Sitting of 30 June 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:

  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].
    NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills that

  1131
  in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.
  SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  ST. JAMES'S AND PALL MALL ELECTRIC LIGHT BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Tuesday next.
  INVERNESS HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  Queen's Consent signified. Read the third time and passed, with Amendments.
  COBHAM GAS BILL [Lords].
    STRETFORD GAS BILL [Lords].
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  MILLWALL DOCK BILL.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed.

  WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
  Bill read the third time accordingly, and passed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Order of 6th June referring the Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill to a Committee be read, and discharged.
  Ordered, that the Bill be withdrawn.—(Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Reported with an Amended Title [Provisional Order relating to Bradford (Yorks.) not confirmed; remaining Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  LOWESTOFT WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  GREAT GRIMSBY STREET TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  ALL SAINTS' CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

  YORKE ESTATE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  KIRKCALDY CORPORATION AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    PAISLEY AND BARRHEAD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
    Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  BIRMINGHAM, NORTH WARWICKSHIRE, AND STRATFORD-UPON -AVON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Report [29th June] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next.
PETITIONS.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1845.
  Petition from Alness, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Kinghorn, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  Copy presented,—Of Letter from the Foreign Office to the Treasury, dated 15th June, 1899, with respect to the revocation of the Charter of the Royal Niger Company, and to the taking over by Her Majesty's Government of the administrative rights and powers of the Company; together with copies of the Treasury Minute on the subject, dated 30th June, 1899, and relative Schedules [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Copy presented,—Of Seventy-seventh Report of the Commissioners; dated 29th June, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 257.]
  FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
  Copy presented,—Of Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom for the year ended 31st March, 1899 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 258.]
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Copy presented,—of List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 20th June, 1899, and charged upon the Civil List [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 259.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN OVERTIME IN WASHING BOTTLES, &c.)
  Copy presented,—of Order of Secretary of State for the Home Department extending to Factories and Workshops in which the Washing of Bottles for use in the preserving of fruit is carried on, the Special Exception (Employment of Women Overtime) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY COMMISSIONS.
  Address for "Return of the number of Commissions granted during each of the years 1885 to 1898, inclusive, specifying the numbers granted from the ranks (a) as Second Lieutenants; (b) as Quartermasters and Riding Masters: and also the number granted from other sources in (1) Engineers and Artillery; (2) Cavalry; (3) Infantry; showing percentage of those given under (a) to those granted from other sources."—(Mr. Pirie.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to: Fine or Imprisonment (Scotland and Ireland) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 18) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 19) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have agreed to: Kensington and Notting Hill Electric Lighting Bill; Barry Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (New Railways) Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—

  BARTON-ON-SEA WATER BILL [Lords].

    LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DISTRICT) WATER BILL [Lords].
    Without Amendment.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to Amend Section 20 of The

    1135
    Parish of Manchester Division Act, 1850" [Manchester Canonries Bill [Lords].
    And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm an Agreement between the Fylde Waterworks Company and the Fylde Water Board for the Sale and Purchase of the Company's undertaking, to Consolidate and Amend the Acts relating to the Company; and for other purposes." [Fylde Water Board Bill [Lords].

  FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
  Read 1a, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS>
  QUESTIONS.

    WAR OFFICE ESTABLISHMENT.
    MR. MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the present occupant will, on the 22nd of December next, have acted in the capacity of Staff Paymaster in the Quartermaster General's branch of the War Office for six years and four months (such appointments being usually for five years only), he will take steps to ensure the appointment as from the 22nd of December next of an officer with recent experience of the Pay Department work outside the War Office.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Secretary of State will await the recommendations of the Quartermaster-General.

    FORT GEORGE WATER SUPPLY.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what progress is being made with the scheme for providing Fort George with an adequate supply of water.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Orders have been issued to the contractor to lay down the mains.
    MR. WEIR: When will this satisfactory supply of water be provided for these barracks?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Within a reasonable period.

    UNDER-AGE RECRUITS.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for
    1136
    War if he can explain how it was that Private Joseph M'Combie, Gordon Highlanders, was accepted as a recruit in 1897, although born in 1882, and therefore only 15 years old at time of enlistment; whether, seeing that the Government refuse to require the production of a certificate of birth on enlistment for the Army, as is done in the Navy, steps can be taken to check the increasing practice of enlisting boys below the nominal regulation age by holding the recruiting and medical authorities responsible when errors as to age of recruits are proved; whether the recruiting and medical authorities are prompted to treat the age regulations as non-essential by being given to understand that subjects for enlistment must be provided regardless of qualifications; and whether in the above case those responsible for the enlistment of Private Joseph M'Combie will be reprimanded for their disregard of regulation as to age.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have not been able as yet to obtain full information in regard to the particular case in question. It is difficult to form an exact judgment of age from a medical examination; but for errors such as can be avoided the medical officers are held responsible. They are not prompted to treat the age regulations as non-essential, and no such understanding exists.

    THE MILITARY WORKS LOAN ACT, 1897.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, would he state the total sum to be obtained under the Military Works Loan Act, 1897, and the continuation of it for which a resolution was passed last week; of that total, what is the amount to be expended on the United Kingdom, and what sums are to be spent in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively; what decision has been come to as regards the Piershill Barracks, Edinburgh; and where are the proposed convalescent homes for the Army to be situated.
    MR. WYNDHAM: In reply to Paragraphs 1 and 2 the figures are as follow: Loan 1897, £5,458,000; loan 1899, £4,000,000; total, £9,458,000. The amounts apportioned to barracks, rifle ranges, and married quarters at home are as follow: England, £4,124,500; Scotland, £65,000; Ireland, £741,400; total United Kingdom, £4,930,900. No provi'

    1137
    Sion has been made in the Bill which has been read a first time for Piershill Barracks, but they are included in the complete War Office scheme. I shall be happy to supply the hon. and gallant Member with a list of the stations to which it is proposed to send convalescent soldiers.

    ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY CHAPEL.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether £292 is now being paid from the Army Votes for the maintenance of the chapel at the Small Arms Factory at Enfield; whether he is aware that the services in the chapel, as conducted by Mr. Carter, include several matters and ceremonies which have been condemned as illegal by the judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and under other judgments of ecclesiastical courts; whether Her Majesty's Government, in providing out of public money for a church service for the workmen, guarantee to those workmen that they shall have the service of the Church of England, as determined by the Prayer Book and the courts; and whether the Secretary of State will either take steps to ensure that the service at this chapel shall be conducted according to law, or discontinue this chapel altogether, in view of the local facilities for attendance at religions services at other churches and places of worship.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The annual amount paid from Army votes for the chapel at the Small Arms Factory is about £197. As I stated in reply to a question on the 12th of this month, the chapel was built at Enfield because there were no other churches within a reasonable distance; and the responsibility for the service rests with the vicar of the parish, who provides a curate. No complaint has been received as to the character of the services, and the Secretary of State does not propose to interfere.
    MR. CHANNING: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the third paragraph of the question?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman quite sees the distinction between the Enfield and other chapels. At Enfield we merely contribute as any other employer of labour might.
    MR. WEIR: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of abolishing payment for ritualistic services?
    (No answer was given.)

    INDIAN GUARANTEED AND SUBSI DISED RAILWAYS.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what amount was, during the second portion of the year 1898, provided out of current Indian revenues to make up the difference between the net earnings of the guaranteed and subsidised Indian railways for that period, and the amount required for interest and dividends under contract; and whether he will present a statement showing the sums paid during the period referred to out of State revenues to the several railway companies, together with any sums which may have accrued to the public revenues from railways the net earnings of which exceeded the guaranteed interest during the same period.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The Government accounts are not prepared according to the calendar year. I have no objection to have a statement prepared from the accounts of the several Indian Railway Companies, to show, with as much accuracy as practicable, the position of the Government in respect of the guaranteed and subsidised companies in the two half-years of 1898. To take the second half-year alone would be misleading.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary for India whether he will state what has been the falling off in the gross earnings of the Indian Railways since 1st April, the beginning of the present financial year; and whether such reductions will affect the General Budget Estimate of 1899–1900, to be considered by the House at a later stage of the session.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The gross earnings of the Indian Railways from the 1st of April to the 20th of May, 1899, were Rx.4,094,030, or less by Rx.441,192 than the earnings in the corresponding period of 1898, which were unusually large. The prospect of the Railway Revenue Account will, of course, form one point for consideration in the discussion that will take place on the Financial Statement for the current year.

    CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN INDIA.
    MR. J. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the notification recently issued from the Political Department of the Government of India purporting to extend jurisdiction, under the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, to a tract of country bordered on the east by the Deva Ismail Khan district, and on the west by the Bargha Shiranis country; whether this region is beyond the frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian possessions; and, if so, whether he will state under whose authority, and by what statutory sanction, does the jurisdiction of the Indian Government purport to be established on such foreign territory; and whether he will state whether any civil or military officers of the Indian Government are stationed in that tract; and, if so, when and how will the consent of Parliament be asked, as required by the Act of 1858, to sanction the consequent expenditure of Indian revenues beyond the frontiers?
    LORD G. HAMILTON: (1) I am aware that a notification under the Indian Foreign Jurisdiction Act has been issued in respect of the Bargha Shiranis country; (2) the country lies outside the administrative borders of the Punjab, but inside the frontier of Her Majesty's Indian possessions. As Her Majesty has foreign jurisdiction in the tract, action has been legally taken under the Indian Foreign Jurisdiction Act; (3) a native extra Assistant Commissioner is stationed in the tract, and no action under the Act of 1858 is required.

    INDIAN MEDICAL REGULATIONS.
    MR. STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Circular issued from Simla, on the 18th of June, 1898, for the purpose of ascertaining from the various medical schools whether female hospital assistants could be obtained to engage in the examination of prostitutes in India; and if he will state the result of the inquiry how many of such hospital assistants have consented to perform these examinations, and on what terms they have been engaged.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: I have seen no copy of the circular in question, but I will make inquiries on the subject.

    THE EGYPTIAN EXILES.
    MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been informed that the Egyptian political exiles in Ceylon are complaining of enfeebled health, and pray to be allowed to return in their old age to their native country; that Arabi Pasha cannot walk without support; that Yakoob Sand Pasha is suffering from heart disease, and is unable to take exercise; that Mahmond Sami Pasha is fast losing his eyesight; and that Ali Fehmi Pasha has to subsist entirely on milk diet owing to general debility; and whether, in view of the injurious effects produced on their health by their long banishment, and in consideration of their age and the present condition of Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will follow the course pursued in the case of Toulba Pasha in the cases of these four remaining political exiles.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The accounts received from Ceylon do not altogether bear out the statements made in the first paragraph. The reports on the health of the exiles have been forwarded to Her Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt. But so long as the Egyptian Government have reason to believe that the return of the remaining exiles will be dangerous to public order, Her Majesty's Government cannot press for the concession.

    BRITISH-OWNED PROPERTY AT HANKOW.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that on 2nd January, 1899, the premises of Messrs. Evans, Pugh, and Company (a British firm at Hankow) were forcibly entered by Cossacks, who prevented hides being carried in and threw their goods on the premises outside; whether the premises referred to were included in the Russian concession; whether the Foreign Office made two distinct declarations that British-owned property cannot be included in Russian concession without consent of owner; whether the owner of the afore-mentioned premises protested on sixteen occasions against the inclusion of his property in the Russian concession; and whether he

    1141
    can inform the House as to the present position of Messrs. Evans and Pugh, Messrs. Jardine and Matheson, Messrs. Bassoon, and other British owners in Hankow whose land was appropriated or sold by auction by the Russian Consul.
    MR. BRODRICK: On the 2nd January Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin received a telegram from the British Consul at Hankow stating that the Cossack police had prevented the hides being conveyed to Mr. Whistler's premises in the Russian concession. Sir C. MacDonald at once communicated with his Russian colleague, who telegraphed to Hankow ordering all such action to be stopped. At the instance of Her Majesty's Consul at Hankow the Russian authorities had repeatedly granted extensions of the term allowed to Messrs. Evans, Pugh and Company to find another site for their business, tanneries not being permitted near dwelling-houses by municipal regulations. Her Majesty's Government hold that no British-owned property can be included in a foreign concession without the owners consent, and a large addition to the British concession at Hankow was demanded from and granted by the Chinese authorities as compensation in consequence of this having been done at Hankow. Messrs. Evans, Pugh's case has been settled by their acceptance of an offer made to them by the Chinese authorities, which will enable them to carry on their business in the British extension without loss. The case of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson's lots is at present under discussion with the Russian Government. It is a question of title. As regards Messrs. Sassoon's case, Her Majesty's Minister reported on February 14th that matters were awaiting the return from England of their agent, and we have no more recent information.

    FRENCH SETTLEMENT AT SHANGHAI.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can explain the present position of the settlement diptute at Shanghai, and whether the French Government have yet abandoned their claims to exclusive rights, control, and jurisdiction over a portion of this important port in the Yang-tsze Valley; whether Her Majesty's Government have ever admitted the French claim that their portion
    1142
    of the settlement at Shanghai is to be treated as the soil of France, while they claim and exercise equal rights of control with the British Consul in the British portion of the settlement; and whether the French have any justification for their claim that the Province of Szechuan is in the French sphere of influence.
    MR. BRODRICK: As the result of protracted negotiations the extension of the International Settlement at Shanghai, in which all Powers, France included, possess equal rights, has recently been granted. The French Government are urging upon the Chinese authorities a modification of the character of the exclusive French Settlement, which has existed there for some time; but we are imperfectly informed as to the details. Szechuan is one of the two provinces in which it was agreed by the Declaration of January, 1896, that all privileges and advantages secured by either England or France should be rendered common to both Powers.

    THE SINKING OF THE "KOW SHING."
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of the claim of a British firm against the Chinese Government for the sinking of the "Kow Shing," the date of the last communication of Her Majesty's Government on the subject addressed to the Tsang-li-Yamên, and the date of their reply; and whether any limit has been fixed to the reasonable time to be given to the Chinese Government indicated by the Under Secretary for War two months ago.
    MR. BRODRICK: We are still awaiting a reply from the Chinese Government to the proposal that the question should be referred to arbitration, and a note was sent to the Chinese Minister on the 9th ultimo, pressing for a reply. The answer to the second question is in the negative.

    HERRING TRADE WITH ST. PETERS BURG.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that in April last Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg was instructed to make renewed representations, with the view to obtain further improvements in the facilities for the discharge and storage of

    1143
    herrings at St. Petersburg, will the Government now state the result of those representations.
    MR. BRODRICK: The answer of the Russian Government to the representations made by Her Majesty's Ambassador in April last has not yet been received.

    BARRACLOUGH v. THE BISHOP OF ST. HELENA.
    SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the fact that the Governor of St. Helena, who acts as Chief Justice of the island, has tried the same action of Barraclough v. the Bishop of St. Helena on four different occasions, with the following results: the first trial, verdict for the defendant; the second (granted by the Governor on the ground that he misdirected the jury in the first case) for the defendant; the third against the executors of the Bishop, who had died in the meantime (again granted on the ground of misdirection in the second trial), the jury could not agree and were dismissed; the fourth for the defendants; that the Governor then refused to accept the verdict, deprived the jury of their fees, and finally decided the case himself for the plaintiff; whether, under the laws of St. Helena, there is any limit to the number of times the same action, raising the same issues, may be tried by the same judge; and whether a strong representation, signed by three out of four members of the Council of St. Helena, has been sent to the Secretary of State on the subject of the Governor's administration of justice; and, if so, whether any sters have been or will be taken to inquire into the statements of the members of the Council.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): (1) I have received from unofficial sources information substantially to the effect of the statements in the hon. Baronet's first question, and I have called upon the Governor for a full report and explanations. (2) The law of St. Helena on the subject of civil actions is substantially the same as the law of England. (3) I have received such a representation; most of the statements contained in it were sufficiently answered by the Governor. When I receive his Report on the matter referred to in the
    1144
    first question, I shall consider what further action, if any, is required.

    LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES.
    MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he yet sees a reasonable prospect of making progress with a Bill for the greater protection of water supplies, so as to give more extensive powers to local authorities to deal with the water supply of the districts under their control. And, whether he can see his way to bring in a Government Bill making the county Councils (with the exception of the London County Council, which already has such powers) the water authority of their respective districts.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): As regards the second paragraph of the question, I could not give an undertaking to suggest the county councils as the authority for the purpose in question, and in reply to the first part of the question I cannot say, having regard to the present state of public business, that the prospect of being able to make progress with the Bill referred to is very promising.

    SMALL-POX AT HULL.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is in a position to state the number of patients during the present epidemic of small-pox at Hull who were vaccinated, and the number of those who were unvaccinated, and also the percentage of deaths of those who were vaccinated and unvaccinated respectively.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Of the 83 cases of small-pox at Hull, as to which the Local Government Board have information, 62 showed evidence on examination of having been vaccinated, and 21 appeared to have been unvaccinated. The rate of death amongst patients exhibiting evidence of vaccination has been 9.7 per cent., whilst amongst those exhibiting no evidence of vaccination it has been 57·1 per cent.

    THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to circulate before Monday any

    1145
    Papers in reference to the transfer of the Royal Niger Company.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,): I hope to lay Papers on the Table on Monday.

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
    MR. McKENNA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the number of cases in which the amount of tithe rent-charge not severed from a benefice exceeds £1,000, exceeds £500 and does not exceed £1,000, and exceeds £100 and does not exceed £500 respectively, and the total amount of the tithe rent-charge in each of the categories named.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): I regret that it is not possible for me to give the information desired by the hon. Member in the precise form in which he asks for it, but I may state as the result of inquiries which I recently made that in 255 cases the rateable value of the tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice was found to exceed £500, in 273 cases it exceeded £400, and did not exceed £500, whilst in 7,263 cases it did not exceed £160, and in 2,700 cases, although it exceeded £160, it did not exceed £400. There were therefore, 10,236 cases below £500, and 255 cases above it.

    INVER WATER SUPPLY.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the result of the communications which have passed between the Local Government Board and the local authority of the Easter Ross district in regard to the unsatisfactory water supply of Inver village, in the Parish of Tain, Ross-shire.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I am informed by the Local Government Board that since the hon. Member asked a question on this subject they have been in communication with the local authority of the Easter Ross district of the county. The locality is an exceedingly poor one, and consequently the formation of a special water supply district is quite impracticable; but, on the advice of the Board, measures are being taken to safeguard the existing
    1146
    wells from surface contamination and other sources of pollution. A new source well, removed from any such risks, has been opened, and pending more elaborate arrangements the opening of further new wells is contemplated under the directions of the sanitary inspector.

    ABERDEEN CEMETERY SCANDAL.
    GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state the result of the investigations which were being conducted into the alleged desecration of graves in Aberdeen; and whether all those who are accused of being implicated in these desecrations are to be prosecuted.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The investigation is still proceeding. I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer I gave my hon. and gallant friend on the 19th instant.

    CREWS OF SCOTTISH FISHERY CRUISERS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of days' leave of absence granted to the crew of each of the Scottish Fishery Board cruisers during the year 1898.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed that the granting of leave to the crews of the Fishery Board cruisers is left to the discretion of the commanders and that the Scottish Office receives no reports on the subject.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he gave a like answer to a similar question some time ago? I want to know the number of days these men are allowed for a holiday.
    MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I do not know. It is a matter in the discretion of the commanding officer.
    MR. WEIR: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find out and furnish me with the information.

    RE-HOUSING OF DISPLACED PERSONS.
    MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement of Mr. Harold Hodge, Chairman of the Bethnal Green Branch of the Mansion House Council for the Housing of the Poor, that the London School Board have recently acquired a

    1147
    site in Bethnal Green, known as the Wood Street site, including twenty houses belonging to the labouring classes; that the site was divided into two portions, one containing thirteen houses dealt with in an Act of 1895, the other containing seven houses dealt with in the Act of 1896; and whether any provision has been made for the rehousing of the persons so displaced; and, if not, whether he will take measures to prevent what appears to be an evasion of the law.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Wood Street site in Bethnal Green, acquired by the London School Board in two separate portions in 1895 and 1896, has been so acquired for what is essentially one scheme; that the site comprised twenty-one houses in the occupation of persons belonging to the labouring classes, but that no provision has been made for rehousing of persons displaced by such acquisition; and what steps he intends taking to remedy the inconvenience caused thereby in such a thickly populated district as Bethnal Green.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it has been brought to his knowledge that in the same locality, under the Act of 1896, the London School Board took nineteen houses in one street without making provision for the rehousing of the displaced occupiers, and will he take steps to prevent the systematic evasion of the law.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE-RIDLEY,): If my hon. friend the Member for North East Bethnal Green will permit me, I will answer his question also at the same time as that of my right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University. I am informed by the London School Board that the facts are substantially as stated in the Questions, and that no provision for rehousing the displaced persons has been made, as no liability to rehouse arose under the Statutes. I propose to communicate further with the Board upon the subject, and, if necessary, with the Education Department.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: If I give the right hon. Gentleman particulars of the case I have mentioned will he make similar inquiries?
    SIR M. WHITE-RIDLEY: I understood the hon. Gentleman to be referring to the same case.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: No, not the same case, but a precisely similar one in the same locality.
    SIR M. WHITE-RIDLEY: I shall be prepared to look into any case.

    FATAL ACCIDENTS.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of fatal accidents, under the heads quarries, factories, and miscellaneous, since the 1st July, 1898, as compared with an equal period prior to the 1st July, 1898; whether it is computed that in railways and mines the fatal accidents bear a larger proportion to the number of hands employed than they did previously; and what reason is given by his advisers for any apparent proportional increase in the case of quarries, factories, and docks.
    SIR M. WHITE-RIDLEY: The numbers of fatal accidents during the eleven months from July, 1898, to May, 1899, were—in factories, 610; in quarries, 129; under the Notice of Accidents Act, 51. The corresponding numbers for the eleven months prior to July, 1898, were 459, 95, and 58. As regards railways and mines, there are no returns showing the number of hands employed during the present year; but taking the figures for the previous four years I find that there has been a satisfactory decrease in the proportion of fatal accidents to persons employed. In the case of factories, docks, and quarries the increase of fatal accidents is, I am advised, to be attributed almost entirely to the improvement of trade. If the hon. Member will refer to the statistics of fatal accidents in factories given in Table 98 of the Abstract of Labour statistics, 1897–8, he will find that the number of accidents in factories regularly rises and falls according to the state of trade. The greater part of the increase during the past year has occurred in the metal industries, in shipbuilding and in docks—industries specially affected by the improvement of trade.

    SEATS IN KEW GARDENS.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the propriety of increasing the number of seats in Kew Gardens, where the accommodation is inadequate for the public frequenting the gardens.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I find that there is seating accommodation in Kew Gardens for at least 2,000 persons. I have no funds at my disposal this year for supplying more; but, supposing more to be necessary, I will consider in the preparation of next year's Estimates whether some additional seats can be provided for.

    COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.
    SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the average number of junior collectors of Customs between the 24th of March, 1891, and the 24th of June, 1899, whose salaries have ranged from £250 to £500, and what has been the average number of surveyors of Customs for the same period; how many such junior collectors have been promoted to superior collectorships with salaries ranging from £340 upwards during that period; and how many surveyors have been so promoted, and have such promotions on the part of surveyors caused a flow of promotion from the examining officer grade to that of surveyor.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): (1) The average annual number of junior collectors provided for on the Customs Establishment between the 24th of March, 1891, and the 24th of June, 1899, whose salaries ranged from £250 to £500 inclusive has been 43. (2) The average annual number of Surveyors of all classes for the same period has been 99. (3) The number of junior collectors promoted from class to class to salaries in excess of £340 during the same period has been 62, such promotions having been the result of 18 vacancies in the higher ranks. (4) One surveyor has been promoted to a newly created collectorship within the above mentioned period, but no flow of promotion followed in this instance from grade of examining officer, as the office of surveyor was abolished. Two examining officers have, however, been
    1150
    appointed collectors, viz., one in 1897 and one in 1898.

    TELEGRAPHIC CHARGES.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if his attention has been called to the present high charges and inequalities in the scale of charges for sending telegrams from the United Kingdom to many British possessions and foreign countries; and, if the Government propose to take any steps to remedy this state of affairs by suggesting an international conference in regard to them or otherwise.
    MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster-General has not received any general representation on the subject, but we understand that communications have been recently addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With the consent of the companies considerable reductions were made at the last International Telegraph Conference at Budapest; and at the next International Conference, to be held in 1901, there will be an opportunity for again bringing the charges under review.

    PROMOTION OF IRISH SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have made a certain rule whereby teachers who obtained the grade of first of second class under the old programme are deprived of promotion to first class for highly efficient service, while those who obtain first of second class under the new programme can be promoted to first class for the same efficient service; whether he is aware that the first of second class teachers on the old programme are aggrieved with this treatment, which they regard as a great injustice, as most of them were trained under the same conditions as the new programme teachers, receive the same salary, and have been promoted to their present class on account of efficient service given in their schools; will he use his influence with the National Education Commissioners to have this state of affairs remedied and these teachers placed, in regard to promotion, under the same conditions; is the course generally followed in the various branches of the

    1151
    public service, when changes are made, to give to all holding the same rank the same privileges for promotion; and was this the course hitherto followed by the Commissioners of National Education.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): I am informed by the Commissioners that the teachers who obtained the grade of first division of second class under the old system do not stand on the same level as those who obtained this class under the new programme, the latter being obliged to pass an examination for that purpose, which closely approximates to the test formerly applied for first class. It is in virtue of this higher literary status of the new first division of second class that further examination is dispensed with in their case, and it is open to those holding the same grade under the old system to obtain a like privilege on passing the same examination with the required answering. Representations have been made on behalf of teachers holding the grade of first division of second class under the old system on the subject of their supposed claim to similar treatment as regards promotion with those of the new first and second grade, but for the reason stated the Commissioners do not consider there is sufficient ground for such a claim. With respect to the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, the course at all times followed by the Commissioners in the matter of the promotion of their teachers was that which was in accordance with the provisions of their rules for the time being, and rank has always been regarded as but one of the elements governing promotion in the Commissioners' service.

    MEDICINES, &c., FOR IRISH WORKHOUSE HOSPITALS.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaint has been made of the imperfect list of medicines and appliances issued by the Treasury for the Irish workhouse hospitals; whether the Treasury make an allowance of one-half the cost on the medicines and appliances contained in their own lists only, leaving the unions to pay the full amount on all articles procured outside said lists; and whether, in consequence of the deficient stocks of appliances allowed by the Treasury, many cases have occurred where poor persons
    1152
    have for weeks been kept waiting for treatment; if so, will this matter be inquired into with a view to effective reform.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The list of medicines and medical and surgical appliances to which the hon. Member refers is prescribed in accordance with rules issued by the Local Government Board, and under Section 58, Sub-section 2, of the Local Government Act, recoupment is only allowed in respect of one-half the cost of such medicines and appliances as are prescribed by that list. The Board have no information of any cases of the character mentioned in the third paragraph, but if particulars of such cases are given they will be inquired into. The Board's list of medicines, numbering 416 articles, and medical and surgical appliances, numbering 162 articles, has been most carefully prepared, and has received the approval of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in Ireland, and contains, in the Board's opinion, all the medicines and dressings, and other requisites necessary for ordinary workhouse and dispensary practice.

    IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL LANDS.
    MR. O'NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, inasmuch as in the pursuance of the provisions of the Act 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 37, the lessees of the lands held under bishops and other sole ecclesiastical commissioners in Ireland were empowered to purchase a perpetual estate in such lands at a perpetual rent, to be ascertained in the manner prescribed by the said Act, he could state to the House what is the annual amount of the rent now paid to the Irish Land Commission by such lessees; whether, as under Section 142 of the said Act the parties interested are entitled to have the rents revised every seven years, according to the increase or decrease in the price of corn or wheat for the seven years from the date from which the previous revision was made, and that the Act requires the calculation to be based upon returns published in the Dublin Gazette, he is aware that in consequence of the non-publication in the Dublin Gazette for some years of the average required by the Statute, no

    1153
    application could or can now be made to have the rents payable by the lessees revised in accordance with the Statute; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to enable all the lessees whose rents could not have been revised, in consequence of the default of the publishers of the Dublin Gazette, to apply to have their rents revised in the manner provided by the Act?
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The word "lessees" at the conclusion of the first paragraph has apparently been used in error for "purchasers," as the 142nd Section of the Statute referred to applies to purchasers and not lessees. The amount of perpetuity rents payable on the 31st March last to the Land Commission by such purchasers was £53,000. The statements in the second paragraph appear to be correct. As already stated, I cannot undertake to introduce legislation dealing with the case of the tenants referred to during the present session.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
    MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state upon what date Sergeants Luke Clarke and Bernard Grant ceased to be members of the Royal Irish Constabulary mounted force; whether he can state the names of the two acting sergeants promoted to the vacancies; and if the vacancies have not been filled, can he state the reasons.
    MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The two sergeants named in the question ceased to belong to the mounted force on the 1st April last. Acting sergeant Robert Carson has been promoted to fill one of the vacancies. The other vacancy will not be filled unless the exigencies of the Service require it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
GENERAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the War Office Vote will be taken.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when the Scottish Estimates will be taken.
MR. ASQUITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state on what day the Home
1154
Office Vote will be taken; my object is rather to elicit in what order the Votes will be taken next Friday.
SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to resume consideration of the Scottish Votes in Committee of Supply.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In regard to the questions about Supply, perhaps the House will permit me not to settle what Supply is to be taken more than a week in advance. As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, the Home Office Vote will be taken next Friday. Some English Votes in Class 3 will be put down first, but I think tins will leave ample time for the discussion of the Home Office Votes, the importance of which, of course, I fully recognise. We shall require the three extra days for Supply which we are permitted to have under the Sessional Order, and I shall move a resolution to that effect next Friday.
SIR H. H. FOWLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the Home Office Vote shall come on not later than 9 o'clock? The other Votes he puts down may occupy the whole evening, and therefore the Home Office Vote, which we think this year to be more important than usual, would have no chance.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will endeavour to find time for it, but I hope the House will second me in trying to get some of the Votes in Class 3.
MR. DAVITT: When will the Colonial Office Vote be reached?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot make a promise on this subject. I do not think it will be expedient in all probability to bring the Vote on at a very early date.

GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND.
Bill to amend the provision for the future Government of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Pirie, Mr. Birrell, Sir Charles Cameron, Dr. Clark, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. M'Crae, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Mr. Moulton.
GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND BILL.
"To amend the provision for the future Government of Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 26th July, and to be printed. (Bill 254.)

SUPPLY [17TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Civil Service Estimates, 1890–1900.

CLASS I.
1. £29,936, to complete the sum for Railways, Ireland.

CLASS II.
2. £2,797, to complete the sum for Household of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do not intend to divide the House on this item, although it is essential that I should say a few words upon it. I wish to point out that not a single sovereign out of this large sum which we are asked to vote goes to any purpose of public utility. It is expenditure of an unproductive kind. From first to last this sum is simply voted away as a kind of outdoor relief for hangers-on at Dublin Castle; in other words, for the idle and lounging classes of society. The recipients are younger scions of Unionist Peers. It is only necessary for me to quote one item to prove what reckless extravagance it is. Thank God, the Irish Church has been disestablished, but still in the Castle, which is the refuge of all things base and bad, we have an Irish Church Establishment, and no less than £769 is asked for the purpose of keeping up the services in Dublin Castle chapel. These services are not attended by the Lord Lieutenant. The chapel is used simply as a garrison chapel, and the military chaplains have their expenses and salaries provided for under another uote. The Chapel Royal is one gigantic job for the purpose of giving money to a gentleman who does not earn it—Dean Dickinson. In this villainous Vote we are asked to grant a sum under false pretences—we are asked to give a certain amount as a house allowance to the chaplain. Under the old system the chaplain used to have rooms in Dublin Castle. He does not have them now. He is Vicar of St. Anne's Church, Dublin, the parishioners of which have raised a very fine, commodious, and comfortable parsonage house for him, and for the use of that he does not have to pay one farthing rent. Yet we are asked to give him £150 as an allowance for the rooms
1158
in Dublin Castle which he does not use. This may be a pious fraud, but it is a most nefarious one. Has the right hon. Gentleman any excuse for it? Can he explain away this gross and villainous job? This is another of those transactions which we so often find in connection with that sink of impurity—Dublin Castle. Why should Dean Dickinson have £150 for nothing? I should like to ask, further, for some explanation of another paltry sum—a charge of £100 for travelling and incidental expenses. We have no information given us as to who travels, or why the travelling is done, or why the charge is put upon public funds.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): The hon. Member has expended a very great wealth of eloquence on this subject. He has selected a particular item, and he has described it as gross, villainous, and nefarious. I trust that the English and Scotch Members who may have heard his language will be able to judge from it what importance they are to attach to the strong words of hon. Members opposite. This charge has come down from time immemorial. This gentleman has held the office of chaplain for a large number of years, and the remuneration attached to the office has always been a salary and house allowance. In the present instance the house is not required, the premises are therefore utilised for another purpose, and, according, to common practice, a money allowance is made in lieu thereof. The criticism of the hon. Member is paltry in the extreme. If there is to be a Court at Dublin Castle it is only right and proper that there should be a clergyman attached it. Considering that the entire cost of the Castle establishment is only just over £4,000, in addition to the Lord Lieutenant's salary of £20,000, and that every Lord Lieutenant in turn finds it necessary to spend another £20,000 out of his own money, I think that these attacks are paltry in the extreme. If the hon. Member wishes to attack the system, let him move to alter it entirely, and do away with the office of Lord Lieutenant, but as long as there is a Lord Lieutenant, and as long as there is a Court attached to the Lord Lieutenancy, I think it is really unworthy of hon. Members to make such attacks as that just delivered by the hon. Member for South Donegal.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To show the depth of the right hon. Gentleman's ignorance of Irish transactions, let me point out that, although I have attacked but one item in the charge for the spiritual welfare of the Castle establishment, we had a distinct pledge that this ecclesiastical establishment is not to be revived. I therefore say it is nefarious that we should be called upon to vote this money. Here is Dean Dickinson, a most respectable man, asking for £150 for a house which he does not occupy in order to pay the rent of a house which he holds rent free. In 1878 a distinct pledge was given that when Dean Dickinson goes to another sphere of influence, Dublin Castle will cease to exist as a spiritual institution.
MR. DAVITT: The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the people of Ireland are desirous to maintain the institution of the Lord Lieutenantcy. I wish to assure him, from my knowledge of popular feeling in Ireland, that he is labouring under a very great mistake. I should be very glad to see this institution, and the English Rule, bag and baggage, leave Ireland to-morrow, and that is the overwhelming sentiment of the great majority of the Irish people. I venture to think that if the £40,000 now wasted upon these head-quarters of social snobbery in Dublin were expended in promoting Irish industries or technical education, it would confer far greater benefits on the people of Ireland.
Vote agreed to.
3. £1,229, to complete the sum for Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
MR. FLYNN: In regard to this Vote, I wish to ask attention to a case which I brought before the House a year and a half ago, in connection with a certain bequest in my own constituency. I have to complain that the Commissioner of Charitable Donations and Bequests has not shown due diligence in attending to the matter. It has relation to a bequest of £5 or £6 a year, which is supposed to be administered by the Protestant rector and Roman Catholic priest jointly. A few years ago a gentleman responsible for the payment of the sum refused to pay it any longer, on the ground that some property
1160
on which it was a charge had been sold. But it has since been discovered that the sum was charged on the entire property, and not merely on that portion which has been sold. We are therefore anxious that the Commissioner shall do what he can to recover this charity, which is for the benefit of the very poor.
Vote agreed to.
4. £3,900, to comple the sum for Public Record Office, Ireland.
MR. SWIFT McNEILL: This is another Vote on which I should like to say a few words, although it is not my intention to divide the Committee upon it. I think, indeed, the point embodied in it could be better raised on the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary, and I will therefore only now give a general outline of what may be the purport of my attack if we are permitted to have a Parliamentary fling at that interesting individual. This is a Vote for the keeping of State papers. The late Keeper who, I am sorry to say, is dead, was a very admirable and courteous official, and displayed the greatest enthusiasm in his work. Now, I submit that it is of very great advantage that the important historic documents in Dublin Castle should be seen by the public. They are already seen by members of the public whose political credentials satisfy Dublin Castle. I submit that for historic purposes I ought to have had access to some of these documents. In the usual course I applied to see certain documents and State papers which had relation to the Rebellion of 1798, and the passing of the Act of Union. There is a general rule that these documents after 1793 should not be seen without special permission. I wanted to see them for purposes of historical research, and I was particularly anxious, for reasons which are perfectly obvious, to find out about some of the corrupt transactions which occurred in reference to the Act of Union, and the precise sums which were paid. I also wanted to get the briefs held by Counsel for the State prisoner who was bribed with Government cash to betray his clients' secrets. I knew that these documents were to be found at Dublin Castle. How did I know that? Because it is stated in the history written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University that he was permitted by the

1161
Government to see these documents. I therefore applied to see them myself, but to my astonishment permission was refused me. I publicly accuse the Chief Secretary that, while he is asking for money for the preservation of State documents for the public use, he is only allowing such documents to be perused by his own friends, who will use them gingerly and not against the Act of Union or the vile establishment of which he is only temporarily, and only very temporarily I hope, the head. I will go further into the matter on the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary, and when we reach that I can promise to give him an uncomfortable half-hour.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am sure that any speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman against me will entertain me very much, whether it lasts a quarter or a half-hour, or even one hour. But as this is only a kind of preliminary skirmish which he intends to develop in battle array on a later occasion, I will only say now that I had no intention of depriving him of any privilege to which he was properly entitled. As far as I recollect the circumstances, they were these. The hon. Member referred specifically to two papers, and requested that he should have permission to see them. It was granted in the usual course. He then made a further request that he should be given power to examine any of the State papers up to the latest date that anybody else had examined them. As this was not a request to see specific papers, but was for permission to rummage among the archives at large, I inquired if there was any precedent for granting it. I was told that a request of that kind was unusual, if not altogether unprecedented.
MR. SWIFT McNEILL: There is a precedent for it.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I made inquiries from the officials, and was told that no such request had been made in the past. I informed the hon. Member that a vague permission of the kind could not be granted.
MR. DILLON: It appears to me, from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, that he is raising a technical point in order to justify his refusal to my hon. friend of permission to examine
1162
these papers. I know it is the custom in regard to State documents to fix a date, beyond which such papers are not allowed to be examined, and I understand, from the statement of my hon. friend, that up to a certain period that date was supposed to be 1793. Yet it is clear that others have been allowed to see papers of a later date, and that no limitation has been put upon researches up to 1803, and later; for in the histories of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University and Mr. Froude, we find copious extracts from these copious secret State papers. All my hon. friend desired was to have the same facilities granted him as were given to these other writers. His distinguished researches in the history of the period of the Union surely entitle him to make that request. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member has done good service in publishing some of these papers, among them two very extraordinary and interesting documents referred to in Mr. Lecky's history, which he explains in a footnote he did not publish because they were of a very revolting and horrible type. I repeat that my hon. friend ought surely to have the same facilities granted to him as are given to other writers.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: What passed between myself and the hon. Member for South Donegal was prior to the publication of the papers referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo. It is true that no one has a right to see these papers after a certain date, and the permission to see them after a certain date is strictly by favour. Before giving a general permission to inspect the papers it is desirable to know for what purpose the search is to be made. The right hon. Member for the University of Dublin and Mr. Froude are historians of very great repute; and the reserve and caution of the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin was shown by the fact that he did not think it desirable to publish the papers afterwards published by the hon. Member for South Donegal, after he had found from a footnote in the right hon. Gentleman's history that the papers existed. The hon. Member asked to see them; the permission was granted; and the hon. Member immediately availed himself of it to publish the documents. To judge from the action of the hon.

1163
Member, he wished to study the documents from the point of view, not of the impartial historian, but of the partisan. Under these circumstances I can only say that the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo will make me think twice or three times before granting any general permission asked from me in the future.
MR. DILLON: I am glad that this Debate has taken place. The question has now assumed a surprising shape and colour, which certainly satisfies me as to the real attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. He charges my hon. friend with a desire to use these State papers for a partisan purpose.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: What I have said now I say simply in consequence of what I have heard to-day. The permission I gave the hon. Member, and the permission which I refused to him, were given and refused before I knew anything of what papers he wished to see.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is not the case.
MR. DILLON: I will now deal with the position the right hon. Gentleman has taken up, and I venture to affirm that he will find it to be an absolutely untenable and indefensible position. He charges my hon. friend, who I beg leave to say is an historian of repute, although he may not be so in comparison with Froude and Lecky, with wishing to use the papers for partisan purposes. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. friend has written important works. And let me also ask him if he thinks that anyone who has read Froude's "History of the English in Ireland in the 18th Century" will deny that that is a most outrageously partisan history. There never was a more violently partisan book than that. I say that, although I believe there is not in this House to-day, or in this country, a greater admirer of Mr. Froude than I am. The history of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University is infinitely more fair, but yet his later volumes cannot be read without seeing in them evidence of partisanship, although I admit he struggles against it. At this time of day is a Party Minister to attempt to judge who shall deal with the history of a period, and who shall be disqualified
1164
from doing so? The irresistible and logical consequence of such a position would be that under a Liberal Government none but Home Rule historians and under a Tory Government none but Unionist historians would have access to the records. Was there ever in the history of literature such a principle laid down? The right hon. Gentleman finds fault with my hon. friend with regard to the publication of the two documents to which I have referred. But they were specially interesting as clearing up a suppressio veri as to the character of an important person. The right hon. Gentleman is practically undertaking a censorship. The right hon. Member for Dublin University thought it prudent not to make known some of the evils and crimes of the class with which he sympathised, so he suppressed these letters; and the hon. Member for South Donegal, who naturally had no such prudential considerations to study in this particular case by publishing the documents, simply left it to the public to form a judgment. This is not a question of authenticity; it is rather a case of the right hon. Gentleman sitting in judgment, and declaring that Mr. Lecky, the historian, exercised a prudent reserve in suppressing certain discreditable documents. If such principles are to be accepted, then the writing of history becomes a fraud. The right hon. Gentleman has refused to open these records in Dublin Castle to my hon. and learned friend, which he has opened to Mr. Lecky and Mr. Froude, because he says these gentlemen have exercised a prudent restraint. That is no way to deal with public documents. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a position which it is absolutely impossible to maintain.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for East Mayo appears to charge me with taking up the position, that while I am perfectly ready to open these records to anybody who will write history from my point of view, I will not open them to anyone with whose opinions I do not agree.
MR. DILLON: My point is that you open these records to men who are Unionists and not to men who are Nationalists.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I see no reason for the hon. Gentleman's inter-

1165
ruption. Supposing that these documents are not open to the public up to a certain date except by the special permission of the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary—although I believe the restrictions are greater in some offices than in others—it is clear that the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant in giving permission to any individual to see these papers must be guided by certain general principles. And if anybody applied, for instance, to inspect these papers from a purely historical point of view, unless for very special reasons, he would be allowed to do so. My right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University desired to inspect these papers on that ground, and he was permitted to do so; and if the hon. Member desired in a historical way to deal with them, in all probability the Chief Secretary for the time being would not have withheld his permission any more than he had done to Mr. Froude and Mr. Lecky. But when the hon. Gentleman asked for an inspection of these two papers he immediately proceeded to publish them, not in an essay or in a historical work, but in the Freeman's Journal, and he made use of these papers in order, not to throw light on the events of a previous period, but so as to inflame men's passions in this present year. If I had reason to believe, as I had, that the aim of the hon. Member was not so much historical as partisan, I should think twice before I gave permission to inspect all the records.
MR. HEMPHILL: There is nothing we want more in Ireland than a true history of Ireland, which has never yet been written and can never be written without access to some of the documents in Dublin Castle. Now, no country can be prosperous and no country can hold its position until its history is known—a history written, not by a partisan, not written on false evidence, but on documents that cannot err. I should like very much to know—as it will assist the House very much to form an opinion on this episode between the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for South Donegal—the date of that Order which drew the line at 1793. I can understand why the public should not have access to anything in the nature of modern documents which would involve living men, who, perhaps, might have no opportunity of clearing themselves; but the further we recede from 1793
1166
the less reason is there for excluding any responsible member of the public from access to these documents. That rule was made, I believe, thirty years ago or upwards. It strikes me that any document from 1793 to say 1820 might be published in perfect safety so far as living persons are concerned. We want to know exactly what the history of our country has been, and how the country has been brought to its present position. Therefore, I think, when a gentleman filling the position of my hon. and learned friend, one of Her Majesty's counsel, who for some years has been in the honourable and responsible position of professor of Constitutional Law in King's Inn, Dublin, who is a writer of considerable experience and repute, applies for access to papers of this character, I do think that it is rather unreasonable to make it a condition before granting that permission: "Tell me for what purpose you want these papers? "Of course, the man in the street should not have the right to go into Dublin Castle and ask permission to poke over all these old records, for we do not know how that right might be abused. But it was rather hard on a man holding the high political and literary position the hon. Gentleman does, to ask him to give a pledge that if he looks at these papers he will not make any use of them—the more especially when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor admitted these famous literary characters, Mr. Froude and Mr. Lecky to have access to the papers. For my part, I think everything ought to give way to truth and light in dealing with the past; and whether these documents were to be published in the shape of a letter to the Freeman's Journal, or in a more elaborate form in a chapter of a work by my learned friend opposite, the cause of justice would be served by giving access to these papers to any gentleman whose antecedents were a guarantee that the privilege would not be abused.
MR. FLYNN: I have no desire to prolong the discussion on this Vote, but I venture to say that the claim of censorship by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is constitutionally unsound. His two speeches were to the effect that my hon. friend, whose qualifications have been referred to by previous speakers, wished to inspect the records in Dublin Castle not so much to throw light

1167
upon past events in the history of Ireland as to inflame men's passions. What is that but saying that these documents are of such an extraordinary nature as to inflame men's passions. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious for the truth, and that he would have given the hon. Gentleman access at once to these documents. I am old enough to remember that when Father Burke was lecturing in America, Mr. Froude got possession of documents in connection with the occurrences in 1641, and published a most virulent and inaccurate pamphlet, which was calculated to inflame passion in America, but Father Burke completely shattered the position of Mr. Froude. That was at the time Mr. Froude was drawing from the archives of Dublin Castle his weapons with which to assail the National cause. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is only a temporary occupant of the office of Chief Secretary, and he has no claim to set up in the position of censor, and to say that all fruitful and useful inquiry into these documents shall be debarred for ever. The right hon. Gentleman speaks about partisans. But I want to know if it would have been possible for the "Rise of the Dutch Republic" to have been written, or the "Life and Character of Philip II. of Spain," had the custodian of the archives at The Hague said to Mr. Motley, "You are a Protestant historian, and you are going to write on a bigoted Catholic monarch, and I will not allow you to examine our records." The claim of the right hon. the Chief Secretary is one which cannot be constitutionally, politically, or historically sustained.
MR. LECKY: In considering the way in which archives of this kind should be treated there are two things that ought to be thought of. One is the distance of period—and it should be remembered that a great portion of these archives deal with people who are the grandfathers of people now living. The other is the spirit in which they are approached. No man, of whatever political opinion, ought to be denied access to these documents of whom it can be said that he is a genuine student of history, who intends to use those documents for real historical and not for mere political purposes, who is sincerely desirous to bring out the lights and shades on both
1168
sides. There is another class of persons, however, who would merely use those confidential documents for the purpose of exciting passion between two nations by selecting facts on one side and leaving out all facts on the other, and who are above all things anxious to wound and hurt those now living who differ from them by raking up some scandal which occurred in the days of their grandfathers. I think the Government are quite right in discriminating between these two classes. I believe that a discretionary power is necessary and that it is very properly put in the hands of the Chief Secretary.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has a wonderful memory. He has repeated almost word for word his own criticism of Mr. Froude in his second volume of "England in the Eighteenth Century," when he said that he only threw a light on everything that was favourable to his own views, and suppressed facts which were not, and that that was not the way in which to write history. In 1886 I went for the first time to the Irish Record Office, accompanied by the late Dean Liddell, and saw for the first time the place where these manuscripts are kept. Sir Bernard Burke showed us over the premises, and of one of the rooms said, "It's here that Lecky and Froude worked, but I never let them in together, because I was afraid they would box."
MR. LECKY: We were never in Dublin together.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Probably not, but I want to know why was permission given to Froude, a partisan writer on one side, and refused to me, a partisan writer on the other, although I declare I have never suppressed the truth, and I have never, so far as I am aware, acted unfairly and, what is more, have never been accused of doing so.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is the spirit in which these documents are approached. (Laughter.) I do not know why hon. Members laugh, for that is a simple statement of how the matter stands.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who is to be the judge of the "spirit"? Is it a partisan Chief Secretary?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman has written historical works.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman lacks one essential requisite for a Chief Secretary, and that is a good memory. What occurred was this. For several months before this transaction I had written day by day a series of articles in the Freeman's Journal entitled "A Diary in the Irish Rebellion," and it was my wish to show, as far as I could, to the Irish people the events which were taking place 100 years ago. The 18th of November was the date of Wolfe Tone's death, and I found in the work of Mr. Lecky, from which I had derived enormous assistance, that there were two heartless letters connected with the incident which I desired to get hold of. So I went to the Castle, and was, to my surprise, referred to Sir David Harrell, who is a personal friend of mine. He was out, and I called next day, but instead of seeing him I was ushered into a little ante-room, where office-hunters are, I suppose, usually shown. Then one of the clerks or under-strappers, with an expression of half-cunning awl half-stupidity in his face, came and asked me what I wanted. I informed him, and asked him to say that if I did not see Sir David I would address a letter to the Lord Lieutenant and give him two columns in every paper in Dublin. So in came Sir David. The requests that I made in a formal letter were to see the two documents referred to, and a general statement of my desire to see general documents up to a certain date for a literary purpose. Sir David told me that I would get an answer within one hour, and, sure enough, an answer came saying that I was entitled to see the documents of the 18th of November, 1798, but as regards the second request it would receive further consideration. I went to the Castle, took copies of the documents, and incorporated them in the articles which appeared in due course in the Freeman's Journal—articles which were really an historic study of the times, and which I intend eventually to publish in book form. I did not use them pre-eminently for a political purpose. I was most anxious to show what occurred, because we can never understand the present without thoroughly and properly understanding the past. For three weeks
1170
I heard no more, and then my further request was refused. It is a shame to show documents to political supporters, and refuse them to those whose bias—if there is a bias—is in an opposite direction. It is a pretty exhibition that the Chief Secretary now makes on the floor of the House in defence of such action. I am sorry to have detained the Committee so long, but I think the discussion will have done good if it has unmasked Dublin Castle, and proved the Chief Secretary to be one of the most incompetent and indiscreet of Ministers.
MR. ASQUITHwho was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say: There are one or two points which are worthy of the consideration of the Committee. We all agree with what was said a few moments ago, that there is a limit of time, for obvious reasons, beyond which documents of this kind should not be accessible to what I may call, for want of a better phrase, "the man in the street"; when they ought to be kept under lock and key under a responsible custodian, and access given to people who are honestly engaged in bonâ fide historical research. I was surprised to hear from tile right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the custodian of these documents might and ought to use his discretion according to the view which the executive of the time take of the partisanship of the person who applies for access to them.
MR. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I did not mean that. I was trying to explain that that was a misapprehension, and that that was not the case.
MR. ASQUITH: I am glad we have had that explanation, because I was going to say that if that doctrine was going to be laid down it would be very dangerous. I do not believe there has ever been an historian who has not exhibited some amount of partisanship; it is a common infirmity of the tribe. With regard to my hon. and learned friend, in respect of whom this particular question arises, knowing him as I do, I say that he does come within the class of bonâ fide historians; that he has contributed valuable works towards the elucidation of the History of Ireland, and that he should have the same facilities of access to these documents as other historians.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I am sure the Chief Secretary tries, so far as he can, to bury the rancorous feeling which obtains in all matters connected with Ireland. Hon. Members on that side, and we on this, feel very strongly on various matters, but a great deal of this feeling of rancour is due to the feeling on the other side of the House, that there is a want of fair play on the part of the Government. I cannot help thinking that the explanation of the Chief Secretary under these circumstances was most unfortunate. Either these papers are meant for the public or they are not.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: They are not.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Then it lies with the Chief Secretary to say who shall have access to them and who shall not. People who want access to these papers want it for the purposes of making an historical account, and I think it is a little unfortunate that the people who have access to them should sit on this side of the House—
MR. DILLON: All of them.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: And not upon the other. I am not going into the rights or wrongs of the case, but as an Irishman I desire to see this rancorous feeling buried. I do not think it is right that the Chief Secretary should allow his own supporters to see these papers, and not allow the same privilege to those Gentlemen who happen to oppose his political views.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: These papers are not public, and the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary have cast upon them the duty of saying who may see them and who may not. There certainly ought to be no distinction whatever between an historian holding the political views which we hold on this side of the House and one holding opposite views. I should never dream of refusing access on that account. The question is, for what purpose these papers were going to be used, and in what spirit—[loud laughter from the Irish Benches]. Hon. Members opposite laugh, but I express exactly the same view as was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
MR. ASQUITH: I certainly demur. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's expression, "in what spirit."
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I do not wish to suggest that anybody genuinely occupied in historical research should not have access to these papers, and that is exactly the sentiment expressed by my right hon. friend.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I really must say I much regret both the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University, and I will begin with the latter first. The reason I regret that speech is that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of letters and a well-known historian, and for a man of letters to get up in this House and defend the position taken up by the Chief Secretary with regard to the control of these State papers is distressing. The second reason why his speech was unfortunate is that he would deny to another man of letters the facilities given to himself. I am a great admirer of the right hon. Gentleman's works, and I know nothing more entertaining than his pages on the secret history of Ireland immediately preceding the Act of Union, where he produces McNally the barrister, who sold his secrets and briefs to the Government. He was counsel for Robert Emmett, and embraced him just before his execution, after having by his treachery handed him over to the gallows. The secret papers of McNally, the informer and spy of the Government, appear in the right hon. Gentleman's work page upon page and add greatly to the effect, and yet the right hon. Gentleman gets up and defends the attitude of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman's proposition is that the matter depended a good deal on the spirit in which the papers were to be used, and also whether they were to be used for inflaming party passions. The right hon. Gentleman may make a speech in the most passive and subdued language, which, in my opinion, is calculated to inflame the party passions of gentlemen who agree with him and with whom I disagree. Such definitions are untenable. I should like to have a definition of the word "spirit." The Chief Secretary went on to suggest as his

1173
definition that my hon. friend was refused these papers because he was going to print them in the columns of the Freeman's Journal. Is the Freeman's Journal an indecent organ because it does not happen to agree with the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman? One of the most honourable traits of the journalism of to-day is that the daily Press deal with great literary and historical questions, but the mere fact of their being daily papers with political views does not deprive them of the right of dealing seriously with historical questions. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the Daily Express should get these things, but that they should be refused to the Freeman's Journal? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the documents were refused to my hon. friend because they were to be printed in the Freeman's Journal—a partisan paper.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No; I did not say I refused them for any such reason, but because there was no precedent.
MR. T.P. O'CONNOR: No precedent! Can any documents be more confidential, more secret, or belong more to the category of papers which ought to be kept under lock and key, except in exceptional circumstances, than the secret reports of a spy and an informer of the meetings of a conspiracy? Such secret documents were actually supplied to the Member for the Dublin University, and yet, in the face of that fact, the right hon. Gentleman says the reason of the refusal to my hon. friend was that there was no precedent. The law is now laid down that the desire to publish in a Nationalist newspaper constitutes an unfitness to be entrusted with documents which are open to the gaze of a Unionist historian for the purpose of advocating his principles. If the people of Ireland come to the conclusion that, not satisfied with his partisan administration of to-day, the right hon. Gentleman extends that partisan administration to matters of literature and history, the right hon. Gentleman has only himself to blame.
MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: I do not know which particular paper it is that has been refused, but it has been suggested that it is a matter of refusing to members of one political party
1174
something which is given to members of another political party. That is not quite the case. Suppose the documents related to 1798, and dealt with the avowed rebellion against this country. It could not be said that that policy had been entirely abandoned. We have heard over and over again that the policy of 1798 was the policy of hon. Members opposite to-day, and that the only thing which prevented their carrying an armed rebellion to a successful issue was lack of opportuntity. It is not unreasonable to make a distinction in this or any other country between those, to whichever party they belong, who desire to see the Government of the country carried on successfully, and those who openly challenge the very existence of the Government, and would destroy the Government if they had the chance. There must be some discretion in regard to these documents when we know that there are members of a party who undoubtedly would make every effort and use every means necessary to carry out the policy to which I have alluded. If there is any doubt felt as to the policy of an armed rebellion against the Crown being the policy which is not only adopted but openly avowed by certain hon. Members opposite, I am perfectly prepared to prove my statement. This is not a question of denying to Irishmen things which ought to be given them, but it is a question of safeguarding the primary interests of the State, and I should certainly support a policy which reserves to the Executive Government of the country some right of discretion. It may be that if there was a change of Government an absolutely opposite view might be taken, but I have very strong reasons to think the contrary would be the case. I remember when this very question of documents came up one of the first things Sir George Trevelyan did was to give an assurance that these documents should not pass into the hands of the Government it was proposed to set up, and I think that that principle would always prevail with British Ministers from whatever section they were drawn, or to whatever party they belonged.
MR. BRYCE: As regards the general principle of granting facilities to both parties to inspect documents, I could not add anything to what has been said with force and truth by my

1175
right hon. friend the Member for East Fife. But on the general question of keeping documents secret there is no country in Europe which is so scrupulous and so old-fashioned in imposing secrecy upon its public documents as is this country. I remember an instance in which a distinguished American scholar applied for permission to see some public document relating to the outbreak of the American War, but was refused, because, he was told, they were still considered secret. Really it seems a little absurd that at this time of day we should suppose that anything which happened so far back as, say, 1776 could possibly injure this country in any way. It would be to the general advantage of historical science and to the general satisfaction of all parties in this country if the period during which documents are to be considered as being secret and confidential was brought much nearer down to our own time than at present is the case both in Ireland and in England. What reason can he given for keeping these documents secret? Not, I think, that their publicity would hurt the feelings of persons now living with regard to their grandfathers; we cannot carry the application of the respect of persons so far as that. Nor that they relate to events which still are discussed on political platforms. We might discuss political events relative to the great Civil War, but that is no reason for making these documents secret. I would submit that there are only two grounds on which it is right that we should keep secret documents relative to events of the past. I agree there are exceptions. Those grounds are, firstly, if there is anything in the papers which is going to put us at a disadvantage in our negotiations with foreign States; and secondly, if there is anything which will interfere with the efficiency of the existing Government or which will expose any secrets or reveal methods which it would not be in the interests of the public service to make known. But surely these grounds cannot possibly be made to apply to the documents relating to the Irish Rebellion of 1798. We know all about that rebellion, and we know enough for the purpose of making up our minds as to the conduct of the principal actors in that great struggle, and the historical inferences to be drawn from it. I believe that the more historical facts are known the better it is for all parties. It is well, I think, that par-
1176
ticularly in the case of Ireland these facts should be made known. I do not think that there is any danger in this respect. With regard to historians I think if there was ever anyone who wrote with a distinct political bias, and tarnished his name by importing political malignity into his writings, it was Mr. Froude. And yet his book has had the very opposite effect, and no facts that can be published now about the Irish Rebellion of 1798, or Roman Catholic emancipation, can really affect the politics of this country or the policy of the Government. I submit, therefore, that my right hon. friend opposite would do well to consider whether there might not be a relaxation of these rules, and whether the period ought not to be brought down much nearer the present time, so that these difficulties will no longer arise.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I think the Chief Secretary would be wise in allowing these papers to be published. What we want to know is the truth, and the only way in which the truth can be arrived at is by publishing the correspondence and State papers for the period in question. The objections raised to the publication of these papers would lead one to suppose that there is something we are afraid to have published. If that is so, it is all the more reason why we should persist in our demand.
MR. DILLON: There are still remaining one or two other points which I desire to raise which appear to me to be of great importance. The hon. Member for West Belfast has laid down a doctrine which is the guiding principle and Irish practice in this matter, and which was laid down by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his first speech, namely, that these are matters historical in one sense, but still political, and that you must decide who shall have access to these documents on political principles.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, no!
MR. DILLON: The Chief Secretary had laid down that the authority in Dublin should consider the object for which access to these papers was sought, and the spirit in which they would be used. Now, when we import such a consideration as that into the question, who

1177
is to be the judge? It must be manifest to all that if the Chief Secretary is to be allowed to judge of the spirit in which the investigator is to use the documents before he gives his permission, there is no freedom whatever in the matter.
MR. RENTOUL: There must be some discretion.
MR. DILLON: Discretion ought not to exist in regard to the spirit of the investigation; it ought to only exist an regard to the general qualification. When a man who has done bonâ fide historical work comes and makes a demand to see these documents, then, I say, discretion ought to cease. If you allow discretion in such cases as that, you establish a censorship which does away with all investigation. Now, what is the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin? He defended the position of the Chief Secretary on the ground that these papers were such a character and of so confidential a nature that the granting of permission to see these documents requires reserve, prudence, and judicious treatment. Now in what regard is the judicious spirit to be exercised in the judgment of the investigator? The condition laid down is that he must be a man whom they can trust. The Chief Secretary practically set up in his speech this proposition—that he would deny access to these papers to the man who was a political partisan, and would only grant the right to the man who could be trusted to approach the study of the papers in a fair, impartial, and calm spirit. That is a very curious condition indeed. I do not know where there is a man living to-day who can be described as a man of "a fair, impartial, and calm spirit." Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University has himself written some of the strongest and almost fierce articles and made speeches in support of the Union, and what right has he to claim a fair, impartial, and calm spirit any more than I have? What right has the Chief Secretary to sit in judgment upon such a question, for he would be inclined to hold that my right hon. friend opposite is impartial because he is in favour of the Union, and that I am not impartial because I am against the Union. That is what this discretion will practically amount to so
1178
long as human nature is constituted as it is at present. What is really the grievance of my hon. friend? It is, that he applied by letter to the right hon. Gentleman to get the same privileges as were given to the Member for the University of Dublin, and he was refused them. Now, I ask, is it fair, or is it good policy, to refuse my hon. friend because he is a Nationalist those facilities which were freely given to the Member for the University of Dublin because he is a Unionist and an historian? Unfortunately it cannot be denied that these facilities have always been granted, so far as I know, to men who supported the Unionist Party, and have always been refused to Nationalists.
Vote agreed to.
5. £12,113, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
G. £7,071, to complete the sum for Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I wish to ask what is the reason of the delay in the publication of the documents with reference to the survey of Ireland. Some of them were published in 1837, and I desire to know if it is on account of expense that the publication has not been continued. The material for the continuation of the series for the whole of Ireland has been collected, and the expense of carrying it out to a conclusion would be nothing like the initial expense which has been incurred. Several Irish county councils have already moved in this matter, and there is a general desire all over Ireland that some steps should be taken to publish these papers. I do not know whether the Government would see their way to starting the publication with a small grant, or, in the event of an Irish County Council bearing half the expense of the publication of the documents relating to its own county, would the Government be prepared to pay the other half?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HANBURY,): These Ordnance surveys are not Ordnance surveys in the strict sense of the word at all. In 1837 they were called "Memoirs," and their publication was confined to a particular part of the country. They are on an entirely different footing from the Ordnance Survey, and, although I quite admit there is some-

1179
thing to be said for their publication, it is an entirely new subject, as far as the Vote is concerned.
SIR T. ESMONDE: These "Memoirs' relate to the whole of Ireland, and the material for them has already been collected by very eminent men, and there is nothing to be done now except to publish them. I raised the question in the hope that the Government might see their way to help the County Councils in the matter.
MR. FLYNN: A great deal of interest is taken in the question which has been raised by the hon. Baronet. There is another point, however, which I should like to bring under the notice of the Treasury and the Irish Office. It is in regard to the complaints which are made as to the somewhat peculiar and unbusinesslike manner in which the Boundary Commissioners act with regard to revaluation. A short time ago, at Mill Street in my own constituency, a portion of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company's property was revalued and the local body complains of the extraordinary manner in which it was carried out. No intimation was given that the valuation was to be made, and the local authorities consider that it was a great injustice to the general body of the taxpayers that the valuation of a great portion of the land should be lowered, thereby of course increasing the amounts to be paid by the other taxpayers. It would appear that the revaluation should be the other way, because the property of the company has greatly increased in value, and the local authorities were greatly surprised to find that its valuation was reduced by £3,000 or £4,000. There was a somewhat similar case near Kilkenny, where the same procedure appears to have been followed. The Valuation Office gave no notice to the local authority, and the valuation of the property was decreased, thereby throwing a greater burden on the other ratepayers. Surveyors appear to have been sent down to revalue house and land property without any reference whatever to the locality or to the individual concerned. A case came under my own observation a short time ago, where a large merchant in Cork, having made certain alterations in his premises, found that his valuation was considerably
1180
increased without any notice, although he proved to the satisfaction of business men that the alteration in no way affected the value of the premises. The surveyors come down almost in the dark, nobody knows who they are or what they are doing, and probably the ratepayer does not know until he receives a demand from the rate office that his valuation has been increased. Under these circumstances, it is only fair to the locality and the individual concerned that some intimation should be given by the Valuation Office to parties interested as to the date the premises or other property would be inspected, and that the interested parties should meet the valuation commissioner and discuss the matter with him. I think that is a very fair request. Surely the Valuation Office owes something to the public by whom they are supported. They ought to transact their business in a courteous and business-like manner, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will make a note of the point.
MR. HANBURY: I will look into the matter.
SIR JAMES HASLETT: As far as valuation in Ireland is concerned, I think we ought to have an absolute change. I have a case before my mind which occurred within the last few days, in which certain premises were revalued. A shop window was put in, and the internal part of the shop was somewhat changed, and that gave rise to a fresh valuation. The old valuation was £115, and the new valuation was £450 on the same premises. I would also point out that our Ordnance Survey maps are exceedingly incomplete. So far as Belfast is concerned, we cannot get one complete Ordinance map of the city, and we have to patch it up in sections. I earnestly urge the right hon. Gentleman to give the matter some attention.
MR. DILLON: I wish to know why the six-inch maps in Ireland are not brought up to the same level as similar maps in England. I received a complaint within the last few days that the six-inch maps in Mayo are now being drawn up at such a rate that it will take forty or fifty years to complete the whole survey of the

1181
county. Constant complaints on the matter have reached me from Ireland, and there is no sign of the Ordnance Survey coming to an end. What is required is not a diminished staff, but, on the contrary, a stronger staff, which will enable the work to be grappled with. The operations of the officials have been enormously increased, owing to the action of the Land Commission.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Ordnance maps are not included in this Vote. The question should be raised in Class 1, Vote 9.
Vote agreed to.
£24,739, to complete the Public Works Office, Ireland.
SIR T. ESMONDE: There are a number of items to which I should like to call the attention of the Financial Secretary. The first has reference to the rates charged by the Department for waterworks and other loans. There is one loan from the Board of Works which presses rather heavily on a part of my constituency. That is the loan made to the Kerry Grand Jury for the construction of a pier at Fenit. The charge on that loan is £5 1s. per cent., which seems to me to be a very high rate of interest.
MR. HANBURY: Is that interest alone?
SIR T. ESMONDE: No; interest and repayment. But interest and repayment can be had much cheaper than that.
MR. HANBURY: Can the hon. Baronet say over what period the loan runs?
SIR T. ESMONDE: I cannot say that. The Kerry County Council passed a resolution calling the attention of the Commissioners of Public Works to the fact that the rate of interest and the sinking fund amounted to £5 1s. 10d. per cent., which they regard as very high, considering the large amount of capital borrowed for the Fenit Pier, and they desire to convert the balance of the loan into a new loan at 2¾ per cent. I also wish to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the rates charged for advances for labourers' cottages are not the same in all counties. Wexford and
1182
Kerry are two counties in point. I do not know what is the exact number of cottages in Kerry, but in Wexford there are 1,100, some of them built under the earlier Acts, the result being that Wexford has to pay more for them. I now come to a matter of great antiquarian interest which is under the control of the Board of Works. I allude to the preservation of ancient Irish monuments. I have taken a very great interest in this matter, and I have considerable knowledge of the condition of some of these ancient historical buildings in various parts of Ireland. I think the preservation of these monuments is very much to be desired. The Board of Works has, I understand, inspectors who see that the monuments are kept in proper repair. But to keep a very ancient church in proper repair is a matter requiring great discretion and wide discrimination, and it is not improbable that some of the inspectors are not as qualified for the task as they might be. If the Board of Works found that the local quack who was entrusted with the work was not discharging it satisfactorily it would be very easy for them to communicate with the local secretary of the Society of Antiquaries, or some similar society, and be advised by him. I wish to put a concrete case. There is an interesting old abbey in the island of Inniscaltra, in Lough Derg. The structure is surrounded with bushes, ivy, weeds, and so forth, and the work of clearing them away ought to be done very carefully indeed, as otherwise it is quite possible that some of the stones may be removed. On that island there is also a very ancient burial ground known as the Saints' Yard. It is very antiquated, and there are a large number of monuments with Celtic inscriptions lying about. Not very long ago the remains of some person who had died in the neighbourhood were buried in the Saints' Yard, where nobody is supposed to be buried, and great local displeasure was manifested. I hope steps will be taken to prevent a similar invasion of this holy place in the future. One other point. It appears to me that some of the locks on the canal up to Limerick require looking after. One of them appears to be very much in need of repair. It also would appear to be desirable that these locks should be fitted with a short iron ladder to enable people

1183
to get into the boats in safety, whereby the danger which now exists would be avoided. These are the only points I wish to raise on this Vote.
MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I desire to call the attention of the Chief Secretary to a matter affecting the development of the tourist traffic on the Lower Shannon. About two years ago a steamer service commenced to run between Kilrush and Tarbert. I put a question then as to whether this service should not be extended to Glin and Foynes to meet the train coming from Limerick at mid-day, in order to have a through circular route to Tarbert, Listowel and Killarney, which would be much appreciated by tourists. It would also be of great advantage to the people of Glin, which is nine miles from Foynes, and has no means of communication except by road. There is a large industrial school in Glin, and I think it is of importance to the three Unions which support it that this service, which could be easily extended, should not be kept back on account of the slight additional expense attaching to it. On the 15th of July last year I put a question on the subject to the Chief Secretary at the instance of the Grand Jury, and the right hon. Gentleman then stated that the Government had no objection to the Kilrush and Tarbert steamers giving a service to Glin and Foynes, that they were most anxious to have this service put into operation, but that the railway and steamship companies must make their own arrangements. Then I put myself into communication with the Waterford and Limerick Steamboat Company, and to my amazement they stated in reply to my letter that, while anxious at all times to meet the public convenience as far as possible, they felt that in the present condition of the Glin pier it would not be safe for their steamers to call at it, as the ebb tide set on to the pier with such strength as would carry the steamer with great force upon it. Considering that the sum of £10,000 was expended on that pier, I thought it a rather serious reflection on the Board of Works in Ireland and the County surveyor; and I put myself in communication with the County surveyor, who said—
"I have no hesitation in giving you my opinion. The pier is quite suitable for the steamer traffic. I may add, a new land-
1184
ing stage was erected to my satisfaction by an experienced firm of iron workers. You are correctly informed that some years ago a vessel called regularly there, although the old stage was then worn out and worm-eaten."
Further correspondence with the steamship company elicited no more satisfaction to myself, and I left the matter over until I put a question to the Chief Secretary on the subject. This year when a complaint was made, that the railway and steamship companies did not put a service on a certain route, the right hon. Gentleman answered me that the contract between the Commissioner of Public Works and the Waterford Steamship Company was limited to the transit between Tarbet and Kilrush, and that it would not be competent to ask that the steamers should call at Glin, as requested. To a supplementary question I put to him, as to whether the Board of Works would assist in promoting this service, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should have their good-will in the matter. We require more than good-will. The Chief Secretary will admit there is a great discrepancy between his answer last year, and that of a couple of weeks ago.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: What I said was that the contract between the Board of Works and the Steamship Company was for a service between Tarbet and Kilrush. They were perfectly agreeable that the service should be extended to Glin, but they had no power to compel that extension.
MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: The scenery from Tarbet to Glin and Foynes is splendid. At present the steamer lies at Tarbet for six hours, and it would only take an hour and a half to go from Tarbet to Glin and Foynes, and the same to return. It is principally on behalf of the great institution at Glin that I plead that this service shall be extended to Glin and Foynes.
MR. DILLON: I wish briefly to draw attention to a body of men who are under the administration of the Board of Work; that is the Glebe Loan borrowers of Ireland. The money advanced to them has been of considerable benefit to the clergy of the different denominations in Ireland. The Act under which these loans were granted

1185
was passed in 1870 in redemption of a promise which was given by the then Chief Secretary, and by Mr. Gladstone in the coarse of the Debates on the Irish Church Act. Under the Irish Church Act the clergy of the disestablished Church were granted their glebes, which were valued at a million and a half, for the sum of £180,000. That concession was made in order to smooth the passage of the Church Act, and Mr. Gladstone gave a binding obligation to do something towards placing the clergy of other denominations on a footing approaching to equality with the clergy of the disestablished Church. The Glebes Loan Act, founded on that pledge, was applicable equally to the Catholic clergy, the Presbyterian clergy, and the clergy of other creeds. It has been very largely availed of and has worked very beneficially. My hon. friend the Member for Longford reminds me that the clergy of the disestablished Church had a right to avail themselves of the Act, although they had already got a concession to the value of over a million of money. Now, in the course of the speech in which Mr. Gladstone defended this concession, he pointed Out that this was no special advantage conferred upon ministers of religion. The object of the Irish Church Act was to put an end to the religious establishment in Ireland. But another object was to establish the principle of religious equality, and to give all religious bodies a fair start. The principle laid down by Mr. Gladstone was to go as far in the way of advancing public money to ministers of religion who wished to purchase their glebes as it was possible to go without any loss to the Exchequer, and without putting a burden on the taxpayers. I dwell on that point because in reply to the demand which has been made by the Glebe Loan borrowers for some share of the relief recently given to other borrowers of money from the Exchequer, it was said that the principle in granting these reliefs was to draw a distinction between loans which are secured on public rates and loans secured on mortgages on private property. In justifying the denial of relief to the Glebe Loan borrowers, it was said that their loans belonged to the class secured on mortgages on private property, and that there was no collateral security based on rates. But I reply that the Glebe Loan borrowers stand in a totally different
1186
position from other borrowers, whose loans are secured only on individual property. And why? Because the Glebe Loan Act was an Act brought in, not on all fours with other Acts sanctioning loans, but in redemption of a pledge made by Mr. Gladstone on the occasion of an alteration in public policy. These borrowers, therefore, are entitled to claim to be put in a position similar to borrowers under the Land Act, loans under which are made under very generous terms from a Treasury point of view. The principle on which Mr. Gladstone proceeded was to go as far as possible to help the clergy without involving any loss to the taxpayers of the country; but now owing to the great fall in the value of money, the interest fixed upon these loans is manifestly too high, and I think it can be shown that the Treasury is making a large profit on these loans, and therefore the borrowers are entitled to some consideration from the Treasury. In 1897 a very influential deputation waited upon the Chief Secretary in Dublin to represent the views of these glebe borrowers. I desire to emphasise the fact that this deputation was not confined to Catholics, but was largely composed of Protestant clergymen of various denominations. The Chief Secretary, in the course of the very interesting discussion which took place, admitted that the borrowers had, I will not say exactly a grievance, but a strong case, and that the terms on which their loans were granted did undoubtedly throw upon the incumbents who had built their houses an undue burden. It must be remembered that as regards the Catholic Church, as well as some of the Nonconformist bodies, we have had to cover our country with ecclesiastical buildings of all kinds—schools, churches, convents, mission-houses—on a scale which, I venture to say, has never been equalled in any country since the Middle Ages. And that has been done out of the pockets of our own people. Well, the Chief Secretary admitted that there was a strong case, but the Lords of the Treasury, to whom the matter was afterwards referred, argued that these loans were not entitled to the relief given, under the Local Loans Act of 1897, to other borrowers under the Board of Works in Ireland. The Glebe Loan borrowers are entitled to borrow to the extent of three-fourths of the value of their houses, and they pay 5 per cent. on that amount for thirty-five

1187
years in redemption of principle and interest. That involves interest at 3½ per cent. on the sum advanced. They say that that is very high interest at present, in view of the distinct understanding that they were not to be charged more interest than would save from loss and pay the cost of administration. They therefore ask that that interest of 3½ per cent. should be reduced, or, as an alternative, that the same relief as is given by the Land Act of 1896 should be given them—namely, that outstanding balances shall be consolidated and issued as fresh loans with an extended period of repayment. I support these requests on three strong grounds, two of which I have already mentioned. First, Mr. Gladstone's promise; second, the vast expense to which these people have been put; and third, that the Act has been in force for thirty years and there has not been a penny of loss, and practically speaking there are no arrears, and there is no difficulty in recovering the money. It is also a service which, they contend, has given a large profit to the Treasury. On that point I think there is a difference of opinion, because the Treasury say that there has been no profit, and that the expense of administration is great. Of course it is very hard for me, not having all the documents at my disposal, to disprove that completely; but looking at the papers placed in my hands, I fancy there must be a profit, for I am assured that the only expense is, that for a surveyor to go down into the country to certify the work. I am assured there are no legal costs, which are paid by the borrowers, and that a considerable sum is charged against the service for the cost of administration. I do not think that we should deal with this as an exceptional case. No doubt there is a large amount of sentiment at the back of the case; but it is not a sectarian sentiment; it covers the whole population. It seems to me that the one strong argument the Government have for resisting the case is that it may lead to a number of others. On that I have a great deal of sympathy with the Secretary to the Treasury, who I know is open to assaults on all sides. But, still, I think the Government would do a popular thing at no cost if they would grant this concession.
MR. HANBURY: I think the hon. Gentleman is hardly correct in saying that the loans made under this Act are remunerative to the Treasury. In fact, I may almost put it that they involve a loss. Considering the number of loans, the expenditure connected with their administration is exceptionally large. The real point in this controversy is that the kind of collateral security required by the Act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of reducing the rate of interest on similar loans does not exist in this case, and it would be very dangerous indeed to make a new departore in this particular case. I admit that there are circumstances of some hardship suffered by the glebe borrowers, but we are bound by the Act as it stands, and if we were to alter not only the original Act, but the Act passed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago, we should be placing ourselves in a very dangerous position. It is, therefore, impossible, without risking the rate of interest which the Treasury is empowered to charge, to make an exception in this case.
MR. HEMPHILL: I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee, but I should like to observe that there is hardly any question in which so large a class of Irish people are interested as in the present. It is quite true, as is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, that this is certainly not a sectarian question, nor is it a political one. We can, therefore, talk about it in cold blood. I am informed that the amount of money advanced for glebe lands in Ireland is £545,581, or thereabouts, and that has to be paid for by 1,302 borrowers. Therefore this is a very important question, as my right hon. friend will admit; and it has exercised the minds of those who are interested in the subject for some years. Undoubtedly the rate of interest, compared with the rate of interest charged on other Government advances, is very heavy. For what is it? It is 5 per cent.—3½ Government charge for interest, and 1½ per cent. for the Sinking Fund—and the loans have to be repaid in thirty-five years. So that, in every way it was a very close and hard bargain in 1870, when the rate of interest was considerably higher than it is now. We know now that money has been advanced for various purposes at

1189
3 per cent. and 2¾ per cent. under the Local Loans Act, which has been referred to by my right hon. friend, and which I admit does not apply to this particular case, because it applies only to charges which are secured by local rates, but the spirit of the Act applies. The completely unsectarian and unpolitical character of this question is shown by the deputation which waited on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which every denomination was represented. Now, I would press the Government to reduce the rate of interest to a reasonable sum—not in such a way as to prejudice the security of the State—and to extend the time of repayment from thirty-five to fifty years, as has been done under some of the Land Purchase Acts. That would leave the security the same, but it would afford great relief to a very meritorious class.
MR. FLYNN: I am convinced that there can be no insuperable difficulty in consolidating the loans and re-issuing them at a lower rate of interest for an extended period. Surely, if a corporation can do that—and it has been done by the Corporation of Dublin—it is not beyond the power and the wit of the Treasury to do the same. The rates of interest are very much lower than when the sum was lent in 1870, and 3½ per cent. is, therefore, an enormous rate to charge.
MR. T.D. SULLIVAN: I think it is abundantly evident that there is a grievance pressing upon a large and worthy class of Irish clergyman. They have been asking for relief time after time, and have made a good case, but the Treasury is pleased to turn a deaf ear to it. Now, Sir, the bargain is a hard one. Perhaps at the time it was made it was not unreasonable, but circumstances have considerably changed since then. How is the grievance met? We have heard a good deal lately about money-lenders. It seems to me that the spirit of the money-lender—the "gombeen man"—is very much in the heart of the Treasury. It has been stated, and stated very truly, that those who get the loans possess a special and peculiar characteristic which ought to be taken into consideration. The loans are absolutely safe, nothing has been lost, and nothing is ever likely to be lost. The borrowers are a class of men who are incapable of doing anything un-
1190
fair or unjust in connection with their responsibility, and behind them are parishioners who will not see their clergymen put to inconvenience by their houses being sold and their furniture auctioned. It is therefore a safe transaction, and I think the Government might see their way to meet the case. In the first place, this could be accomplished by reducing the rate of interest—the Treasury are quite capable of arranging that if they thought fit to do so—and, in the next place, by prolonging the time of repayment. If those two measures were adopted great satisfaction would be given in Ireland, not only to the clergy and the different denominations, but to the people who sympathise with them.
MR. DILLON: I confess that I am greatly surprised that in making this claim we have received no support whatever from the representatives of the Protestant Party in Ireland. I have in my hand a report of the deputation which waited on the Chief Secretary in December, 1897, on behalf of the glebe land borrowers of Ireland, and I find among the gentlemen who formed that deputation representatives of all the great Church bodies in Ireland. And yet when we bring forward this grievance not one word of support for this most moderate claim comes from hon. Members from the North of Ireland, although we might naturally expect that support from them would have much greater influence with the Government than we can hope to exercise. Local loans should be financed directly out of the funds at the disposal of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, when the pressure on the market for Consols would, pro tanto, be relieved, and 30 or 40 millions in the hands of the Commissioners used as local loans stock earning more than could be got by redeeming the Debt in a perfectly safe and guaranteed security.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Some few years since I brought this question before the House of Commons and pressed it on the attention of the Government. Although at that time I failed to make an impression, I trust upon this occasion we are all as one as to the need of something being done by the Government to meet the pressing claims of the glebe loan borrowers. There is no

1191
sectarianism or politics in the question, and I hope that the Government will take action in the matter. It seems to me that this is very much a question for Treasury experts. Why not advance to these glebe loan borrowers a sufficient amount of money to discharge the existing liability from some other imperial source? At the present moment the Local Loans Fund Commissioners are advancing money at the rate of a quarter of a million a month at 2¾ per cent. This is the money they are getting from the Post Office Savings Bank and cannot find an opportunity to invest. If the amount of the glebe loan borrowers was paid off and an amount sufficient to enable them to pay them off was advanced to them it might be very easily settled. I think the Treasury might look into this matter and consider whether some relief could not be given in that way so that they might benefit by paying lower interest.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: Had I known that this question was coming on to-day, or known that anyone in my constituency was interested in the matter, I should have done my best to bring the matter forward. When we are challenged I think we ought to explain our silence. I do not, however, say that in any unfriendly way, and I shall be glad to see the hon. Member for East Mayo carry this matter through.
MR. DAVITT: Before this Vote is taken I should like to have some explanation with regard to one item. I find £50 is to be voted for an inspector whose duty it is to inspect ancient monuments and ruins in Ireland. I should like to know who the gentleman is, and what the work is for which he is to get this paltry amount. I do not dispute the amount in the vote, but would rather it be increased. I find in a footnote that a further sum of £200 is given for inspecting national monuments; which money is provided under the Irish Church Acts. I have tried to find some particulars of that £200, but have failed. But I contend that, having regard to the large number of ancient monuments we have in Ireland, a larger sum than £250 ought to be allowed to insure that those monuments should not be allowed to fall into decay. I should like to see some prominent archœological expert appointed for this work, and if such an individual were
1192
appointed, Irish Members on both sides of the House would not object to his being paid a fair sum for the duties which he has to perform. I find that while the inspection of ancient monuments only costs £300, here under this Vote the total salaries for the Board of Works amount to £2,700, and I see that the charwomen employed in cleaning out the offices get more than half the money paid for the inspection of the national ancient monuments in Ireland. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter; he may not be so familiar with the ancient monuments and ruins as we are, but if he travelled through the country and saw them he would sympathise with the claim we make, and I trust between this and next year he will make some increase on that account.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to support, what has fallen from my hon. friend. We have no fault to find with this gentleman, who is doing this duty, but I think a little more money should be granted for this valuable service. Irishmen take very great interest in this matter, and session after session we bring it forward without any appreciable result; but I hope we shall see some result on this occasion, and that a larger sum of money will be allowed for this purpose.
MR. HEMPHILL: Before this Vote is passed I should like to call attention to a matter which is both unpolitical and unsectarian in its complex. There is attached to the Four Courts in Dublin a very valuable and important library frequented by the Irish lawyers, and through the lawyers the Irish public would be great sufferers by its decay. The Royal Courts of Justice in London, here, also have a library for the benefit of the Bar, and the right hon. Gentleman will hear with surprise that while lighting, firing, furnishing, and cleaning of the library at the Royal Courts of Justice, England, is paid out of the public funds, there is no similar contribution made to the library at the Four Courts, Dublin. I bring this matter forward at the instance of what is called the Bar Council of Ireland, the secretary of which has had a great deal of correspondence with the Dublin Board of Works on the subject; and what I wish to ask is, that a sum should be given to cover the items

1193
I have mentioned. The structure of the library is maintained by the Board of Works, because it is part of a public building, and the sum we now ask for is not large, £200 or £300 would cover it all. Mr. Stephenson, of the Board of Works, tried to draw a distinction between this library and that of the Royal Courts, London, but there is nothing in the distinction, as it was based upon a want of knowledge of what the conditions under which the library existed were. He assumed, because members of the Irish Bar for the most part live at home and transact their business in their own studies, and not in chambers like the Temple, that the library was a sort of chambers and club rolled into one; but that is not the case, and there is no reason why the English Bar should have this contribution made to the expense of their library, and the Irish Bar, which is a much poorer body of men, should have to pay it themselves. The robing room fees is another matter to which I wish to call attention. In the Royal Courts, England, the annual subscription is £1 1s., with a fee of 5s. for the convenience of a peg, and so on. In Ireland, Queen's Counsel have to pay £4 4s., and Junior Counsel £2 2s. The Committee, if I am right, will say, I hope, that this act of justice shall be done. We ask no more, and shall not be content with less.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I also have been asked by the Council of the Bar to bring this matter before the House. I can prove my case very shortly. We wish to be put on the same footing as the library of the Royal Courts. We have about 400 members, at an annual sub-subscription of £2 2s., which results in 800 guineas a year, out of which we have to provide everything, and consequently there is not much left for buying hooks. The robing room of the Royal Courts in the Strand, again, has a small subsidy, but we in Ireland have to pay for our own robing rooms. I sincerely trust that the Secretary to the Board of Works will see that these grievances are removed.
MR. DAVITT: I opposed this proposal last year on general principles. I agree with the saying which is attributed to Peter the Great, that one lawyer is enough for one country. I admit that if that were so, my right hon. friend who sits on the front Opposition Bench would
1194
come first. However, as he has acted very kindly in supporting us to-night, I do not intend to oppose his proposal this year.
Vote agreed to.

CLASS IV.
8. £21,724, to complete the sum for Scientific Investigation, etc.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I think, as the First Lord of the Treasury is in his place, and he has taken great interest in the case of the Irish gold ornaments, I would like to ask him if he is in a position to give us any information as to how the case stands.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)In answer to the hon. Baronet, I have to say that two or three questions that have arisen have been referred to the law officers of both countries, but I think that probably not much time will elapse before I am able to give the hon. Baronet and other Gentlemen who are greatly and properly interested in the question some answer which will show them how the matter stands and what the legal difficulties are that will have to be dealt with.
SIR T. ESMONDE: That being so, I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and am content to leave the matter in his hands.
Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported:—

CLASS II.
Motion made, and question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £27,479, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the Local Government Board in Ireland."
MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I rise to move the motion standing in my name, and I desire to draw attention to the fact that certain action taken by the Local Government Board has resulted in putting a great financial burden on the Glenties Union in the county Donegal, and I wish to ask whether a remedy cannot be found

1195
by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall state the case very briefly. In January, 1898, in the Glenties Poor Law Union there arose some cases of virulent typhus fever. A family of the name of Ward, a man, his wife, and thirteen children, were stricken by the disease, and the wife died in the little cabin. The medical officer saw that it was essential to the lives of the rest of the family that they should be removed from the cabin, and brought to the Glenties Poor Law Hospital. That was effected, and the doctor then wrote a letter to the guardians advising them that for the safety of the whole district the thatch and furniture of the cabin from which they had been removed should be burnt. He declared and certified that there was no other way of disinfecting it than by burning it. This advice the guardians followed, and they burnt the frniture and the thatch of that particular cabin, and another one in the same condition. When the persons whose lives had been saved by the action of the Glenties Guardians were convalescent, the question was asked where they were to go to, and it was suggested that two cottages should be built for them under the Labourers Housing Acts. The guardians having looked into the question saw great difficulty in complying with that suggestion, but they had the good sense to agree to pay some compensation. This poor man Ward was perfectly willing to accept the compensation from the guardians to the amount of £20, and he had gone to a neighbouring town or village and was actually engaged in buying the wood to set up a roof to his cabin, when the Local Government Board declared that any money voted for the purposes proposed would be illegal, and the guardians would be liable to be surcharged. Under these circumstances the guardians went no further with the matter. There was the alternative of building two labourers' cottages, but the Glenties Union is a poor union, with a debt of about £1,200, and rates amounting to 8s. 6d. in the £1, and as these buildings would cost about £200 the guardians felt unable to incur the expenditure. They were also informed that the families would have to be charged a rent for these new cottages. "Why," said the guardians, "should these people be charged this rent? They did no wrong; they are the victims of a great
1196
calamity, and they are entitled to be rehoused without being charged an additional rent." So for a time nothing more was done. Then the two families were legally advised that they had good cause of action against the board of guardians for the demolition of their houses. Actions were brought, and damages to the amount of £150 were awarded in each case. The damages and costs have landed the Glenties Board of Guardians into a liability of about £500, which the union is absolutely unable to pay. Judge Murphy, who tried one of the cases in Dublin, in addressing the jury reminded them that in awarding compensation they should not forget that the lives of the plaintiff's family were probably saved by the action of the guardians; while the judge who tried the other case said he was sure the gentlemen in the box would be obliged to the guardians for what they had done in destroying this den of filth; it was a mercy to the people themselves, and the doctor had said that the only way of getting rid of the germs of the disease was by burning the house. It is therefore perfectly evident that the guardians acted not simply according to their lights, but according to what they conceived to be their absolute duty in the matter. No doubt the burning of the houses was an illegal act, but the whole thing has turned out in such a way, and has brought about such hardship and burden upon the ratepayers of that union that I think they are entitled to some consideration from the Local Government Board—that is to say, from the Government. I hold in my hands a letter which has caused me some astonishment, and which contains a statement of a fact of which I was utterly unaware, and of which I rather think the Board of Guardians had no knowledge. If that is so I think the Local Government Board are much to blame for not having informed the guardians of the fact. The letter, which is from the Chief Secretary, states:
"The expense of building the cottages would no doubt have been £200, as the guardians point out, but it has to be borne in mind that of this sum £179 would have been defrayed out of the Labourers' Cottages Grant by the Government.
The letter concludes by stating that the Chief Secretary cannot give any hopes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer providing for the expenditure of £500 out of public

1197
funds. We see the Chancellor of the Exchequer here night after night absolutely sporting enormous amounts of money. Recently millions have been voted, and the heads of some Irish Members have been made dizzy by the prodigious amounts which are so lightly treated, and under the circumstances I do not think it would hurt the British Exchequer or call forth any protests from the Members of the House if the Treasury agreed to relieve the Glenties Board of Guardians of this unfortunate burden.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The facts of the case are these. There was a case of typhus fever in the Glenties Union, and the sanitary authorities were advised that the proper and only way of disinfecting the houses was to burn them. Burnt they accordingly were by the Guardians, who then proposed to spend £40 or thereabouts in compensating the owners. The Local Government Board were asked to sanction the expenditure, but replied that it was not in their power to do so, that it was an illegal payment, for which, if made, those who signed the cheque would probably be surcharged. As the action of the Board was simply to safeguard the Guardians against having to pay the money themselves, it is hardly fair to say that the Guardians were landed in this expenditure by the action of the Local Government Board. Seeing the difficult position of the Guardians, the Board advised them that they might build cottages under the Labourers' Acts, and they sent down an inspector to recommend them to adopt that course. I understand that the Guardians were fully aware of the fact that if they adopted the proposal they would be entitled to £179 out of the Labourers' Cottages Grant, but they were not inclined to accept the suggestion. As to being forced to charge the families a rent, I cannot regard it as a very serious burden that a labourer should pay a small rent for a new cottage. The owners of the cottages which were burnt brought actions at law against the guardians, and damages were awarded to the amount of £150 in each case. The Guardians, not content with the decisions, appealed and against lost, the expenditure ultimately amounting to £500. Then the Guardians come to the Local Government Board, and ask the Board to be good enough to help them. But, in the first place, the Local Govern-
1198
ment Board have no funds out of which this money could be granted. The only way in which the Guardians could be recouped would be by a Vote in this House, but having regard to the circumstances of the case I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accede to that. The circumstances of this case are undoubtedly hard, but it would be impossible every time guardians made a series of mistakes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take into consideration the question of reimbursing the expenditure thus incurred.
MR. MURNAGHAN: I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the action of the Local Government Board with regard to interference in the management of local affairs. Instead of assisting the new bodies which have been created under the recent Local Government Act, many members of which bodies are not experienced in matters of local government, the Local Government Board raise a series of barriers against those local bodies of carrying out their duties by making demands which have not hitherto been made. In a union with which I am connected, there was a vacancy for an assistant in one of the wards. The person required was a sort of domestic, to look after the cleaning, washing, scrubbing, and the rough work of the ward, at a salary of £15 or £20 a year. The guardians advertised the post, but upon applying for the appointment to be sanctioned they were informed that the Local Government Board could not give their sanction, as the person had not the necessary qualifications. If boards of guardians are to have to ask for the sanction of such appointments as that, is it not turning the whole thing into a farce? The requirements of the Local Government Board are making it really impossible for any man who has any regard for his own dignity to go upon these bodies and merely register the views of a body which knows nothing whatever of the local wants or needs. What business has a body of salaried officials, who know nothing of the local requirements, to say to men who give their time without remuneration, and are the best selected men that can be found in the various districts, that they cannot sanction these appointments, but this or that must be done? I think the proper thing

1199
is not to pay any attention to these objections, but to allow the matter to go for a month or so, by which time the Local Government Board have forgotten all about the incident, and the thing is then sanctioned and nothing more is done about it. But I am earnestly anxious that local government in Ireland should have a fair chance, and it is only right that I should protest against this meddlesome interference, for it is nothing else, on the part of the Local Government Board. If local bodies are going to be entrusted with the management of their local affairs they should not be interfered with in this way. If they are fit to pay these officials they are fit to appoint them. Since the system of local government has been changed the interference from Dublin has increased.
MR. G. W. BALFOURwas understood to dissent.
MR. MURNAGHAN: The right hon. Gentleman says "no," but I am chairman of the Board and of the District Council, and it is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to say "no," because I have my own experience. Unless these local bodies commit some gross error why should they be interfered with at all in this manner? It seems to me that within the last few months a different spirit has come over this body, for there has been nothing but confusion and meddlesome interference on the part of the Local Government Board. I say that it is not right to try and hamper these local bodies, and they should be allowed to have proper freedom. The local bodies feel that the responsibility rests upon them, and they ought to have the freedom and liberty to do what they think is right. There seems to be a desire on the part of the Local Government Board to create expense, so that the new bodies will become unpopular with the people, for they are doing all they possibly can to thwart the growth of local government in Ireland and impede local work. One of the local boards took counsel's opinion upon an order of the Local Government Board, and they were told that it was ultra vires. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to translate that into Anglo-Saxon. The Local Government Board seem to be moved by a desire to impede the beneficial results which were expected to flow from the Local Government Act; and I think
1200
the wings of that body will have to be clipped, and I shall make an effort to do it. As a representative of the people, I object to the will of the people being thwarted in this way. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is lord and master of the Irish people. His will is paramount, the Local Government Board is the central authority, and the elected bodies are mere trifles. As one who believes that from the people all power is derived, and that the people themselves are the best authority to control the affairs of the country, I protest against the methods of interference adopted by the Local Government Board.
MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I do not think I need offer any apology to the Committee for bringing forward the case of Miss Magill, who was appointed rate-collector by the Clogher Board of Guardians last year. The matter has been brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary by questions in the House, and his attention has also been directed to it in other ways. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that in May, 1898, Thomas Magill, who had filled the position of rate-collector in the Clogher Union for a considerable number of years, died, and that his daughter, Miss Ann Eliza Magill, who had discharged the duties for five years during her father's lifetime, was appointed to succeed him on the 11th of June, 1898. This lady had effectively and efficiently discharged the duties during the last five years her father held the office. There was no difficulty in the matter of distraint, and there was a sort of an agreement on the part of the ratepayers to pay their rates when called upon to do so by this lady. One would have imagined that the Local Government Board would, on this occasion, have sanctioned the action of the Board of Guardians, unless they are distinctly and particularly hostile to the employment of women in any capacity whatever. But I regret to have to recall to the committee that an order was issued by the Local Government Board on the 22nd of July, 1898, directing that Miss Magill should not exercise any of the powers or perform any of the duties of the office to which she had been appointed. This course of action astonished the Guardians and disgusted the country. Irish newspapers of all shades of opinion were for once in agree-

1201
ment in condemning it, and no hostile voice came from any portion of the country. On the 2nd of August I had the honour of presenting a petition to the House from the Clogher Board of Guardians praying the House to make an inquiry and to provide a remedy. In pursuance of that petition, and in accordance with its prayer, I now ask this Committee to cause such an inquiry to be made as will place Miss Magill in the position that the Clogher Board of Guardians desired she should occupy, and the duties of which she had faithfully discharged for five years. But the Local Government Board did not approve of the action of the Clogher Board of Guardians, and they took what I think was the rather high-handed course of dissolving the Board and appointing two paid Guardians to discharge their duties. The Irish press was unanimous in support of the Clogher Board of Guardians, and condemned the action of the Local Government Board. On the 20th of October, 1898, the Dungannon Board of Guardians passed a resolution requesting the Local Government Board to reconsider the case. But the answer which was given was in accordance with the whole course of action taken by the Board. I think lawyers will bear me out when I state that the Petty Sessions Act 14 and 15 Vic. Chapter 93, which deals with the enforcement of the payments of poor rate, county rate, and other public taxes, does not require that the rate collector should distrain in person or that the warrant should be directed to the rate collector specially. The whole question came before the full Court of Exchequer, and the unanimous judgment of the Court delivered by the Chief Baron was that the 152nd Section of 6 and 7 William IV., which directs that the warrant shall issue to the collector of county cess, is inconsistent with the Petty Sessions Act and had been repealed by it. Therefore the decision of the Local Government Board was not founded on law, and this House is entitled to revise it. I may mention that the whole question has been dealt with amply from first to last in two extremely interesting articles in the westminster Review, one in September, 1898, the other in February, 1899. The Women's Local Government Society, of which the Countess of Aberdeen is president, brought this matter under the notice of counsel, and counsel's opinion
1202
was adverse to the Local Government Board, and sustained the view that there was neither legal nor moral right to discharge this lady. I have also the same counsel's opinion with regard to the General Order which has been issued regulating the qualification, security, remuneration, and duties of the collectors of poor rate. Article 8 of this Order disqualifies a woman from acting as a collector, and Mr. Macinerney, the counsel consulted, was asked:
"Is it within the power of the Board to impose a disability on all women without the sanction of Parliament?"
Counsel's reply was:
"I am of opinion that it is not within the power of the Local Government Board (Ireland) to impose a disability on women nor on any other class of Her Majesty's subjects without the sanction of Parliament. The power of making regulations, orders, or byelaws given to subordinate bodies or boards are limited by the Acts conferring such powers. They should operate as part of the Acts. If inconsistent with the Acts by the authority of which they are framed they are clearly ultra vires."
The next question submitted to counsel was:
"Is such power conferred by any of the Acts referred to on page 1 of the General Order?"
The reply was:
"The power to make general orders and regulations was conferred on the predecessors in office of the Local Government Board (Ireland) by the Act referred to in the General Order in question—namely, the Poor Law Act of 1838. It provides that words imputing the masculine gender shall include females. Neither this Act nor any other of the numerous Acts in relation to Poor Relief in Ireland confers on the Local Government Board any power such as is suggested in queries one and two."
The third question was:
"Is the General Order a general rule that needs to be submitted to Parliament before becoming valid?"
The reply was:
"The Act of 1838, Section 4, provides that all general rules (which would include orders) should be sent by this body to the Secretary of State, and that if Her Majesty should with the advice of her Privy Council disallow such order or any part of it the same should cease to operate. The 10th and 11th Vic., Chap. 90, substituted the Lord Lieutenant in Council for the Secretary of State and Privy Council, but in my opinion the mandatory direction that all such orders should be laid before both Houses of Parliament (Sec. 5) still remains.

1203
The order would be valid if duly sanctioned or if not disallowed until determined otherwise by a court of competent jurisdiction."
The next question was:
"How can it be ascertained (if the necessity exists) that such General Order has been so submitted?"
Counsel replied:
"A record of all orders submitted to Parliament is kept by the Librarian, and can be examined by any Member of Parliament."
The conclusion of the whole of Mr. Macinerney's reply, which is dated 2nd June, 1899, is as follows:
"I am very clearly of opinion that this matter should be raised and discussed in Parliament either on the estimates or by a question. The fact that the Local Government Board resorted to the expedient of making this Order is very good evidence that they were at least doubtful of their action in the case of Miss Magill."
Sir, I claim the right to raise this matter before this Committee of the House of Commons. I feel that an injustice has been done, not only to Miss Magill individually, but to the whole of that large class who would be excluded from public appointments if this decision were to pass unchallenged, and I confidently appeal to this Committee to bring its influence to bear on Her Majesty's Government, and to express without distinction of party a unanimous opinion that the action of the Local Government Board was harsh on Miss Magill and unjust to women generally.
MR. DAVITT: Hon. Members on this side of the House do not often find themselves in agreement with the hon. Member for South Belfast, but on this occasion we are heartily with him in his efforts to have a rational course adopted with reference to this lady. I will take the liberty of congratulating him on the splendid consistency he has shown in bringing this question again and again before the House of Commons since the Local Government Board, under the inspiration of the Chief Secretary, committed this stupid blunder. I venture to say that this strong conjunction of Members, Unionists and Nationalists, advocating a cause of this kind, ought to be a strong argument with the Chief Secretary. In my opinion the Chief Secretary has committed a double blunder. First, he has either sanctioned the arbitrary action of
1204
the Local Government Board or prompted the Board to take that action, and, secondly, he seems to have failed to imbibe, although he is long enough in the country, some of the sentiment of Irishmen with reference to the other sex. He ought to know that Irishmen regard the other sex with the greatest possible esteem and courtesy. In no other country in the world are women more honoured and respected than in Ireland, and, surely, if the right hon. Gentleman wished for a non-party question on which to make some stand in this House for unanimous public feeling in Ireland, here was an occasion where he could have upheld the action of the Clogher Board of Guardians, inasmuch as that action met with the approval of all parties and the sanction of the country. We have been proud as Irishmen to find Ireland leading the way in this cause of women's enfranchisement as she has led the way in my opinion in every progressive movement for the last fifty years. We have been glad to give a lesson to England with reference to the right of women to be employed in public offices of this kind. In this case where was the wrong? The lady appointed was well known and I believe belongs to a highly respectable family; she was well qualified for the work by education and in other respects, and had the confidence of those who placed her in the position. It is not contended, I presume, by the Chief Secretary that the collection of rates in this particular union would have suffered at the hands of this lady. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the act of the Board of Guardians as evidence of the growth of feeling in both countries, particularly in Ireland, in favour of women being employed in work of this kind? The right hon. Gentleman smiles at my suggestion, but I hope I am right in claiming him as an advocate for women's suffrage. The First Lord of the Treasury is, anyhow, and I hope the Chief Secretary is also. Let us look at the question in this light. Women in Ireland have to pay rates and are taxed like men, and when a case of this kind occurs in which a local body sees fit to elect a woman to collect the rates, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to sanction that action? Surely the pillars of the British constitution would not fall if this lady were employed to collect the poor rates in the Clogher Union in the North of Ireland.

1205
We protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in boycotting this lady and also the Clogher Board of Guardians for having appointed her. I contend that the treatment to which this lady has been subjected on the authority and by the sanction of the Chief Secretary is absolutely disgraceful, and I trust that the right hon Gentleman, after the expression of feeling from all parts of Ireland as represented by Irish Members here to-night, will see his way to reconsider his action. During this week we have had a Women's Congress assembling here in London, and when I consider the stupid laws passed for Ireland in the present generation by this House, I regretted during the week that we could not all clear out and allow ladies to come in here and try their hand at law-making. For my part I am satisfied that Ireland would benefit by this change of law-makers. Let me appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether this is not a small matter in which to exercise his authority against the wishes of all parties in Ireland. Surely in view of the unanimous feeling throughout the country in favour of this lady being allowed to occupy this position he will see in that fact alone an overwhelming reason why he should give way on this point.
MR. DLLION: There are a great many subjects connected with the Vote to which I desire to refer. However it may be more convenient to deal with this particular subject before proceeding to the general discussion of the Vote. For my part I desire to add my voice to the appeal made by the hon. Member for South Belfast. To my mind there are two aspects to the question which has been raised. First of all there is the aspect as to whether a woman ought to be allowed to be a rate collector in a union. I think every member of the Committee will agree that unless it can be shown that there is some manifest disqualification it is desirable that the sphere of women's operations should be extended. Therefore I say it is for the Irish Government to prove that a woman is unqualified and unfitted because she is a woman to collect rates. That is a proposition which I confess I cannot understand how anyone can maintain. In Ireland a great many women are in business, and in many country towns women are able to compete, and successfully compete, with
1206
men in running business establishments. If a women is able to employ a number of men and to compete with men in the ordinary commerce of the country, why is a woman not fitted to collect the rates? There is absolute unanimity with reference to this particular case we are discussing. Miss Magill's father had been rate collector for several years, and during the five years before he died, and during which he was a hopeless invalid, Miss Magill collected the rates, and there was no complaint. With the full knowledge of the guardians she did the work satisfactorily; and when her father died the guardians, animated by a most proper spirit, continued her in the position. As I have stated, there are two aspects to this question. The first is whether a woman is qualified for this position, and, from the point of view of this particular case, Miss Magill had had the opportunity of proving her capacity, apart altogether from the general view that, as I think, no disqualification of this kind ought to exist. There is a second aspect to the question, which illustrates the power exercised by the Local Government Board in Ireland under the original Poor Law Act of Ireland, a power which is not claimed by the Local Government Board in England. We have again and again complained of the manner in which the Local Government Board tyrannises over the people in Ireland. I was very much struck the other day by the reply given by the President of the Local Government Board, when he was asked what he would do if a board of guardians refused to carry out an order which he had issued with reference to vaccination. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman fenced with the question, which he regarded as rather unpleasant; but he admitted that the only course open to him was simply a legal process, such as imprisoning the whole board of guardians, which is not likely to be resorted to in this country. I almost ventured to get up and say, "Why not introduce the drastic system which obtains in Ireland." Under that system any board of guardians that does not obey the order of the Local Government Board is simply kicked out, and two gentlemen are sent down from Dublin as a blister on the district, and draw £500 a year between them. It is a monstrous system, destructive of all local liberty. It leads the Local Government Board into

1207
habits of tyranny which they would not resort to if they had not the means of enforcing their authority. Of course, I am not referring to a question of accounts, in which they ought to have authority. In this country the Local Government Board have to have recourse to a very serious procedure, but in Ireland the machinery at the disposal of the Local Government Board is simple, steady, and effective, and they are accordingly tempted to have recourse to it on absolutely insufficient grounds. For a great many years boards of guardians have been suppressed in the south of Ireland, and no notice was taken of it, but the peculiar feature of the case of the Clogher Guardians is that it is the first time that the Local Government Board has come into conflict with a Board of Guardians in the loyal North—in the sacred province of Ulster. I sympathise with the Clogher Board of Guardians. They did a very proper thing, and instead of being allowed to try a most admirable experiment they were suppressed by the Local Government Board. One result of that has been to produce absolute unanimity among the Irish Members, a most unusual spectacle, and one which must be gratifying to everyone except the Chief Secretary. Not one single hon. Member from Ireland will get up and support the Local Government Board, or endeavour to justify its action, excluding, of course, the Members of the Government. This general order was issued in 1899, and that brings me to a matter on which I shall have something to say later on. There has been nothing to equal the number of orders in council, general orders, rules, and rules of Court which has been issued in connection with the Local Government Act. To use an American expression the new bodies have been "snowed under" by them. I have appealed to the Chief Secretary to have them collected into one volume, but that has not been done, and the result is that no one in Ireland knows what the law is. You might innocently imagine that when you have mastered the statute you know the law, but then you find it is lost in a multiplicity of orders. New orders, rules, and regulations are issued every month, and are afterwards withdrawn or altered and then cannot be found anywhere.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I am not aware that a single order has been withdrawn.
MR. DILLON: That seems to me to be harping on a word. If they are not withdrawn they are altered and modified.
MR. HEMPHILL: My recollection is that an order fixing the time of the elections was withdrawn.
MR. DILLON: I am only stating complaints which have reached me from local bodies which have been puzzled by these orders. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us these orders and regulations in one volume, so that by studying it we can understand what the law is. That is the least we are entitled to. I also hold that these orders should be issued to Irish Members as Parliamentary Papers. It is too much of a good thing to expect us to be hunting over Thom's in Dublin for them. We cannot keep track of them, as they are very complicated. In the general order which has been referred to in connection with the case of Miss Magill, various qualifications are laid down as being required for a poor rate collector. A man must not have been in receipt of relief, or must not be in the retail trade, or have been recently convicted either by indictment or summarily of any crime for which he was sentenced to hard labour. This last condition is what I will protest against on every occasion I can. It places it in the power of removable magistrates in Ireland not only to imprison a man for his politics, but to deprive him of his bread by disqualfying him for a position under these local bodies. That is a monstrous thing. Parliament, and Parliament alone, ought to lay down such a condition as that. It is outrageous that the Local Government Board composed of two or three servants of the right hon. Gentleman, should arrogate to itself the power of adding this further punishment to the punishment given by the removable magistrates to the political opponents of the Government. I think these questions of disqualification ought to be settled by Parliament, and not left to the Local Government Board. Under this rule, a man holding a meeting of the United Irish League might be disqualified from getting a position under these local bodies. Again, I find that the same disqualifica-

1209
tion which attaches to a man sentenced to hard labour is also laid upon a woman because she is a woman. I say the Local Government Board have overstepped the bounds of reason and common sense in arrogating to themselves powers which ought to be kept in the hands of Parliament. It should not be within the power of anybody except Parliament to disqualify women as women. The question is one which turns parties upside down, and leads to very curious results, as we have recently seen in this House. It therefore seems to me that to relegate a question which so interests the electorate and divides parties to the decision of a man who by the mere stroke of his pen has the power to disqualify all the women rate collectors is a monstrous policy.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: The question of the appointment of this woman to the office of rate-collector is one which appeals to me on more grounds than one. In the first place the occurrence came about at a time when we were discussing in this House the question of extending to Ireland the powers of local self-government which we enjoy in this country. Cases have come under my own observation in which women have been appointed, under almost identical circumstances, by local boards of guardians to perform duties even more important than those of collecting rates. I recollect one particular instance in which a woman, through the illness of her father, had been employed in the very difficult, and one would think for a woman almost impossible duty, of relieving officer of a rural district. In that case the Local Government Board in England, guided by the fact that this woman had performed these duties satisfactorily for a considerable period, recognised the right of the local authority to nominate such a person for the office. In England, in the administration of the Local Government Acts, the whole spirit of the Local Government Board has always been as far as possible to meet the wishes of the local governing bodies, because they recognise that these people understand the local conditions better than any central authority can understand them, and therefore by the Local Government Board, in that particular instance, a conciliatory attitude was adopted, and the action of the local authority supported. Such a decision
1210
gave a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the locality, but if it had ended in the election of a large number of women to those offices, I do not think any serious injury would have been done. It was contended at the time that the post of relieving officer was a very disagreeable and onerous one for a woman to undertake; but when one recollects that a large number of the persons who come under the Poor Law are women and children, it seems to me that this is one of the opportunities for women to perform useful work. In this case you have a woman in almost identical circumstances who has been performing the duties of rate-collector of the district, and, in the illness of her father, performing them so satisfactorily that the local authority was willing to appoint her to the office; but the comparatively irresponsible Local Government Board in Dublin refused to recognise the appointment. They seem to me to have exercised their powers in an ungenerous fashion, if not arbitrarily and unwisely, because at that very time you were passing through this House a Bill to extend the local privileges of the Irish people. Under these circumstances I say it was more than want of foresight—it was a blunder on the part of the central authority in Dublin. When you give the Irish people local government you ought to give them a certain amount of freedom of action, and not tie them up with red-tape centralisation, so as to prevent them exercising their functions in the ordinary liberal manner. I felt myself that this action augured ill for the success of the Local Government Act, and therefore I regretted it; but I regret still more that after this new Act has become law the same narrow spirit of officialism and the same desire for central arbitrary authority still exists; and that it should be represented by the Order which has been quoted by my hon. friend behind me. I think that Order was a blunder on the part of the officials of Dublin Castle. It probably escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who is responsible for the government of Ireland, for I cannot conceive that he deliberately sanctioned a set of regulations excluding from office women who are capable of performing the duties connected with it, not only honourably to themselves, but to the benefit of the community. I hope, now that both sides of the House of Commons have shown their feelings in this matter,

1211
the right hon. Gentleman will modify the regulations in a way which will recognise local feeling and local prejudices so as to bring about a more general confidence in the administration of affairs throughout the country. In that spirit the right hon. Gentleman will do much good to Ireland, both in a material as well as in a moral sense. I therefore hope that he will intimate to-night that this Order will, at all events, be modified, and that Poor Law offices, such as those of rate collector, will not be debarred to women who are fit and suitable to perform the functions.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has suggested that the action taken by the Local Government Board was taken without my knowledge and consent. I beg to say at the outset that that is not the case. This matter was submitted to my consideration by my colleagues during June or July of last year. It was most carefully and exhaustively considered by me, and the conclusion I arrived at was that it was not desirable that women should hold these posts. That conclusion I have since embodied in the Order referred to by the hon. Member for East Mayo. The hon. Member for East Mayo, as well as the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, appear to be unaware that so far as concerns the qualifications or disqualifications of rate collectors this Order is in all respects the reproduction of an Order which has been in force for a great number of years. The particular clause to which the hon. Member for East Mayo objects has, I believe I am right in saying, been included in Orders respecting the appointment of collectors since the Order was first issued, and I cannot conceive what objection there can possibly be to a clause of that sort. The hon. Member for East Mayo says that there should be no disqualification of that kind inserted in an Order of the Local Government Board unless it has the direct and explicit sanction of Parliament. Sir, the hon. Member appears to entirely forget that Parliament has placed the power in the discretion of the Local Government Board to approve or disapprove the appointment of any rate collector. In the first place Miss Magill had no right whatever to act as the deputy of her father. In doing so she was contravening the Order of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member for South Belfast says
1212
that the Local Government Board were perfectly satisfied with the way in which she discharged her duties. That is not altogether the case. It is true that the Local Government Board were not aware that during these five years Miss Magill was acting as the deputy of her father, and, as a matter of fact, they were not satisfied with the collection of the rates during that time. They had to write no fewer than sixteen letters to the guardians pointing out the backward state of the collection. My hon. friend has referred to the Order of the 22nd of July, in which the Board disallowed the appointment of Miss Magill, and declared that this Order astonished the guardians and disgusted the country. I have some doubt in my own mind about the astonishment of the guardians. The hon. Member for South Mayo expressed the view that the appointment of Miss Magill was evidence of the growth of feeling in favour of the employment of women in this capacity. I do not think it represents anything of the kind. There have been, so far as the records of the Local Government Board go back, five cases altogether in which women were appointed by boards of guardians as rate collectors, and in every case the appointment has been disallowed by the Local Government Board. Now, Sir, I say that the natural inference, the true inference, from these facts is, not that the guardians are increasingly desirous of moving in the direction of giving these posts to female collectors, but that where the rate collector of a parish dies, there is a natural feeling of pity for the family, in consequence of which the guardians desire to provide for the bereaved in a way which I have no doubt does credit to their kindness of heart, but is not always to the advantage of the ratepayers. My hon. friend went on to speak of what he called the high-handed action of the Local Government Board in dissolving the Clogher Board of Guardians. I thought I had, in reply to questions put by my hon. friend and others, already made clear the reasons of the Local Government Board for dissolving the board of guardians. Miss Magill's appointment had been disallowed by the Local Government Board. She was thereupon re-elected by the guardians, and of course the appointment was disallowed by the Local Government Board again. It then became necessary for the Local

1213
Government Board to fill the place of rate-collector, and this was done. Thereupon the guardians refused to sign the other collector's warrants, and this meant a paralysis of the poor law in the district. It was not until the guardians had been repeatedly warned of the inevitable result of the policy they were pursuing that we took the final step of dissolving the board. It was with extreme reluctance that I took that course, and as soon as possible I replaced the guardians. I am not the man to be prejudiced against the employment of women in any capacity; and I have been a constant friend of women whenever the question of admitting them to this or that elected capacity has arisen; and I can assure my hon. friend that if I had not been convinced that the post of collector in Ireland was not one which women can properly be asked to fill, I should certainly not have taken the course which I felt it my duty to take upon this occasion. The question I have had to decide is whether the process of collecting rates in Ireland is one which it is suitable for women to undertake. I took the trouble to get reports from the collectors in Ireland, as to the kind of work which frequently devolves upon a rate collector, and I will read some of the reports I have received:
"In Donegal the collectors report that the favourite method of reseuing cattle and sheep seized by the collectors for rates is by directing dogs to hunt the cattle, the persons directing the movements of the dogs being concealed at some distance. The collectors report that this makes it extremely difficult to make the seizures, as it requires great fleetness of foot and endurance on the part of the collector.
"Another report states that in a case of seizure of six head of cattle, a large crowd assembled with dogs and rescued the cattle from the collector, threatening personal violence. On another occasion, he seized three cows which were trespassing on an evicted farm on which the rates were due. The owner of the animals and a number of the neighbours came out with dogs and endeavoured to effect a rescue. The collector shot one of the dogs, but not having a licence for carrying arms, he was fined. On another occasion he seized a , and a rescue was effected; and again, when seizing some heifers, he was violently attacked, but he succeeded after immense trouble in beating off his assailants and retaining the animals. In the same collection the collector was followed for miles by persons whose property he had distrained, and it was only after great trouble he made good the seizure.
1214
"A further report from the same district shows where the collector had distrained half a dozen sheep, and the neighbours with their dogs came out and attempted the rescue, but failed. The sheep were subsequently sold by auction.
"In North Mayo a collector, accompanied by his assistants, not long ago went in a boat to make a seizure; a free fight ensued and the people broke the oar over the collector and set his boat adrift. Another collector, accompanied by four assistants, was attacked by men with reaping hooks, and at one place the crowd was so violent that they had great difficulty in escaping. In the same county another collector reports that owing to the manner in which people systematically lock up their cattle, he has to lie out in ambush all night and effect a seizure at day break. Another collector in this district reports having made a seizure of five head of cattle in October. When driving them off, he was attacked by a crowd of fifty women, who threw stones and sods at him and endeavoured to effect a rescue. This collector states that he usually makes a seizure on horseback, and he has often had to gallop his horse for fear of attack when collecting rates."
I therefore submit that the work of distraining requires considerable physical strength and courage, and I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that a woman cannot properly be asked to perform it. My hon. friend has challenged the legality of the Order which the Local Government Board with my full concurrence, issued, by which women are made in eligible. I had come to the conclusion that this was not a post to which they could be appointed, and having in view the great expenditure of time and the enormous amount of trouble that this case had caused, I thought it was better to say, once and for all, whether it should be so or not. That was the reason for the general Order.
Mr. HEMPHILL: We have heard from the Chief Secretary for Ireland that this is a matter altogether in the discretion of the Local Government Board; that is the reason why it behoves this Committee to see whether that discretion has been properly exercised, because it is most important. The Chief Secretary is the President of the Local Government Board, and he is here to answer for the acts of that Board; but there is a power even higher than that, and that is the House of Commons in Committee, which

1215
is fully competent to say whether that discretion has been properly used or not. Now, it is a remarkable thing that in the instances which, after a good deal of searching through the Local Government Board offices, had been discovered, and have been cited here, the dates have not been given by the right hon. Gentleman, and that they all occurred in the wildest parts of Ireland. I say that with all respect to the hon. Members for Donegal and Mayo, but it does not follow that a woman might not be made a collector for all that. It seems to be most extraordinary that, while here in London and in Greater London women may be created aldermen and councillors—"aldermen" is rather a misnomer, it should be "alder-women"—yet in a quiet and orderly district of Ireland they are held to be incapable of being rate collectors. In the House of Lords I listened to one of the most able and one of the most gallant speeches I ever heard the Prime Minister make in favour of Women's Rights, and now we are to be told by the Local Government Board of Ireland that by a General Order women are to be disqualified, and thus that an Order by the Local Government Board may modifiy and repeal the Act of Parliament.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The Act of Parliament gives the Local Government Board absolute discretion.
MR. HEMPHILL: It is against that autocracy that I am appealing to the Committee.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is the Act of Parliament.
MR. HEMPHILL: Yes, but I never presumed that the Local Government Board would act in such an autocratic manner. We are told because this lady was the daughter of the late collector and that the other ladies that had been nominated were widows of deceased collectors, that that was the reason for their appointments. I did not know that these matters were governed by what is called the law of primogeniture. I trust the House of Commons will be consistent with itself, and having passed the clause in the London Government Bill, which qualifies women for these important positions, that
1216
it will not stultify itself by saying now that the Local Government Board is exercising a right discretion in not appointing Miss Magill—not because she is not a person of intelligence—but merely by reason of her sex. I trust the House will teach a lesson to the Local Government Board, and say that it was never intended that ladies should be disqualified.
MR. RENTOUL: Shame!
MR. HEMPHILL: I see no shame in a lady being a candidate for such a position in a country where women are held in the highest respect. But whether it is a shame or not that in Ireland women have been elected to positions, and have made most excellent officials, and if a woman is not disqualified from being a guardian I see no reason why she should be disqualified from being a collector. The action of the Local Government Board is absolutely indefensible, and an insult to the Board of Guardians, and I have no doubt from the testimony that has been given by the Member for Belfast, that he would not be responsible for Miss Magill if she were not in every way most exceptionally qualified for the position.
MR. T.P. O'CONNOR: A very important question underlies this discussion. I do not think that there is any country in the world where it is more desirable that properly qualified women should be appointed to these positions than in Ireland. I have always stood up in this House in favour of granting to women every right of citizenship. Everybody who has ever visited France and seen the extraordinarily active and useful part which women take in the commercial life of that country must have often wished that the women of Ireland would take an active part in social life there. Now, here is a case where women had an opportunity of obtaining useful and proper employment, but the right hon. Gentleman takes advantage of the power given to him to disqualify them for that employment. With regard to the powers that he possesses under the Act of Parliament, I say he has exceeded them in disqualifying women for these appointments. He says he has full powers under

1217
this Act, and goes the length of saying that we have no right to criticise him.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No, I do say so.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Suppose he puts it in this way: that no man or woman who is a Protestant or who is a Catholic should be entitled to be a rate collector; would he not be exceeding the discretion, And in attaching a disqualification to women in the form he has done he exceeds his rights just as much. I do not believe any Minister of England occupying a similar position to that held by the right hon. Gentleman would have dared to issue such an Order. Is it not a grotesque feature of the discussion we have had on the London Government Bill that a question which has taken the collective wisdom of Parliament so long to settle could be settled by the right hon Gentleman by a stroke of his pen? It is an absurdity, and it is an abuse of the powers he possesses. This lady, Miss Magill, had qualified for this position by doing the duty for her father for five years. She has discharged this duty, the noblest duty woman could do of helping her helpless father, and she was allowed to do it, and it was admitted that it was discharged in an admirable manner—so admirable that the Local Government Board did not know that it was she, and not her father, who was discharging it—and now when she desires the position for herself she is disqualified. The right hon. Gentlemen gives a number of instances which led him to take the action which he did. Nobody says that, in the most disturbed parts of the country, appointing female collectors would be the best way to meet the difficulty. But it used to be Ireland's boast that women could go through any part of Ireland without offence being offered them, and now it is said that a woman cannot be established as a rate collector lest she should be insulted. Sir, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this view, and I can only say that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast moves a reduction of the Vote upon this matter I will do all I can to support him.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I hope, because I take an opposite view on this question to that of the hon. Member
1218
for the Scotland Division, I shall not be considered as wanting in national chivalry or respect to women. But But I do think that if a lady rate-collector went to seize the cattle or stock of any inhabitant of Ireland, and if that gentleman was unwilling to pay, all the feelings of national chivalry would not prevent him from interfering with the woman. I am talking of a case where the collector makes the seizure in person. However, we are not considering only the case of Miss Magill; that is but a very minor part of the question. What I want to know from the Chief Secretary is whether or not it is the law in Ireland that a woman is eligible for this post. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether he has the benefit of the opinion of the law officers upon that point.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: No doubt Miss Magill was eligible, but I have not taken legal opinion on this point.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: It would have occurred to me certainly that a woman was not eligible, but the Attorney-General for Ireland can possibly enlighten us. There was a case under the English Local Government Act. Lady Sandhurst was duly elected as a councillor, but proceedings were taken to set her election aside. These proceedings were not taken until after the expiration of the statutory period under which such proceedings should be instituted, but the court held that although the attempt to disqualify Lady Sandhurst was too late, she being a woman was never capable at any time of being elected at all owing to the disqualification at common law. It would occur to me that, on the same reasoning, at common law a woman would be equally ineligible to become a rate collector. I am more concerned, however, with the control of the Local Government Board over these local bodies in Ireland. It is very gratifying to find that we have in Ireland a Local Government Board and an Executive who do not hesitate when they are defied by a local body to interfere and assert their authority over a worthless body just as impartially in the case of a body in the West or South of Ireland. To all who wish to see the law properly carried out it is a very satisfactory thing that the Local Government Board had the pluck and courage to send out a sealed Order and stop a state of

1219
things which, if carried out all over the country, would mean anarchy.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I see the Member for South Tyrone sitting at the end of the Treasury Bench. He is Miss Magill's representative in this House, and he is the representative of the English Local Government Board. Would he in that capacity be justified in issuing sealed Orders to destroy such authorities as he thought had acted ultra vires? Under the English Local Government Board women are allowed to hold these very offices, and the hon. Gentleman endorses that policy. In his own constituency, through the autocratic rule of Dublin Castle, women are excluded from the position which he gives them as the head or the chief agent of the English Local Government Board which he administers.
THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Not the head.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He is a very admirable working member, and he makes his force felt. I think that is a very interesting object lesson. Then I have another question to which to call the attention of the Chief Secretary. The Local Government Board have made a series of orders which seem to be utterly ultra vires so far as the Act under which they are made is concerned. Two years ago waterworks which were to cost £5,000 were established in Bundoran. These waterworks were secured on the security of the town land on which Bundoran is situated. Maps were drawn and estimates arranged, and everything was done on that basis, and one instalment of the repayment has already been made. No one in Bundoran ever suggested that the town should be relieved of this burden, and yet what has happened is this. Since this Local Government Act has been established Mr. Bagwell, of the Board of Works, has an idea of uniformity; he is a theoretical man, who wishes the whole of the local districts to be subject to these charges, and because he desires it possibly to make the Act ridiculous.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: I really must protest against this being attributed to the influence of Mr. Bagwell.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Very well; I will not touch Mr. Bagwell again. These waterworks were established in Ballyshannon, and the town were quite willing and able to pay this £5,000, but some doctrinaire or philosopher in the Board of Works said, "We want uniformity; we want an enlarged taxable area"; and what does this apostle of uniformity do? He extends the area over which this debt should be collected so that peasants living twelve or fourteen miles away are to be rated for the Bundoran Waterworks, from which they will derive no benefit whatever. The inhabitants have had two public meetings to protest against this action. One meeting was presided over by the chairman of the District Council, and the other by the chairman of the Ballyshannon Town Commissioners, and the meetings represented 94.4 per cent. of the whole ratepaying population of the district. To do Bundoran justice, not a single person has spoken in favour of the town being relieved of a burden, which it is well able to bear, at the expense of the surrounding districts which are not able to bear it, and who will get no compensating benefit from it. It is not just that localities which have undertaken to bear certain expenses for the benefit of the particular locality should have their burdens removed and distributed over an entire area. Why should whoever is responsible act as if his one object in life was to bring the Local Government Board into conflict and antagonism with the popularly elected bodies? Why should he try to make the new system hateful to the people? I should like the Attorney-General, on the mere legalities of the case, apart altogether from the question of justice, to tell us by what legerdemain or jugglery of the Local Government Board it is possible that a locality, which had entered into a legal contract for the payment of a debt which they were anxious and well able to pay, should have that debt taken away from them and distributed over another and a poorer area?
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The difficulty which the Local Government Board have to face in connection with this matter is that the Act prescribes that the public health and its charges should be treated in a certain way in special areas, and in order to simplify the rating and the keep-

1221
ing of the accounts we thought it highly desirable to throw these public health charges over the entire rural district. We communicated with the Boards of Guardians on the subject, and in 94 cases out of the 159 we received answers in favour of the suggestion. In other cases the guardians objected, but after carefully considering the whole matter we came to the conclusion that it would be highly expedient in the interests of local government generally that these charges should be spread over the rural district with the exception of charges which refer to towns under town commissioners. I am quite ready to admit there are a certain number of cases, but not more than half a dozen in all, where such a proceeding is likely to impose a certain amount of hardship. The case of Bundoran is perhaps the strongest of those, but even in that case the amount of additional charge is only something slightly over 3d., while if the debt charge were dispersed over the entire rural district it would be only between 1d. and 2d. In the case cited by the hon. Member for South Mayo the annual charge is exceedingly small. The annual charge in the Claremorris case is only 2d., and when distributed over the entire area would be a very small fraction of a penny. The hon. Member will therefore admit that Whatever may be said on principle as regards the distribution of the charge, the hardship in practice is practically nil. The Castlereagh case is somewhat stronger. The charge there is for sewerage and water supply, but over the larger area it only works out at a halfpenny in the £. I may remind the hon. Member that the larger the number of such charges there are in any one union the greater approximation you have to a just arrangement. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I think it will be desirable, having regard to all the circumstances, to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the legality of the Order. If that opinion should be adverse to the Order I think it will be necessary to secure that the rate which is at present enforced should be legalised for the present year, otherwise obvious confusion would arise. We should take care that an arrangement in accordance with the law and one which would obviate anything like hardship or injustice would be arrived at. I trust after this explanation
1222
hon. Members will not continue the discussion upon this point, as I am sure there are other matters which they desire to bring before the Committee.
MR. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman says that the amount of the charge thrown upon the district in connection with the Castlereagh case is small; but what I am particularly struck by is that the amount of friction and discontent created is extraordinarily great. The district is an exceedingly poor one, and the people come into the towns and say, "Are we called upon to pay for these costly improvements, when we get no benefit whatever from them?" It is not so much the amount of the rates as the injustice. Both the towns concerned have petitioned the Local Government Board to be allowed to pay their own expenditure, because the Order has involved the people of these towns in friction with the country people, which is exceedingly unjust and distasteful to the traders and others. I do trust that the right hon. Gentleman, however the law may be declared will alter all this. There is also one other aspect of the question which I desire to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that in all small towns it will be impossible under present arrangements for them to execute any sanitary work whatever, because the cost will fall upon the district at large. I also desire to call the Chief Secretary's attention to the question of the trained nurses in workhouse infirmaries. The circular regulating this matter which has been issued by the Local Government Board is much too stringent and ought to be modified. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to do this it will be a great improvement, for the instructions contained in the circular are likely to lead to a good deal of friction.
MR. RENTOUL: As one who supported the Chief Secretary in carrying the Local Government Bill through this House, I am extremely anxious that this

1223
Act should be carried into operation in Ireland as smoothly as possible. I may say that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction existing in different parts of Ireland with regard to the manner in which the Local Government Board have interfered with these newly-appointed bodies. Even amongst the Ulster loyalists I have seen letters written by them containing the most vulgar abuse in regard to my action in supporting the Chief Secretary and the methods he has adopted to carry out this Act. I think it is far better for me to tell the Chief Secretary plainly the exact state of affairs rather than say pleasant things here and let him find out the truth afterwards. As the right hon. Gentleman will gain credit or discredit from the success or failure of this Act, which is so largely his own, I do not think I could do him a greater kindness than to point out to him the immense friction which the interference with the new bodies by this Board in Dublin is causing. The Chief Secretary may be good enough to take upon his own shoulders the responsibility for what this Board does, but we know perfectly well that he is here most of his time, and that he is very much in the hands of the permanent officials in regard to what is done in Ireland. Of course, the general impression of all permanent officials is that they have practically reduced our system of government to a fine art. There is one case in particular which I desire to allude to, and it is one in which I have no sort of personal interest. At Downpatrick there are two banks—and this case raises the whole question of whether these local bodies have authority or not to conduct their own local business. The two banks are the Ulster Bank and the Northern Bank, and the Rural District Council of Downpatrick passed a resolution by a majority of forty-one votes to four asking the Local Government Board to transfer their account to the Northern Bank, but the Local Government Board refused to allow them to do so. Now
1224
the Northern Bank has got in Downpatrick three branches and four agencies, whereas the Ulster has only got one branch and one agency. But the Ulster Bank is the treasurer for the Infirmary, the County Asylum, the Urban District Council, and the Guardians. It is practically the treasurer for all the public bodies, and on the principle of fair play and competition on equal terms the Rural District Council of Downpatrick passed the resolution to which I have referred. The Northern Bank were prepared to offer the same terms as the Ulster Bank, but the Local Government Board refused to allow the transfer to take place. I do not think anything will tend more to stultify the action of the Local Government Board than such conduct as this, for it seems to me that this refusal can only have been dictated simply by a desire to interfere for the purpose of showing the power of the Board. The Chief Secretary stated, in reply to a question on this subject, that the reason why the Local Government Board had refused its permission was that the Northern Bank supporters had been canvassing in this matter. With regard to canvassing, I know that has been done in several cases by the different banks, so that the matter of canvassing does not appear to affect the question at all, and I do think that this public body ought to be allowed to choose its own treasurer. I have not the slightest interest in this matter, but I know that it is causing extreme feeling in the district which is concerned.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Several hon. Members have been pressing upon me the desirability of altering the definition of "trained nurse." I may remind the Committee that this definition which we have given is not a new departure, for it is the same as that which has been adopted in Scotland. It will be within the recollection of this Committee that we were urged to extend the system of paying half the expenses of trained nurses out of the Local Taxation Fund. I tried to adopt that suggestion, but I found that

1225
if we actually adopted it undoubtedly there would arise a great difficulty in regard to the employment of nuns in workhouses. Now, I come to the statement male by my hon. and learned friend who has just sat down. He has joined in a general complaint against the action of the Local Government Board in bringing this measure of local government in Ireland into operation. I am bound to say that I am not surprised at hon. Members opposite taking that course, but I am rather surprised that more allowance has not been made by hon. Members on this side of the House for the enormous difficulties connected with the inauguration of a completely new scheme. When the hon. Member spoke while this Vote was under discussion he spoke as if the Local Government Board was a body absolutely inimical to the spirit of the Act. That is absolutely contrary to the truth. In the first place, I have had some share in framing and carrying the Act itself through this House, and I think hon. Members will hardly be likely to take the view that I am anxious in any way administratively to curb those liberties which I have helped to confer upon these new bodies. In inaugurating this new system I have taken an active personal part at every single point of the proceedings, and there has not been a single important principle decided by our orders which I have not personally examined into myself and ultimately approved. Although it is true that in practice the Local Government Board invariably abides by the decision of its President, I take to myself the personal responsibility for all the many important decisions which have been come to. The final decision in every case has been sanctioned by me, and I take the full responsibility. But, Sir, I do not think that hon. Members who have been associated with this work can have any conception of the enormous difficulty and labour which has been experienced in bringing this Act into operation. I suppose the Local Government Board has had to write something like
1226
2,000 letters every week during all the months which have elapsed since the commencement of the new system; and that Board has also issued something like 300 Orders, all of which have been absolutely necessary. Hon. Members have complained of the Local Government Board's interference with these bodies, but let me say that we have had ample testimony borne from numerous local authorities to the value of the assistance given to them in their difficulty by the Local Government Board. Time after time we have been pressed to give our opinion in innumerable cases, and we have done so to the utmost of our power and to the best of our ability. It is difficult for one who knows, like I know, how the Local Government Board officials have had to positively slave to bring this Act into successful operation, to listen with patience to such complaints as those which have been made by the hon. Members for Mid Tyrone and Cavan. It would be easy for me, if I had the time at my disposal, to answer seriatim every one of the charges which have been made against the Local Government Board, but I content myself with making this statement, winch ought to put the assailants to shame. The officials of the Local Government Board have been working overtime day after day—some of them up to midnight—in order to bring this Act into operation, and it is absolutely and entirely false to say that they are anxious that this Act should be a failure. All these officials have done their duty well, and they have strained every nerve in the extremely difficult task which they have had to perform. It would be invidious to single out one official where all have done so well, but I cannot help saying that the Vice-president of the Board, on whom the principal burden has fallen, has shown through all these months a judgment, a capacity, a power of industry, and the power of putting heart into his subordinates when in difficulties, which is beyond all praise. The Act has come into operation with comparative smoothness and almost with

1227
the absence of friction—although a little friction must necessarily attend the introduction of any new system; but taking everything into consideration I am of opinion that the work of initiating this Act, which has been carried out by the Local Government Board, has been a great achievement, and one of which any department of the State, whether English or Irish, might justly be proud.
MR. McDERMOTT: I think it is a great shame that in one of the unions which I represent the Local Government Board now expect three doctors to perform the services which have hitherto been performed by four. The Chief Secretary said that no one would suffer by this arrangement, but I would like to ask him how three medical
1228
men can efficiently do the work which it used to take four to perform. I think if the right hon. Gentleman fully considers this matter he will see the advisability of preventing a fearful injustice by going back to the old system. In April, 1898——
It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock, till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GODALMING CORPORATION WATER BILL.
  Witnesses ordered to attend the Select Committee.
  WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Committee to meet on Monday next.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.

  NORTH-WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  [ON RE-COMMITMENT.]
  Reported with further Amendments.

  WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  WORKINGTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
    BELFAST WATER BILL.

      WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL.
      CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
      Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  MILLWALL DOCK BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION BILL.
    WETHERBY DISTRICT WATER BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  AIRDRIE AND COATBRIDGE WATER BILL [Lords].
    GAINSBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL [Lords].
      WICK AND PULTENEY HARBOURS BILL [Lords].
      Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  BRISTOL GAS BILL [Lords].
    DUNDEE GAS, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
    Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
    DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
      DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
      Report from the Committee of Selection that the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.: D. Northumberland (Chairman), E. Ellesmere, L. Braye, L. Middleton, and L. Aberdare; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
      House to be in Committee on Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
      House to be in Committee on Monday next.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [Lords].
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
    House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &.
  ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  Letter from the Foreign Office to the Treasury, dated 15th June, 1899, with respect to the revocation of the Charter of the Royal Niger Company, and to the taking over by Her Majesty's Government of the administrative rights and powers of the Company, together with copies of the Treasury Minute on the subject, dated 30th June, 1899, and relative schedules. Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (EMPLOY MENT OF WOMEN OVERTIME IN WASHING BOTTLES, ETC.).
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending to factories and workshops in which the washing of bottles for use in the preserving of fruit is carried on, the special exception with respect to the employment of women overtime contained in Section 53 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, as amended by Sections 14 and 37 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1895.
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Seventy-seventh Report of the Commissioners, dated 29th June, 1899; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
PETITIONS
  VIVISECTION.
  Petition for suppression of the practice of; of the Pioneer Anti-Vivisection Society; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SEATS FOR SHOP ASSISTANTS (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition in favour of; of the Sanitary Institute; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  OYSTERS BILL [Lords].
  Petition in favour of; of the Sanitary Institute; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, it is with confidence that I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to

  1113
  this Bill, because it is in no sense a party measure, while at the same time it is of considerable importance, and a step in the right direction in improving the education of the children in our schools. That it is not a party measure can be gathered from the fact that the principle of the Bill, that of raising the age of exemption from eleven to twelve years, was adopted in the Education Bill of 1897, which was brought into Parliament by Her Majesty's present Government. That Bill, however, only got to Second Reading, and this year the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Robson), a member of the Opposition, introduced that principle into the Bill which I am now conducting through your Lordships' House. The Bill was passed in the House of Commons by a majority of Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I think I may fairly say that this is not a party measure, and I hope I shall be able to convince your Lordships that it is a very important Bill in the cause of education. The present law as regards half-timers is that when a child has attained a certain age, which is fixed by Parliament, it is able to claim partial exemption if it passes a standard of examination which is fixed by the local authorities, not by Parliament, and which therefore varies in different districts. I think it must be admitted, both from experience in this country and on the Continent, that the half-time system is absolutely necessary, both in manufacturing and agricultural districts. At the same time it must be admitted that the half-time system is disadvantageous to children from the educational point of view. That is not to be wondered at when your Lordships consider the kind of work that children in manufacturing districts have to do. A child that has worked four or five hours in a mill in the morning is naturally somewhat tired, languid, and inattentive to its lessons in school in the afternoon, and it is found that in alternate weeks, when the school work is in the morning and the mill work in the afternoons, the half-timers do no give that attention to their books which the other children do. Experience shows that children who go to work as half-timers are much less capable of receiving instruction than those who go through a regular course of school education. Tests have shown that the half-timer very soon falls
  1114
  behind other school children in educational progress. I will venture to quote to your Lordships a case which was referred to in the House of Commons, and I do so the more readily because the facts of that case afford a sufficient answer to the main argument adduced by the opponents of this measure—that it is most important that children at the earliest age possible should acquire a technical knowledge of the work, whether in the mills or in the field, which they would probably have to take up when they left school. The case to which I allude is known as the Bolton case. In Bolton there are 538 technical knowledge scholarships, and something between 3,000 and 4,000 half-timers, and yet out of all those scholarships only one child who had been a half-timer secured one, and at the time he secured that scholarship he was not a half-timer. That shows very distinctly that there is a disadvantage from an educational point of view in the half-time system, and it follows that the age of partial exemption ought to be raised as high as possible consistently with the efficient working of the half-time system. Those who are interested in education must have been gratified to see the great change of opinion that has taken place in favour of raising the school exemption age, both in the agricultural and manufacturing districts. I can speak upon this point with some confidence, because when I had the honour of being Vice-President of the Council in 1885 and 1886 the school age exemption was ten, and the educational standard, which, as I have told your Lordships, is fixed by the local authorities, was the second standard in the agricultural districts, and the third, and sometimes the fourth, but generally the third, in the manufacturing districts. Your Lordships know how small is the amount of knowledge required in a child to pass these standards, and, coupling that with the fact that the standard of age exemption was ten years, you will readily understand what a deplorable state of things existed in those days from an educational point of view. Yet, after very careful inquiry, the matter having been brought under the attention of the then Lord President of the Council and myself, it was found that in both the agricultural and the manufacturing districts there was so strong an opinion against raising the age that it would have

  1115
  been difficult—I might almost say impossible—for a Government to have introduced and carried a measure to effect that purpose. Nor, indeed, were we more fortunate in endeavouring to induce the local authorities to raise their educational standard. They declined to do so, and matters had to be left as they were. It was not until 1891, under the Factory Act, that some advance was made in this direction. There was a clause introduced into that Act which prohibited the employment of children in factories and workshops under the age of eleven years. That clause was not introduced for educational purpose, but for the natural and desirable purpose of improving the health and the condition of the children who were employed in factories and workshops. At the same time, I think that that legislation in 1891, although for a different object, facilitated very much the raising of the age in the Education Act which was passed in 1893. Happily, since that time there has been a further change of opinion—as the saying is, much water has flowed under the bridge since then—and so great has been the change of opinion that it has been possible to introduce this measure into Parliament, raising the age from eleven to twelve years. I may be asked how we can test the change of opinion. In the first place, I should say we may test it by the very slight opposition which was given to this measure in the House of Commons. It was introduced by Mr. Robson in a speech of great ability, and the facts were put forward by the hon. Member in a temperate manner. I should like, in passing, to join with Sir John Gorst and Sir William Harcourt in paying my humble tribute of praise to the admirable tact and judgment with which Mr. Robson steered the Bill through the House of Commons. The Bill was opposed mainly by some Lancashire Members who represented the textile industries, but it must not be supposed that the manufacturing interests of the entire county of Lancashire are opposed to this measure, because it will be seen that as many Lancashire Members were found in the majority which supported the Bill as were against it in the minority. I believe also that the Lancashire Members who spoke in support of the measure were as many in number as those who opposed it. The Bill passed the Second Reading by a majority of 317 against 59, and many of those fifty-nine Members, who repre-
  1116
  sented agricultural districts, were satisfied at a later stage with the proviso which has been introduced into the Bill, and to which I shall have to call attention in a few minutes, and supported the Bill. All attempts to restrict the measure in Committee were defeated by large majorities, and in the result the Third Reading was carried without a Division. Another test as to the change of public opinion is that many persons who were opposed to raising the age in 1893, and who prophesied evil results from such a course, have since found that their prophecies have been falsified and are now very warm supporters of the Bill. Another test, and a very important one, is that those interested in education—those most capable of forming an opinion, because they themselves are well acquainted with the course of teaching in the schools, heartily support this Bill. The teachers are unanimous in favour of raising the age from eleven to twelve years. No doubt they would like to see it raised even higher, because they believe that the half-time system is not only injurious to the half-time children, but affects the other children in the school, as it tends to interrupt the regular course of instruction and to necessitate many lessons being taught over again. They hail this measure as a step in the right direction. Managers of schools and inspectors of schools are also unanimous in favour of raising the age of exemption; and, therefore, it may be confidently asserted that we have a strong body of men—men most competent to judge—supporting this Bill. I desire also to point out, as a further reason for passing this Bill, that in raising the age we are really fulfilling pledges which were given by this country through its representatives at the Conference at Berlin in 1890. I have often heard it said that this country was under no pledge in this matter. I agree that we were under a moral pledge I will venture to read to your lordships a passage from a speech made in the other House by Sir John Gorst, one of our representatives at that Conference. Sir John Gorst said:
  "We went to the Berlin Conference rather with a view to inducing the other nations in Europe to adopt the same restrictions upon textile and other manufactures which, it was, represented, were some burden on British trade. The only point in which we were behind many of the nations of Europe was the age at which we allowed children to take part

  1117
  in these industries, and it was thought at the time to be a very good bargain for this country to do away with the advantage of juvenile labour in order to obtain from the other nations of Europe the regulations which we consented to at that Conference."
  As the other nations have performed their undertaking, the time has arrived when we should attempt to give effect to what I cannot but consider was a pledge on our part to raise the age of exemption. The proviso in this Bill to which I have alluded provides that—
  "The local authority for any district may by bye-law for any parish within their district, fix thirteen years as the minimum age for exemption from school attendance in the case of children to be employed in agriculture, and in such parish such children over eleven and under thirteen years of age who have passed the standard fixed for partial exemption from school attendance by the bye-laws of the local authority shall not be required to attend school more than two hundred and fifty times in any year."
  As everyone must see, there is a great distinction between the case of children in agricultural districts and those in manufacturing districts. The distinction is quite sufficient to justify different treatment, and, if necessary, the application of certain provisions in the one case which are not required in, and perhaps would not be applicable to the other case. Although many sanitary improvements have been made in the mills, the work there cannot be said to improve the health of the children. The converse is the case with regard to the work done by children in the fields and in the open air. Their health is improved, and they are thus more capable of receiving instruction. Again, the work in the mills goes on day after day throughout the year uninterruptedly, in fine weather or bad, in sunshine or rain. This is not so in the case of agricultural work. This proviso, which was carried in the House of Commons by a majority of 245 to 26, and is made with the approval of all the Members for the agricultural districts, only deals with Agricultural work, and is optional. It is intended to meet the special wants of agriculture. During certain months of the year in these rural districts children are required by farmers, and so strong is the feeling in these districts, and so urgent is the case, that it is found very difficult to enforce attendance of children in schools. The school attendance officers shut their eyes to what is going on when the education of children is neglected by their parents, and are 10th to issue summonses
  1118
  upon them for the non-attendance of their children at school. Magistrates, also, during those months instead of inflicting fines upon parents, are content to give them a caution. Therefore there is good reason for making a change in the direction of this proviso. I will read to your Lordships a passage, bearing out what I have just stated, from the speech delivered by Mr. Robson in the House of Commons. He was commenting upon some returns of attendances in rural schools, and said—
  "Whereas one school in a rural district had been open 338 times, the attendances of various children had averaged from 54 to 64, and a little judicious inquiry brought to light the fact that the children had been actually employed on the land illegally by members of the School Board for that district. In another school, out of 442 possible attendances, the returns show 22, 65, 78, and 98 attendances, while no summons for irregular attendance had been taken out for four years."
  The proviso, as will be seen, does not conflict with the educational character of the Bill. It does not attempt to lessen the age of exemption, but only applies where the age of exemption has been raised by local authorities to 13. It is, in fact, the adoption of a scheme which prevails in Germany and Switzerland under which children are allowed to work in summer and attend school in winter. This plan, known as summer work and winter schooling, has worked most admirably, and in certain districts in those countries the exemption age is as high as 14, 15, and even 16 years. Your Lordships will observe that the child will not lose any schooling. A child of 11 will work the winter in school. It will be exempted during the summer of that year, and on arriving at 12 would, were it not for this proviso, be able to leave school at once, but under this proviso, as the age of exemption is raised to 13, the child will get another winter's schooling. It will, therefore, be seen that the child gets two winters' schooling for one summer's work. I hope this proviso will be largely used in agricultural districts. By this system the parents will obtain the earnings of their children, who will be working legally in the fields for a period of the year, and they will be saved the annoyance of visits from the school attendance officer, and of summonses. The adoption of this system will also be of great advantage to the farmers, for they will be able to count upon children's labour just during the months when it is most wanted. The proviso has been very

  1119
  carefully considered by the Education Department, and by the experienced officials of that Department, who see no reason why it should not be passed and work satisfactorily. I commend the Bill very heartily to your Lordships, who, I think, must concur in the opinion of the Education Department, and of those who have studied the question of education, that if Parliament raises the age standard it will procure for the children in our schools both increased physical and educational advantages. I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (the Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am very glad to see that this Bill is likely not to meet with any opposition in this House, and I think the House is very much indebted to the noble Lord for the speech in which he has moved its Second Reading. As he has said, the educational advantages of this measure are undoubted. All the educational authorities are united in desiring the change which the Bill will effect. The teachers are in favour of it, the managers of schools are almost unanimously in favour of it, and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools have repeatedly urged the necessity of making this change. The only question which remained in doubt was whether the working classes generally were willing to make the sacrifice of the wages which their children might earn through the half-time system in order that they might have the benefit of a more complete period of schooling. But, as the noble Lord has told us, there is very little doubt remaining on that point, and I think it has been conclusively proved, by the very large majorities which this measure obtained in the other House, that the opinion of the working-classes generally is very different from what it was a short time ago. I have no doubt that the Members of the other House of Parliament are all most anxious that our education system should be made as complete as possible, but, however great may be the educational zeal of Members of Parliament, I doubt very much whether it would extend to the point of voting for a measure, not promoted by the Government, which was very strongly disapproved of by their constituents. The only opposition which
  1120
  was offered to the Bill in the other House proceeded from a small section of Members representing manufacturing constituencies, and even they did not defend the half-time system, but only pointed out that it was a dying system, and that it would be better that it should be allowed to expire from natural causes rather than that it should be put an end to by legislative action. The position of the agricultural labourer is in so many parts of the country one of such great hardship and difficulty that the small wages which a child is able to earn by agricultural labour may make a very considerable difference in the income of the family, but I believe that the Amendment which was introduced in the House of Commons, and to which my noble friend has referred, has removed most of the objections which were felt by Members representing agricultural constituencies, and that the proposal which has been made will make it possible for a child to remain longer at school, but that during the last two years of his school life he will have holidays which will enable him to work during the summer, and attend school during the winter. That Amendment has removed every objection felt by the agricultural districts to this Bill. I am glad there is now a prospect that what almost amounted to a pledge on the part of the Government at the Conference of Berlin is likely to be redeemed, and I believe this Bill will make a very great improvement in our educational system.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I desire to avail myself of the opportunity of expressing my cordial support of this Bill. There is a certain satisfaction in thinking that at last, after, I believe, nine or ten years' delay, Parliament is now endeavouring partly to redeem the pledge given by a former Government at the International Conference. I think I am right in saying that we were in favour of the age of exemption being increased to thirteen, so that we have not achieved after all these years very great progress in this direction. Still, this Bill is an excellent step in advance, and I think it is very satisfactory to observe that, certainly in this House, it meets with, I think I may say, general approval and support. I quite understand the natural reluctance of the working classes to part with earnings

  1121
  which, no doubt, may in some cases be valuable to them, but I feel quite confident that, although the taking of this step may seem to some people rather difficult, in the long run when the Act has been at work it will be found that the hardship will be no longer felt. It is curious to observe how step by step we have advanced in the direction of securing the better education of our Children, and I cannot help thinking that many things which a few years ago were regarded with great apprehension and suspicion are stow accepted as matters of course. I shall not criticise the Amendment relating to children in agricultural districts, because I believe it is the result of careful consideration by Members of the other House well acquainted with the subject. It seems to them that the Amendment will give entire satisfaction, and I have no doubt it is well adapted to meet the case of children in agricultural districts. I see with the greatest satisfaction that the Bill is passing through this House, and I would venture here to congratulate Mr. Robson upon his success in thus far carrying this, one of the most useful and important measures that have been introduced for some time past.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am glad to join in the general expressions of approval of this Bill, and I rejoice that, although it has been delayed, this step is now being taken. One of the circumstance, which seriously impede the education of children all over the country is that at so early an age they leave school, and forget a great deal of what they have learnt. I very much hope that in the agricultural districts thirteen instead of twelve years of age will be fixed upon.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I desire also to express satisfaction that this Bill is likely to become law. I believe that it is accompanied by some positive advantages in the combination at an early period of practical work with education. The working of the measure will, I have no doubt, do something to check that migration of children from the country to the towns which is a very serious evil from many points of view. It not only diminishes the amount of labour at the disposal of the farmers, but in a large number of instances the children them-
  1122
  selves incur serious moral dangers by going to the towns. By being retained at school till they are thirteen years of age they will be without this temptation, and also have their character strengthened. It is an unquestionable fact that a boy's character is formed between the age of twelve and sixteen, and by this Bill children will have the advantage of being under instruction up to a later age. I regard the Bill as a real moral gain for the children of the country.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (accordingly), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

  ISOLATION HOSPITALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  ELEMENT EDUCATION (DEFECTIVE AND EPILEPTIC CHILDREN) BILL [Lords].
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 2.
  LORD REAY: I desire to ask the noble Duke, the Lord President of the Council, a question with regard to boarding out, which is dealt with in b of Sub-section 1 of this clause. There is a considerable difference of opinion with regard to the advantages of boarding out, and it will have to be placed under very stringent regulations. I am aware, of course, that the Departmental Committee reported in favour of boarding out, but they suggested so many safeguards that the difficulty will be considerable. In Scotland the boarding out system, as applied to normal children, has been very successful, but it will be found that the number of homes to which defective and epileptic children can be safely sent is very small. I would remind the noble Duke of the evidence which was given before the Local Government Board Departmental Committee of 1896 on the education and maintenance of children by the person who is certainly most competent to express an opinion upon this subject. I refer to Miss Mason, the Local Government Board inspector of boarded-out children. She was asked by the Chairman of that Committee, Mr. Mundella:
  "You say you think the feeble-minded child should not be boarded out?"

  1123
  Miss Mason's answer was:
  "No. I am sure of it."
  I shall not propose an Amendment to this clause. All I ask is that the regulations which are to be made shall be of such a nature that there will be every guarantee that these children will be well looked after, and that the recommendation of the Departmental Committee, to the effect that the managers of the special classes are the proper persons to form or appoint the Boarding Out Committee, will be enforced. Sub-section 4 of this clause provides that a school authority may, in respect of children resident in their district and attending certified special classes or schools in the district of another school authority, contribute to that other authority the proportionate cost of the provision and maintenance of such special classes or schools. I do not think it is sufficient simply to limit this to residents. I think you should also enact that the school authority to whose district the children properly belong should be made liable for the expenditure. The cases are two-fold. One is the case of a child resident on the fringe of a district where these classes or schools are, but resident in a district where these classes and schools are not; and the other is the case of a child which is taken from its proper home and sent into a district where these classes are provided to reside with other people, thereby throwing the expenditure in respect of that child on the school authority, which is not the authority the Bill recognises to be the proper authority to bear that expenditure. I therefore wish to ask whether, at a future stage, there will be any objection to add words so that the clause would read, "in respect of children resident in, or who properly belong to their district," and whether a clause cannot be introduced after Clause 9 making it quite clear that if, on the one hand, it is simply permissive for a school authority or a board of guardians to make a payment, on the other hand you do not throw the burden of receiving these children on the school authority to which they do not belong. It seems to me obvious that a clause should be inserted protecting the ratepayers of the district which has erected these schools, as against the district which has not done so. The cost of education of a defective child in London is about £8 8s. per annum. The grant
  1124
  from the Government is about £1 7s., so that the burden thrown on the ratepayers comes to about £7 18s. Clearly, it would be very unfair, under these circumstances, that a defective child should become a burden on the ratepayers of a district to which it does not belong, simply because that district happens to meet a want which the other district to which the child belongs has not met.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: With regard to the first point raised by the noble Lord, I will make a note of the observations he has made and see what can be done to meet the difficulty. As to the second point, I am prepared to insert in Section 4 of Clause 2 the words, "or properly belonging to." The section will then read:
  "A school authority may, in respect of children resident in, or properly belonging to their district, and attending certified special classes or schools in the district of another school authority, contribute to that other authority the proportionate cost of the provision and maintenance of such special classes or schools."
  I am not quite certain that legal difficulties will not arise as to the interpretation of the words "or properly belonging to," but I am told that the draughtsmen have exercised their ingenuity and cannot find words to better carry out our intention. As to the other point of the noble Lord, I shall be prepared to move the insertion of a clause at the end of the Bill providing that nothing in the Act shall be construed as imposing a duty on a school authority to receive in a special class or school established by them any child who is resident in, or in their opinion properly belongs to, the district of another school authority; or is resident in a workhouse or in any institution to which it has been sent by the guardians from a workhouse or boarded out by the guardians, unless that other school authority, or, as the case may be, the guardians, are willing to contribute towards the expenses of the education and maintenance of the child such sum as may be agreed upon between the authorities concerned.
  THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL: My Lords, the Bill provides that school authorities may make what arrangements they like for ascertaining whether there are defective children in their district, and, if there are, they may provide for their education in three ways; but there is no provision, so far as I can see, to compel the school authorities to assure

  1125
  themselves, by means of expert medical advice and guidance, as to whether the children admitted into these institutions under the Bill are really of the class defined in the Bill. I do not think it is reasonable to leave the settlement of so grave a question as this to the School Board authorities themselves. Those who have had a lifelong experience in the care and maintenance of idiots and imbeciles find it a very difficult task to draw a dividing line between defective children and imbeciles. The effect of this Bill, unless it is provided that no child shall be boarded or lodged in an institution without a medial certificate stating that he or she, as the case may be, is not an idiot or an imbecile, will be to create institutions for the care, maintenance, and education of a higher grade of imbeciles called defective children, but not very dissimilar from those who are now being maintained and cared for in imbecile asylums, certified under the name of imbeciles. It must be remembered, moreover, that there will be no annual or periodical inspection by the Lunacy Commissioners, as in the case of asylums for idiots and imbeciles, of the children in the institutions proposed to be set up under this Bill, and this fact makes it all the more important that no child should be admitted into the institutions without a medical certificate to the effect that the child is neither an imbecile nor an idiot. I had thought of moving the rejection of that part of the interpretation clause which alludes to institutions, but it appeared to me that some store might be laid on the creation of these institutions by those who were promoting the Bill, which I gladly acknowledge is likely to prove a very useful and valuable one. Therefore I only propose to move a proviso to Sub-section 1 (c), which in my opinion, is absolutely essential, and imperatively necessary. I do not object to the provisions in the Bill for the boarding out of children in houses situated near the schools to be created under the Bill, and for boarding and lodging defective children in establishments, but what I do object to is the absence of any adequate security that only those children for whom the schools are provided shall be admitted. I also regret the absence of any provision enabling those children to be excluded who have been wrongfully admitted. I therefore hope the noble Duke in charge of the Bill will be able to
  1126
  allow the proviso which I now beg to move to be inserted in the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Sub-section 1 (c), page 2, line 11, after 'children' to insert 'Provided that no child shall be boarded or lodged in an institution under this Act without a medical certificate stating that he or she, as the case may be, is not an idiot or imbecile. Such certificate shall be renewed yearly during the residence of the child in such institution."—(The Marquess of Bristol.)
  EARL EGERTON: My Lords, I should like to point out that there is no provision in the Bill to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that school authorities should be required to appoint a medical officer to advise them in the discrimination of these children. The Amendment of the noble Marquess, however, bears upon this matter. The School Board for London have appointed a medical officer—Dr. Shuttleworth, I believe—to advise them, and I hope that, even if provision is not made in the Bill, the Education Department will see that the school authorities appoint medical officers to advise them, not only as to the selection of these children, and the discrimination between them and imbeciles, but also to inspect the homes to which children may be sent.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I think the noble Earl who has just spoken has suggested the real answer to this Amendment. These are matters which, in our opinion, are better left to the Education Department than provided for in the Bill. We believe that the Amendment is quite unnecessary, because, under Section 1 (a) of Clause 1, which has already been passed, the object of the noble Marquess is sufficiently provided for. The arrangements under that section are to be made with the approval of the Education Department, and in accordance with the Report of the Departmental Committee. The Education Department would insist, in the first place, that no child should be admitted to any class or school or any institution who did not satisfy Section 1 (a) of Clause 1; secondly, that the name of the medical man certifying should be submitted to them so that they could assure themselves that he was a man conversant with such cases; and, thirdly, the Education Department reserve to themselves the final decision as to whether the case is suitable or not. These arrangements would, in our

  1127
  opinion, meet the case far better than the Amendment, which only touches a small part of the subject. If these matters are to be regulated by Act of Parliament the Amendment ought to be very considerably extended. I hope, however, that what I have said as to the intention of the Education Department to act upon the recommendations of the Departmental Committee will satisfy the noble Lords who have spoken that the objects they have in view will really be attained.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 22, alter the words 'resident in' to insert 'or property belonging to.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should be glad if some noble and learned Lord would inform the House what "properly belonging to" means. I am not aware of any definition which determines who belongs to a district or a parish except the definition in the Poor Law. It is there provided that every person who is born in a particular place belongs by settlement to that particular place, subject, however, to this very large alteration—namely, that anyone who has resided for one continuous year in any place cannot be considered as belonging to the place of his original settlement, although he will revert to it if he leaves the place in which he has resided for a year. It seems to me that unless a precise definition is provided in this Bill you will get into all kinds of difficulties, and have very interesting law suits between the various parishes as to which parish should maintain these children. There is nothing which delights some people more than litigation of this sort, which is most unprofitable and unsatisfactory, and the cost of which falls on the ratepayers of both parishes. I hope the Bill will go to a Standing Committee, where it may be possible to insert smile precise definition.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I stated, in the few remarks I made in reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay), that I was not absolutely satisfied that the words might not give rise to some difficulty. The case we have in view is that in which children are sent from their homes to reside with a relative in a parish
  1128
  where a suitable school or class is provided. It is only reasonable and just that if a child is sent for that purpose into a parish to which it does not belong, the parish to which it properly belongs should pay for it.
  On Question, "That these words be here inserted," agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 9, amended, and agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I now beg to move, in order to meet the difficulty suggested by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay), the insertion of a new clause after Clause 9.
  Amendment moved—
  "At end of Clause 9 to insert, as a new clause: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing a duty on a school authority to receive in a special class or school established by them any child who (a) is resident in, or in their opinion properly belongs to, the district of another school authority; or (b) is resident in a workhouse or in any institution to which it has been sent by the guardians from a workhouse, or boarded out by the guardians, unless that other school authority, or, as the case may be, the guardians, are willing to contribute towards the expenses of the education and maintenance of the child such sum as may be agreed upon between the authorities concerned.'"—(The Lord President of the Council.)
  On Question, "That this clause be here inserted," agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments; Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 150.)

  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL [Lords].
  House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.
QUESTIONS.

  RE-HOUSING OF DISPLACED PERSONS.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, I have arranged with the noble Duke, the Lord President of the Council, to postpone the question standing on the

  1129
  Paper in my name, in which I had given notice to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the action of the London School Board in respect of the site for a proposed school in Bethnal Green, known as the Wood Street site, whereby, although more than twenty houses, occupied by persons belonging to the labouring classes, are taken, the Standing Orders of the House of Lords as to the re-housing of persons displaced are evaded; and, if so, would Her Majesty's Government, in view of the growing seriousness of the overcrowding problem in East London, take steps to prevent such evasion in tho future.

  PROTECTION OF PLOVERS' EGGS.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Home Secretary has power to prohibit the taking of plovers' eggs in any county after a certain date without extending the prohibition to the whole year. As your Lordships are aware, the Home Secretary has power to forbid the taking of eggs of certain birds during the whole of the year. Certain county councils have applied to the Home Secretary to prohibit the taking of plovers' eggs during the whole of the year, and the Home Secretary has in some cases very naturally declined to sanction such a prohibition. In the first place, a good many of us are very fond of eating plovers' eggs; and, secondly, they are more or less a subject of trade, and it would be a serious matter to preclude the taking of these eggs during the whole of the year. But I have been told that shepherds bring plovers' eggs into country towns well into June, when not more than one out of six is really fit for food. The question is whether the Home Secretary has power to prohibit taking the eggs for a part of the year only. There is considerable doubt on that point in the minds of county councils, and I have been asked by the County Councils Association to put the question of which I have given notice.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, in answer to the noble Duke, I have to say that there has been no special application to the Secretary of State for the Home Department from any local authority for an Order such as he describes; that is to
  1130
  say, there has been no application to the Home Secretary to prohibit the taking of plovers' eggs for a certain portion of the year without prohibiting for the whole year. The subject has been under the consideration of the Home Secretary, and, as a doubt has been raised whether Section 2 of the Act of 1894, which deals with this question, gives power to make an Order such as that indicated, he is taking the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the point. Of course, if it is found that the Home Secretary has the power, it will be within his discretion to exercise it whenever application is made to him.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven of the clock.