government have now provided that no minister of religion shall be a member of these committees? Sir, I think that this sub-section is put in by the Government without any sufficient justification. I object to it because it is an insult to a respected section of the Irish people, but it is more than that—it is an insult to the whole people of Ireland. Why do you put this sub-section into the Bill? It is because you wish to proclaim to the world that we are a priest-ridden people, and that we cannot conduct our local affairs unless we are protected against our own clergy. I repudiate with indignation that charge on behalf of the people of Ireland. If that view were correct, then you would indeed be justified in refusing us the claim we make to a Parliament of our own, and I for one would not be here in this House to ask for Home Rule. If I believed that to secure freedom of election we required your protection against our own clergy I would never appear in this House again.
  MR. J. REDMOND: Before the right honourable Gentleman replies I should like to trouble the Committee with a few observations, because I think that after the speeches to which we have listened I ought not to content myself with a silent vote. In the first place, I am not impressed at all by the argument that has been based on what has been done in the English Bill. I think that is a fallacious argument. These proposals are to be judged by what is suited for Ireland, and not by what is or is not right in an English Bill. It would be a great pleasure to me to be able to say nothing at all on this Bill, but I think that for me to take that course would be to act a cowardly part. It is my duty to state the views I entertain and the reasons why I propose to vote against the Amendment that has been proposed. The honourable Member for East Mayo spoke about the views of
  482
  the clergy of Ireland, and he disclaimed any desire to sit in this House by means of their overweening influence.
  MR. DILLON: I said nothing of the kind.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I have no desire to misrepresent what the honourable Member said. I understood him to say that if the influence of the clergy in Ireland were a paramount influence he would not be here in this House to represent that influence.
  MR. DILLON: What I said was that if I thought it was necessary to seek protection for the Irish people from their own priests I should wish not to be here.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I quite accept that explanation of the honourable Gentleman's position. My own opinion is that from the point of view of the clergy themselves, and the mission they have before them in Ireland and in every country, it is unwise for them to take part in the public life of the country in the way they would have to do if they were members of these assemblies.
  MR. DILLON: Let them say that for themselves.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I do not wish to enter into any controversy. As I have said, I should have preferred taking no part in the discussion, but I felt that I could not give a silent vote in this matter, seeing that I have spoken upon it in Ireland. I believe it to be in the interest of the country, and of the smooth working of the new bodies that are to be set up, that the provision of this subsection should be maintained, and I shall therefore vote against the Amendment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am going to oppose this provision in the interest of the Protestant Church. I have a better light to speak about the interests of the Protestant Church in Ireland than any other Member of this House. I could not write my own name without remembering that I come from a Protestant family. I would not for any consideration support a clause of this kind, which is, I say, a deliberate insult to all the clerical cloth, and purposely meant to be. I see the right honourable

  483
  Gentleman the Member for Dublin University dissents from that. He knows perfectly well that he is returned by a constituency three-fourths of whom are Protestants.
  MR. LECKY: This sub-section does not propose to take away the franchise.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But it tells the people that they shall not elect a clergyman for the mere reason that he is a clergyman. It says that because a man is devoted to piety and religion he is unfit to have a place on a local government body. Now, if the right honourable Gentleman—who is a philosopher—holds this view with regard to the clergy, why does he not turn his attention to the House of Lords; why does he not begin with the bishops? Why does he not go still further and disfranchise Dublin University altogether? Sir, not one argument has been addressed to the Committee to show that the clergy of Ireland are unfitted to serve on the councils. I do not say whether they would wish to be members of these bodies, but I do say that there are no persons more competent to represent the views and needs of their particular localities. From the point of view of the Catholic clergy of Ireland, I think that this clause aimed at them is one of the most malignant and bigoted creations that could possibly emanate from an English Government. I do not say that they in any way wish election to these bodies, but it would be a very great outrage to disqualify any of them who might desire election. There are remote districts in Ireland in which the Catholic clergyman is the administrator and the guardian of his parish. He really superintends the work of the parish, he is the protector and guide of the poor in a way that is almost inconceivable to people who do not know the country; and I ask, why should such a man be excluded from a seat on his local council if the electors see fit to place him there? I ask the right honourable Gentleman, why should a priest, because he is a priest, or a Protestant clergyman, because he is a Protestant clergyman, be excluded? All I can say is, this provision is most absurd and most unjust, and I trust it will be struck out of the Bill.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: The honourable Member says that he can claim to speak on behalf of the Protestant clergy of Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am the son of one of them.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I am surprised at it. I think I know as much about the clergy of the Church of Ireland as the honourable Member for South Donegal, and I can say that they have no desire to be members of the county councils, and they do not consider the provision in this sub-section to cast the slightest slur upon them. I think I am in closer connection with the clergy of the Church of Ireland than the honourable Gentleman, and if they had thought that I am sure they would have let me know. The honourable Member referred to the fact that the bishops have seats in the House of Lords. That is true of the English bishops, but the Irish bishops have not.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I think Lord Plunkett had a seat in the House of Lords.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I think the honourable Member fails to appreciate the enormous power that the Roman Catholic priests possess. They possess a power over the consciences and the actions of the Irish people which no other clergy possess in any other country in the world. When you find that every altar in a Roman Catholic chapel is a political platform, when the people are directed to vote for a particular candidate under all sorts of pains and penalties, it is impossible to deny that the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland rightly or wrongly possess a power over the mind and conscience and actions of the people which no other ministry possess. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean says that in England clergymen make excellent members of boards of guardians, district councils, and county councils. I dare say that is so, but you might just as well draw an analogy in these matters between England and China as between England and Ireland. I do not know that ministers

  485
  of religion in England ever make use of their pulpits to denounce their political opponents. Undoubtedly the position of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland has given them an enormous authority over their people, and they have exercised it without the least disguise, and the result is, without doubt, that we have in this House a large number of Members who, if it had not been for the aid of the Roman Catholic clergy in their constituencies, would not have been in this House. If you had two candidates standing for a county council seat in Ireland, and if they started perfectly fair—which I imagine is the object that this Bill has in view—I ask the House to imagine what would be the position if some independent man stood for the seat against his own parish priest? Clearly the independent man would not have the smallest chance. I do not pretend for a moment that a priest on the county council would not do less harm than out of it, but I say that if you permit a priest to stand for the county council he would start as a candidate with an advantage which would leave his opponent hopelessly behind. Our object ought to be to, as far as possible, remove any possibility of friction in the working of this Bill. For that reason I trust that the Government will stick by this sub-section. If the Amendment were carried, and priests were permitted to stand for the county council, would it tend towards peace in Ireland? I do not think so, and I venture to hope that the Government will refuse to accept the Amendment, which I believe would bring about friction and import religious bitterness into local government controversies.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): I should like to point out that the honourable and gallant Member directed his criticisms entirely against the enfranchisement of the Roman Catholic clergy: not a word fell from him against the enfranchisement of the Protestant clergy. Now, I have been throughout my public life very largely engaged in endeavouring to remove civil disabilities on religious grounds, and therefore I feel no doubt as to the course I should adopt in regard to this Amendment. I am not anxious that ministers
  486
  of religion should be members either of county or district councils. I know that in many cases they are among the most competent men in the locality to occupy such positions; in fact, in some instances they are the only fit persons to be elected. But, on the other hand, I think that ministers of religion, no matter to what particular persuasion they belong, had better avoid the turmoil and controversies of a contested election. But, Sir, it is quite another thing for the Legislature to intervene and to disqualify them as a class. The question is one that should be determined by the electors themselves, who should have absolutely full liberty of choice. This proposed exclusion is contrary to the principle on which the Legislature has acted for the last fifty years. We have given political freedom to Roman Catholics, to Jews, even to agnostics and unbelievers. It is because we have thus opened wide the doors of this House that it is entitled to bear the proud name of the House of "Commons." We are now asked to act upon the exactly opposite principle. This seems to be a distinctly retrograde step, and one from which it is certain that evil consequences must follow. Reference has already been made to the extremely loose wording of the sub-section, and to difficulties in deciding who should come under the description of "regular ministers." While regular ministers are to be disqualified, there may be irregular ministers, perhaps persons of very shady reputation, who may be held to be competent to sit. I do not wish further to detain the Committee at this late hour. For the reason I have stated I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: To judge from the language used by the honourable Gentlemen who have spoken in favour of this Amendment, one would imagine that the Government were doing an unusual and unheard of thing, and excluding some large class of the people of Ireland from some of the elementary rights of citizenship. There could not be a greater error. It certainly cannot be called an elementary right of citizenship to sit in a deliberative assembly. We all know that Roman Catholic priests and clergymen of the Church of

  487
  England are not allowed to sit in this House. Ministers of religion are excluded in England from sitting on the councils of municipal boroughs, and in Ireland there has not been a single case where a priest has been allowed to sit on a local governing body. The right honourable Baronet who moved the Amendment seemed to think the Government were making fin unheard of proposal in this clause; and a phrase which he used shows the misapprehension he is under as to the actual condition of affairs in Ireland. A similar clause to this has, as a matter of fact, actually been in operation under the Poor Law Act, in which occur the words, "provided always that no person being in holy orders, or a regular minister of any denomination, shall be eligible as a guardian." The fear, therefore, that any difficulty will be created by the further application of a principle which has been in existence for generations seems to me absolutely chimerical. The language used in the Municipal Corporations Act is similar. That being the condition of affairs, I stated, in introducing the Bill, that I had no reason to believe that this exclusion was otherwise than accepted and acquiesced in by ministers of all denominations in Ireland, and, so far as I am personally concerned, the only representation adverse to the Bill which has reached me, with the exception of that from the Standing Committee of Bishops, came from a body of Protestant clergy. I have received no other protest whatever. It is perfectly true, as the honourable Member for East Mayo has said, that the Standing Committee of the Catholic Bishops passed a resolution condemning the exclusion of priests from the county and district councils in Ireland, but I am bound to say that, from various statements which have reached me, I do not think that represents by any means the unanimous opinion of Roman Catholics in Ireland, either in holy orders or laymen. I am confident that there are in Ireland a great many Roman Catholic priests and laymen who think the Government, in excluding ministers of religion from these new bodies, have taken a wise course. I cannot help referring to a remark which was made by the honour-
  488
  able Member for Waterford. It is unquestionably a very difficult and very invidious thing to state reasons why any particular class of the community should be excluded from particular posts or privileges; but it is positively impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that Ireland and England stand in this matter upon an entirely different footing. Religious animosity in Ireland reaches a height of which we happily know little in this country, and the power which the Catholic priesthood exercises over its congregations is also something utterly unknown in this country. Well, now, I am afraid that if ministers of religion were admitted to county and district councils, and allowed to sit on those councils, it would tend to introduce into the business of administrative bodies, which have nothing to do with religious matters, certain sectarian bitterness which they would be very much better without. Then we are told that by excluding priests and other ministers of religion from these elected bodies we are depriving them of an elementary right of citizenship. But I am afraid that what my honourable and learned Friend the Member for North Armagh has said is absolutely true—that a priest in Ireland would not stand at an election as an ordinary citizen. It would be impossible to separate his spiritual functions from his position as a man, and not only would that be the case in the matter of the candidature of a minister of religion, but it would also be the case, I think, if he were elected. I think a minister having a seat on a county or district council or board of guardians would influence inside a body which he could not possibly influence outside. The honourable Member for South Donegal and the honourable Member for East Mayo referred to a time when I said that the presence of ministers of religion on these councils was undesirable from motives of economy. I did say that, and I repeat it; I repeat it for this reason: the ordinary layman who is elected on a county or district council or board of guardians is returned as a representative of the ratepayers; a minister of religion would not be a representative, as a minister, of the ratepayers. It would be impossible to sepa-

  489
  rate his spiritual functions from those motives which would dictate the action of an ordinary layman. The ordinary layman feels that he is bound to protect the interests of the ratepayer. A minister of religion would not have that feeling in the same degree. I know the honourable Member for Donegal sneers at that, and thinks I am only giving one additional proof of hardness of heart; but I do say it would not be in the interests of economy that ministers of religion should have seats on these bodies, and I am also persuaded that it would not be for the smooth working of local administration in Ireland that this Amendment should be adopted.
  MR. KILBRIDE: The right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary has failed to explain to the House how it is that on the only board in Ireland which gives anything like universal satisfaction, there are two or three ministers of religion. I should like to hear, as I did expect to hear, some explanation how it is that both the present Government and the preceding Government have appointed on the Congested Districts Board the Bishop of Raphoe and Father Dennis O'Hara, a parish priest of the West of Ireland. I should also have liked to hear something as to the position on the Fisheries Board of the Rev. Mr. Green, a Protestant clergyman, who is also a member of the Congested Districts Board. It has not been contended by anyone who has spoken that, even if you allow clergymen to be eligible for county or district councils, many of them will seek the position; but, representing as I do a partly congested district in the West of Ireland, where, in some cases, it will be very difficult to find an eligible man for district councils, and still more so in the case of county councils, I would point out that it will be a great consideration in such a county as Galway to find persons who will be prepared to go 40 or 50 miles to attend a council meeting, and that if you exclude gentlemen like Father Dennis O'Hara and the Rev. Mr. Green from representing the districts in which they reside, you will exclude those who
  490
  are among the best able to undertake duties which will be doubly onerous on that ground. Moreover, these gentlemen, like the Bishop of Raphoe, have the confidence of the Government. Will anyone deny that the Government have that confidence? Of course they have otherwise why do they continue to appoint them as members of the Congested Districts Board, which is not elected but nominated? These gentlemen are colleagues of the Chief Secretary upon that board, and the right honourable Gentleman must know more of their administrative capacity and their fitness for their positions than anyone else in this House. Yet the right honourable Gentleman, by the provision which he has introduced into this Bill, makes his own colleagues ineligible for positions which are certainly of as much consequence to the poor in these districts as are their positions on the Congested Districts Board. While listening to this Debate I have heard it stated as an argument for rendering clergymen ineligible that they would have too much influence. But will this ineligibility to sit do away in any way with the influence they will have? I did expect that some honourable Gentleman would explain to the Committee how it is that making them ineligible will deprive them of that influence; and I would say to those who are not in favour of the exercise of priestly domination that it would be far better from their point of view to have clergymen exercise their influence from within rather than from without. Does anybody say that making them ineligible will prevent them from exercising their influence from without? If it would, I could understand the position, but the position is this: that, while the provision of the right honourable Gentleman does not minimise one iota the influence of any clergyman, Protestant or Catholic, who chooses to exercise it, he gratuitously insults them by refusing to make them eligible to be members of these bodies. It is because this provision will deprive many districts in the West of Ireland, and Donegal especially, of the services of men like the Bishop of Raphoe and Father Dennis O'Hara, that I oppose this portion of the Bill.
  MR. GEDGE: I wish to occupy the attention of the House only for a short time, in order to explain the reasons which compel me to dissociate myself from the Government on this occasion, and to support the Amendment. I associate myself with, but will not repeat, the arguments of the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and wish also to urge that it is most desirable to allow the clergy of all denominations to take part in citizen life. It is a great evil generally with the clergy of all denominations that they are very apt to grow into an isolated life, having objects distinct from the people among whom they work. This narrows their aims and renders them less capable citizens and less good clergymen, and I have always been of opinion, therefore, that it is good for the clergy to interest themselves in secular and civil affairs, so that their minds may be enlarged to the utmost extent, and they may find themselves more in touch with those among whom they labour. Now, it is said, "Why should you alter the law in Ireland?" You have altered the law in England. It is only 10 years since you passed the Local Government Act in England, and by that Act you altered the law by allowing clergymen to be members of the councils established by that Measure, and many have been so elected, to their own advantage and that of the councils and the community. This is the first time that we are giving local government to Ireland; why should we not, then, do in Ireland as we have, done in England? The only answer I have heard to that question is that, while this clause takes in ministers of all denominations, it is specially aimed at the clergy of one. That is evident from my right honourable Friend's speech. I think it exceedingly hard, to begin with, to exclude all other denominations because you want to aim at one. If you must take such a step, I would rather boldly say, "We will exclude all Roman Catholic priests." Then we are told that these priests have too much power, and therefore ought not to be allowed to become members of these boards; and my honourable and gallant Friend painted a terrible picture of an election in which
  492
  the parish priest put up on one side and some parishioner on the other, and declared that the life of the latter would be a burden to him. But will it be more tolerable if he opposes the priests' nominees? What will be the result if the priest is made ineligible? It will simply mean that if he really has so much power he will put up a puppet of his own. That puppet will get elected through the priest's influence, and them the wirepuller, without incurring any responsibility, and working in the dark, will get all his evil and malign designs; carried into effect.
  A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Oh!
  MR. GEDGE: The honourable Gentleman does not seem to understand my argument. I am replying to the argument used in this Debate; and I say that if the priest has such dark designs as have been suggested, it is surely better that he should use his power in the light of day, and be responsible for what he does and says, than work in the dark through some puppet, while he himself, who is pulling the strings, has no responsibility and incurs no ill-will or unpopularity for the improper exercise of his power. Powder and responsibility should go together. I feel bound, having these convictions, and seeing in this clause a principle entirely contrary to them, to support the Amendment.
  MR. S. EVANS: I am sometimes almost inclined to doubt the correctness of my own views when they happen to be in accord with those of the honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, but on this occasion his reasons seem to me most excellent ones, and, notwithstanding that he is going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, I also shall go into the Lobby. I congratulate the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary on having at last given the real reason why he has introduced this sub-clause into the Bill. The reason he gave at first—that he desired to exclude all ministers of religion on the ground of economy—was, if I may say so without infringing Parliamentary rules, mere fossil rubbish. Anyone who looks at this clause can see

  493
  that the intention is to exclude Roman Catholic priests. The right honourable Gentleman reminds us of the provision which excludes regular ministers from being on boards of guardians, but it is curious that in the very section which he quoted there are words making a property qualification a condition of eligibility for membership of boards of guardians. The right honourable Gentleman changes that point of the section, but wants to adhere to the other. He wants to exclude Raman Catholic priests. My reasons for voting for the Amendment are very simple. I hold the opinion that ministers of religion ought not, because they are ministers of religion, to be deprived of the ordinary rights of citizenship. In England ministers are allowed to sit on boards of guardians and county councils, the reason for eligibility in the latter case being that it was thought, when county councils were going to be formed for England, that it would be a very good thing to get clergymen of a particular denomination upon those councils. It was desired to see clergymen of the Church of England brought into the county councils of this part of the kingdom, just as the Government now desire to exclude the ministers of another religious denomination in Ireland. A good deal has been said of the evil and malign influence exercised by the priests in Ireland. So far as I have been able to observe, the influence of the priests in Ireland depends entirely whether they happen to be on the side of the people. If they are, then the authority they have is exercised because the people look up to them. We remember that the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, himself wrote some time ago a letter, and that it was not attended to by the people of Ireland. Now, if it were true that the priests dominated the people of Ireland, would it not have been found that, when the very head of the Church sent his orders that some particular thing should be done, the people of Ireland would follow the dictates of the Pope? A similar thing as to the exercise of ministerial influence has been said with regard to the Nonconformist ministers of Wales, and we know perfectly well that those ministers only exercise
  494
  influence where they can be the spokesmen of the people, and can be marshalled on the side of the people; and, so far as I can gather, that is the sole ground for the influence of the priests in Ireland also. I desire that the priests should not be excluded, because I do not think they should be under any religious disabilities at all because they belong to the Roman Catholic religion. Why should they? In this country you have ministers of religion sitting on county councils, and also on benches of magistrates; and, if that be right in England, why should it not be allowed in Ireland if a priest possesses the confidence of the people? What you are doing is not hurting the priests, but depriving the people of a certain number of eligible representatives. It may be that in a particular locality the priest is most eminently fitted to be on the district or county council. Suppose that here it were to be said that a Roman Catholic priest should not be eligible to sit on a school board. I could name over and over again Roman Catholic priests who would be most eligible for these purposes. Could it be said that Cardinal Vaughan would not be a good representative to have on a board of guardians? What would the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham have said if it bad been suggested to him a few years ago, for instance, that the Rev. Dr. Dale was not a fit person to be put upon a school board or a board of guardians? If there is any illegitimate influence exercised by a priest at all, and you want to dissipate it, what you have to do is to bring the priest into the arena with the people, and I say that when you do that, and place the priest upon these popularly-elected bodies, you will find that he will demean himself there like an ordinary citizen; and, if he should act differently, his influence, instead of being increased, will be diminished in the eyes of those who in these matters follow him. I strongly support the Amendment.
  MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL: I do not mean to occupy time unduly on this question, but I confess that I should not be satisfied to give a silent vote in favour of the Amendment. It appears to me, from the speech of the

  495
  Chief Secretary, that what is really the cause for this objectionable clause is the analogy of the clause in the Poor Law Act which the right honourable Gentleman quoted. It is quite true that under that Act regular ministers of religion were excluded from boards of poor law guardians, but it must be recollected that that Act was passed 60 years ago, and that of late years the principles of democracy have been largely extended. But the Chief Secretary, if he has that analogy in support of the clause, forgets that there was no disqualification of ministers for serving on grand juries. I do not think that Catholic clergymen were ever summoned on grand juries, and that very circumstance shows that this clause is aimed especially at the Catholic clergy, though there is very little fear, I think, that they themselves would in many cases solicit election as members of county councils. But I will take the view which has evidently presented itself to the right honourable Gentleman's mind, and that of the honourable and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh—that the Catholic clergy had such an influence upon the laity of Ireland that it would not be safe to have them members of the county councils. But, if they have that wonderful influence, I would put this to the Committee: suppose a Catholic clergyman is elected as a member of a county council or district council, do you suppose he will have such influence at the council board that he will control all the other Catholic members of that board? If he has such influence, do you not think he will exercise it better and more effectually by not being a member of the council? Outside the council he will be able to exercise precisely the same or greater influence. I am convinced that the Catholic clergy, from their knowledge of the wants of their various localities, are likely to be most useful members of a council which is to control the administration of the poor law and the general administration of the county. With regard to the Protestant clergy, in the same way, could there be a more useful member of a county council than the ordinary minis-
  496
  ters of the Protestant religion in the different parishes where they enjoy the confidence of the electors? Surely the abject of the Government and the Committee ought to be to have county councils consisting of as intelligent and well-informed men as possible; and I would ask whether, in the remoter parts of Ireland, the ministers of religion are not superior to most of the other inhabitants in intelligence and education. It appears to me that this section exposes what is more or less latent throughout the whole of this Bill—that while the Government are anxious to appear to give local government to Ireland, they are really afraid of the policy they are engaged in. It seems as if the Chief Secretary shrinks from his own creation like another Frankenstein, and does not know to what this Bill may lead, or to what abuses the creation of these county councils may lead. I do trust that the Committee will, at all events, show itself independent and liberal enough to follow in this respect the analogy of the English Act. Whenever it suits the right honourable Gentleman's purpose he relies on the English Act as an argument in favour of his clauses, no matter how much they be contested on this side of the House, but whenever it suits his purpose to depart from the analogy of the English Act he is astute enough to discover some remote reason for drawing a distinction. I say this clause is an insult to the whole clergy of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic. I say that the instance given by the honourable Member for Mayo of the Congested Districts Board demonstrates how the Catholic clergy perform public duties when they are required to do so, and that the whole burden will lie upon the Government for the evils which will result from their unreasonable exclusion from the opportunity of doing so under this Bill. The whole object of the Measure is to inaugurate a new order of things, and to produce a council which will inspire the greatest confidence of the people, but the Government are beginning in a bad way by creating a feeling of disgust on the part of so large a section of the community as the ministers of religion.
  DR. CLARK: I have sat on boards with ministers who have been most valuable members of those bodies. In my own experience a neighbour of mine in the county of Clackmannan has been chairman of that council for the last nine years, has been re-elected time after time, and I have never heard of anything against his conduct in that capacity. Why should not the same state of things exist in Ireland as exists in England and Scotland? Why should the clergy there, be disqualified? The only reason is, I suppose, that the priests in Ireland have too much power over the people. But that is not to say that that power would be exercised in any more baneful way than the power of the English and Scottish clergy is exercised. As far as our poor law boards are concerned, the minis-
  ters have done remarkably good work, and I can see no reason why there should be this disqualification attached to ministers of religion in Ireland. They ought not to be debarred from sitting on these county councils. It is too late in the day to debar any class of men from public bodies.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Are these sections operative in the cases of boards of guardians?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Oh, yes.
  Question put—
  "That sub-section 1 stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 68.—(Division List No. 118.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Arnold, Alfred

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Baden-Powell, Sit G. Smyth

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Field, William (Dublin)

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Rt.Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macartney, W. G. E.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Maclure, Sir J. W.

  Beach,Rt.Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  McCalmont, Col. J. (Ant'm,E.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  McKillop, James

  Brassey, Albert

  Garfit, William

  Milbank, Powlett Charles J.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H.(C.of Lond.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Butcher, John George

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Carew, James Laurence

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs., N.)

  Greville, Captain

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Mount, William George

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Heath, James

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hobhouse, Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

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

  Hornby, William Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Callings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Kenyon, James

  Purvis, Robert

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lafone, Alfred

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Dane, Richard M.

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Legh, Hon. Thos. W. (Lancs)

  Round, James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Willoughby de Ereshy, Lord

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Waring, Col. Thomas

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

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

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

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

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Caldwell, James

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)

  Collery, Bernard

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Colville, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Shee, James John

  Crean, Eugene

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Daly, James

  McDonnell, Dr M.A.(Qn.'sCo.)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Doogan, P. C.

  McCartan, Michael

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Doughty, George

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Tully, Jasper Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Maden, John Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gedge, Sydney

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murnaghan, George

  Younger, William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Sir Charles Dilke and Mr.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Keeffe, Francis Arthur

  Dillon.

  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts,): It is now a quarter to two, and I beg to move that you report Progress. Substantial progress has been made, and in less than 10 hours' time we shall have to be again in our places here. We must have a few hours' rest, and I think that, considering the progress we have made, we are entitled to some consideration from the Government.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot accept that Motion now. If during the next hour we get on there will be nothing to prevent Progress from being reported.
  DR. CLARK: I think we ought to know how long we are going on; it seems to me that we may be kept here till four or six o'clock. It seems to me to be scandalous in the case of a Bill to
  500
  which there is not the slightest obstruction, and I think the Government have made a mistake in not better ascertaining and providing for the amount of work to be done. At the very least the Chief Secretary might indicate how far he intends to go before we can go home.
  Clause 58 added to Bill.

  CLAUSE 59.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 7, after 'council,' insert 'or in the office of chairman of either of such councils.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed stand part of the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 8, at end, insert—
  "'Casual vacancies among the guardians elected for any electoral division in a county borough or urban county district may be filled by the board of guardians.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed stand part of the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 10, after 'shall,' insert 'unless the Local Government Board, on the representation of the county council otherwise direct.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed stand part of the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 11, after 'district,' insert 'for all purposes.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The object of this Amendment is to make the electoral division a polling district for all purposes. It appears to me that it would be a remarkable thing if the electoral division is to be the polling district of the district and county councils, while for Parliamentary purposes the voters would have to go much longer distances.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Amendment had better be withdrawn now, in order that the subject may be considered later on.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 12, leave out 'Max,' and insert 'July.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This Amendment is one which is, I think, entitled to favourable consideration. May and June
  502
  are not at all good months for Ireland, but July would be a very favourable month.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: But would not July be a worse time from an agricultural point of view than May?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Not in Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The slackest time of the year is May.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: The people are engaged in harvesting in July. May is better than June.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Of course it is, and April would be undoubtedly better than May.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: June.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 14, after ' county,' insert—
  "And the day of the annual meeting and ordinary day of election of the chairman and vice-chairman of a county or rural district council shall be the 9th day of June."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed stand part of the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 14, at end, insert—
  "'The old county and rural district councillors shall retire and the newly elected councillors shall come into office on the 9th day of June, which shall be the ordinary day of retirement of councillors."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed stand part of the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 15, leave out sub-section (5), and insert 'In the case of a council of an Urban, district, other than a borough, the ordinary day of election of councillors shall be the 25th day of November, and the day of the annual meeting and ordinary day of election of the chairman and vice-chairman of the council shall be the first day of December, and such chairman or vice-chairman shall come into office as soon as he has made the declaration of accepting office.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  MR. M. HEALY: As you are making this change, would it not be as well to make it also operative in the case of urban areas? If that is not done there will be one day for the county councils, another day for the urban areas, and perhaps another day for some other body. There is no reason in the world why they should not all take place at the same time. I beg to move after the word "councillors" to insert the words "and commissioner."
  MR. TULLY: I do not think it would be right that the election of town commissioners should be on a different day to what is mentioned in the Bill.
  MR. JORDAN: I do not think it should be changed.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed stand part of the Amendment."
  Agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That the Amendment, as amended, stand part of the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Clause 59, page 33, line 15, after 'councillors,' insert 'other than the alderman and councillors of the county borough of Dublin.'"—(Mr. Clancy.)
  MR. CLANCY: The object of this Amendment is to postpone the day of election for the county borough of Dublin from the 25th November to the 31st January. The Amendment has been sug-
  504
  gested by the persons who have to do the work of revision in Dublin. At present, and for many years past, it has been only with very great difficulty that the work of revision has been completed.
  MR. M. HEALY: This difficulty exists not merely in the case of Dublin, but in the case of constituencies having a large number of voters. By the Bill as it stands, the local register of electors must be completed on the 10th day of November. The revision does not commence till the last day of October. I am speaking of the Parliamentary revision, which closes on the 28th August. Now, there is a very simple way of getting out of this difficulty. At present the most unnecessary time is taken for revision, which is supposed to commence on the 31st September. There is no reason why it should not commence on the 1st September, because the last day is the 28th August, and the work completed in a month if the Government appoints the revising barrister in proper time. The time given now is 20 days, and the fee of the revising barrister is limited to 100 guineas. Of course, if this suggestion were adopted it would involve an alteration of the time for Parliamentary revision—that necessarily follows—but I think there might be some postponement of the municipal elections, so that the first meeting of the new councils might be before Christmas, and the mayor come into office on the 1st January just as he does at present; but by taking that course, and by commencing the Parliamentary revision on the 1st September, there will be ample time for preparing the list.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No doubt these difficulties exist, and I will undertake to consider this question before Report; but it is certain that one of two things will have to be done—either the revision must be taken earlier or the municipal elections must be put off till a later date.
  MR. CLANCY: I have no objection to adopting the suggestion of the honourable Member for Cork, although I do not agree with all he has said on the subject, because I speak front practical know-

  505
  ledge of the registration work in Dublin for many years. The time that elapses between the revision and the election if too short. We have had proof of that in Dublin before, and it will arise again. Personally, I think that the postponement of the municipal elections will meet the difficulty.
  MR. FIELD: I quite agree with what the honourable Member has said, and I think that by adopting his suggestion the difficulties which exist would be removed. I desire to make one other observation, and that is, that I may tell the honourable Member for Cork that the 14th December would be an entirely unsuitable date.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 59, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 60.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 18, after 'district.' insert 'and in towns.'"—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  Question put—
  "That the proposed words be added to the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 25, at end, insert—
  "(1) A person registered as a freeman in a Parliamentary borough shall be entitled to vote as a local government elector—(a) if his place of abode is in the borough, then in the electoral division in which that place of abode is situate; and (b) if his place of abode is not in the borough (in this Act referred to as a non-resident freeman) then in the electoral division to which he is allotted by the revising barrister; and shall not be entitled in respect of the qualification of freeman to vote elsewhere than in such electoral division, and the registration of electors shall be conducted, and the register arranged, so as to give effect to this enactment; (2) The non-resident freemen shall be allotted among the several electoral
  506
  divisions of the borough in proportion, as nearly as may be, to the number of electors in each electoral division, and shall be so allotted in like manner as is provided by section 14 of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, with respect to the allotment of nonresident freemen among the several divisions of a Parliamentary borough; (3) Where an electoral division is situate partly within and partly without the Parliamentary borough this section shall apply to each divided part as if it were an electoral division; (4) Where the non-resident freemen have been allotted among the divisions of a Parliamentary borough in manner provided by section 14 of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, the provisions of this section shall apply as if each such division were a Parliamentary borough."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put—
  "That the proposed words be added to the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 33, line 25, at end, insert—
  "For the purposes of this Act a woman shall not be disqualified by marriage for being on the local government supplement, or for being an elector of any local authority, provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same property."—(Mr. William Johnston.)
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I understand that the Chief Secretary has already provided for that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  Page 33, line 32, at end, insert as a new sub-section—
  "For the purposes of section 21 of the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877, the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898, and this Act shall be deemed to be Acts relating to the registration of voters."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Question put—
  "That the proposed new sub-section stand part of the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  Page 34, line 4, at end, add—
  "Provided that, after the passing of this Act, a person shall not in Ireland in any year be entitled to be registered in the Parliamentary

  507
  register of electors in respect of the borough occupation franchise within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, unless such person shall have resided within, or within seven miles of, the borough during six months immediately preceding the twentieth day of July in such year. Provided that a person shall not, unless otherwise qualified, be entitled to be a local government elector of a county borough or an urban district, if registered in the Parliamentary register of electors for such borough or urban district in respect of a qualification as a freeman. Provided that a person shall not be entitled to be a local government elector of a county borough or urban district if registered in any year in the Parliamentary register of electors in respect of the borough occupation franchise or the county occupation franchise within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, unless such person shall have resided within, or within seven miles of, such borough or urban district during six months immediately preceding the twentieth day of July in such year. (6) Lists of Parliamentary electors in Ireland and the local government supplement thereto, and the Parliamentary register of electors, and the local government register of electors shall in each electoral division, or part thereof, be made out according to streets where streets exist, and elsewhere shall be made out according to townlands; the names of electors in each townland being arranged in alphabetical order, and all precepts and forms contained in and used under the Registration Acts and the Registration (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be modified and adapted accordingly."—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  MR. M. HEALY: I do not propose to move the whole of this Amendment, but only the paragraph numbered (6).
  THE CHAIRMAN: I doubt whether that is right.
  MR. M. HEALY: May I point out that we have had discussions all through relating to Parliamentary elections, and most of the discussions which have taken place have been as to the revision of the lists of Parliamentary electors. We cannot deal with the lists of the Parliamentary electors at all. This Bill introduces a change into these lists, and as a change is involved I suppose I am entitled to move this part of my proposed new clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No.
  MR. M. HEALY: Then I will move the whole clause. All the officials are in favour of it, and so are all the candi-
  508
  dates. At present the officials have to turn the rate book upside down in order to make the lists alphabetical. Then, when they have done that, and had them printed, the candidate wants to make out his canvassing books in street order, and he has to turn the lists upside down to do that. In Cork and in Dublin the lists are at present made out in streets by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1882, making it optional for the court to adopt the system of street lists. Of course, I am aware that arrangements are already made for preparing the lists of persons on alphabetical lines, but if this Amendment were accepted it could be made to apply to future lists. I am sure I am right in saying that the adoption of this Amendment would be an immense benefit both to officials and candidates.
  MR. TULLY: I think this is a most important Amendment, and a most necessary one. The counties are to be divided according to electoral divisions, so that the lists will have to be re-written in any case. Of course, the expense of changing the registers must be gone to this year, but surely, after that, something carrying out this Amendment might be done.
  MR. M. HEALY: The clerks of the unions will all be in favour of the change, because they will have the names in street order in the books. I should be glad to get the clause in any form. In boroughs we have it in an optional form, but the necessity for it in counties is much greater than for boroughs. The right honourable Gentleman has said that there is something to be said in favour of the present system, but as an old electioneering hand I entirely fail to see how any inconvenience can be caused to anybody by adopting this Amendment.
  MR. POWER: This is a question that we have been trying to improve for the last five or six years, and I can answer for the officials of Ireland as to their wanting a change in this direction. Those who have had experience in these matters know that the present system is very inaccurate, and I venture to say that if

  509
  this Amendment is accepted the work will be made easier for the officials.
  MR. M. HEALY: A suggestion of a similar character was made by Mr. Biggar in the Parliament of Mr. Disraeli. There were very great head-shakings when the optional clause was adopted, and then the English adopted it themselves. The practical experience of those of us who have to tight contested election after contested election is that the change ought to be made.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will consider the matter on the Report stage.
  MR. M. HEALY: Then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put—
  "That clause 60, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 61.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 34, line 5, leave out sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. DILLON: I have no objection to the latter part of that section whatever, but I want to know what the right honourable Gentleman had in his mind when he put in the words—
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect any powers of the Local Government Board with respect to the guardians or the officers of guardians," etc.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: These words were inserted merely on the ground that the Act should not in any way vary or alter the powers which the Local Government Board at present possess over these people.
  MR. M. HEALY: All the inquiry referred to in this clause is the inquiry as to elections, and I understand it is proposed to alter the present system of inquiry into election. At present all you can do is to go to the Local Government Board and ask them to send down an inspector, who solemnly proceeds to
  510
  write down the evidence without knowing anything about it. One of the things which have surprised me is that this Bill makes no sort of reference to any mode of questioning elections under this Bill. I do not know whether that is intentional, but it is quite certain that you must have some questions in county council and district council elections. Of course, at present, we question an election through the Queen's Bench Division, but, so far as I was able to see the Order in Council which the right honourable Gentleman proposes to adopt, I cannot see that he has in any way applied the method of petitioning contained in the Act of 1871 to the elections under this Bill. I want to know what the Government propose in this matter. I decline to believe, until the right honourable Gentleman assures me, that he means to preserve to the Local Government Board the power of ordering an inquiry with regard to elections, that that is to be done, because it is the most inadequate method of procedure that you can possibly conceive.
  MR. DILLON: I cannot see that there is any necessity for preserving this provision at all. I had a vague hope that the power of the Local Government Board to supersede a board of guardians might by a special enactment have been made to lapse. It is a most oppressive power, and I cannot see any reason for this provision at all.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: There is another provision later on in the Bill.
  MR. SHEEHY: I have had experience in connection with county elections. These Local Government Board inspectors come down to these inquiries in absolute ignorance of the matter, and very often in these inquiries nice points of law have to be determined, and the Local Government Board inspector, who has no knowledge of the law, simply takes down in his own private note book anything which he considers advisable, and very often the points which he takes a note of have no bearing whatever on the matter in question. I therefore think that a very

  511
  inadequate and peculiar method, and I hope that the right honourable Gentleman will consider the matter before the Report stage.
  MR. M. HEALY: I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that he will make some alteration in the Order in Council as to the questioning of an election. The right honourable Gentleman will not pledge himself as to the probable change he will make. It may, however, interest the right honourable Gentleman to know that so long back as 1884 there was a Bill all of the provisions of which were an elaborate system of questioning local board elections. The Commons refused to agree to the Lords' Amendment which was to abolish the method of questioning elections existing in the Act of 1871, which enabled elections to the corporation to be questioned by petition. I think the right honourable Gentleman will be well advised if he simply adapts that Act to the ordinary elections which take place under this Bill. But as the Bill stands, the Order in Council makes no provision for questioning the county council or district council elections.
  MR. ATKINSON: I think it does.
  MR. M. HEALY: SO far as I have examined it, I cannot see that it is so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope it will not be made necessary for us to come to Parliament for the confirmation of a Provisional Order, because that is really a most expensive proceeding. There is the expense of the Parliamentary Agent, and so on; and sometimes, in order to get a miserable Committee Provisional Order confirmed, there is an expense of £40 or £50 incurred.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think that the Provisional Order Rules in Ireland are the same as those of England.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 61 added to the Bill.
  Clauses 62 and 63 added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 64.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 36, line 17, after 'juries,' insert—
  "'Provided that a county council shall not be authorised to accept any tender for the execution of a public work other than the lowest tender, as provided by section 23 of the Grand Jury (Irland) Act, 1836. Provided that any such order in council may provide that a tender and proposal for the execution of a public work shall be accompanied with such deposit of money as may be prescribed by the Order in Council to ensure that the tender is made in good faith, and for the forfeiture of such deposit in case the same should not have been made in good faith.'"—(Mr. Maurice Healy.)
  MR. M. HEALY: This clause enables the Lord Lieutenant to regulate the procedure of the district council in connection with the business transferred to them by this Act by the grand jury. One of the great changes which the Grand Jury Act of 1836 made was that, in the first place, it provided that the grand jury should not select the person who was to execute the work, but that they should give it out to contract, and that when they had given it out to contract they should accept the lowest tender, and the proper carrying out of that tender was properly secured. Everybody who knows the working of the grand jury system knows that that change of late has worked properly, and it is well known that when there was a different procedure there was a great deal of jobbery. Now, Sir, the Government proceed by this clause to abandon the principle that the lowest tender shall be accepted, and it is that change in the existing law that I challenge by this. Amendment. On a previous occasion somebody said that the system did not produce good results. Now, I do not deny that there are defects in the existing system, but I think these defects can be improved. I think that, while the existing procedure under the grand jury makes jobbery in the matter of work very largely impossible, there is a great deal of it goes on in road contracts. In fact, road contracts are a synonym in Ireland for everything that is tricky. To such an extent is this believed that a man tried for stealing sheep set up the extraordinary defence that they belonged to a road contractor. No doubt the

  513
  present system has led to all sorts of devices amongst the contractors for getting the better of one another and the county, and I quite approve of any means for preventing such things. One of the commonest of them is to send in duplicate tenders. They then watch the procedure, and if they see only their own tenders they don't answer. Now, if a large sum of money had to accompany each contract that would not happen, because the money would be a great consideration to the contractor. Now, the course which the right honourable Gentleman has taken to cure the evils of the present system appears to me to be one which is calculated to lead to far greater evils. He proposes that it should be in the power of the county council not to accept the lowest tender, but to discriminate amongst the contractors and to say, "Here is the lowest tenderer, but he is not solvent, and so we will select so and so, or another tender, and we will give him the contract, although he has sent in n tender for a higher amount." Now, there is no doubt that the right honourable Gentleman had in his mini the procedure of boards of guardians, which are not bound to accept the lowest tender. But that is quite a different thing, because in the case of boards of guardians the contracts are for goods. In the case of medicine nothing is more common than for a contractor to send in a contract for medicine at a low figure, and for a contract at a high figure to be accented, because the highest contract might turn out to be the cheapest in the end. But no difficulties of that kind exist in the case of the contracts which will go before county councils. Take the case of a road contract. Anyone can tell at a glance which is the lowest tender, and whether the suggested sureties are good and whether the contractor is able to carry out the work or not. I admit that there are cases where at the lowest tender it would be impossible for the contractor to properly do the work, but that is only because there is no effectual supervision. How can you get effectual supervision when you pay a surveyor £80 a year to look after 800 miles of road, and expect him to keep a horse and trap? This Amendment is, in my opinion, a most important one, because it affects the whole of the county administration in Ireland. We are all anxious that this
  514
  Bill should pass, but that anxiety should not, and does not, prevent us from bringing this matter forward.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I cordially support the Amendment of the honourable Member for Cork. If county councils are to be at liberty to select any contract at will, it will certainly militate against competition, and keep back that free and healthy competition which is necessary to enable the work to be done at a reasonable figure.
  MR. SHEEHY: I am in favour of this Amendment. I know in various parts of Ireland it is the custom for a contractor to put in contracts in his own name and in the name of another man. If no competitor appears on the scene when the number of his first tender is called he adroitly skips out of the court-house; then when his second tender is called and no competitor has appeared he skips in again and secures the contract.
  SIR J. W. MACLURE: I am very much surprised to hear what the honourable Member for Cork says about contracts. My experience with regard to both large and small contracts is that you cannot always depend upon the lowest price being the best contract.
  MR. FIELD: My opinion is that the lowest tender is often the dearest, especially in the ease of roads, where it sometimes happens that tenders are accepted at rates at which it is impossible to keep the roads in proper condition. Is there anything in this Bill to prevent the county council from doing this work themselves?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
  MR. FIELD: Then it ought to be removed. The county council of London and the county councils of Scotland can do this work themselves, and why should not we in Ireland if we wish it? The system of contracts is all wrong. If it pays a contractor to go in and do this work and make a large profit out of it, why should not it be done by the county

  515
  councils themselves? The county councils ought to be the employers in these contracts, and not give the work out.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I cannot myself exactly see what difference exists between a contract for breaking stones and a contract for supplying bricks. Nobody denies that the abuses mentioned by the honourable Member exist, and the question is, how are these abuses to be prevented, excepting by some enactment which will penalise those persons guilty of them. A man who is desirous of getting a contract does not depend upon his own tender. He gets two or three friends to tender as well as himself, and then he either assiduously remains in court or skips out of it as it suits him. If the Amendment of the honourable Member for Cork is not accepted, the same sort of thing will continue to exist. I shall certainly support the honourable Member for Cork if he goes to a Division.
  MR. ATKINSON: A corporation may construct works, and so may sanitary authorities and boards of guardians, hence they are not bound to take the lowest tender, but the grand jury are bound to accept the lowest tender, but every precaution that can be taken is taken to see that the offer shall be a bonâ fide one, and that proper security shall be given. Everybody who has had any experience of the way in which these things are done in Ireland, knows that the compulsory acceptance of the lowest tender has by no means given general satisfaction.
  Question put.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 36, line 17, after 'juries,' insert—
  "'(3) A county council may with respect to any public work, the expenses of which are chargeable partly or wholly to the administrative county, or upon the recommendation of the council of the district with respect to any public work, the expenses of which are chargeable wholly to a county district, execute such work without the intervention of a contractor,
  516
  and the Act of the twentieth and twenty-first years of the reign of Queen Victoria, chapter fifteen, shall in such case apply with the necessary modifications.'"—(Mr. Shee.)
  MR. SHEEsaid that the Amendment would give the Irish county councils the same power as the English ones possessed. It was, he said, a very important Amendment so far as the work of the Irish county councils was concerned. He had expert testimony in favour of his Amendment, and he proceeded to read to the House the evidence of two county surveyors who favoured his contention, and which testimony was practically endorsed by all the county surveyors of Ireland.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This is a matter in which the opinions of county surveyors should certainly weigh on the House. But as a matter of general principle, are we prepared to allow the county councils to have control of their own work? I think that the proposal to allow the road work to be put out to contract meets with the general approval of Ireland.
  MR. DALY: I am very much obliged to the right honourable Gentleman, and I hope the is not going to accept this Amendment. I am sure that, while the right honourable Gentleman is doing his best, he is not able to please everybody. If the county councils take over the whole of the roads, that would cause a great deal of increased cost. If the county councils only make the surveyors do their duty, the roads will be kept in good repair. Of course, if after a while the county councils think that they can mend the roads better than by contract by all means let them do it.
  MR. DILLON: No one can deny the zeal with which the honourable Member has advocated this proposal, but in spite of that zeal, I must confess that the pursuit of economy in some cases leads to waste of money. For instance, with regard to the county surveyor, I am in favour of high salaries, because if you want skilled work done properly, you must be prepared to pay for it. I think that the

  517
  honourable Member by this Amendment has raised a very important question, and I confess that, for my part, I cannot see why the county councils should not have the option. They will have quite enough to do without being called upon to do their own work and employ their own labour. After all, all that the Amendment would do would be to allow any county council who felt inclined to try the experiment to try the two systems; and the ratepayers, who were the best judges, will soon see the result. If this Amendment were passed the way it would work would be this, that certain county councils would take a certain portion of the roads and employ labour, and we can be perfectly certain that if it increased the burdens of the ratepayers it would soon be put a stop to. I think it would be a reasonable thing for the experiment to be tried, and I am therefore in favour of the Amendment.
  MR. FIELD: The experiment has been tried, and what has been the result? Why, that the ratepayers desire to go back to the old system, because the contractor has not given satisfaction, and the roads have fallen into a state of disrepair, and they want the old system so as to got the roads into proper order and repair.
  MR. M. HEALY: I do think there is something to be said for permitting county councils, in the case of main roads, to take the roads into their own hands and maintain them. May I ask the Government whether it was by a deliberate intention that this contract
  system is applied to the county boroughs only? Because the corporations have been maintaining their roads for I do not know how many years, time out of mind. It seems to me to be a very extreme measure that, without notice, without any inquiry, without consultation with any authorities, this system should be forced upon these county boroughs. Thirty or forty years ago the Cork Corporation had transferred to them the power of maintaining their roads, and they have ever since maintained them, and now, in the year 1898, they are compelled to adopt, for the first time, this contract system, whilst other authorities in Ireland are permitted to do as they please in the matter. I cannot believe that the Government have made this proposal with a full consideration of all its bearings, and I am really at a loss to understand what the draftsman had in his head when he drew it up.
  MR. ATKINSON: It was done in order to put the county boroughs in the same position as the ordinary boroughs.
  MR. CREAN: This would be better for the ratepayers, because they would have greater facilities than they now have in various directions. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will re-establish the power of county boards to execute their own works if they think it necessary.
  Question put—
  "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 111.—(Division List No. 119.)

  AYES.

  Billson, Alfred

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Caldwell, James

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  O'Brien. P. J. (Tipperary)

  Colville, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Crean, Eugene

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Dillon, John

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John G. Swift

  Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Mandeville, J. Francis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Mr. Shee and Mr. Field.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gedge, Sydney

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Balfour, Rt.Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Greville, Captain

  Purvis, Robert

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. (Brist'l)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Brassey, Albert

  Heath, James

  Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Round, James

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hornby, William Henry

  Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

  Cavendish, R. F. (Lancs, N.)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W.Grice-

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Kenyon, James

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. Wm.

  Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Lafone, Alfred

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Tomlinson. W. E. Murray

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

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

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und.-L.)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Daly, James

  McCalmont, Col. J.(Ant'm, E.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dane, Richard M.

  Milbank, Powlett Charles J.

  Wilson, J. W. (Wore, N.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Young, Com. (Berks, E.)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  More, Robert Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sir William Walrond and

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

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

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.
  House resumed.

  MR. GLADSTONE'S FUNERAL.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreported from the Select Committee appointed to consider the circumstances relating to the attendance of this House at the funeral of the late right honourable William Ewart Gladstone on 28th May; That they had considered the matter to them referred, and had agreed to the following Report:—
  Your Committee are informed that the Earl Marshal has arranged to provide places in the South Transept of Westminster Abbey for Members desiring to attend the funeral of Mr. Gladstone on 28th May.
  Your Committee recommend that Members should attend in mourning dress; that each Member should be admitted by ticket; and that Members desiring
  520
  places should send in their names to Mr. Speaker's Secretary by 7 p.m. on Wednesday, 25th May. That provision should be made in the front seats for Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, Ministers, ex-Ministers, and Privy Councillors; and that officers should attend at the entrance of the Abbey and inside, to prevent unauthorised persons entering the seats reserved for the use of Members.
  They further recommend that Members attending should assemble in the House an hour before the time fixed for the funeral; and that Mr. Speaker do make such provision as may appear to him necessary for the orderly arrangement of the procession of Members to the Abbey.
  That the Clerks and Officers of the House, not exceeding 35 in number, shall be permitted to accompany the Members of the House, and have tickets issued to them accordingly.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at 3.40.

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock when the Royal Assent was given by Royal Commission to the following Bills:—
Special Juries; Bail; Metropolitan Common Scheme (Barnes) Provisional Order; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Lancashire County Council; Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund; Midlothian and Peebles District Board of Lunacy (Water); Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Various Powers); Agricultural Company of Mauritius; Guy's Hospital; Patriotic Assurance Company; Tyne Improvement; Aberystwyth Gas; Folkestone Gas; City and South London Railway; Eastern Telegraph Company; St. Matthew, Bethnal Green; Upper Assam Tea Company; Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas; Swansea Gas; Waterford City Gas; Chipstead Valley Railway; London and North Western Railway (Steam Vessels); Whitwick and Coalville Gas; Hartlepool Gas and Water; Edinburgh Merchant Company; Norton and Halton Roads; Edinburgh and District Water; Marianao and Havana Railway Company; Morley Corporation Gas; Great Orme Tramway and Tramroad; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (New Works); Hart's Divorce.

THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS
were the LORD CHANCELLOR, the LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND, and the Earl of LATHOM.
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his seat on the Woolsack at a Quarter past Four of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
BARRY RAILWAY.

  CARDIFF CORPORATION".
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) [H.L.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3).
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

  CARDIFF CORPORATION".
    SOUTHEND WATER.
    And the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
  KINGSTOWN AND KINGSBRIDGE JUNCTION RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  CORPORATION OF LONDON (FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET, DEPTFORD) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  EXETER, TEIGN VALLEY, AND CHAGFORD RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  Queen's consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
  CARLISLE CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
  EDMONTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Committee to meet on Friday the 10th June next.
  BROMPTON, CHATHAM, GILLINGHAM AND ROCHESTER WATER BILL.
  Read the second time, and committed.
  IPSWICH DOCK COMMISSION BILL.
  Read the second time, and committed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (ACTON SEWAGE) BILL.
  Read the second time, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time; Amendments, made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  KETTERING WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time; passed, and sent to the Commons.
  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time; passed, and sent to the Commons.
  FOLKESTONE WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Read the third time; passed, and sent to the Commons.
  THANET GAS BILL.
  Re-committed to the same Select Committee to whom the Bill was committed; the Committee to meet on Friday the 10th June next, at Four o'clock.
  CUSTOMS AND OTHER OFFICES (BARRY DOCK) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed for Friday the 10th June nest.
  CUSTOMS OFFICES (SOUTHAMPTON) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed for Friday the 10th June next.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 9th June next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  To be read the second time on Thursday the 9th June next (The Lord Harris).
  COMMONS REGULATION (WOLSTANTON MARSH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  To be read the second time on Thursday the 9th June next (The Lord Privy Seal (V. Cross).
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  To be read the second time on Thursday the 9th June next.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing Petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.
PETITION.
  ALIENS BILL [H.L.]
  In favour: From the Council of the Dundee Combination; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  I. Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance—
  No. 2100. Roumania (Galatz);
  No. 2101. Ecuador (Quito);
  No. 2102. Greece (The Cyclades);
  No. 2103 France (Nice).
  II. Miscellaneous Series: Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial interest—
  No. 457. China (Report of a journey to North Ssu-Ch'uan);
  No. 458. China (Trade of Central and Southern China).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return for the quarter ended 31st March, 1898.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Statistical tables for the year 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MINES (SNAEFELL LEAD MINE ACCIDENT).
  Reports to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by C. Le Neve Foster, Esq., D.Sc., F.R.S., one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, and A. E. Miller, Esq., M.B., on the circumstances attending an underground fire which occurred at the Snaefell Lead Mine, Isle of Man, in the month of May, 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STATISTICS.
  Statistical abstract for the principal and other foreign countries in each year from 1886 to 1895–96 (as far as the particulars can be stated); twenty-fourth number.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS.
  Fifteenth Report of the Comptroller-General, with appendices, for the year 1897.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ELECTRICAL ENERGY (GENERATING STATIONS AND SUPPLY).
  Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made; and to be printed. [No. 75.] Minutes of evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Selection for the Standing Committee, That the Committee have added the Lord Stanley of Alderley to the Standing Committee for the consideration of the Lunacy Bill [H.L.]; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILLS.
  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (BY-LAWS) BILL [H.L.]
  "To amend the provisions of the Metropolis Management Acts with respect to by-laws"; Presented by the Lord Monkswell; Read the first time; and to be printed. [No. 76.]
  INDUSTRIES (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to afford facilities for the establishment and development of industries in Ireland; Presented by the Earl of Mayo; read the first time; and to be printed. [No. 77.]

  MR. GLADSTONE'S DEATH.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, I have to inform the House that I have received telegraphic information that Her Majesty gives her assent to the Address from both Houses of Parliament on the subject of a public funeral for Mr. Gladstone.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Might I ask whether any information can be given to the House as to when the funeral of Mr. Gladstone will take place, and whether it is really fixed for Saturday next?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes; I understand that that will be the case, but my noble Friend on my right [the Duke of Norfolk] is better able to answer the question than I am. I received from Mr. Herbert Gladstone an intimation that that was the wish of the family, and I have no doubt that the wish will be complied with.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  THE FRENCH IN WEST AFRICA.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Seeing the noble Marquess in his place to-day, I beg to ask him whether he is in a position to give the House any information with regard to the progress of the negotiations respecting affairs in West Africa?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think there are two principles which I should violate if I gave an answer to the noble Earl. In the first place, it has been laid down that on questions concerning foreign affairs notice should always be given, for, unless it is given, it is almost impossible, when answering, to avoid using language which might be misunderstood. In the second place, I should be violating the well-understood rule that while negotiations are proceed-
  266
  ing they cannot form properly the subject of a Parliamentary statement or discussion. The negotiations in this case are still proceeding, and there is nothing in their progress, or in their prospects, to give the slightest justification for departing from the ordinary practice.

  WHITSUNTIDE ADJOURNMENT.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE (on behalf of the Marquess of SALISBURY)moved—
  "That the House at its rising do adjourn to Thursday, 9th June."
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.

  ALIENS BILL.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I must ask your Lordships to forgive the audacity which has prompted so inexperienced a Member of your Lordships' House to trespass upon its time by the introduction of a Bill. I must confess, however, to feeling less diffidence than might otherwise have been the case when I remember that the business of this House has not of late been of a very arduous character, and that to-day we are separating for the Whitsuntide Recess. My Lords, I am naturally drawn towards this subject, as anyone must be whose work brings him closely in contact with London questions, since it is London that has to bear the brunt of the burden of this alien invasion imposed on our people. My Lords, the Bill which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time is not only substantially but verbally the same as the Bill introduced by the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, without any opposition, four years since. The provisions of that Bill which are not reproduced in the Measure now before the House dealt with persons dangerous to the country as an organised political and social community, while those whom it is hoped to reach in the present Measure are rather injurious economically. With regard to the latter

  267
  the proposals are, as I have told your Lordships, identically the same as the proposals contained in the noble Marquess's Bill. On the occasion of the discussion of that Bill objection was not taken to the principle of the first part; it was agreed on all sides that circumstances might arise which would render such a Measure as this necessary. But, my Lords, I admit that considerable exception was taken to the actual provisions of the Bill. The noble Marquess himself did not hesitate to acknowledge that there might be defects in the machinery suggested, and he expressed his willingness to adopt any better machinery that noble Lords could suggest, in the event of the Bill reaching Committee. That, my Lords, is precisely the attitude that I must humbly adopt in regard to the present Bill. There is no necessity for me, therefore, to elaborate the main proposal—the principle, in fact—of this Bill, which your Lordships have already endorsed by a large majority. That being the case, it only remains for me to state that the arguments used in favour of the Bill then apply now, and that any cause which existed in 1894 for such a Measure as the present one exists to-day, and, as I hope to show your Lordships, in a strengthened form. I hardly like to trouble your Lordships with ancient history, but the finding of the Committee of 1889, appointed to inquire into this subject, seems to be so pertinent to the issue that I cannot refrain from quoting a passage that was also referred to by the noble Marquess when he introduced his Bill. The Committee stated that—
  "While your Committee see great difficulties in the way of enforcing laws similar to those in the United States, and certain other countries, against the importation of pauper and destitute aliens, and while they are not prepared to recommend such legislation at present, they contemplate the possibility of such legislation becoming necessary in the future, in view of the crowded conditions of our great towns, the extreme pressure for existence among the poorer part of the population, and the tendency of destitute foreigners to reduce still lower the social and material condition of our own poor."
  What, my Lords, were the words the noble Marquess used? He said that—
  "After that recommendation, perhaps I shall be asked why I have thought that it is now
  268
  necessary or desirable to introduce the prohibition, in which the Committee saw great difficulty. Well, since that time five years have passed, and several circumstances have occurred, which lead me to think that the time which the Committee foresaw has come, and that it is desirable that the power which the United States has taken to itself in so large a measure should be assumed in some degree by the Government of the Queen."
  My Lords, if the time had come four years ago, how much more must it have come now, unless, indeed, there has been some striking change for the better in the interval? But has this stream of alien immigration, which struck the noble Marquess as so dangerous, diminished in volume? Has it trickled out? My Lords, in 1894, for the six months ending the 31st of May, 19,400 was returned as the total number of alien immigrants who had come to this country to stay. The last available Board of Trade Return up to the end of April, shows that the number of these immigrants was 14,592, as against 13,645 for the corresponding four months of last year. So whereas for six months in 1894 the total was 19,400, or an average of some 3,200 a month, the figures for four months in this year are 14,500 odd, or an average of 3,800 a month, thus showing a monthly increase of over 600 for this year as compared with four years ago. So that the argument from statistics is stronger now than when the former Bill was introduced. It has often been said that statistics can prove anything. I do not wish to base my case primarily on statistics. It is quite possible, and from what I can gather I am inclined to think that these official figures do give a slightly exaggerated appearance to the actual facts; but, my Lords, whether these aliens come in large quantities, or whether they come in small quantities, they do come, and in quantities at least serious enough to sensibly affect our own people, and the conditions of life of our own people, in the localities in which they settle. My Lords, if this were not a local question, there might be no need to trouble your Lordships this afternoon with such a Measure as this. Those who wish to minimise the evil we are discussing are fond of talking lightly of the fact of a few thousand aliens scattered up and down amongst forty million people. My Lords, that is just, the point.

  269
  They are not scattered. They do congregate, and in certain limited areas, mainly in the East End of London, and it is in the East End of London that one is able to see how easily and how rapidly this influx can affect local trade, and the conditions of social life. Their presence, my Lords, seems to have a treble effect. It lowers the standard of wages, it enhances the standard of rent, and so depresses the standard of life. The first, thing, my Lords, that the newly-arrived alien with his wife and family—the alien is usually married—does is not unnaturally to seek a lodgment, and this he must do in a quarter where other aliens are living. He finds every house full—houses always are full in the East End of London; and he thereupon proceeds to offer the landlord a little higher rent than his English tenant is at present paying him. The landlord accepts, of course. The Englishman goes out; the alien comes in. My Lords, it seems strange, I admit, that the landlord should be willing to exchange a tenant whom he knows for a hypothetical tenant he does not know. The reason is really because the landlord can turn him out in the same way as he has turned the former tenant out, knowing perfectly well that there are half a dozen others willing to take his place. My Lords, the usual rise, I may mention, in these instances, is from 6d. to 1s., but cases have recently come to light in the East End where as much as 5s. additional rent has been paid by an alien to take the place of an English tenant. Again, my Lords, I am told that what is called "the price of a key," which is the term for tenant-right in the East End, has enormously increased of late, as much as £5, £6, and £7 being not infrequently obtained. Well, my Lords, to revert to the alien who has just arrived with no means of subsistence, and with his wife and family, he has succeeded in getting a lodging, but how is he to pay the rent? He must obtain work at any price, even at a rate considerably below the standard current in the district, with the all too probable result of ousting some English labour, and generally lowering the standard. But that is not enough to meet the demands for rent and living. The standard of life, also, has to be
  270
  lowered, and the newly-arrived alien is able to live in a way that no English working man or working woman would consider decent. He proceeds to take in lodgers, and rooms—frequently a single room—already overcrowded by the alien and his family, are still more overcrowded by the inclusion of two, three, and more lodgers. My Lords, everyone knows what a train of evils follow in the wake of overcrowding. There is no problem more difficult than is the problem of overcrowding, and, so long as this influx continues, the efforts of the local bodies to cope with it here in London, and in Leeds and Manchester, where these aliens mostly centre, must be greatly, if not practically, neutralised. This overcrowding difficulty, I submit, my Lords, is of itself sufficient to justify, even to necessitate, a Measure of this kind being passed into law. I have had opportunities of discussing with gentlemen who are personally engaged in investigating this problem on the spot, and though they will not go to the length that I do in respect of the labour side of the question, they entirely agree, indeed insist, that its urgency in regard to overcrowding cannot be overrated. My Lords, it cannot be doubted that there is a very strong feeling amongst the English population in the East End against this alien intrusion. It is said by some that this feeling must be put down to race hatred, that it is an aspect of the anti-Semitism that we find on the Continent. My Lords, I do not for one moment believe this to be the case. The feeling is not against the Jew, as a Jew; it is not against the foreigner, as a foreigner; it is not against the alien because he is an alien. Conversations with any of those people affected—and I have spoken to English Jews who are equally affected—convince one that their complaints are not prompted by any race hatred, but by a sense of personal loss, incurred through the habits and actions of a group of people; and were these people English the feeling would be exactly the same. My Lords, it is the injury they resent, not the nationality of those who inflict it. I trust, my Lords, I have not spoken at too great a length, or wearied your Lordships, whom I thank sincerely for kind attention to an exposition

  271
  of this subject that I fear must have appeared singularly lame to this House, that has had the privilege of listening to the noble Marquis, and also to Lord Rosebery, on the same subject. My Lords, there can be no need to trouble your Lordships further, for the pledges that Her Majesty's Government have given in regard to this question assure me that they will not only support this Measure to-day, but that they will feel bound to safeguard its passage in another place. The President of the Board of Trade, on February 9th, of last year, said in the House of Commons in reference to this subject—
  "We adhere to every pledge we have given, and I hope at no distant time to propose to Parliament legislation."
  And again in January of this year, in reply to a question of Sir Howard Vincent, in regard to this proposed legislation, he pointed the honourable Member to this very Bill of which I now have the honour to move the Second Reading.
  THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of): My Lords, I think that, as my noble Friend says, the time has now arrived when legislation on the lines suggested by this Bill is eminently desirable. When last this subject was discussed by your Lordships, in 1894, the noble Earl then at the head of the Government, while admitting the principle embodied in a Measure almost identical with this one, opposed its further progress on the ground that the immigration complained of was both small and decreasing. Well, my Lords, we are now in a position to judge as to the accuracy of that opinion, and we can see from the statistics which are available on this subject that not only has the immigration of destitute foreigners into this country not decreased since that time, but that, on the contrary, it has increased steadily year by year. Of course, my Lords, I am well aware that the argument from statistics has often been overstrained, and that both writers and speakers upon this subject have, in estimating the extent of foreign immigration, been inclined to dwell too much upon the numbers of those who come
  272
  into this country without through tickets, and to ignore the fact that many of those subsequently move on elsewhere. But, my Lords, considerations of that kind do not affect the undoubted statistical facts—firstly, the fact that our total foreign population has increased by at least 40,000 persons during the last seven years; and, secondly, the fact that the stream of Russian and Polish immigration—in other words, the immigration of the most destitute type—is increasing in volume year by year. For instance, my Lords, in 1894 there were 7,500 immigrants of these nationalities; in 1895 10,200; in 1896, 12,800; and in 1897, 14,800. My Lords, I cannot help thinking that these facts are very significant, for they show not merely the total increase of foreigners coming into this country, but they show also a steady and progressive increase in the numbers of the least desirable class of those foreigners. My Lords, there is another point in connection with these statistics to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. I have said that allowances must be made, in estimating the extent of alien immigration, for those who come here without through tickets, but who subsequently migrate elsewhere. But it does not follow that all those who again migrate in this way are necessarily newcomers; on the contrary, it is most probable that many of them have been resident here for some time, and have during that period saved sufficient money to enable them to go elsewhere. In other words, my Lords, those who go are often the best, and those who remain are often the worst of this class. The tendency, therefore, is gradually to make this country the receptacle of a residuum composed of the least capable and least efficient. These statistics show, in my opinion at any rate, that the immigration which my noble Friend complains of is neither small nor is it diminishing; but that, on the contrary, it is of an extent which calls for urgent and careful consideration. Moreover, my Lords, I would remind your Lordships that it is beside the point to estimate the extent of alien immigration in proportion to the total population. As my noble Friend has pointed out, if these aliens, on arriving here, spread out over the country in fairly equal proportions, their presence

  273
  would be a matter of comparative unimportance, but this is exactly what they do not do. On the contrary, they concentrate for the most part in certain districts, and go to swell the foreign settlements which already exist there. From three-fourths to four-fifths, my Lords, of the Russian and Polish immigrants come to London, and settle in the districts of Whitechapel, St. George's-in-the-East, and Mile End. In 1891, when the last census was taken, there were in those three districts 22,000 Russians and Poles, and though of course we have no figures as to their numbers since that time, the Commissioner of Police has reported that the number of foreign Jews in London still increases, and that the area inhabited by them is still extending. Similar reports, my Lords, are also sent by the local authorities. At the beginning of this year the Mile End Vestry stated that they were aware that there had been a considerable increase of immigration of aliens into the district, and the sanitary inspectors of both the south and east districts of St. George's have reported to a similar effect. Well, my Lords, it may be true that the total number of alien immigrants in this country is still small as compared with the total population, but it is an undoubted fact that there is in many urban districts a large and growing foreign community, which is gradually ousting the native inhabitants. Those, my Lords, are the facts, and they, I think, suggest two serious questions—firstly, what view we are to take with regard to this increase of foreign immigration, and whether we are to regard it as desirable or not desirable; and, secondly, if we regard it as not desirable, what steps should be taken, if any, to check it? My Lords, I hardly think there can be any difference of opinion with regard to the first question. It is surely undesirable that this country, or, at any rate, some large cities in this country, should become the receptacle for the refuse population of other countries. This increased foreign immigration is undesirable both from an economic and social point of view. It is undesirable economically because the competition between British workers and workers of this imported type is not an equal one. The latter can live upon a wage, as my
  274
  noble Friend has said, upon which an English workman would starve, and the result, therefore, must be either that the British, workers are driven out of those employments which are affected by this competition altogether, or that, in the case of the women workers, they are forced to supplement their earnings from other sources. My Lords, this is by no means an imaginary danger. Statistics prove that alien labour has already secured a monopoly of certain industries, and the result, as testified by those who have studied this subject upon the spot, is that in the case of many seamstresses in East London even worse results than want of employment have ensued. My Lords, on purely economic grounds, then, it seems to me that some restriction upon this continued alien immigration is urgently needed. Even the strongest advocates of Free Trade would, I should think, hardly contend that Free Trade principles should be pushed to the extent of driving certain sections—large sections—of our working classes into pauperism, or worse, and of replacing them by foreigners of a very low and degraded type. But, my Lords, on social grounds the argument seems to me even stronger. Alien immigration of this kind not merely makes it more difficult for our working classes to gain an honest and adequate livelihood, but it also introduces a very deteriorating and demoralising element into our whole social system, for these alien paupers, my Lords, come, as a rule, to stay. They come to settle, to bring up families, to intermix, to intermarry; and this means, necessarily, a lowering of the whole moral and social standard of the population of those districts in which they settle—a lowering which is greater or less according as their numbers are greater or less. It would, for instance, be a very serious matter if the type of population which is now to be found in many districts in the East End, where there is a strong alien element, were to become at all a common type in the poorer districts of our large cities. It would mean, my Lords, that those classes would become, to a great extent, non-English, in character, and that, both in physique and in moral and social customs, they had fallen below our present by no means elevated standard. Well, my Lords, it only

  275
  remains for me to consider the second question to which I have referred. Granted that restriction of some kind is necessary and desirable, is such restriction obtainable by legislative means? It seems to me that there is one conclusive answer to that question. Every other country which has had to face the same problem has dealt with it by legislation, and there is nothing, so far as I know, in the conditions of this country which precludes it from following their example. Take, for instance, the case of the United States. As your Lordships are aware, restrictive legislation is in force there, and in the year ending June 30th, 1897, over 1,500 emigrants were, under the provisions of the American law, sent back from the United States to the ports from which they came. My Lords, it might be said that the insignificance of that number, when compared with the total number of immigrants into that country, points to the conclusion that the Act is only partially in force; but, my Lords, it must be remembered that the chief effect of legislation of this character is to be found rather in its deterrent influence than in its direct application. Shipowners and shipping companies will think twice before they ship pauper aliens, if they know that they may be put to the trouble and expense of taking them back again. Moreover, my Lords, under the American Act of 1893 intending immigrants are subjected to a physical examination before sailing, and the commander of the ship and the surgeon have to certify to the United States Consul that in no case do they come within the prohibition of the law. This regulation, again, must be taken as causing a considerable reduction in the total number of those who would otherwise have migrated. It is possible, my Lords, that such a provision might be useful here, but that, of course, and the other details of my noble Friend's Bill, are questions for consideration in Committee. For the present we need only concern ourselves, I think, with the broad principles upon which this Bill is based, and believing that those principles are just and sound, and that the objects which my noble Friend aims at are highly desirable, I trust the
  276
  House will accord a Second Reading to the Bill.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I confess I was somewhat surprised that the noble Earl closed his speech without explaining to us why this was not a Government Bill. Two years ago this subject was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne as one upon which the Government intended to legislate. Now, at the commencement of the present Session, the Speech from the Throne, after pointing to certain Measures with which the Government, one may say, undertook absolutely to deal, mentioned a number of others which it proposed to deal with "if time permitted," and we quite understood that this Measure was not to be found in the latter category. This seems to me to be eminently a Measure to be dealt with by the Government, in view of the difficulties with which the question is surrounded, and which have been touched upon, but not in any way attempted to be solved by, the noble Earl, who said they were matters entirely for Committee. I venture to think this is a Measure which ought to be in the hands of the Government, and which ought not, in view of the fact that the Government have committed themselves to legislation on the subject, to have been left for introduction by a private Member. The question is no doubt one of great importance, and in saying what I have said I am in no way complaining of the noble Earl having introduced it to the House. I may say, further, that as to the right of the Legislature to deal with the question there can be no doubt whatever. Apart from the difficulties which may arise from such a scheme, and the manner in which it is to be carried into effect, and the operation which it may have in directions uintended, there are certain categories mentioned in the 3rd clause of the Bill as to whose exclusion from this country being beneficial there cannot possibly be two opinions. The third section of the Bill deals with several named classes. There are those aliens who are idiots or insane. Well, I do not suppose that anybody would question that, apart from any difficulty involved in the operation, it would be perfectly right that we should not permit insane persons

  277
  or idiots, who are aliens, to be brought to this country—that their introduction here cannot possibly be a public advantage, and may well be to the public detriment. So, again, with regard to persons suffering from dangerous or infectious disease. I do not suppose anybody would question that it is extremely desirable that a person suffering from such diseases should, if possible, be excluded from the country, and that the peril arising from their spreading these diseases should be as far as possible guarded against. There would probably be the same absolute agreement as regards persons likely to become a public charge. It may be said that the country is thoroughly entitled, and could be said to act in no spirit of illiberality if such persons are excluded. I have dealt with all except one category named—a pauper other than a person likely to become a public charge. It is in regard to that particular class that I imagine most difficulty would be felt. What, exactly, is a pauper? What is the class intended to be covered by a provision of that description, and how are they to be discriminated? It is said that one may leave the whole of the details of a Bill of this description for subsequent consideration; but when a Bill in these terms was before the House on the last occasion some very judicious remarks were made by the noble Duke who is now Lord President of the Council. He pointed to the fact that there had been some inquiry into this subject by a Committee of the House of Commons, and incidentally that there had been some reference to it before a Committee of your Lordships' House. But he said at that time that—
  "After all the inquiries that have already been made, we are not yet in a position adequately or wisely to deal with that class (destitute aliens). We require still further investigation."
  He then pointed to the investigations that had taken place, and concluded by saying that in his opinion a small commission would be a more practical and useful body to conduct such an inquiry than a Committee, and his suggestion was that before legislation there should be an inquiry by such a commission. I apprehend that the state of things now is not absolutely different from what it was then. The amount of immigration may
  278
  be slightly more, but the situation is substantially the situation that then existed. There has been since that time no further inquiry, and we are in possession of no more information than we had when the noble Duke made that speech. It seems to me there is a great deal to be said in favour of further inquiry before this legislation is proceeded with, because one wants exactly to see what is to be its scope, and how the proposed prohibition is to be carried into effect. It is obvious that a measure of this sort affects many interests. The only provision in this Bill is that an inspector is to be enabled to inspect immigrant passengers and prevent the landing of any alien who, in his opinion, is a pauper. Now, how is an inspection to enable an inspector to ascertain whether a person is an immigrant alien pauper? He may believe him to be an alien, but how is he to ascertain merely by an inspection, and that is all that is proposed? The noble Earl has referred to the law which prevails in America. The law is easy of enforcement in America, as the immigrant paupers arrive on a very limited number of vessels, which, of course, cross the Atlantic, and put in at a limited number of ports. But manifestly the problem which presents itself there in different to that which presents itself here, where we have passengers arriving day and night at a great number of ports, after a voyage of perhaps a couple of hours. Their examination would surely cause great inconvenience to the general passenger traffic to and from this country. If this Bill is to be effectual it will affect a large number of people, because you will have to make your inquiries broad enough to obstruct to some extent the passage of people who turn out not to be pauper aliens. You cannot on investigation determine who are pauper aliens, without investigating a great number of eases beyond those who are intended to be affected by legislation of this description. It seems to me that there is an immense practical difficulty, and that the mode in which that difficulty can be met, whether it can be met without introducing evils of a very serious character, has not been made the subject as yet of investigation. This is a very important subject, and it is one upon which, without information, it is difficult to determine how far legislation of this sort, in the

  279
  circumstances of this country, is really practicable and desirable. My Lords, I assume that a person is intended to be excluded in all cases under this Bill, although he may be a perfectly able-bodied man, and in a condition to gain his own livelihood, unless he has some means beyond his labour or the possibilities of labour. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) shakes his head, but that, is one of the difficulties. The section says "a pauper, or a person likely to become a public charge." The latter are separately dealt with, and, therefore, I apprehend that paupers are those who are not likely to become a public charge.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: A pauper is a person who has already become a public charge.
  LORD HERSCHELL: That would be a person who has already been in this country and become a public charge or become a public charge somewhere else; but that would not touch the great bulk of those with whom the noble Earl desires to deal, or who come to compete with the labour of this country. That is a construction which would limit the operation of the Bill, and defeat the object for which it is intended. The observation of the noble Marquess has suggested the extreme expediency of such an inquiry as the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council referred to on the previous occasion—namely, an inquiry as to the classes who ought to be dealt with, and how they can practically be dealt with by legislation of this kind. How can inspection enable the question to be answered whether a man is an immigrant, and, next, whether he is an immigrant who ought to be admitted or excluded? My Lords, I do not think there can be any difference of opinion that there are very considerable evils connected with the immigration of poor persons into this country. I do not at all dispute many of the observations and statements which have been made by the noble Earl with regard to that; but when you are dealing with the question of the effect of the presence of these aliens upon the condition of the working classes of this country, I do not think the problem is nearly so simple as it appears to the
  280
  noble Earl. It does not follow that the exclusion of these immigrants would lead necessarily to an increase of profitable labour for the working classes of this country. It might, on the other hand, tend to its diminution, and I will explain why I say so. There can be no doubt that a very large amount of the labour of these immigrants is devoted to the making of clothes; and by means of their cheap labour there has been a considerable increase in our export trade in ready-made clothes during the last 20 or 30 years. If the exclusion of these aliens would enable that trade to remain, and to remain in the hands of British, workmen, the British workmen would, of course, benefit; but, my Lords, it does not follow that this would be the result. If the cheap labour were no longer available, the trade might collapse, and it is perfectly conceivable that you might exclude those who have been so working, and yet have no greater wage fund with which to pay the workmen of this country. But there is another consideration. The fact that the clothes are made here has the effect, almost certainly, of causing a larger manufacture in this country of the materials from which the clothes are made, and the materials, for example, with which the clothes are sewn. If you were to destroy the export trade in ready-made clothes, the result would be that those engaged in the manufacture of the cloth, etc., would be seriously affected. Obviously, the money value of the cloth and materials is greater than that of the labour used in making these cheap clothes; so that, on the whole, the working classes of the country might suffer from the destruction of the trade. That is the difficulty of touching any such question as this without full consideration. It maybe said that this question of the immigration of aliens is a serious one in the East End of London, although the number is not large in respect to the total population. That is true, but I do not know whether it would be much satisfaction to the working classes in other parts of the country if you were to say that because of that evil in particular parts of London you were going to take a step which might on the whole diminish the wages which the working classes throughout the country may receive. I

  281
  am not, for a moment, pretending to dogmatise on this subject, but the problem is not so simple as has been suggested. The matter goes deeper. I understand that the export trade in ready-made clothing amounts to many millions a year, and that it is almost entirely curried in British ships. It is, therefore, manifest that if you interfere with this trade you injure not only shippers but shipbuilders, because, of course, the number of ships required depends on the amount of the carrying trade. Therefore, under the belief that you were restricting unfair competition, you might be doing more harm than good to the working classes. There still remains the social question, which I do not wish to ignore. I do not deny that this question deserves thorough consideration, but the object of my observations is to point the moral which the noble Duke brought before the House on the last occasion—namely, that this subject is a very difficult one, and deserves careful inquiry before we commit ourselves to legislative action in the matter.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words on this Bill, because I represent, on the London County Council, a constituency in the East End of London. I have thought it my duty to find out whether the noble Earl who introduced this Bill is right or wrong in what he says is the opinion of the East End on this question. Now, my Lords, the Secretary to the Board of Trade has stated, with a great deal of confidence, "certain facts," as he calls them, but, my Lords, I have no very great trust in the facts of the noble Earl. The noble Earl, in the first place, appears to be perfectly convinced, and he thinks the House ought unanimously to agree with him, that the class of persons who would come under the definition of "destitute aliens" are a class of persons who are the least capable and the least efficient of the population; but if this Bill had been in operation 200 years ago, and the Huguenots had been prevented by it from coming into England, the British nation would have been very much poorer to-day. I do not believe that the great majority of thinking people in the East End of London
  282
  are at all convinced that, it you had legislation of this kind, most of the people it would keep out would necessarily be the least efficient and the least desirable. The noble Earl goes on to say that these destitute aliens form themselves into colonies of their own. Yes, my Lords, to a great extent they do, and to a great extent this is beneficial, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, to British industry. I will give your Lordships an instance of that. I was a member of the Sweating Committee, which took a great deal of evidence on this subject. It was elicited that a certain class of work, notably in the boot trade, which Englishmen, for some reason or other, could not or would not do, was done by these destitute aliens, and that a great impetus was given thereby to the leather trade. There is another matter. I do not myself attach so much importance as the noble Lord to the suggestion that we get our work done cheaper by these destitute aliens. The evidence before the Sweating Committee showed that while it was true that when they first came to this country they accepted low wages, they were, when they had gained experience, just as keen as other people to obtain the highest wages possible. Now, my Lords, we really come to the crucial point. Is the noble Earl who introduced this Bill right in saying that there is a strong feeling on this matter in the East End of London? I have done the best I can to find out what the feeling is in the East End. I have gone to Toynbee Hall, in the middle of Whitechapel, where, if anywhere, there ought to be a strong feeling against destitute aliens, and have, on two occasions, addressed a working-class audience there, open and free to everyone, on the subject; and on both occasions the room was packed, and the result of the voting was two to one against any restrictions whatever to the immigration of destitute aliens. I do not say there is no feeling in the matter. No doubt the minority who voted in favour of restriction agreed with the noble Earl, but I think we ought to have more information on the subject before legislating. With regard to the question of sanitation and overcrowding, surely there are other means of preventing these evils. It is said that a large number of these people are ultimately

  283
  charged on the rates; but as most of them are Jews they are taken care of by Jewish societies, and there is hardly an instance in the East End of London of a Jew being charged on the rates.
  VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, I want to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having discovered a truly cast-iron Tory Measure, and on reverting to the principle of the Land Act of 1881, which they are so fond of. The noble Earl who introduced this Measure laid great stress on what I, as an Irishman, may call the "rise in rint" which has been brought about in the East End of London by the immigration of destitute aliens. He said that rent had gone up from 6d. to 5s. in some instances. That struck me as a very large rise. I wish we could get a rise like that in Ireland. I should like to ask the noble Earl how a pauper pays this 5s.? The noble Earl, the Secretary to the Board of Trade, talked about there being desirable immigrants and undesirable immigrants. I suppose that is the fault of human nature. I should prefer them of the Senior Wrangler class, and done over with rose water. I do not like the principle or the methods of this Bill. I think this country has gained a great deal by the immigration of aliens in former years. It is said that the immigrants of former years were not of the low and degraded class to which the present immigrants belong, but how are you to ascertain what their class is on their landing? I have no doubt many of them turn out very valuable people. This Bill is part and parcel of that horrid legislation that was inaugurated in 1881, which some people call motherly, and others grandmotherly, and under which no one can stir to the right or to the left without the permission of the State. If it comes to a Vote, I shall have very great pleasure in voting against this Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am a little puzzled at the various grounds of objection to this Bill. The noble Lord who represents the county Council in this House has put forward two grounds of objection to the Bill. One is that if the Bill had been in opera-
  284
  tion at the time we might have rejected the Huguenots. The other was that he himself had addressed two meetings at Toynbee Hall, an institution of very advanced political proclivities, I believe, and that at those meetings he found that two-thirds of the assembly agreed with himself. I am surprised that the proportion was so small. I do not think that either of these two grounds can affect the attitude of the House towards this Bill, or be said to be adequate reasons for dealing in a hostile manner with it. The noble Lord who has just sat down appears to object to the Bill because it is one on the lines of the Land Act of 1881. I have the strongest possible objection to that Act, and have always been prepared to join in any reasonable denunciation of it, but I cannot see what it has to do with this Hill. As to the objection of the noble and learned Lord opposite, that this Bill is introduced by a private Member of the House, the noble and learned Lord has tried to fasten upon us a set of formulas which has grown up in the House of Commons from the very nature of their procedure. The Government must have the control of the business of that House. That control is increasing every year to such a degree that private Members are crying out loudly on the subject. Consequently, it is reasonable that the most important subjects of legislation should be looked for at the hands of the Government, but in this House the Government has no more control over the order of legislation than any other Member of the House, and there is no reason whatever for the idea that that class of Measures, that is to say, all Measures of importance, should be reserved for the action of the Government; and I would remind the noble and learned Lord, especially in respect of social matters, that the principle is of very modern growth. He will remember that the whole of that long series of Acts which dealt with the lot of the labourer in various manufactures were almost all introduced by a private Member—Lord Shaftesbury.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My point is that they had not, so far as I know, been promised in Queen's Speeches.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not sure about that. I should think they had. We have not thought fit to bring this Bill forward, because we have not thought that we should be able to find room in the House of Commons for it, but that is no reason why we should not encourage the noble Earl to bring it forward. The last thing necessary in this House is to discourage independent Members from bringing Legislation forward. On the contrary, I wish that by some means we could induce independent Members to take a very much larger share in the deliberative duties of the House. The state of the case is this: every nation in the world has one of two powers—cither the power of absolutely turning aliens from its shores, or the power which they possess in America of forbidding them to enter the country if they are likely to become a public charge. I only use that phrase because it is the most comprehensive of all, and includes idiots, lunatics, and persons suffering from any dangerous, contagious, or infectious disease. I understand that the word "pauper" is added to the words "a person likely to become a public charge," because it indicates that if a person already has been a public charge that is a presumption that he will become so here, and that he had better remain in his own country. There is no doubt that this power is possessed by all countries, and that is, to my mind, a very considerable answer to the demands of the noble and learned Lord for an inquiry. On new and virgin subjects no doubt inquiries are very interesting, and sometimes of great utility; but I confess I look sometimes with despair on the ever-increasing pile of Blue Books on my table on one subject or another, at times so voluminous that they would discourage the most active reader. I remember that one Commission sat for five years, and printed as much evidence as would cover half an acre of land, and no action has yet been taken. Still, no doubt Commissions are valuable things, but they are not the only means of information; and when you find that every other country in the world, whether despotic or democratic, or whether of the Teutonic or
  286
  Latin races, has this legislation, I think we may say that the inquiry is concluded, and that it is not necessary to delay legislation for the purpose of carrying inquiry further. The noble and learned Lord dwelt upon the difficulty of selecting destitute aliens from the numbers that come, as he expressed it, every day the two-hours' journey across the Channel. I think the noble Lord has not noticed the power given in the Bill to select the ports at which it shall be carried into execution. No one proposes that Folkestone or Dover should be of the number, because it is not there that the number of destitute aliens is really formidable. There are other ports in the country, which will readily occur to the mind of the noble Lord, where such aliens come in considerable numbers, and not many other passengers. It appears to me that this legislation is wise and desirable, and I shall certainly support my noble Friend for this reason: that the number is increasing of those chargeable to the rates. The noble and learned Lord dwelt very much upon the politico-economical question of whether it would save British workmen from competition. That is an important consideration. It has had its due weight with the advocates of the Measure, but it is not the only—I doubt if it is the most important—consideration. The evil is that these destitute aliens are concentrated on particular portions of the community, upon particular parishes, and that they weigh down the rates where the rates are already a heavy burden. I am told—and this is an answer to the noble Lord who spoke last but one [Lord Monkswell]—that in 1897 980 aliens were relieved in St. George's-in-the-East, of whom 908 were Russian and Polish Jews. Now, that seems to me to dispose of the contention that the Jewish community relieves them all. We are the only country which undertakes as a necessary obligation the maintenance of those who are destitute, and we conceive that we have a right, which we ought to exercise, to refuse to have the destitution, the abject destitution often, of other countries thrust upon our shores, to add to the obligations with which we have to deal. The rates are hard enough as it is. I know no more helpless, no more pathetic figure in our present community

  287
  than the English ratepayer. If you read the Statutes you would imagine that he had unlimited power of protecting himself. In reality, he has no power whatever. Boards have been called into existence, whose chief duty appears to be to pile new burdens on his shoulders, and his inability to combine is so great that he is at the mercy of every spoiler. The rates are rising, rising, rising, and many philanthropic members of the community think there is no better way in which they can spend their time than in discovering new modes by which new rates can be laid upon the ratepayer. I wish, at all events, to save him from a burden which he ought not to bear. He ought not to bear the destitution which had its origin in foreign lands, and which is due to the social and political government of those lands; and my desire to do that is not diminished when I look at the circumstances of the world at large. It is evident that the power of communities to deal with the burdens which political circumstances put on them is diminishing rather than increasing, that the roll of destitute persons in every foreign country, or almost every foreign country, is becoming larger and more formidable, that the difficulty of struggling against taxation, which is constantly increasing, is rising higher and higher, and that under the pressure of that weight they seek lands where there is greater prosperity, and more chance that industry may flourish. That is the danger which is constantly growing. I cannot see on the horizon any Louis XIV. driving any Huguenots to our shores, but I do see political arrangement and political aspirations of which the effect is to increase the burdens and fetter the industry of the people, and to augment the number of those who seek in flight from their native shores refuge from the evils forced on them by political circumstances. I should be glad if time permitted that we should grapple with this evil at once. It may be that we shall not be able to do so, but I must say that it is an evil, not very large in extent—for it practically applies in force to a few parishes only—but it is an evil of a very real and genuine kind, to which the attention of the social reformer ought to
  288
  be drawn, and with which I think Parliament ought, at the earliest possible opportunity, to undertake to courageously deal.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the closing sentences of the noble Marquess's remarks were, no doubt, very impressive, but I cannot help thinking that the considerations he put with so much weight before the House are rather of too much magnitude to apply to what, after all, is but a small evil, if it be one at all. It is impossible to believe that the burdens of this country, no doubt heavy enough, are really largely and sensibly increased by a certain number of aliens who come here and are unable to get their own livings. The question is, and I think it is by no means clearly proved, whether, when the balance is struck, it is really to our disadvantage to allow aliens to come into this country. I am myself inclined to believe that it is by no means a disadvantage to the country to receive, at all events, a certain amount of foreign blood from time to time. But, my Lords, one argument was used by the noble Marquess from which I dissent altogether. I never before heard it laid down as a general proposition that where foreign nations are agreed upon some particular matter this nation ought necessarily to follow their example. There are many things as to which foreign nations are in agreement, whilst this country always has taken, and I hope always will take, a different view. I must confess—looking to the great differences between different countries, their varied interests, their different forms of government, and the different condition of their people—I do not attach very great weight to the measures which they may have taken on this subject. Other countries are, of course, the best judges of their own interests, but it is our business to determine for ourselves what our interests demand, having regard to the circumstances of our population. My main contention is very much the same as that of my noble Friend near me. When you have to deal with a very complicated matter, which is not urgently pressing, which is controversial, and which admits of considerable diversity of opinion, it may be

  289
  wise to have it investigated by a Commission or Committee. In the circumstances, I think it would be far better not to pledge ourselves to the Second Reading of this Bill before we possess the information showing that such a measure can be safely and wisely passed. For these reasons, although the Bill contains some provisions to which nobody can object—for example, the provision for the exclusion of lunatics—I am disposed not to agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.

  CONTENTS

  81

  NOT-CONTENTS

  19

  CONTENTS

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

  Balfour, L.

  Belper, L.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Blythswood, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Grafton, D.

  Rutland, D.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Westminster, D.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Connemara, L.

  Crawshaw, L.

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

  de Ros, L.

  Erskine, L.

  Farquhar, L.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Harris, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Herries, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Iveagh, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Derby, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Llangattock, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Ludlow, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Morris, L.

  Grey, E.

  Mount Stephen, L.

  Hardwicke, E. [Teller.]

  Newton, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Norton, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Morley, E.

  Romney, E.

  Pirbright, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

  Rathmore, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Rowton, L..

  St. Levan, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Sherborne, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Knutsford, V.

  Llandaff, V.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Tollemache, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Windsor, L.

  290

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Burghclere, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Herschell, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

  Hobhouse, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Spencer, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Reay, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Aberdare, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Barnard, L.

  Welby, L.

  Bill read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, June 14th next.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (LIABILITY OF SHIPOWNERS) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  LICENSING (DISQUALIFICATION OF JUSTICES REMOVAL) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  LUNACY BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  PARISH CHURCHES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order); passed, and sent to the Commons.

  FUNERAL OF MR. GLADSTONE.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before we separate I beg to move, with your Lordships' permission—
  "That this House do attend the funeral of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone on Saturday next."
  Question put.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at 6.15.