Sitting of 8 August 1902

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CON FIRMATION.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District) Water, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.

  LANARKSHIRE (MIDDLE WARD DISTRICT) WATER ORDER CONFIR MATION BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Lanarkshire (Middle Ward District)

  1097
  Water," presented accordingly; and, under 62 and 63 Vic., c. 47, s. 7 (2), ordered to be considered upon Thursday 16th October.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Longsight; Crewe; Pendleton; Abersychan; Pontypool; Llanfihangel Llantarn; Monmouth County; Griffithstown; Kilgin Hill; Ramsbottom; Isham; and, Welling borough; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENS1NG BILL.
  Petition from Blackheath, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BILLS IN PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Petition from Woolwich, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Brixton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORT, ETC.
  PAROCHIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS DISMISSED IN HIGHLAND CROFT ING COUNTIES.
  Return [presented 5th August] to be printed. [No. 349.]
  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th June; Mr. Engeue wason]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 350.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, for the year ended 31st March 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland, 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Mr. T. M. Healy]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 351.]
  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Seventieth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, for the year ending 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FEE FUND (HOUSE OF LORDS).
  Account presented, of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords from 1st April, 1901, to 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report, No. 358 (Malta, Annual Report for 1901) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
  Return Ordered—
  "(I) Of the Companies registered during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1901, which filed a prospectus and to which certificates to commence business have been granted, stating, (1) the date of registration; (2) the date of prospectus; (3) the amount of nominal capital; (4) the amount of each share; (5) the amount issued or to be issued otherwise than for cash; (6) the amount offered for subscription in cash: (7) the amount underwritten; (8) the commission for underwriting; (9,) the minimum subscription required; (10) the amount allotted before commencing business; (11) the amounts per share payable on application and allotment: (12) the total directors' share qualification, if any; and (13) the date of the certificate to commence business.
  "(II.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1901 which filed a prospectus, but to which certificates to commence business have not been granted stating the particulars specified in (I.) so far as they are applicable.
  "(III.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1901 which filed a declaration that the Company does not issue any invitation to the public to subscribe for its shares.
  "(IV.) Of the Companies registered during the year 1901, which have not filed a prospectus or a declaration that the Company does not issue any invitation to the public to subscribe for its shares, and stating the particulars specified in (I.) so far as they are applicable.
  "(V.) Of the Companies which were dissolved or struck off the register during the year 1901.
  "(VI.) Of the total number of Companies dissolved during the year 1901 (1) by order of Court; (2) after voluntary liquidation; and (3) pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of The Companies Act, 1880. and Section 26 of the Companies Act, 1900.
  "(VII.) Of the total number and nominal paid-up and considered as paid up capital of the Companies registered during the year 1901 in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin respectively, distinguishing Limited Companies from Unlimited, and Companies registered with a nominal capital from Companies registered without such capital.
  "(VIII.) Of the total number and paid-up capital, including the amounts considered as paid on vendors' and other shares, of all Companies having a share capital which were on the register on the 30th day of April 1902, except such Companies as were in course of liquidation or removal from the register, under the provisions of Section 7 of The Companies Act, 1880, and Section 26 of The Companies Act, 1900.
  "(IX.) Of the total number and nominal capital of the Companies registered in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively in every year since the commencement of The Companies Act, 1862, to 1901, inclusive.
  "(X.) Of the fees and capital duty paid in respect of Registered Companies during the year 1901."—(Mr: Gerald Balfour.)
  Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 352.]

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Irish National Schools—Locally arranged School Programmes.
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that under the new programme of national education in Ireland the right is reserved to managers to select a curriculum suited to the locality, he will direct inspectors to refrain from suggesting to the managers of schools the subjects to be taught.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The effect of the new Rule 241 (I) in this matter is not accurately stated in the Question. The rule provides that, within the limits of the curriculum, managers can, with the approval of the Commissioners, arrange the programmes of their schools so as to suit the needs of the localities in which the schools are situated. Suggestions from inspectors, who may be regarded as educational experts, should be found helpful to managers when drawing up special programmes.

    Ballyheigue (Kerry) Boat-Slip.
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for several years past reports have been made by the coastguards at Ballyheigue, North Kerry, as to the large number of fish visiting Ballyheigue Bay, and that, owing to the want of a boat-slip or pier, fishing is practically at a stand-still; and will he, with a view to the development of the fishing industry in that district, take steps to meet the wishes of the local fishermen by the construction of a slip or pier.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question of the construction of a slip at Ballyheigue will be considered by the Congested Districts Board.

    Technical Instruction Grant for Louth.
    MR. JOSEPH NOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a resolution adopted by the

    1101
    Managing Committee for Technical Instruction of the county Louth, protesting against the discontinuance of the grant in aid of technical instruction from South Kensington, on the ground that, when recommending the Corporation to adopt the Technical Instruction Act and levy a rate for the purpose, the Department led the Committee to believe that this grant would be available; and will the department reconsider their decision.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I have already more than once stated that this matter is engaging the consideration of Government.

    Inspection and Preservation of Irish Ancient Monuments.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will ascertain from the Irish Board of Works what ancient monuments in Ireland have been inspected by them within the last twelve months or within the period of the last financial year; and what steps, if any, have been taken for their preservation.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) During the financial year ending 31st March, 1902, inspections have been made and works of repair undertaken at twenty-two ancient monuments, e. g.:— New grange and Dowth, County Meath; Glendalough, County Wicklow; Holy-cross Abbey, County Tipperary; Dysert O'Dea Church and Round Tower, County Clare; Newtown Trim (Cathedral of Meath), County Meath; Inismurray (Island), County Sligo; Franciscan Convent of Ross-Errilly, County Galway; St. Columba's House, Kells, County Meath; St. Cronan's Church, Rosscrea, County Tipperary; Rock of Cashel, County Tipperary; Monasterboice, County Louth; Sligo Abbey, County Sligo; Moyne Abbey, County Mayo; Round, Tower, Lusk, County Dublin; Fenagh Abbey, County Leitrim; Canon's Island Abbey, County Clare; St. Finian's cell, Church Island, County Kerry; Drumlane Church, County Cavan; Maghera Church, County Londonderry; Clones Round Tower and Church, County Monaghan; Ardmore Cathedral, County Waterford; Ennis Abbey, County Clare.
    1102
    In addition to the above cases, inspections have been made at many monuments throughout the country by the Inspector of Ancient and National Monuments and the Board's surveyors, of which no comprehensive record exists. The surveyor for each district inspects the ancient monuments within the district once a year. The total amount expended under the direction of the Board on works for the preservation of ancient and national monuments for the financial year ending 31st March last was £770.

    Post Office—Overseer of South Eastern Metropolitan District.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the overseer's vacancy which occurred on the town establishment of the South Eastern Metropolitan District by the promotion of Mr. May to an inspectorship at another office, has been, filled by the transfer of an officer on the suburban establishment, thus diverting a town vacancy to the suburbs; and whether, in view of the fact that the chances of promotion in the suburban establishment are 75 per cent, better than in the town, he will cause the vacancy to be restored to the establishment in which it originally occurred.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Postmaster General is aware of the effect of the promotion in question, and has already arranged that the balance of promotions shall be readjusted on an early opportunity by the transfer of a town overseer to a suburban vacancy.

    Morriston (Swansea) Postal Arrange ments.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that complaints are made as to delays in the delivery of letters at Morriston, in the county borough of Swansea; and whether the Postmaster General will take stops to accelerate the delivery of letters at that place.

    1103
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Postmaster General will make inquiry as to the delivery arrangements at Morriston, Swansea, with the view of ascertaining whether any improvement can be effected, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Post Office—Repayment of Erroneous Surcharges
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the average amount received in each year for surcharges on letters alleged to be insufficiently stamped, and the number of surcharges erroneously made; and if any, and what, steps are taken to repay surcharges erroneously made, and which are brought to the notice of the Post Office by persons who have posted letters erroneously surcharged, but who have not themselves been called upon to pay such surcharges.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No Returns are kept showing the average amount received in each year for surcharges on letters alleged to be insufficiently stamped or the number of surcharges erroneously made. To be in a position to give such information, the Postmaster General would have to order special Returns to be taken, the cost of which would not, in his opinion, be justified by the value of the information when obtained. On being furnished with sufficient evidence, the Postmaster General is always prepared to repay surcharges erroneously made, although the matter may be brought to the notice of the Post Office by persons who posted the letters, but have not themselves been called on to pay such charges. If the hon. Member has any special case in view and will give particulars, the Postmaster General will be happy to inquire into it.

    Lobinston (Meath) Telegraphic Arrangements.
    MR. CAREW: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the want of a telegraph office
    1104
    or telephonic communication at Lobinston, County Meath; and whether he will take steps to give effect to the wishes of the people in the district.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Postmaster General does not remember any application for a telegraph office at Lobinston, County Meath, but he will be glad to inquire into the case, and he will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Tottington Poor Law Certified School.
    MR. FLOWER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes in future to permit poor law children to be sent to the Tottington School; and whether he will advise the Guardians of the Chorlton Union to adopt the: system of scattered homes.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The institution referred to will cease to be acertified school on the 14th of October, and after that date Boards of Guardians will not be empowered to send children there. I understand that the Chorlton Guardians have at present about 100 children in the school, and it will be necessary to make provision for them. It is for the Guardians to consider what scheme will be most suitable for their accommodation in the circumstances, and I could not undertake to intervene in the manner suggested.

    Hanwell Poor Law Schools.
    MR. FLOWER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state what steps, if any, are being taken to carry out the suggestions in the Report on Mr. Cheatle's examination of 1,000 of the children at the Hanwell Poor Law Schools, which has been prepared by the medical officer of the schools.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Lout/.) I am informed that a Committee of the managers will meet this afternoon to receive a Report of the medical officer of the schools as to special treatment of the cases of ear trouble, and that steps are being taken to obtain permission from the parents to operations being performed in cases in which surgical

    1105
    treatment is required. As I stated in reply to a Question last month, the children suffering from adenoids have been receiving surgical treatment.

    Milk Adulteration Prosecutions.
    GENERAL LAURIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Public Analyst of the Borough of Paddiagton of 25th March last, in reference to the difficulties experienced by local authorities in conducting prosecutions for adulteration of milk; and whether such Amendments of the law will be proposed by him as will enable local authorities to conduct such prosecutions without being penalised in costs.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long); My attention has not been drawn to this Report, but on receiving a copy of it I will give consideration to the matter.

    Dublin Factory Inspector—Mr. Bellhouse.
    MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Gerald Bellhouse, Inspector of Factories and Workshops, left Dublin on the 23rd ultimo to attend at Lismore Petty Sessions on the 26th ultimo; and will he state whether Mr. Bellhouse was engaged on the duties of his office from the 23rd to the 26th ultimo; and if so, what expenses this Inspector claimed, or was entitled to claim.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Ritchie.) Mr. Bellhouse left Dublin, not on the 23rd, but on the 16th of July, on a tour of inspection. On the days referred to in the Question he was fully engaged on his official work of inspection and (on the 26th) on a prosecution. He has claimed, and will be allowed, his travelling and hotel expenses in the usual way.

    Pilotage Certificates granted to Aliens.
    MR. NORMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade it he will state how many pilotage certificates in the London District, for the Humber, and at Newhaven are held by aliens: when these were granted; and for what reasons such certificates are granted to aliens.
    1106
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am informed that pilotage certificates have been granted to masters and mates of foreign ships in forty-four cases in the London district, in seventeen cases in the district of the Hull Trinity House, and in seven cases at Newhaven, but I am not able to say when these certificates were granted. The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, relating to the grant of pilotage certificates, apply to the masters and mates of all ships, whether British or foreign. The principle was established by the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Act, 1889, which was passed after the matter had been thoroughly considered by a Select Committee of the I House of Commons, who recommended the continuance of the practice of granting certificates to aliens.

    Indian Staff Corps Officers on Home Leave from China.
    MR. BECKETT: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Staff Corps Officers in China were promised full three months leave in England, and that their passage back should be paid; that officers have already upon the strength of this promise gone on leave from China; will he explain the reasons for the new regulation announcing that the leave is to count from the date of starting and that no passage back was to be paid; and will he take steps to put the matter right and either see that the original arrangement is carried out or protect officers from any loss or injury in which they may be involved by having gone on leave: under the terms of the first order.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The orders of the Government of India, under which officers coming home on special China leave were led to count upon ninety days clear in this country and a passage back to India, were due to a misunderstanding of the Secretary of State's instructions. The intention was that the ninety days should reckon from the date of their leaving their stations to that of rejoining, and that no expense to the State in respect of passage should be admissible. This has now been made clear by new orders; published in India and China. The case of officers who took special China leave

    1107
    prior to the publication in China of these revised orders is now under consideration.

    Hyderabad (Sindh) Cantonment Order.
    MR. HENRY J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the order of the Governor of Bombay, on pages 123–4 of the Bombay Government Gazette;,) of 3rd July, 1902; and if he can now say why Section 204 of the Cantonment Code, 1899, has been extended to the city of Hyderabad and to 109 villages in the vicinity of the Hyderabad cantonment; and, will he state, approximately, what is the area so affected.
    (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) In the absence of any indication as to which Hyderabad the hon. Member referred to in the Question on yesterday's Paper, I assumed that Hyderabad, Deccan, was meant; the hon. Member has now made it clear that he refers to Hyderabad, Sindh, and my attention has been called to the notification which he quotes, but I find that I have no other information on the subject, and am unable to give the area of the villages mentioned. I will, however, cause inquiry to be made.

    Education Grants to Scotch County and Burgh Committees.
    MR. RENSHAW: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the grants to county committees under the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, will be distributed this year on the basis of population as shown by the new census; and whether the Scotch Education Department will intimate the amounts of these grants at an early date.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham. Murray.) The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, intimation of the grants available under the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act of 1902, will be made in a Circular, which will be issued by the Department in the course of a few days.
    MR. MAXWELL: To ask the Lord Advocate when the Scotch Education Department propose to issue a circular to county and burgh Education Committees intimating the amounts payable to them out of the sum of £60,000 available for secondary education in terms of The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The circular to which the hon. Member refers will be issued by the Department in the course of a few days. The corresponding circular sent out last year was elated 10th August.
    MR. MAXWELL: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scotch Education Department can arrange for the issue, at an early date, of a Return showing the distribution of the grants to higher class, secondary, and technical schools under paragraph 3 of the Minute of 27th April, 1899, as amended by the Minute of 15th June, 1899.
    (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The particulars referred to by the hon. Member as regards the grants payable to higher class schools under paragraph 3 of the Minute of 27th April, 1899 will be issued as part of the Report on Secondary Education which will be issued shortly.

    Tara Mounds.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government can take any steps to prevent the devastation of Tara; and whether he will introduce a Bill in the Autumn session to make these historic remains national property with a view to their preservation.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The mounds at Tara are amongst the works included in the Schedule to the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882. The effect of their being so scheduled is that any person, other than the owner, who injures or defaces the mounds maybe prosecuted. The owner cannot be restrained unless the custody of the earthworks has been vested by deed in the Commissioners of Public Works.

    1109
    No such deed has been executed in the present instance, but I am informed that the owner stopped in June last the excavations which were then in progress, and that it is extremely unlikely that they will be renewed.

    Granard Workhouse Cemetery.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the Local Government Board is charging the Guardians of Granard Union with a sum of £52 in order to get a similar sum; released that was lodged by a former Board as the purchase money for Granard Workhouse Cemetery and Garvagh Burial Ground; whether he is aware that there was a dispute as to the ownership of these lands; and has the Local Government Board been now satisfied as to title.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The sum of,£52 represents the taxed costs incurred by the Board in withdrawing from the Court the money lodged some years previously on foot of the purchase of the fee simple of certain premises required by the Granard Guardians. The amount was paid out of public funds on behalf of the Guardians, the legal estate in the property being vested in the Local Government Board. The Guardians have refunded the amount to the Board. The latter Department is not aware there has been a dispute as to the ownership of the lands, and is satisfied as to the title.

    Proposed Winter (Civil) Assize for Belfast.
    SIR JAMES HASLETT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the desire of the commercial community in Belfast and surrounding districts that a winter assize for civil business should be held in Belfast; and if he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure this object.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In the selection of the venue for winter assizes the governing consideration is the effective, convenient, and economical administration of justice. This depends on a number of changing circumstances,
    1110
    which vary from year to year, so that it is impossible at this period to give the undertaking asked for in the Question.

    Royal Irish Constabulary—Witnesses in Civil Actions.
    MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many constables and sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary were absent from Tallow, County Waterford, engaged in Dublin as witnesses in a civil action, in the months of May and June, 1902. and for how many days on each occasion; and whether they are to receive constabulary pay for the time whilst away.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Two sergeants and two constables from Tallow were present in Dublin on subpoena as witnesses in this case. They were absent ten days in May and nine days in June. They received constabulary pay for the time they were absent.

    Case of ex Sergeant Sheridan, R.I.C
    MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount of the compensation paid, in each case, to the mother of Bray, to Murphy, and to M'Goohan, the men convicted at the instance of Sergeant Sheridan; and also the amount of the compassionate allowance granted to Sergeant Keegan and Constable Reid respectively on their retirement from the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) An allowance of 10s. a week is paid to Mrs. Bray, and sums of £25 and £100 were paid to Murphy and M'Goohan respectively. Grants of £200 and £50 were made to Sergeant Keegan and Constable Reid respectively on their retirement from the force.

    Irish National Schools—Teachers of First Class and First Grade.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why, in view of the fact that under the superseded rules of the National Education Board in Ireland a teacher of the highest rank was allowed to a school of thirty-five pupils, a teacher of the

    1111
    highest rank is denied, under the now rules, to every school whose average is less than seventy.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Question appears to lose sight of the essential difference between class and grade. A teacher of first division of first; class received a salary of £70 per annum. A teacher in the first section of first grade receives a maximum salary of £175 per annum.

    Police Constable Shannon, of Listowel,
    MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a charge of drunkenness was preferred a short time since at Listowel against Constable John Shannon; that at the Court of Inquiry evidence was given on oath by twelve policemen and fifteen civilians, including three doctors who are magistrates, that Constable Shannon was perfectly sober; and that Head Constable Wilson, District Inspector Horgan, and Sergeant Kirby swore that Constable Shannon was drunk, and removed him off duty for this offence: and, seeing that the Court of Inquiry presided over by two district inspectors acquitted Constable Shannon on the charge of drunkenness, will he say what action the Government or the Inspector General of Constabulary will take in the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Court of Inquiry came to the conclusion, in which the Inspector General concurred, that the charge of drunkenness had not been substantiated. The constable, however, was fined in a small sum on another charge and transferred from Listowel. No further action in the case is contemplated.

    Itinerant Coffee Shops in Dublin.
    MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the proprietor of street cars in Dublin, which have been supplying refreshments to working men in the early mornings, has been fined for causing obstructions in the streets; whether these prosecutions have the sanction of the Irish Executive; whether he will see that the same privileges are granted to these travelling coffee-shops as is
    1112
    allowed in London and other English cities and towns; and, in view of the needs of the working-classes, will he give instructions to the police to stop these prosecutions.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Proceedings have been instituted against persons in charge of these cars where obstruction of the public thorough fare was caused. There have been three such prosecutions by the police in Dublin. The sanction of the Executive is not required. It is incumbent upon the police to act on occasions of this kind, where obstruction is caused, and they have no dispensing power such as is suggested in the Question. There are several places in close proximity to the public thoroughfares where these cars might be stationed without causing obstruction, and without incurring the risk of prosecutions such as are complained of.

    Portadown Disturbance.
    MR. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the members of the Sacred Heart Society of Lisburn, consisting of women and girls, when returning on Sunday,3rd August, from an excursion from Warren point, through Portadown, were attacked, so that the railway authorities were compelled to drive the train with the greatest possible speed to prevent the excursionists being maltreated; and whether, seeing that this is one of several occurrences of this character which have taken place at Portadown when Roman Catholic excursionists have had occasion to pass this district, steps have been taken to bring the offenders to justice; and whether more adequate police arrangements will, in future, be made.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No attack was made on the train when passing through Portadown, and the train proceeded at this point at the ordinary rate of speed. It has been alleged that three panes of glass in the carriage windows were broken by stones thrown at the train about two miles from Portadown. The police, however, are unable to obtain any corroboration

    1113
    of the statement. Every precaution is taken by the police to prevent interference with excursionists.

    Essex Regiment—Badge of the Eagle.
    MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Financial Secretary to the war Office Whether the Essex Regiment will now be allowed to wear the badge of the eagle on their service kit, full dress, and mess dress, in addition to the button.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) —The badge of the eagle will not be worn in addition to the button except on the collar of the mess jacket.

    Sandhurst College—Position of Governor and Assistant-Commandant.
    MR. LEIGH-BENNETT: To ask the Secretary of State for war at what dates the appointments of the Governor and Assistant-Commandant of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, terminate respectively; and whether in each case it is intended to allow the current term of employment to run to its natural time of expiry.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick)— The Governor retires at his own desire. The Assistant-Commandant's appointment terminated last January, and he was kept on with notice to retire at the end of this term.

    South Africa—Return of Volunteers —Free Passages.
    MR. CHARLES M'AUTHUR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Volunteers serving in South Africa were in some cases notified by their officers that they could only obtain their discharge upon agreeing to forfeit any claim upon the Government for a free passage home; and that, in consequence, many men have returned, or are returning, who were desirous of settling in South Africa; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into any cases in which disadvantage has resulted from such instructions.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) — These Volunteers are entitled to a, passage homo if they apply within twelve mouths of their discharge. The Secretary of State for War is not aware of any orders having been issued by officers as stated. It the hon. Member will kindly specify any particular cases they shall be inquired into.

    Woolwich Arsenal Foremen—Pension Scheme.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the proposed new pension scheme for the foremen employed in Woolwich Arsenal provides that those who are qualified to receive such pension must not be connected with any trade society; and, seeing that a man who has served thirty years in the Arsenal has paid £120 if he belonged to the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, and that a man who has served forty years has paid £156. by which he has secured certain benefits, will he take care that the pension scheme shall not deprive a man coming under it of any benefits which he has secured by belonging to this or kindred societies.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The reply to the first part of the Question, is in the affirmative. The special condition referred to was suggested by the foremen themselves in 1898. Steps will be taken to safeguard, as far as possible, the interests of the foremen who at present belong to trade societies, but it has to be borne in mind that acceptance of the new pension scheme is purely voluntary on the part of the men.

    New Hebrides—Resident Deputy Comm issioner.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain the recent appointment of a Resident to the New Hebrides; whether it has been made under agreement with France; and how the salary of the Resident is to be borne.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The appointment was found necessary in view of the increasing influx of British subjects into the group, and the frequent difficulties arising in connection with lard claims and the labour question. As the Joint Naval Commission is only in the Islands during a brief period every year, it was desirable to make provision for giving the British residents the facilities and assistance which could only be afforded by the presence of a permanent officer.

    1115
    There has been no agreement with France as to this appointment, but the French Government had previously appointed an officer with similar functions. The salary of the Resident Deputy Commissioner is provided on the Colonial Services Vote.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangement has been made with regard to the salary of the newly-appointed British Resident of the New Hebrides.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The salary of the newly-appointed Resident Deputy Commissioner in the New Hebrides has been fixed at £700 per annum with residence. It is paid from the Colonial Services Vote. As the officer appointed draws naval half-pay to the amount of £400 per annum, a deduction of £100 has been made from the salary in accordance with the rules under the Superannuation Act.

    Cyprus—Works at Famagusta
    MR. PIERPOINT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the works at Famagusta (Cyprus) are intended to extend to the outer harbour or roadstead, or are intended to include only the old harbour at present existing; whether the works have been begun; and what amount of money it is intended to devote to the harbour improvements.
    (Answered by Mi'. Secretary Chamberlain.), The works contemplated are the dredging out of the old harbour and of the necessary channel leading to it through the outer harbour. The works contemplated also include the building of a considerable length of wharfwall and reclamation for the purpose of providing quayage. Tenders for the work have been received and are now under my consideration. NO apportionment of the money provided has been made as between the harbour works and railway works which are regarded as part of one scheme.

    Forestry—Laws in Foreign Countries.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will take steps to ascertain the various enactments which are in force in foreign countries with reference to forestry, and have the result of his inquiries circulated as a Parliamentary Paper.
    1116
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I will communicate with the Foreign Office with a view to obtaining the information which the hon. Baronet desires.

    South Africa—Courts-Martial Commission.
    MR. CROMBIE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Commission appointed to inquire into sentences imposed by military courts in South Africa will embrace in its inquiry sentences passed by courts-martial upon soldiers for breaches of military discipline.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour) It is not intended that the Commission should deal with the cases to which the hon. Member refers.

    Position of Leading Members of Late Boer Governments.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury what are the intentions of the Government with regard to leading members of the late Governments of the Boer Republics; whether lie will state when and on what terms they will be at liberty to return to their homes.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour) The Secretary of State for the Colonies is in communication with Lord Milner on the matter. I am not in a position to make a definite statement at the present time.

    Martial Law in Cape Colony.
    Mr. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a judgment of the Cape Supreme Court, delivered in the case of Rex v. Reenen by the Chief Justice, to the effect that martial law could only be justified by the existence of actual hostilities; and will he say how long, and for what objects, it is the intention of the Government to maintain martial law in the Colony.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour:) It is I the fact that martial law has been greatly relaxed; but the state of the country has not so far permitted of its complete removal. I have had no opportunity of referring to the judgment which the hon. Member quotes, no doubt with perfect accuracy.

    Ireland — Proposal to Abolish Lord Lieutenancy, and Establish a Royal Residence.
    MR. BUTCHER: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the changes that have taken place since the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was first established, His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of abolishing that office, and of making provision for establishing a Royal residence in Ireland.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) This subject has often been considered, and it is hardly possible in answer to a Question to deal with it adequately; but it may be pointed out that either the Royal Lord Lieutenant will have to be a political officer like the present Lord Lieutenant, responsible for the acts of the Executive; or else an entirely new status will have to be created for him by Act of Parliament. The first alternative is clearly inexpedient: the second might or might not be desirable in the abstract; but it would involve prolonged controversy, and clearly cannot be carried out at the present moment.

    Coronation Guests from India and the Colonies—Charges on Indian and Colonial Revenues.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state the number of guests invited to the Coronation from the colonies, I dependencies, and feudatory states, respectively, of the Empire, as well as the number of troops and other military contingent drawn from those countries to assist in the functions connected with the Coronation: whether the expenses of the residence and entertainment of all such guests and troops have been charged to their respective countries, as has been done in respect of those of India; whether his attention has been drawn to the disapproval with which the idea of levying from the Indian Exchequer the expenses in connection with the guests and troops from that country is regarded both here and there; and whether he proposes to have the said charges defrayed from the British Exchequer.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I; cannot state without further inquiry
    1118
    the exact number of guests invited to the Coronation from all portions of the Empire. I believe that the larger part, if not the whole, of the cost of their stay in this country has been charged to Imperial funds, and the Secretary of State for India is now in communication with the Treasury with the view of obtaining, so far as the different conditions prevailing in India will allow, similar treatment for our Indian guests.

    Russia and Persia—Indian Interests.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have information that the Government of Russia is negotiating with the Government of Persia a treaty whereby, in return for a Russian loan to Persia and other considerations, prohibitive customs duties are to be placed on British and Indian goods imported into Persia either by the frontier of Beluchistan, or by the Persian Gulf, and whereby the Persian custom houses on the Afghan and Beluch frontiers are to be administered by Russian officials; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government have consulted the Indian Government on the matter, and what steps do they propose to take.
    (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) His Majesty's Government are not aware that any such treaty is in negotiation, but they understand that the two Governments in question contemplate a revision of the tariff arrangements now in force, and that certain of the proposed duties would be likely to have an unfavourable effect on British and Indian imports, and they are in communication with the Indian Government on the subject.

    Feeble-Minded Workhouse Paupers.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties attending the treatment and care of feeble-minded paupers in workhouses; and whether he will consider the propriety of appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire and report on the matter.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The case of the feeble-minded in workhouses

    1119
    has been brought before the Local Government Board, and, at the request of the National Association for promoting the welfare of persons of this kind, my predecessor obtained some statistics, which were communicated to the Association. I shall be happy to consider any further representations which may be made on the subject, but I am not at present prepared to say that it would lie desirable to appoint a Departmental Committee with regard to it.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African War—General Inquiry.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to give the names of the members of the Royal Commission; of Inquiry into the War, in addition to the name of the chairman already given, as well as the exact terms of reference; and will he state whether the reference ! will admit of inquiry into the circumstances under which the first force of Imperial Yeomanry were replaced by later and less trained levies; and whether, with regard to any inquiries into surrenders generally, and into the records of the inquiries already held in South Africa, which may be thought necessary in the public interest, it will rest with the Commission to decide if portions of the evidence shall be taken with closed doors, with a view to elicit the whole truth.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry I cannot give him a complete list of the names of the Royal Commission, but I have approached very nearly to its completion. My noble friend Lord Elgin has agreed to take the chair, and the other Commissioners will include Field-Marshal Sir Henry Norman, Admiral Sir John Hopkins, Lord Esher, (I think I am justified in saying also, although I am not absolutely sure Sir John Jackson, the eminent contractor, and Sir John Edge, member of the Indian Council and the late Chief Justice of the North-West Provinces of India. There is still another name
    1120
    which I hope to be able to secure, but that, roughly speaking, gives the outline of the Commission the Government desire to see appointed. The reference will probably be in the following terms:—
    "To inquire into the military preparations for the war in South Africa, and into the supply of men, ammunition, equipment, and transport by sea and land in connection with the campaign, and into the military operations up to the occupation of Pretoria."
    It will be evident that the reference covers the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman on the first and second paragraphs in the Question; but I may, perhaps, be permitted to add that I think it would be a pity if the Royal Commission were to lose themselves in detail and I fervently trust that they will largely confine their labours to the broader issues involved. But that rests with them. The reference is wide enough to cover all the operations that have taken place in the time.

    Atlantic Shipping Trust.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury to state if the Government contemplate entering into any arrangement with the Atlantic Shipping Trust, and, if so, whether he will indicate in a general way the purpose and nature of the arrangement.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government have been engaged in negotiations connected with and arising out of circumstances connected with the formation of the Atlantic shipping combination; but, unfortunately, and through no fault of the Government, I am not really in a position to say anything to the House at the present moment on the subject. As the House is probably aware, the Committee of the Cabinet has had much work to do in relation to other matters, and one of its important members, my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies, has suffered from a severe accident which has been an unavoidable cause of delay; but I confidently hope that as soon as the House meets again we shall be able to take Members into our confidence.
    MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: But if the right hon. Gentleman will indicate

    1121
    in a general way the nature of the contemplated arrangement, it would avoid the necessity of my having to call the attention of the House to the subject later.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be very glad to relieve my hon. friend from the labour and responsibility of addressing the House, but I am really afraid— not from a desire to keep anything secret, but from the nature of the case—that it is impossible to make any statement on the subject. If my hon. friend, in the exercise of his discretion, and as he has a perfect right to do, does address the House on the subject, I am afraid it will not be in the power of the President of the Board of Trade or any member of the Government to deal with it in reply. I am sorry it should be so, but I have indicated the circumstances which have placed us in this position.

    The Scottish Court of Justiciary Trumpeter.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the sum of £80 paid to the trumpeter to the Court of Justiciary is described in the Estimates for Law Charges, Scotland, as salary, both under Item K and also in a footnote, in which it is stated that the salary will be abolished on a vacancy. And, seeing that this payment is not a salary, but an allowance, will arrangements be made to have it accurately described in next year's Estimates.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgeton): The description is quite correct.
    MR. WEIR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman it is not.

    Irish Questions.
    The following questions were addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland:—
    MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that under the new programe of national education in Ireland the right is reserved to managers to select a curriculum suited to the locality, he will direct
    1122
    inspectors to refrain from suggesting to the managers of schools the subjects to be taught.
    MR. FLAVINTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for several years past reports have been made by the coastguards at Ballyheigue, North Kerry, as to the large number of fish visiting Ballyheigue Bay, and that owing to the want of a boat-slip or pier, fishing is practically at a standstill; and will he, with a view to the development of the fishing industry in that district, take steps to meet the wishes of the local fishermen by the construction of a slip or pier.
    MR. JOSEPH NOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee for Technical Instruction of the County Louth, protesting against the discontinuance of the grant in aid of technical instruction from South Kensington, on the ground that, when recommending the corporation to adopt the Technical Instruction Act and levy a rate for the purpose, the Department led the Committee to believe that this grant would be available; and will the Department reconsider their decision.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): As I indicated yesterday, I will send the answers to these Questions to the hon. Members privately.

  NEW WRITS.
  New Writ for the County of Devon (North Eastern or Tiverton Division) in the room of the right hon. Sir William Hood Walrond, Baronet, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.— (Mr. Anstruther
  New Writ for the County of Worcester (Eastern Division), in the room of Joseph Austen Chamberlain, Esquire, His Majesty's Postmaster General.—(Mr. Anstruther)
  New Writ for the County of Kent (Western or Sevenoaks Division), in the room of Henry William Forster, Esquire, one of the Commissioners for executing the Office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.—(Mr. Anstruther.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Public Works Loans Bill, Marine Works (Ireland) Bill, Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Bill, without Amendment.
  Consequential Amendments to—Licensing Bill.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled," An Act to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts." [Supreme Court of Judicature Bill (Lords).]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT (AUTUMN SITTINGS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Thursday 16th October." (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Anybody taking up the papers to-day will find in the law reports a very remarkable insight into the contrast between English and Irish methods of government. The case to which I allude is the casein which, on one side, there is a body of miners and on the other side a body of mine-owners. The name of the case is The Glamorgan Coal-Owning Company, Ltd., v. The South Wales Miners' Federation and Others. It would be entirely foreign to my purpose to enter into the details or merits of this litigation, but I may say I cordially congratulate my hon. friends who represent the labour interests in this House on the remarkable victory which they have gained in the conflict between them and capital. A stronger vindication of some of the rights for which they have so long fought could
  1124
  not have been obtained. But I allude to the case for the purpose of drawing attention to the fact that here we have a conflict between a combination of labour on the one side and a combination of capital on the other; in other words, we have a conflict which in many respects is the same as the conflict which is taking place in Ireland, except that in England it is a conflict between miners and mine-owners, and in Ireland it is a contest between landlords and tenants. wish to call the attention of the House to the different manner in which that struggle is dealt with in England and in Ireland. The case to which I am alluding was brought before a judge in the High Court, and by the consent of both parties—to their honour be it said, and to the honour of the judge before whom it was tried—it was tried by a judge unassisted by a jury. Such is the well-founded confidence even in matters of class warfare which this country has in the impartiality of its judicial officers. Now, the judge, among other obiter dicta, declared that the case was not made out against the miners, although the miners' representatives had taken action the result of which was to interfere with the property and to diminish the profits and damage the interests of the owners of the mines, and he made this statement—
  "Damage resulted to the masters, but there was no malicious intention to cause injury. No profit was gained for themselves by the defendants, and their sole object was to benefit the men whom they were advising and directing."
  Could not these words be applied to the men who have the serious responsibility and duty of advising the tenantry of Ireland in the conflict which they are waging with their landlords?
  This remarkable judgment laid down the proposition that though a combination, might injure the property of a class against which it was directed, that fact alone does not constitute a legal ground of action, or enable the aggrieved class to take action. It may be thought, as a result of the land agitation in Ireland, that the landlords may be injured. I do not know that they will be injured. I do not know we are not helping them towards a solution of the question. What I do proclaim is that

  1125
  primarily the object of the leaders of the tenants in Ireland is to do justice to the tenants, and not to do injustice to the landlords, and therefore I hold on the lines of this judgment that the action of our people in Ireland in fighting for their rights, is on a par with the action which has been taken in England, and that, therefore, it ought not to be the subject of either a criminal or civil prosecution. The learned judge, in delivering his judgment, said—
  "Even at the risk of being told I am going outside my province, I strongly advise the parties to consider whether they cannot end this litigation. I doubt if it serves any useful purpose, and I am sure that it creates bitterness of feeling, and makes the relations between the masters and the men difficult and unpleasant."
  I turn now to the case of Ireland. There is not a single proposition that I have laid down with regard to the administration of justice between the warring classes in England which does not find its counterpart in Ireland. Anbody will under stand, who has watched the course of events in Ireland, that there is a war going on between the present and future owners of the soil. The Sheridan case, the packing of juries, the employment of Resident Magistrates, and the debates in this House between the Chief Secretary and ourselves—all these are matters that must be regarded as episodes in the great struggle which is going on between the two classes in Ireland; and what I want to point out is that this House does not stand in the position of an impartial judge. That is the worst part of the case. This Government is a Government of political partisans. It is from the very necessity of the case, and I make this charge in all seriousness, realising its gravity, that the Minister of the day does not stand equal and impartial between the warring classes in Ireland. He is not independent as between the two sides. He is on the side of one of the classes and against the other side. I do not blame the Government too severely for that. The British Government has to control many millions of human beings, and I think within the next twenty-four hours we shall have a conspicuous testimony of their loyalty: but I would like to point out that in
  1126
  India there is a similar warfare going on. There, there is a war between the landlord on one side, or rather, as you would call him, the Zemindar on the one side, and the Ryot on the other. It is the justification of British Government in. India that it is under the aegis of the Pax Britannica, and I would like to see that Pax Britannica applied to the case of the Government of Ireland. There we are governed more or less by the Privy Council, and the Privy Council is more or less an ornamental body. Its members have been called by the Crown to take part in the councils of the nation, and I would look to read the terms of the oath which these gentlemen take. One is that—
  "I will advise the King according to the best of my cunning and discretion. I will advise for the King's honour and for the good of the public, without partiality, affection, love, need, doubt, or dread."
  Now, that is a solemn oath, by which a man pledges himself to impartiality and freedom from personal bias or self interest. How has this oath been kept? On April 7th, I think it was, there was formed an organisation in Ireland for the purpose of making war on the United Irish League. Persons who were asked to join this organisation were asked to do so in defence of the rights of property. The landlords, of course, have the same right to combination as the tenants, and I have nothing whatever to say against the legitimate formation of combination. One must recognise this. But in this case it was a class combination of an aggressive nature. The men who were leaders of this combination were Mr. Smith Barry (recently elevated to the peerage under the title of Lord Barrymore) and Lord Clonbrock. I do not dispute their right to form a combination, but I wish to point out that on April 14th—seven days after the formation of this great class combination—these two men. who were mainly instrumental in forming it, and who were the largest subscribers to its funds, changed their address from the Kildare Street Club to Dublin Castle, and these men, who were the founders of the movement of this class combination, became transformed into the rulers of Ireland. I put it to any man, the most bigotted amongst the partisans on the

  1127
  face of this earth, whether it is tolerable that men should be allowed to occupy this double position in the nation—a porition of not only leaders of class war against the masses of the people, of class war against the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland, but that within the very next week they should doff the robes of partisanship and should assume the judicial ermine of Privy Councillors, and should profess to give impartial advice to the Sovereign, while at the same time, trying to put the masses of the people outside the pale of the Constitution. Can it be said that in carrying out this Pax Britannica these men are advising the King "for the King's honour?" I am sure that nobody will feel more keenly than the constitutional Sovereign of this realm the fact that this advice is not to his honour, but to his dishonour. It may be said by the Chief Secretary that the presence of these two men at the Privy Council was merely a formal matter, but I would like to ask what about the impression this makes upon the minds of the people of Ireland, when they see the fact that they are present, and when they are reminded that among those present were two of the gentlemen who were the leaders in making this class war upon the masses. It is simply an illustration in contradiction of the historic statement of Abraham Lincoln as to the government of the people by the people for the people. This is a case of the government of Ire and being the government of one class by one class for one class, and as long as that continues on these lines, how can the people trust you? My opinion is that the attitude displayed by Mr. Justice Bigham in the war of classes in this country is one which would be impossible in the present judicial system in Ireland.
  Now I come to the case of jury-packing. I do not intend to go into that at any length. We have this advantage in discussing this subject, that the chief criminal in connection with it—and of course I use the words only in the Parliamentary sense—stands self confessed. He is like the unfortunate victim of Sheridan; he pleads guilty, and his defence is simply a tu quque It is the case of jury-packing on the one side, and the Minister for Ireland on the other. My
  1128
  point is that it is part of the system of government in Ireland that jury-packing is a necessary agent. I think a lurid and sinister light has been thrown upon this matter by the Sheridan case, and I would like to point out that, although it has been suggested that the system has produced a rough and ready method of justice, in the Sheridan case, at any rate, it is incontestible that the packing of juries has deprived innocent men of their liberty. The real man we have to attackin connection with this system is the Attorney General for Ireland, because if he did not prepare the stage and the environments Sheridan would not have secured the conviction of his victims. The Chief Secretary is tired of hearing of the case of Sheridan, but I warn him that we are only at the start, and we mean to keep up this case until justice is done. We mean, if we can, to force the Chief Secretary to prosecute Sheridan, and if we cannot force him, we mean to show the country he is ashamed and afraid to do so. I would like to remind the House that the Dreyfus case in France unmade several Ministries, and almost brought the country to the brink of civil war; but the Government of the country had the courage of their convictions, and what we complain of is I that the Government of this country has; not the courage to follow its example.
  The hon. Member then gave a detailed history of the Sheridan case and of the conviction of Dan Magoohan and the other victims of police conspiracy, and remarking in passing that while a Woolwich constable was rewarded with £20 for saving the Government £10,000 a year, an Irish constable received a reward of £200 for committing perjury. The man got three years penal servitude and Sheridan got complimented. Shortly after he came out the man died, but his unfortunate mother still lived, and often told the story how her son refused to plead guilty in order to get a short sentence, and how he had always stoutly maintained his innocence. It is too terrible to think of. As I listened to the Chief Secretary talking about the guilt of Sheridan, I was reminded of the right hon. Gentleman's admired writings on the sonnets of Shakespeare. The right hon.

  1129
  Gentleman spoke of Sergeant Keegan being dazzled by the brilliancy of Sergeant Sheridan. He was as dazzled by the brilliance of Sheridan as the right hon. Gentleman was by the brilliance of Shakespeare. This man they gave three years penal servitude to for perjury, and the right hon. Gentleman said that conduct was most improper. The right hon. Gentleman s language was open, but it was by deeds and not by words that the right hon. Gentleman must be judged. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? The course he took was to tell these men who gave evidence against Sheridan that they could have the promised indemnity, but it must be clear to them that they could no longer be employed in any position of trust in the Royal Irish Constabulary; that if they cared to languish at the Depot, drawing regulation pay, they could do so, but that his advice to them was that they should go and try and regain their place amongst honest men. So that he practically said, "Go my children, and sin no more." Sergeant Keegan got £200, Reid got £50, and they were dismissed. Anderson, another of the criminals was languishing at the Depot on regulation pay, being given no position of trust in the Royal Irish Constabulary. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that there are still vacancies to be filled among the resident magistrates. Does the House understand what languishing at the Depot meant? Those who know Dublin know the monument called Nelson's Pillar, around which there is always gathered a little knot of broken men who have tailed in their business or their professions, and who stand there shivering all day long glad to get twopence to buy a piece of bread. That kind of poverty they were familiar with in Ireland. Those men had only failed, but these men could now commit perjury, and all their punishment was that they could languish at the depot on regulation pay. What crying injustice that was! Moreover, this man still wore the King's uniform. Was the right hon. Gentleman, any more than Lord Barrymore and Lord Clonbrock. doing honour to the King by allowing a ruffian of this kind to wear the King's uniform? Did the Committee appreciate what this man s languishing at
  1130
  the depot meant? The depot was the training school of the young constable coming into the force, and Anderson was languishing at the depot giving lessons in the dazzling performances of Sheridan. The right hon. Gentleman had two alternatives in this matter. Sergeant Keegan was willing to give evidence. It could no longer be pretended that no one was ready to give evidence against Sheridan. Sergeant Keegan had declared that he was willing to tell the whole story. The right hon. Gentleman was not suffering from want of evidence, but from superabundance of evidence. On the other hand, Sheridan said he was anxious for an opportunity of clearing his character. Sheridan was actually proclaiming his readiness to stand his trial. The one man afraid of the trial was the Chief Secretary. He could no longer make the defence that he did not believe he could get a conviction; and the alternative was that he must think that if Sheridan were tried and convicted it would have a bad effect on the force. What a revelation that was of the state of things in Ireland ! All these things had been going on in Ireland, and the had been brought to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary, who still stood shivering before the bar of public opinion.
  Next there was the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the refusal of the use of the County Court-houses for the holding of public meetings. These Court-houses were the property of the people, so they were not allowed to use their own property. In these same Court-houses the old grand juries frequently assembled and passed resolutions against Home Rule. He hoped the House would consider the case lie had put before them, and that at a time when men were gathering here from all parts of the earth to bear testimony to the success of the English scheme of government, it would be noted that on the other side stood Ireland, a nation in chains and with a dwindling population. It was not with satisfaction to himself that he had occupied so much of the time of the House. It was Ireland at the beginning of the session and Ireland at the close. He hoped the House would consider the great contrast to

  1131
  which he had drawn attention, and whether some remedy could not be found
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The hon. Member has informed the House that Ireland claims our attention at the beginning and at the end of the session. It is so. It has occurred before. But not only that: Irish affairs have been discussed at intervals during the whole session. The hon. Member, in the first place, invited us to discuss a decision given only on the previous day by Mr. Justice Bigham in the case concerning the Glamorganshire Colliery Company. I believe there is to be an appeal. In my opinion, it is a mistake to bring before the House under such circumstances the cool decisions on a point of law. Then the hon. Member asked us to draw a contrast between the trade combinations in this country and their objects and methods and agrarian combinations in Ireland. What are the objects of such combinations as he has in his mind? The objects of trade organisations in this country are to secure greater leisure and higher wages. Their object is not to put an end to capital altogether. But the stated object of the agrarian combination in Ireland is to exterminate what is called landlordism.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is your avowed policy.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Your object is that landlordism should be exterminated, but for my part I think the purchase policy of the Unionist Government is a good policy. Could anybody contend that that is an object which ought to be pursued by bringing violence and fear to bear, not upon the landlords, but upon other people? I will pass from the object to the method. In Ireland it is the method which we condemn. The case which has been; brought before the courts of justice is not for attacking the landlords directly, but for attacking other people who are tenants or the poor servants of tenants. That is not legal in this country. To follow people about in the pursuit of their work is an offence against the very Act of Parliament which hon.
  1132
  Gentlemen opposite appeal to when they ask that agrarian combinations in Ireland shall be treated as trade combinations in this country. Trade combinations in this country are permitted under the Act of Parliament to combine for a number of objects if they are pursued in a certain manner, but they are prohibited under the seventh section from adopting the method which hon. Members opposite are advocating in Ireland. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Not at all."] They say that the law is different in the two countries upon this question, but that argument cannot be sustained. I remember there was a case in Scotland about eighteen months ago during the carters' strike, and because one man followed another man about he was summoned before the sheriff and fined £30 or the alternative of a month's imprisonment, and he went to prison. This was the very thing which hon. Members tell us ought to be permitted in Ireland.
  Having sought to draw this contrast between the law in England and Ireland, the hon. Member went on to draw the contrast between the attitude of the Government in regard to the land difficulties in Ireland and in India. The hon. Member said that in India we had solved land difficulties as great as the land difficulties in Ireland. But how have they been solved in India? The land difficulties in India have been solved by a rough and ready method of fixing fair rents, very different from the elaborate and costly judicial system set up in Ireland. The ryot and the zemindar are face to face in India with different interests. A rent is fixed for the ryot, but he has no right to have that rent revised at periods of fifteen years or any other period, but a schedule of prices is made and the rent goes up or down by a simple rule-of-thumb. But the great distinction is that in India there is no agitation against rent, and certainly there is no agitation on the part of the ryot or peasant to put an end to the Status and privileges of the zemindar. The whole point of the agitation which the hon. Member opposite has been defending in the House this morning is to put an end to the Status and privileges of the owners

  1133
  of the soil, not by paving a price bargained for, but by endeavouring to make the position of the owners an impossible one, in order that they shall be forced to accept the terms put forward by the agitators. Therefore, there is all the difference in the world between those two states.
  The hon. Member has been good enough to say that the landlords' combination may be legal. As long as it is legal it will not, of course, invite the attention of the Government. As long as the tenants' combination is legal the Government will bestow no attention upon it. The hon. Gentleman has described the Government of Ireland as class government. I see in the House a member of the Irish landlords' combination. I would warn him that if he and his associates were to take umbrage at some member of their combination, because he had sold his property at a price which would depreciate the value of the property of the other members of the combination; and if, instead of ex-postulating with him and telling him he had acted prejudicially to his own interest as well as theirs, they were to set their minds and hands to boycotting him; if they declared that they would make the position of his butler so intolerable that he would have to resign his post, and no other person would take the post; if they proceeded to make the position of his solicitor such that he refused to work for him, I should have the greatest pleasure in summoning the right hon. Gentleman, and trying him before two resident magistrates. The hon. Member went on to describe the Government of Ireland as a class Government, and yet from whom did the complaints come? They came from the very class which hon. Gentlemen opposite said were in a position to safeguard their own interests. The tenants have won privilege after privilege, while the landlords are losing them, and yet we are told that the Government of Ireland is run entirely in the interests of one class. No person travelling through Ireland, and no impartial observer of Ireland will have the idea that the landlords have obtained exceptional favours at the hands of the State, and that the tenants have been ground down by the machinery of the law and the power of Parliament.
  1134
  I am not entitled to take up much of the time of the House to-day, because I know many of the hon. Members, including the noble Lord behind me, wish to raise other matters of great interest. Therefore, I do not propose to repeat in this House speeches which I have made before, and which have evidently made a profound impression on the mind of the hon. Member who preceded me in this debate. It is quite clear that the hon. Member opposite had in his mind a speech which I made on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill last year. In that speech, and in many other speeches, I stated my case in regard to Sergeant Sheridan, and there for el will now pass from that subject. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh!."] With regard to the question of Court-houses in Ireland, the hon. Member for Cork City selected the Court-house at Cork in order to preach the gospel of intimidation. That place was selected in order to preach the gospel of fighting the landlords, not by attacking the landlords themselves, but by attacking the men who shoe their horses and others employed by them, and that was the point to which they came back to. A Court-house is not a proper place in which to promulgate doctrines known to be illegal, and where the Court-house is vested in the High Sheriff it is the bounden duty of the High Sheriff to prevent the repetition of that offence, and of the Government to support him in doing so
  MR. CULLINANPaid he wished to draw attention to what occurred after the holding of the athletic sports in French-park on Sunday the 20th of July. Not long ago he put a Question to the Chief Secretary, asking—
  "Whether he is aware that on the afternoon of Sunday 20th July, after the holding of athletic sports in French-park, county Roscommon, a body of policemen drew their batons against the people: whether he is aware that a pressman who was present, in the discharge of his duty, was assaulted by a policeman, and that the. sergeant declined to give the name of the constable who assaulted him, at the same time asking the pressman to say no more about it; and will be cause an independent inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police on the occasion.
  The Chief Secretary replied that—
  "A very large number of people were present at the sports. A disturbance

  1135
  took place in the village at the conclusion of the sports, and the police were drawn across the road in order to keep back the crowd and to preserve the peace. A newspaper reporter attempted to force a passage through the police, and was pushed back by a constable. The sergeant declined to give the name of the latter, who used no more force than was necessary in the discharge of his duty. Batons were drawn by the police, but not used. I see no ground for further inquiry into the action of the police on the occasion."
  In answer to a further Question put by him the Chief Secretary said—
  "That does not represent the fact. I understand the reporter subsequently expressed regret to the sergeant at the manner in which he addressed him."
  He would road to the House a statement of the facts. He would read a reply which appeared in the press and which was not the reply which the Chief Secretary gave, because the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to make capital out of the fact that Lord and Lady De Freyne attended those sports and were not attacked. The Chief Secretary said—
  "This was purely a social and sporting gathering. Several policemen competed in the events with other athletes. A very large number of people were present, including Lord and Lady De Freyne, who were received with a cordiality which market I all the proceedings at the sports. A disturbance occurred in the village at the conclusion of the sports, and the police were drawn across the road in order to keep back the crowd. A newspaper reporter attempted to force a passage through the police and was pushed back by a constable. The Serjeant declined to give the name of the latter who used no more force than was necessary. Batons were drawn but not used. I see no ground for further inquiry into the conduct of the police. It was similar to that necessarily taken by the police in this country at any race meeting or large concourse of people."
  He hoped the people of Ireland would study what the Chief Secretary had said on this question. It meant that the policemen who were tolerated to compete in these sports could turn round and bludgeon the very men with whom they had competed and their friends. The Chief Secretary said that Lord and Lady De Freyne were received with cordiality, That was the Irish Government in a nutshell. If the Irish people in their assemblies did not create any disturbance, the Chief Secretary and the Government would try to put that forward as evidence, that they were satisfied. If the people who went to the sports, instead of greeting Lord and Lady de Freyne with cordiality, had
  1136
  groaned and booed, the police would have used their batons to clear them off the field, and a number of people would have been prosecuted and sent to prison. The policy of the Government in Ireland seemed to be—" Do nothing, and nothing will be done; do something, and you will be prosecuted; but whatever you do, it will not please the Government of the day." On hearing the Chief Secretary's reply, he telegraphed at once to Mr. Durr, the reporter referred to, and on Thursday he received the following telegram in reply—
  "Positively did not force way through police. Emphatically deny apologised. Was seriously assaulted. Can prove same on oath. Evidence of several independent witnesses. Was not likely to apologise after a beating. Serjeant refused me name of assistant, requesting me to say nothing more about it.—Durr, Athlone."
  He had given the Chief Secretary notice that he would raise this Question, and although he was sorry to bother the House with it, he thought it was really necessary to refer to it when the Chief Secretary tried to throw dust in the eyes of the House, and to make capital out of the incident. In a letter, dated 22nd July, Mr. Durr wrote to him—
  "It was after the sports (which Lord and Lady De Freyne attended) and the people as usual collected in knots about the town. Some two young men had a kind of an altercation, and Frizelle at the head of a dozen bludgeon men, gave the order to draw batons which, of course, was instantly obeyed, and the people brutally set upon. I was standing oil one side and an infuriated policeman rushed upon me, and catching me by the throat with the remark, 'You have not an M.P. to save you now, although you are a reporter,' knocked meagainst the wall, and would have given me a moat serious beating had not the people and the sergeant intervened."
  That was the position of matters, and he should like to know what the Chief Secretary thought of it. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give the name of the constable who assaulted a representative of the Press on this occasion? The hon. Member described the annoyances to which representatives of the tenants' combination were subjected by the police when they visited places in Ireland and pointed out that the constabulary were regularly employed in performing work for the landlords which did not properly come within their police duty. With reference to the statement said to the circulated on the authority of the Bishop of Elphin that certain organisers in the

  1137
  West of Ireland had run up a hotel bill of £40, he said he visited that part of the country and made inquiries with regard to the matter. He was in a position to say, as the result of these inquiries, that there was not a shadow of foundation for the statement. Further than that the hotel proprietor concerned wrote to the Bishop of Elphin stating that there was; no foundation for the statement. The hon. Member held, however, that an organiser who went to the West of Ireland could spend his money as he chose with out giving any satisfaction on that matter to the Chief Secretary, or the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had tried to make capital out of the statement about the hotel bill, but he did not blush when his son received £1,000 a year for the Government post he held. The hon. Member urged that consideration should be given by the Government to the position of certain tenants who had been created caretakers, and in that way prevented from getting the advantages of the land court.(2.5.)
  MR. YERBURGHasked a number of questions of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in regard to affairs in China. He wished to know, in the first place, what the views of the Government were upon the claims of the French in regard to the mixed tribunals at Shanghai. As he understood it, the French Consul churned that any Chinese subject residing in the international settlement at Shanghai could be taken under warrant from that settlement to the French settlement for trial before the French mixed Court, without his having first been before the mixed Court of the international settlement to see whether there was a prime facie case against him. It had been admitted by the Chinese themselves, and supported by the authorities, that no Chinese subject could be taken from the international settlement before being brought to trial before the mixed Court. He would like to know whether the French still held this position, or whether they had abandoned it in any way. Another, and a very serious, claim by the French was that they could try cases in a mixed Court in their own settlement, in which the rights of foreigner other than French were concerned without any assessor, except a
  1138
  French assessor, sitting with the Chinese magistrate. On the other hand, in the international settlement, wherever foreign interests were involved, the foreign parties to the case were represented on the Bench by an assessor of their own nationality. He understood, moreover, that the French Consul had stated that he had orders from his Government not to send an assessor to sit on the mixed Court in the international settlement. The French took up a position in their settlement which had never been claimed before by the international settlement, and all these points were of extreme importance. He also asked for the views of the Government upon the establishment of courier postal services of their own by the French and Germans in spite of the protest of the Chinese Government, a proceeding which he regarded as a clear infringement of the sovereign rights of China. In regard to the new commercial treaty, he congratulated the Government on having recognised the fact that it was impossible to treat the question as one affecting the Imperial Government of China alone. If they had decided that any surcharge there might be after the abolition of likin was to go into the provincial Treasuries instead of into the Imperial Treasury, they would have taken a very wise step indeed. The Viceroys had done excellent service for Europe, and one of them, at least, was known to be an ardent advocate of reform. He suggested that the Government should offer them the services of distinguished and able administrators, who would be able to give them the benefit of their experience in administrative reform. He would also like to hear that the Government were prepared to entertain seriously the question of the reform of the Consular service in China. Lie did not apologise for bringing this matter forward, because in view of the greater and more vigorous competition which might be expected in the future. The question of Chinese markets was of the greatest importance to this country, and especially to that part of the country with which he was connected.
  *MR. NORMANsaid he desired to take a last opportunity of eliciting from the noble Lord some

  1139
  explanation of his action with regard to the confidential correspondence of the Tariff Commission. He had in a previous debate pointed out that no-boby at the Foreign Office had any expert or personal knowledge of China. Now a new and welcome departure had been made, and a number of persons in this country, capable men of affairs, had been invited to come to the Foreign Office to discuss the tariff question, and a copy of this correspondence had been shown to them, and by them to a great many people who were not present at the Conference, and their opinion asked upon it. He wished to know how it was the Foreign Office had not seen their way to show this correspondence to Members of the House interested in Chinese matters. It was not impossible that Members of the House of Commons might have been able to have thrown some light upon the matter, and offer some suggestions even to the Foreign Office. He found, however, by some principle with which he was not acquainted, this correspondence had been shown to a number of privileged persons, and had not been shown to Members of the House. It was a very curious state of affairs, and he would be glad if the noble Lord could say upon what principle he had acted in selecting these privileged persons, and had not given any Members of the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon this most important and technical matter.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAXBORNE, Rochester): The hon. Member for Chester has asked a number of questions of interest with regard to China, and has raised again the question of the mixed Court at Shanghai, and wishes for a little further information upon that point. Apparently, no doubt, through my own fault, I did not make myself quite clear when I dealt with this question upon the Second Reading of this Bill. There is no claim on the part of the French authorities to take any case into their own Court. It does not go so far as that. What they contend, and what we dispute, is, that the locus of the trial, if the place of residence of the prosecutor,
  1140
  or the plaintiff lives in a French settlement, that the case shall be tried in that settlement although the defendant may live elsewhere. We dispute that, on the ground of long precedent and long tradition of the judicial system of Shanghai, and what we say is that where the defendant lives there the case should be tried, and that is the controversy between us. With regard to the exclusive jurisdiction claimed by the French Court, I am not now prepared to give full details at the present moment, but when the report which has been asked for comes to be considered, all these matters will be gone into. My hon. friend will remember that, when this question arose, we requested a detailed report from China of the whole matter; that involved a certain amount of delay, and the matter cannot be dealt with before the report is considered. With regard to the postal services, I was not aware that my hon. friend was going to raise that question, and I am not prepared at present to say anything with reference to it; but I will make inquiries. My hon. friend then turned to the commercial Treaty, and neither he nor my hon. friend appears to be quite pleased with the proceedings of the Foreign Office. The hon. Gentleman opposite has had some criticisms to make upon the way in which we have dealt with this matter, and did not give the Foreign Office credit for their new departure. One of the complaints made against the Government is that in such matters they do not consult the commercial community. Now that the Government have consulted the commercial community, the hon. Member indulged in trifling criticisms respecting the persons to whom the confidential correspondence has not been sent. Where are we to make the distinction between Members of Parliaments? If we once begin to consult one or two, how are we to distinguish between them? It would not be possible to carry out any negotiations on that basis. The Foreign Office went to the Chinese trade, as it was a trading question, and the main matter upon which we consulted them was the likin Clause which has special importance to the traders of this country. My hon. friend asked whether these proposals in the commercial Treaty have special regard to the financial interests of the provinces

  1141
  of China as distinguished from the central Government. I can assure him that we have boon very carefully safeguarding those rights. I should like to say that, although this Clause is of great importance, it is not the only Clause in the treat there are others of very great importance. Indeed, they are so important that I do not think the Government could consent to abandon them even upon pressure, however great, from the Chinese authorities. Certain difficulties have arisen of late, but I earnestly hope we shall be able to surmount the reluctance which has been felt at the last moment with regard to certain other provisions of the Treaty.
  My hon. friend also spoke of reform in China. I think when he sees the text of the Treaty, he will see that we have had regard to reform in China. Certain reforms of importance in the judicial system will appear, and one of the main difficulties which have beset the Chinese Government in its relation to missionaries will also be touched upon. I cannot go further than that until the terms of the Treaty are before the House, and I hope hon. Members will be content with that statement while the negotiations are still proceeding.
  MR. YERBURGHasked when the Government would see their way to offer the assistance of any distinguished officials of proved capacity and long experience to advise in the proper carrying out of necessary reforms.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I could not go so far as that at present, but the hon. Member will see from the text of the treaty that we give every encouragement to China in the path of judicial reform. The hon. Member also asked me about the Consular system in China, and he said quite truly that Mr. Tower, before he left China, had prepared a report on the Consular system for the Foreign Office. That report dealt with a great variety of points—among others, the grouping of Consuls and their subordination to a specific Consular-General. Then there was the question whether the Consuls should not travel more, and make themselves more acquainted with the conditions which prevail in their different districts. Both of these points have been not only considered, but acted
  1142
  upon. The report dealt also with many matters of a confidential and personal nature, which I am sure the House would not wish me to go into. I think I have said enough to show that Mr. Tower has made a very careful report, and that some of his recommendations have already been acted upon. All the other recommendations will be considered, and we may look forward to making many improvements in consequence of the exertions made in collecting materials for this report. I may say, in conclusion, that the Government have the greatest sympathy with reform in China, and they believe that by helping it forward they will not only confer great benefit on the Chineese, but will promote in the highest degree the interests of British trade and commerce in China
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLcalled attention to an alleged grave scandal in connection with the censorship in South Africa and the operation of martial law in Cape Colony. According to his informant, the scandal to which he re-ferred occurred in Cape Townat Christmas last. A dance was got up by ten officers at a hotel. These officers held a sham court-martial on a civilian, and for two hours punched and knocked him about. They then took him to the gardens at the back of the hotel and threw him into a pond. They dragged him out, stripped him, and, having inflicted an unspeakable degradation upon him, threw him into the pond again. Then, when more dead than alive, he was made to sign a declaration that the whole thing was done in fun. These disgraceful proceedings were carried on while two eminent officers were at the hotel, but no attempt was made to stop them. The victim brought an action against the perpetrators of the outrage, claiming £3,000 damages and the defendants settled the matter in Court by agreeing to pay £1,500 damages, and £1,200 costs, although the money, he believed, had not been paid. Why had these men been permitted to remain in the service? He thought that if Lord Kitchener had known the true facts they would have been cashiered. In the report to Lord Kitchener this outrage was glossed over as being in the nature of a practical joke. Would it be believed

  1143
  that so stringent was the Press censorship in Cape Town at the present time that no account of the affair appeared in the Cape papers, and it was only known in England now through private correspondence? He demanded a strict inquiry into the case. Lord Kitchener was in this country, and would know whether he had been misinformed or not. The Secretary of State would see that a horrible outrage had been perpetrated, but it showed the extent to which things were allowed to go when strict martial law was proclaimed; all information was suppressed, and young men enabled to ride rough-shod over the country. If there had not been martial law and a strict censorship, a case of this kind could not have occurred, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to institute an inquiry into the matter.
  *LORD CHARLES BERESEOHD: I wish, even at this late period of the session, to say a few words on the question of Imperial defence. I must congratulate the Prime Minister on having adopted a totally different attitude in regard to this question from that which he has adopted formerly. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently sincere in the remarks which he made the other day in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight. He admitted that a grave problem existed, and said that he intended to grapple with it. In other words, the Prime Minister has really accepted the responsibilities of his position. There is only one man in the country who can look at this question of Imperial defence as a whole, having regard to the true conditions which exist in the two services, and that man is the Prime Minister. He is the only man in a position to grapple with it. I am satisfied that I express the views of the House when I congratulate, with reference, to the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and my gallant friend the Member for Yarmouth, who have laboured for years to get such a statement from the Prime Minister with; regard to Imperial defence as was made by the right hon. Gentleman the other day.
  1144
  The first thing that is necessary with regard to this question is thoroughly to organise the Navy and the Army for war. If the Prime Minister takes lip this question of Imperial defence without first organising these two services for war, he will be making a chain out of rotten links. Some time ago the Secretary to the Admiralty used the expression that "the reinforcement of intellectual equipment" was necessary. The reformers use a different phrase "the thinking Department," by which we mean a Department which should consider what is necessary to meet the all requirements for war. The hon. Gentleman afterwards said, "We want greater preparation in advance for war." That is what the reformers have been saying for the last twenty years. Those who are interested in the question of Imperial defence and organisation for war must never allow that sentence to be dropped. The Prime Minister acknowledged the justice of that sentence, although he was some time in doing it; and, if the Cabinet support it, we shall want to know next session what is going to be done to put right those things which, out of the mouth of the Secretary to the Admiralty, supported by the Prime Minister, are acknowledged to be wrong. In my opinion, that is the most important statement that has been made for many years. We regard it as an admission and the reason why there has been enormous expenditure to provide the essentials for war, after war has been declared, is that there has not been that preparation for war which the Secretary to the Admiralty now acknowledges should be made.
  I have recently received letters asking why I have not spoken of certain matters which have come before the House appertaining to defence. I do not see any necessity to speak on such details when once this acknowledgment has been made. Our business is to go to the crux of the situation—the proper organisation for war before war is declared. The ordinary debate on the Army and Navy Estimates, taken as a whole, is absolutely useless. In the multitudinous details brought under the notice of Ministers, the main point of efficiency for war is lost sight of. What is wanted is a standard of preparation and some one practically responsible for efficiency,

  1145
  and if we stick to that point in tin future I think we shall do hotter There is evidence in the speeches o Ministers that the question of Imperia defence has never been grasped at all up to now. We all admire the hard work done by the Secretary for War, hut I cannot agree with his recent state ments with regard to the remounts scandals and so forth being accidents incidental to war. I do not agree with that at all. There must, of course, be extra expenditure of money in war time; hut the point is that such inefficiency has been discovered after war is declared and when Ministers of both parties have for years before been continually assuring the House that the services were efficient and ready. The Secretary of State for War made a statement about the coaling stations as to the Navy taking them over to garrison them, but the Admiralty repudiated the idea altogether. This showed that the question of Imperial defence as a whole was not in the minds of the Cabinet, or such an important question would not have been brought forward without previous reference to the Admiralty. The Secretary for War once made the extraordinary remark: "In discussing the question of home defence, let us not confuse our minds by considering the action, of the Navy." But there never was such a ridiculous statement as that. That must have been before he realised what imperial defence meant, and when he reads it now he must wonder that he had not given some military authority an order to lock him up. There could be no more wild suggestion by a member of the Cabinet representing one of the services of the State. The principal service on which we depend for our very existence, and upon which the Army depends to enable it to act, is the British Fleet. Again my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty said the Navy was efficient. How can it be efficient? The Secretary to the Admiralty says he is 2,000 stokers short of the number necessary for war, after he has added all the reserves. There should be 15,000 reserve stokers in the country, because they are not men who can be found and drilled after war is declared. Therefore, the Navy cannot he efficient so long as the stokers are not there. In
  1146
  addition, my hon. friend tells us that we are fifty-one officers and 131 artificers short, and these are highly trained men. How can the Navy be efficient under hese conditions?
  Again, there is another matter which I believe was brought before this House by the hon. Member opposite—I allude to the question of the engineers. There is no doubt that the engineers are dissatisfied. I do not wish to enter into the merits of the case, but it is well known that the engineers are dissatisfied, and there is no doubt that if you have either the officers or the men in any branch of a great service like the Navy dissatisfied, it is injurious to efficiency. I earnestly hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to tell the House that the grievances of the engineers have now passed beyond the long-continued stage of consideration. The Admiralty has been considering their case for the last throe or four years. What we want now is that something practical shall be proposed, and I hope the Admiralty will do something quickly, because it will be very bad for the service if he allows any question connected with the comfort of officers and men or the discipline of the service to pass out into the political arena. This question ought to be settled departmentally, and if the Admiralty do not settle it, I am perfectly certain that this engineers question will get an important body of supporters amongst the voters of the country. I think it is wiser and better always to settle questions connected with the services by the departmental and the administrative heads of those services.
  I turn now once more to the question of Imperial Defence, and I will touch upon the Council of Defence. The Council of Defence was instituted because there was agitation in the country and in this House, and it was felt that there should be some one responsible for efficiency. But there never was such a ludicrous and useless body as the Council of Defence. The Prime Minister know it to be so ludicrous that he never allowed it to meet, and the right hon. Gentleman approved the refusal of Ministers in not answering my questions about the Council of Defence as to whether it ever did meet. In answer to my question, I received the official answer that it was not for the utility of the public service that I should know that

  1147
  the Council never met to discuss anything whatever. That Council, however, might be made a most useful body if it had any evidence to adjudicate upon. I hope the Prime Minister will take the chairmanship of the Council of Defence and will have evidence submitted to it from both bureaus as to what is necessary to enable each service to act if called upon. I am no speaker, because I was not brought up to this sort of thing, and I feel that I have not explained myself very well. The Secretary to the Admiralty has said as much, and I do not blame him, as ho is probably right. But my view is that there should be in each Department a body like the Public Accounts Committee of this House, which should simply report to the Council of Defence what they ought to know and what the requirements are as to coal, guns, etc. It is natural that the country should become anxious as to the amount spent on the services, but it would not grudge necessary expenditure. What it does grudge is paying a pound and not getting a pound's worth. I believe that if the Prime Minister really takes this question in hand he will be able to get us a pound's worth for a pound, and there will not be the gross extravagance which now exists in both services. We know what has happened in the Army. I have heard that the khaki suits given to troops on their return from South Africa, and costing between £1 and 25s., were sold to Jews for 8d. I believe that is a fact. I will not swear to it. My right hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong. The Secretary to the Admiralty when lie was a reformer—and he is a good reformer now—was engaged year after year along with myself trying to get ships scratched off the Navy list which were no use because they could not fight, owing to their obsolete armament, and they could not run away because they had no speed. We have spent large sums of money keeping these ships on the Navy list, and somebody has said that this was done to blind the British public.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTER, Belfast, W.): Nearly forty have been scratched off.
  *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Yes, they had been scratched off since my
  1148
  right hon. friend went to the Admiralty, but it ought to have been done long ago. Do not let us spend money if we do not get a good return for it, and we shall not get a good return unless we have some Department to revise this expenditure like the Public Accounts Committee. I believe I am correct in saying that we do not want any more money at present. For many years I have urged that there should be more expenditure on the Navy, but I do not say so now. What is wanted is organisation to secure efficiency for the money provided, and that can only be effected by the Prime Minister doing that for which he admits his responsibility. The Navy can be "run" very efficiently for the money now voted, and I object to any more money being asked for until efficiency has been obtained by the use of the money already provided. So far as the Army is concerned, I believed the Prime Minister will find a saving of five millions can be effected, and I am certain that there is an enormous amount of money now wasted that could be divided usefully between the two services. The question of expenditure on the two services should be carefully taken into account. My hon. friend the Member for Oldham has taken up the question of expenditure, but, with great respect to him, I think he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is the system under which we work that has created this great expenditure.
  The question of expenditure on the Army requires careful attention directed to the system that provokes waste of money. Instead of the haphazard way in which intelligence is now gathered after the outbreak of war, there should be the knowledge available beforehand that proper organization and efficiency exists. The time has passed for the old official language about matters receiving consideration, and with the Prime Minister lies the responsibility for securing efficiency in the two services and the provision of a system of Imperial defence as a whole. As for the War Commission, I anticipate from it no better result than has attended such, inquiries in the past. It will probably carry on its proceedings for years, but by this time next year the people of this country will not care a fig for what has happened;

  1149
  they will content themselves with the reflection that the war has been costly, but it is over, and we won, our men having displayed the splendid fighting qualities for which they have always been distinguished. The people will not ask whether we have spent.£1,000,000 or £30,000,000. You might just as well think yon would be doing a good thing by appointing a Committee to inquire into the Crimean War or the Wars of the Roses. There have been Commissions of Inquiry into every war during the past century, and yet when the South African war broke out we were not a whit more ready than we have ever been. There is a body of service Members in the House who will make it their duty to continually remind the Prime Minister of matters that require looking into. I do not say that we have all the same ideas that some of us have, but if we can only get four of them to stick together, not with any idea of hampering or heckling the Government, but simply for the purpose of keeping this question of Imperial defence and the question of efficiency before the Government, I think we may be as useful as the old party of four with which the Prime Minister was once connected. I think it is only right, even at this late period of the session, to do what I can to bring before the House the importance of the questions I have referred to
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): If I find some difficulty in answering my noble friend, it does not arise from the subject-matter of his speech, but because I wish not to dissociate myself from the principle laid down —an important one, to which the Government have given special attention. But some of the language with which the noble Lord punctuated that principle requires an answer. I know the manner of my noble friend; he plays the part of a plain, bluff sailor who cannot speak well, but under that exterior he conceals an extreme amount of craft. He has indulged in various generalities which have been received with applause, taking care to avoid details which would weaken his case. He said a great deal about economy, and that Royal Commissions
  1150
  were worthless, but he has not indicated any expenditure that could be cut off, and he has hardly referred to anything which at some time or another in past years, he has not declared necessary for efficiency. When my noble friend says that the Prime Minister could effect a reduction of five millions in Army expenditure, I can only assure my noble friend that, if he will favour me with the heads of the expenditure under which he thinks such reduction can be effected, time will be well employed in consideration that would give hope of such a result. My noble friend, in order to make out his case for a better Council of Defence, has taken from their context some remarks which I made in the discussion upon remounts. What I did say was that when war suddenly broke out, the exigencies were such that there must be some mistakes and difficulty. Again, when I referred to the coaling stations, I was telling the House what were the number of troops required at various stations, and I thought I would not have been acting frankly if I had not mentioned that subject as one of the matters under discussion. My noble friend went on to attribute to me a sentence which I did not use, that we should not confuse our minds by considering the action of the Navy. I never said anything so ridiculous. What I did say was—
  "Let us not allow the possible action of the Navy to absolve us from the duty of providing for home defence."
  Our duty is to consider the possibility of temporary failure of the Navy to keep the Channel clear, and, in that possibility, to have means of defence. The proposal of my noble friend for another Department resembling the Committee on Public Accounts, as a means for arriving at the proper lines of national defence is one which I cannot approve. Something quite different is required, a responsible body to consider the whole matter, not a body of experts to advise; and, as my noble friend said, it is a matter for earnest consideration how the Admiralty and the War Office should co-ordinate more closely in the Intelligence Department. That is most important, but do not let him assume that these Intelligence Departments are standing still, much

  1151
  less that they are going back. There has been steady progress in the status, the numbers, and the responsibilities of these Departments; and only in the last year the Director-General of Military intelligence has been placed on the War Office Council, which consists only of five military officers of the first rank. Although no man in the House feels more acutely than I do the absolute necessity of giving the whole question of national defence, and of the programme of operations in the case of a possible war the first place in our military and naval consideration, I put it to the House of Commons that there never has been a time when the Departments have shown themselves so much alive to that necessity. My noble friend speaks as if we were people who were asleep and required to be awakened by his return to the House of Commons.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: No.
  MR. BRODRICK: I can assure my noble friend that, so far from that being the case, we fully recognise that the problems which this country has to solve are more numerous, more intricate, and, to a great extent, more important than those that any Continental country has to solve. To Continental nations undoubtedly the danger is, no doubt, more immediate, but at the same time it is a much more simple matter. I can assure my noble friend that if the country is getting nervous, as he said it is, it need not be afraid that this subject is one which the Government either desires to neglect or to lay aside. We are grateful to him, as I have been on many previous occasions, for uniting the body of gentlemen who are going to keep a close watch on the Government in this respeet. Anything that awakens interest in naval and military matters is an advantage to the heads of those Departments who are responsible to this House; but I do not believe that anything has occurred that makes it necessary for me, either at length this afternoon, to justify our previous action, or to add to the assurances which have already been given by the Prime Minister as to the interest of the Government on this subject.
  May I, before I sit down, reply to the statement by the hon. Member for
  1152
  South Donegal. He brought forward a certain case, and I heard of it for the first time by a Question that he put in this House. I have not been able to find out that any officer in this country is aware of the occurrences to which the hon. Member alludes, and he really must absolve me from giving any undertaking in the matter until I have been able to ascertain whether or not there is foundation for the very serious charges he has made. A great many of these stories come over from South Africa, which are without foundation. This may be one that will bear explanation, or it may be one which has been very much exaggerated, and I can only say that until I get more certain knowledge, I cannot give any undertaking with regard to it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNELLLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would make full inquiry into the matter. Would he ask Lord Kitchener about it?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no doubt that in due course the War Office will hear what is to be said with regard to these officers.
  *MR. WEIRasked the Lord Advocate to urge the Secretary for Scotland to pay a visit to the Island of Lewis in order that he might see the conditions existing there. He was convinced that if he did pay a visit to the island he would do something for the people. Yesterday he asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of any change being made in regard to the Secretary for Scotland he would consider the expediency of appointing a Member of the House of Commons to the office, and the right hon. Gentleman replied—
  "If, and when, a vacancy occurs I will consider the claims and qualifications of the hon. Gentleman."
  He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was the last man in this House who desired office. He had no wish to have a muzzle put on him. He would rather have £1 a week and his liberty to express his views than £5,000 a year without that freedom. The First Lord of the Treasury might disabuse his mind that he sought

  1153
  for any office. He asked whether the Government intended to do anything on behalf of the small tenants in the Highlands of Scotland, who, because they were leaseholders, were excluded from the benefits of the Crofters Act.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss matters requiring legislation.
  *MR. WEIRasked why the Scotch Office did not acquire farms in the neighbourhood of the deer forests when they came into the market so that they might be used for the benefit of the crofters in the congested districts. That was purely a matter of administration, and did not require legislation. In recent years some estates which might have been bought for this purpose had been absorbed in deer forests. The Scotch Office ought to approach the Board of Agriculture to get maps so arranged as to show the situation and extent of deer forests. He urged that greater vigilance should be exercised by the Government cruisers to prevent illegal fishing by trawlers. He complained of having been refused admission to the ordnance yard at Hong Kong and expressed the hope that the First Lord of the Treasury would bring the matter under the notice of the War Office.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Motion before the House is, "That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Thursday, October 16th." In making that motion, I give formal notice that as soon as the House meets in October I shall ask for special privileges as regards Government business. That is a policy which has always been pursued by former Governments when they have had to ask the House to sacrifice their leisure in an autumn session.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to ask for facilities for anything except the Education Bill, and, if so, for what other business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot enumerate all the business that has to be taken; but, of course, we must pass the Water Bill, as the hon. Member knows; and there are some other Bills of an
  1154
  administrative character which we must pass. But the only great legislative proposal, besides the Water Bill, is, of course, the Education Bill.
  MR. LONSDALE: I wish to ask whether the Irish Land Bill will be included.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No. The Irish Land Bill is a measure urgently requiring the consideration of the House, but it is not a measure for which we are having the Autumn session.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYmade a complaint that the postal mails between Limerick and Trylee were not carried as they ought to be, so as to allow the delivery of Dublin and English newspapers and letters to be made at convenient times in the district.
  MR. PLATT-HIGGINSsaid he wished to call attention to the unsatisfactory manner in which the engineer officers in the Navy were recognised as to their status. He had been a member of a deputation which had waited on the First Lord of the Admiralty some time ago in regard to this question. That deputation consisted of Members from both sides of the House who had great experience in the mercantile marine, and it also embraced the leading members of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. It was acknowledged that the Navy was under-manned so far as the engineers were concerned; and the main reason for that was that the engineers were not given a proper status. Theoretically, a captain in the Navy ranked with a colonel in the Army, and an inspector of machinery in the Navy ranked with both. But, as a matter of fact, the engineer in the Navy never secured his proper status; and it was because of that that there was the present dangerous dissatisfaction and deficiency in the list of the engineer officers in the Royal Navy. He could not imagine anything more fraught with danger than such a deficiency. He understood that there was an Intelligence Department connected with the Navy,

  1155
  but he wondered why it was that there was not a single engineer officer in that Department. Some reform ought to be made in the Admiralty, but it would never come from the Board of Admiralty itself; the impetus must come from the House of Commons.
  MR. LUNDONsaid he believed he had a right to say a few more words on the Sheridan case, which had been the source of so much trouble and mischief in his country. Ho had found that Sheridan, in addition to his other malpractices, had drowned Mistress Quinlan's—a very respectable person—two asses. There were two young men in Mistress Quinlan's cabin, and in the night they heard what they thought was somebody removing the peat from the peat heap, and when they went out they found Sheridan and another man, who was believed to be Sergeant Keegan. They disappeared in the darkness. The next morning Mistress Quinlan's asses were discovered drowned in the pond near by. [Great laughter]. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen in this House should display such an amount of levity in regard to this matter, and by none more than by the Chief Secretary himself. But he could tell the Chief Secretary that Sheridan was his "old man of the sea," and that he would not get rid of him in a hurry. He insisted that, if only full and fair inquiry were made, it would be found that there wore hundreds of Sheridans in the Irish Constabulary. He complained that the Chief Secretary had only allowed Con Bray's mother a gratuity of £25. He thought that the Chief Secretary might have made a more generous allowance. What was 5s. per week to an old woman like that, when they compared the expenses which were being paid for the South African War?
  MR. WYLIEsaid he wished to say a few words in regard to the deficiency in the amount of the grants paid in aid of the education in the Art and Science Department in Scot land. He specially wished to direct attention to the Ben Nevis Observatory, which was familiar not only to all Scotchmen, but to every scientific man all over the world. That observatory was built in 1883 at a cost of £7,000,
  1156
  including a station at the foot of Ben Nevis, at Fort William, The Meteorological Society had given notice that they intended to withdraw the grant in connection with Ben Nevis Observatory. The advantages of meteorological observations had been recognised for many years, and for twelve years Ben Nevis Observatory had been working. Many of the foreign countries were endeavouring to placs stations in high places, and this was one of the highest in the West of Europe. Many had given much more liberal grants for this purpose than we did. India gave,£22,000, as against our contribution of £15,300; Canada gave £13,000, Russia £45,000, and the United States £195,000 per annum for meteorological research. He hoped that before long this country would emulate such good examples. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated on a recent occasion that the Exchequer gave a similar amount as the countries themselves, that they gave £55,000 to Ireland because Ireland had herself contributed £54,000, and that Scotland had only received £6,000 because she had only contributed £6,000. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed in that regard, for Glasgow alone in the last seven years had given £750,000 for these various purposes. (5.5.)

ROYAL ASSENT.

  COMMISSION.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House wont; and, being returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to a number of Bills (see page 1083).

  ADJOURNMENT (AUTUMN SITTINGS.)
  Question again proposed, "That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Thursday, 16th October."
  MR. WYLIEasked for some information as to the steps which would be taken to increase the grants for Ben Nevis Observatory.
  MR. SHEEHANsaid he desired to call attention to a matter of great importance as regarded the welfare of a large section of the Irish people. He had previously drawn attention to the very undesirable conditions under which the labourers in Ireland existed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had consented to amend the Labourers Acts of Ireland. Since last Easter, however, when the right hon. Gentleman promised to introduce an amending Bill, he had never been able to obtain from him any satisfactory assurance as to when that would be done, and he could only charge him with inconsistency, his public statements being inconsistent with his public actions.
  *SIR JOHN TUKEcomplained that
  1158
  Scotch Members were placed in a false position by being obliged to ask for financial support for the Ben Nevis Observatory. Ben Nevis was the only high-level observatory in Scotland, and it also occupied the most westerly situation in Europe. It had been working for twelve years, and its observations were of the utmost value to science, and he urged the necessity of support being given to it in order that it should work among the army of meteorologists of the world.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock till Thursday, 16th October.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
  1. Annual Report, for the year ended 31st March, 1901; 2. Supplement to the Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Board, 1900–1901.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Seventieth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with appendices, for the year ended 31st March, 1902.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Statement of the amount due by the public to depositors in Military Savings Banks on the 31st March, 1900. and of the receipts, interest, and disbursements in the said Military Savings Banks during the year next ensuing, ended on the 31st March, 1901, etc.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1S96.
  Two Orders, entitled respectively the Jersey (Animals) Order of 1902 and the Alderney (Animals) Order of 1902.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That Bills have precedence over Notices this day.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL,
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons: read 1a: Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX and XLV. having been suspended): Bills read 2a (The Marquess of Lansdowne): Committees negatived; Bills read 3a, and passed.

  MARINE AVORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this Bill, which has met with the approval of everybody connected with Ireland, and has passed through the other House without opposition, is intended to provide money for the construction, improvement, and maintenance of harbours in the congested districts along the West coast of Ireland. The harbour of Liscannor, about which my noble friend the Earl of Mayo has asked on one or two occasions for information, has been specially mentioned in order to bring it within the purview of the Bill, it being just outside the congested districts. Liscannor Harbour, however, is not placed on the same footing as the others, inasmuch as the advance to be made by the Treasury in respect to this harbour is not to exceed two-thirds of the cost of the execution and equipment of the work, the balance being defrayed by the Department of Agriculture, and by persons locally interested who use the harbour. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The End of Deubigh.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, I think it right to say that we in Ireland regard it as a very useful measure. The provision in Clause I with regard to the "reconstruction" of a marine work is a most important one, and I am glad the Bill has been applied specially to Liscannor Harbour. This is a harbour winch it is most difficult to get into, and. when in it, it is almost impossible to get out. I quite agree with the provision that one-third of the money must lie found by those who own the quarries and use the harbour. That is the proper policy to adopt in regard to Ireland—for those who desire help should, to a certain extent, help themselves. We, in Ireland, are delighted that the Bill is to become law this session.
  LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, as a resident in a congested district county in Ireland, I should not like the Second Reading of this Bill, which applies exclusively to congested districts, to take place without giving expression to my appreciation of its great value and usefulness. I also think that the Chief Secretary for Ireland deserves a word of thanks for bringing in this much-needed Bill. Not alone am I a resident

  1079
  in a congested district county, but my home is in the middle of a congested district area, and I am also a member of the County Council and of the District Council which administer the affairs of the district in which my home is situated. I am, therefore, being conversant with the public affairs of my county, the more capable of recognising the merits of this Bill. The main provisions of the measure are for the purpose of assisting these poor districts to carry out important measures which, on account of their poverty, they could not accomplish without assistance. That will be a great advantage, because it will develop the resources of the districts and make them more prosperous than they have been in the past. The 11th Clause I am particularly glad to see, because there is in that Clause an arrangement in the nature of an insurance by which the upkeep and maintenance of large marine works, when they are built, need not rest any longer on the district. By a small local contribution the district can, I am glad to see, be relieved of the by no means light burden of maintaining these works, which, being marine works, are liable to very serious damage on account of severe storms. That will be a great advantage to these districts, and I have therefore much pleasure in supporting the Bill.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived. Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended); Bill read 3a, and passed.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEICH): My Lords, this is a very short and simple Bill, and one which I shall ask your Lordships to pass through all its stages today. Its object is to specially define what is "machinery fixed or attached" to a building. These words have been the subject of litigation South of the Tweed, but up to the present time there has not been nearly so much controversy in regard to them in Scotland. The Scottish
  1080
  Valuation Courts have construed them in a liberal sense, and have included as machinery which is not to be rated a larger relative amount than has been the case South of the Tweed. These decisions have been very generally acquiesced in, and all of us who are interested in valuation matters in Scotland believed that the law was practically settled. I had the honour of being Chairman of a Commission charged with an inquiry into rating questions in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and while there was a considerable amount of controversy before us with regard to this provision so far as England was concerned, we had not before us a single witness who complained of the law as it was supposed to be in Scotland at that time. Within the last few weeks a decision has been given which has changed the presumption in these matters. I have not the slightest doubt that that decision was legally accurate and in accordance with the law as it now stands, but it came as a considerable surprise to those who are interested in these matters; and even the learned judges themselves, in giving their decision, not only acknowledged that they were upsetting the existing practice, but expressed great regret that their duty obliged them, in interpreting the law, to upset that practice. The proposal in this Bill is that "machinery fixed or attached" to any lands or heritages shall in all cases be held to include machinery which produces or transmits first motive power, or which is used for heating or lighting the building. The Bill has passed through the other House of Parliament with a certain amount of criticism, but without opposition. All the Members from Scotland arc, I believe, in favour of the Bill, and an immense majority of them have signed a memorial asking that it should be passed into law before the coming valuation, which is conducted yearly, and the most important steps with regard to which have to be taken in the months of August and September. It is of the first importance, in order to prevent a great deal of inconvenience and trouble, that this short Bill should become law before Parliament adjourns, and I trust that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and pass it through its subsequent steps today.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived. Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended), Bill read 3a and passed.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was intended to meet the large and, he was sorry to say, increasing arrears of work in the Appeal Court by enabling the judges of the court to sit in three divisions, instead of in two divisions as the existing Appellate Juirsdiction Acts provided.
  Bill read 2a (according to order); Committee negatived. Then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended); Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  KANAKA LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
  *LORD LAMINGTOXasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a petition had been received from the Pacific Island labourers domiciled in Queensland, and, if so, whether he would cause it to be printed and laid on the Table of the House with any reply that might have been made, He pointed out that for a number of years several Acts had been passed dealing with the question of Kanaka labour. All those Acts had one general principle, to give humane consideration to the islanders. Every kind of check was imposed on abuses, and every desire was shown to treat those people with humanity. Legislation had recently been proposed, however, by the Federal Government which would have the effect of rendering those Acts nugatory, leaving the people suddenly without adequate protection. Feeling had been growing in Australia on this subject, and some of the newspapers had denounced the action of the Government as legalised murder and as barbarous. An Associaation of Kanakas had been formed to resist forcible deportation from Queensland, and a petition setting forth the grievances of these people had been sent to the King. Many of these people
  1082
  had become educated and Christianised; they had acquired land, and were engaged in industries; some of them had lived in Queensland over twenty years, and had married and settled down there; they were law-abiding, honest, and industrious. The Pacific Island Labourers' Act of 1901, it was alleged, provided no compensation, afforded no differential treatment for those who for many years had professed and practised Christianity, and whose children born in Queensland were of ages varying from infancy to twenty years and upwards; made no provision for those whose native islands had passed under foreign control or whose tribal lands had been alienated, and gave the islanders no voice as to the place to which they might be sent. By 1905 or 1900 it was possible that all the South Sea Islanders, to the number of 8,000 or 9,000, would be deported, and owing to the large number of persons involved it would be impossible to give adequate supervision. At any time there was great difficulty in landing them owing to the dangerous nature of the coast and the great distances between the various islands. As the vessels on which they would travel would be mostly sailing vessels, it would be almost impossible for the captains to he sure that they would be able to land the Kanakas in their particular homes, and if they were not so landed it was almost a certainty that they would be killed by hostile tribes. In the past this risk had been guarded against, for it had been to the interests of the sugar planters to take care that the men were returned to their homes so that a further supply of labour might be obtainable in the future, but there would be no such incentive now, as the whole of the trade was to be put an end to. This great safeguard in the interest of the islanders was, therefore, removed, and it was in the hope of being able to do something on behalf of these helpless people, to hundreds of whom deportation would involve misery, starvation, or death, that he brought the question before their Lordships. The lawyer who drafted the petition on behalf of the Kanakas had elicited the views on this subject of the Government Inspector of Immigration, who had

  1083
  een for eighteen years connected with this trade. The inspector said—
  "I am quite in accord with, and can vouch for, the truth of the pleas set forth, and the statements made by the Islanders in their petition. Surely, in this twentieth century of Christendom the dawning Commonwealth of Australia will not be permitted to be sullied by such a crime as the forcible deportation of these islanders from our shores."
  Some of these people were now being returned, but one ship's captain— Captain Spence—had refused to under take the work because, if he were unable to land them in places of safety, he would not be allowed to bring them back to Australia. Captain Spence declared that the common promptings of humanity would not allow him to hand over protesting islanders to be murdered.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY (interrupting the noble Lord)acquainted the House that His Majesty had issued a Commission for giving His Royal Assent to several Bills agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord would be able to continue his speech after the Royal Commission.
  House adjourned during pleasure; House resumed.

  ROYAL ASSENT.

    COMMISSION.
    The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

    1. Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

    2. Shop Clubs.

    3. Public Libraries (Ireland).

    4. Marine Works (Ireland).

    5. Public Works Loans.

    6. Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2).

    7. Licensing.

    8. Freshwater Fish (Scotland).

    9. Isle of Man (Customs).

    10. Pacific Cable.

    11. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1).

    12. Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3).

    13. Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1).

    14. Tramways Orders Confirmation No. 2).

    15. Portpatrick and Wigtonshire Joint Railway Order Confirmation.

    1084

    16. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation.

    17. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7).

    18. Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8).

    19. Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2).

    20. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).

    21. Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12).

    22. Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London).

    23. Greenock and Port Glasgow Tram ways (Extension) Order Confirmation.

    24. Edinburgh and Leith Corporations Gas Order Confirmation.

    25. Yardley Charity.

    26. Rossendale Valleys Tramways.

    27. Garston and District Tramways and Electric Supply (Transfer).

    28. Hull, Barnsley, and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock (South York shire Extension Lines).

    29. London County Council (Subways and Tramways).

    30. London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

    31. Metropolitan District Railway.

    32. Hastings Harbour District Railway (Extension of Time).

    33. Great Northern and City Railway.

    34. Birmingham and Midland Tram ways.

    35. Devonport Corporation (General Powers).

    36. Devonport Corporation (Water).

    37. Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways.

    38. Ystradfellte Water.

    39. Wigan Corporation.

    40. North Staffordshire Tramways.

    41. Mexborough and Swinton Tramways.

    42. Liverpool Cathedral.

    43. Swansea Corporation.

    44. Nottingham Corporation.

    45. Margate Corporation Water.

    46. Great Northern and Strand Railway.

    47. Dover Harbour.

    48. Barrow Haematite Steel Company, Limited.

    49. Menai Bridge Urban District Council.

    50. Whitstable Improvement.

    51. Liverpool Corporation.

    52. York Corporation.

    1085

    53. Great Western Railway (Crumlin Viaduct).

    54. London and India Docks (Various Powers).

    55. Dublin Port and Docks Board.

    56. Eastbourne Corporation.

    57. Fleetwood Urban District Council.

    58. London United Tramways.

    House adjourned during pleasure; House resumed.

    KANAKA LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
    *LORD LAMINGTON,continuing his speech, said he was not seeking to interfere with the undoubted right of Australia to legislate for itself. But he urged that there should be communications between the Imperial Government, the Federal Government, and the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, with a view to securing that the Kanakas, British subjects as they were, would at least receive adequate compensation, and be safeguarded if they were returned to their own islands.
    EARL CARRINGTON: I am sure the House has listened with very great interest to the speech of the noble Lord opposite, especially as he speaks with so much knowledge of the subject he has brought before the House. I am in perfect sympathy with the action of the noble Lord, especially us I understand he in no way wishes to interfere with the undoubted right of Australians to govern themselves, and has no desire to challenge the settled policy of Australians —a policy with which most of us are in entire accord—to keep Australia white. A white Australia is part of the religion of Australians, and in their determination to keep the country Anglo-Saxon as tar as possible they have the sympathy of almost everybody who has been in that part of the world. I think we may have full confidence in the fact that the Federal Government will behave towards these Kanakas in a proper and legitimate manner. But what I understand my noble friend to ask is, that when these coloured persons are being sent back to the islands in the South Pacific from whence they came, and have got outside the three-mile limit, there should be some arrangement between the Federal Government and the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific whereby they will
    1086
    be returned to the particular islands to which they belong, and not be "dumped down," as it were, on other islands where, of course, they would run a great I risk of losing their lives. On this point I heartily sympathise with the noble Lord, and earnestly hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to meet his wishes.
    LORD STANMORE: My Lords, having had the honour to fill the office of High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, I desire to say one or two words on the subject to which the noble Lord has called attention. Of course, we must all be sensible of the fact that we have committed to Australia and to the Federal Government the charge of these matters, and that they are, therefore, perfectly at liberty to pass what legislation they please. At the same time, it is impossible but that the views of His Majesty's Government must have some weight with the Federal Government, and what I take it is now asked by my noble friend is that the statements in this petition should be well weighed by His Majesty's Government, and that any representations that may seem to them necessary on behalf of British subjects appealing to the King for protection should be made with such diplomatic reserves as they think proper. There are some provisions in the Act the extraordinary nature of which— indeed, the monstrous nature of which— has not, I think, been fully considered. The Clause providing for the return to their own islands of all Kanakas who did not come in before 1879 applies also to those born in Australia. Many of these Kanakas have had children born in Australia who have grown up amid all the surroundings of civilisation and Christianity, and a number of the Kanakas born in Australia during the past twenty-three years have married there and had children; and now, under this Act, these people are to be taken out of the environment of Christianity and civilisation and to be sent back to these barbarous islands with no provision for the security of their lives and no compensation for the property of which they are to be deprived. This is a monstrous provision. The Government of Commonwealth, if it likes, can pass

    1087
    it, but His Majesty's Government can remonstrate, and when subjects of the King appeal to His Majesty for the protection their petition should certainly be taken into consideration.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, this Question has been on the Paper for a good many weeks, and I hope the noble Lord will not think it owing to any discourtesy on my part that I have not been able to reply to it before. The petition was received only on the 4th inst. I cannot say how the delay arose, but the Government are taking the petition into consideration. Personally, I think that the petition is a most pathetic one, and I have great sympathy with it. I have no objection to lay it on the Table of the House, together with the reply which will be made to it. The noble Lord, I was glad to hear, admitted that the Commonwealth of Australia had every right to carry out this legislation, and I understand that all he asks for now is that the Government should use their good offices to secure the most favoured treatment possible for the unfortunate Kanakas, who, under the Act, will be sent back to their own islands. I understand that they came almost exclusively from the New Hebrides and the Solomon Islands. Fortunately, in both of those groups there are English residents. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Barton, the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, and he assures me that in the interval—it is not till 1906 that the repatriation will become necessary—he will place himself in communication with the British residents, and will endeavour to secure that these men shall be sent back to places where their property and lives will be safe. The Commonwealth will make arrangements to hand their property over under the supervision and care of the British residents, so that it may not be seized by the tribal chiefs; and I hope that provision will be made for their safety and security, as well as for a sufficiency of suitable and congenial employment. I can assure the noble Lord, in accordance with the promise I gave him on the last occasion when he called attention to this subject, that the Government will
    1088
    do all they can to persuade the Government of the common wealth to look after the interests and to ensure the security of the these men when the time comes to send them back.
    LORD STANMORE: How about those born in Australia?
    THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They will have to be repatriated, but every precaution will be taken to see that the terrible catastrophies referred to will not overtake them.
    LORD LAMINGTON: Did I understand that the noble Earl will lay on the Table of the House the petition, together with the reply and any other communications?
    THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.

    ATLANTIC PASSENGER SERVICE— IR1SH TERMINAL PORT—AMERICAN COMBINATION.
    *LORD KILLANIN: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, inasmuch as His Majesty's Government are not, as stated by him, in communication with the Government of the Dominion of Canada on the question of subsidising a fast Atlantic service to be worked by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, he can say if His Majesty's Government are taking any steps, and, if so, what, for the establishment of an Atlantic service under the British flag, after the absorption of the British-owned lines by an American combination. This is really a supplementary Question, or, to adopt the phraseology of another place, a Question arising out of an answer which the noble Earl gave me in reply to an interrogation of mine on Tuesday last† On that occasion the noble Earl said he could not undertake to speak for the Government of the Dominion or for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and he added that he had no official information as to their intention of subsidising a fast service across the Atlantic. There was a good deal of dissatisfaction felt with that reply, not alone because it was unsympathetic to the special point
    †See page 651.

    1089
    I had put before him—namely, the advisability of considering the advantages of establishing a terminal port on the West coast of Ireland—but also because he did not give a fuller expression as to what is the attitude of the Government towards the various reports and counter reports of offers and combines affecting the trade and traffic of the Atlantic Ocean. I, therefore, today, more directly ask the noble Earl if His. Majesty's Government are taking any steps in order themselves to start a fast service between this country and Canada, and especially whether they intend to do so having regard to the American combination, or what I might perhaps call the Morganatic alliance, that is reported to have taken place between a certain magnate of the United States and his partners in this country. I have already addressed the House at some length on this subject, and really the whole matter has passed beyond the stage when in any interrogatory form it has any novelty or interest for any one. Some information as to the attitude and intentions of the Government, if they can be at all indicated, is what the country is anxiously looking for. The country is, I think, naturally and properly anxious, and even agitated, about this question. It recognises its great seriousness and magnitude. Indeed, such an Atlantic combine as we have heard of is no storm in a tea cup. The country, rightly or wrongly, feels that its commercial position in the Atlantic is, to say the least of it, seriously threatened, and I am certain that the House and the public would be glad to hear that the Government are not alone alive to the importance of the interests involved in this matter, but that they have undertaken, or are ready to undertake, adequate measures in order to maintain the position and the prestige of this country in the Atlantic.
    THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has brought forward this question again. I left the House on the last occasion when this question was discussed with astonishment and pain owing to the nature of the answer given by the noble Earl. I am sure that the noble Earl did not wish to show any disrespect to Ireland or to Irishmen, but from the report of his
    1090
    speech one would imagine that he had enjoyed no political experience whatever. But he served Her late Majesty as Governor of New Zealand with great credit to himself, and left that colony beloved by all, for during the time he was there he devoted his whole energies to promoting the best interests of the colony. The noble Earl, however, does not seem to realise the great importance to Ireland of this question of a fast line between Canada and Ireland. Many Irishmen are indignant at the way in which the answer given by the noble Earl to Lord Killanin the other night was framed. I would have imagined that the subject of an Atlantic service to be worked by the Canadian Pacific Company was a matter which the Govern would have considered, but the noble Earl's reply was simply that he had no official information. Irish Unionists are continually being told that the British Government does not care two straws for Ireland. How are we to combat that statement if we are addressed as we were addressed by the noble Earl the other night? I am myself a convinced Unionist, and I ask why Irishmen are not to have the sympathy of His Majesty's Government. The selection of a terminal port in Ireland for such an undertaking would bring millions of money into Ireland, would vivify the whole of her commercial organisation, and would give Irishmen hope and courage. All we are told is that the Government will form a ring and see fair play. I only hope the noble Earl's answer to-day will be a little more sympathetic.
    THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am extremely grieved to find that the noble Earl thought the remarks I made a few days ago so unsympathetic; but he will pardon me if I draw attention to the fact that there may be competing claims, not only between English and Irish ports, but also between various ports in Ireland itself. What I wished to convey was that, if there was to be a selection of any port the Government would have to hear the arguments brought forward from each competing port—from Bantry Bay, Galway, Liverpool, Southampton—before they come to a decision. That, I think,

    1091
    is the proper course of procedure. It is not the duty of the Government to pronounce an opinion in favour of any particular port without having heard; the whole of the arguments on behalf of the various localities concerned. The Question put to me by Lord Killanin a few nights ago did not refer to the American acquisition of British lines, but referred exclusively to a fast service to Canada. That is a very old subject, and has nothing to do with the Morgan combination. It is a matter which primarily affects the interests of the Dominion Government, who have it under consideration. The Dominion Government have not told His Majesty's Government what their proposals are, or asked them for their assistance. If that assistance is asked for, the question of giving it will be most favourably considered. Until and unless the Dominion Government approach His Majesty's Government, it is not for the latter to make any proposition in the matter. The noble Lord next asked whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps, and, if so, what, for the establishment of an Atlantic service under the British flag, after the absorption of the present British-owned lines by an American combination. That is a very grave and important subject, audit is receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government. If any such service under the British flag as is suggested by the Question of Lord Killanin is to be established, it will be necessary to come to Parliament for the money required; and when that time comes, if it does come, the Government will place before Parliament all the information connected with it. But at the present stage of the proceedings it would be very unwise and impolitic to make any communication which might hamper the negotiations going on. I have given the noble Lord as much information as it is in my power to give; and, with regard to my answer the other night, I beg to disclaim any intention of being unsympathetic or of treating Ireland with disrespect.
    THE EARL OF MAYO: I think the statement of the noble Earl that the Government of the Dominion of Canada have not approached the Imperial
    1092
    Government in any way on this subject settles the question, and makes it quite clear that there is to be no line, and that our hopes of having the claims of Irish ports to consideration recognised in the event of the establishment of a fast service to Canada are dashed to the ground. I confess that the information that the Government of the Dominion have not approached His Majesty's Government on the subject of this service has come as a shock to me.

    TROUT FISHING IN SCOTLAND.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose "To call attention to the present state of the law as regards the rights of property of trout fishing in Scotland." He said: My Lords, four words of Norman-French that were spoken at the Table half an hour ago have wholly changed my position with regard to my notice, which, as your Lordships will observe, refers not to the present law, but to the law with regard to proprietary rights which existed before the assent of the Crown was given just now, in those Norman-French words, le Roy le result, to the Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Bill. Still, I think it is desirable that I should say a word or two with reference to this kind of legislation. To describe how, when, or with what machinery a proprietor of fishing shall catch his fish may be a trivial matter in. itself, but it affects the oldest of proprietary rights in Scotland. Here we have a Government coming forward and telling the proprietors of trout fishing in Scotland, "You shall not exercise your rights as you have hitherto done, but in the way we think right and proper." The Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Bill was brought in for a wholly different purpose —namely, to establish a close time in trout fishing; and the Clause laying down how proprietors are to catch their fish was imported into it after it had been introduced. It is only right that your Lordships should know what were the proprietary rights in Scotland half an hour ago. I think my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland was under the impression that there were exceptions to the law, and he mentioned the case of the river Spey. I have always understood that exceptions proved the rule, and that it was no argument that because there was an exception you should alter the rule. But—on the strength, possibly, of

    1093
    this supposed exception—my noble friend has altered the rule. What was the law on this subject half an hour ago in Sootland? I have here the opinion of the best legal authority in Edinburgh that I could consult, and he says—
    "The right of fishing for trout in a private stream or loch belongs exclusively to the riparian proprietor. In the case of an inland loch such proprietor has the exclusive right of fishing in the whole loch, but if the land surrounding an inland loch be owned by different proprietors, each proprietor may fish in any part of the loch. All freshwater rivers and lochs are private as regards the rights of fishing."
    I wired to know if the Spey was any exception, and this is the answer I receive:!—
    "The question of the proprietary right of trout fishing in the river Spey was the subject of a case in the Court of Session decided in 1894. In that case the question was raised whether the doctrine established in reference to private rivers and lochs was or was not applicable to the river Spey above the point where the tide ebbs and flows, the suggestion being that it was inapplicable because the Spoy is a public navigable river. It was, however, held that a right in the public of being at or on the non-tidal portion of a river for the purpose of navigation does not entitle them to fish for trout thereon, and. further, that such a right of fishing cannot be acquired by prescription."
    That is the great peculiarity of the proprietary rights of fishing in Scotland. The public can acquire no right, and the proprietor does not lose his right by failing to exercise it. The right of fishing may be allowed to be dormant in Scotland for any number of years, but it can be revived. The River Megget passes through my property. That river, with all its tributary streams, had been for many years freely fished by the public, but I thought it well to preserve one of the streams for a little amusement at home. I did so, with the result that one member of the public insisted on fishing. He was taken into Court, and the Court declared that the public had absolutely no right whatever. Thus, the argument of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other night, that the Bill took away rights from the people, and that it would be advisable, therefore, to leave proprietors untouched, is absolutely worthless. I have always thought that one of the main duties of the Government was the protection of proprietary rights,
    1094
    whether it be the right of the costermonger in his barrow or of the Peer in his property. But we live in times when different views are held, and we see a Conservative Government—which, by the way, appears to be inclined to conserve little or nothing—agreeing to a Clause which seriously impairs the rights of proprietors in fishing for trout in their private streams. On the Second Reading of the Bill, my noble friend the Earl of Galloway moved an Amendment with the object of preserving to a great extent the existing rights of proprietors. We went to a division on that Amendment, which was negatived by a majority of four, but, if you deduct from the Government majority all who hold office in the Administration in some form or other, you find that, instead of being in a majority, the Government are in a minority of twelve. That, I think, shows the feeling of your Lordships with reference to the measure which has just received the Royal Assent, and I now give notice that I intend during the October sittings in Parliament to introduce a Bill to do away with that portion of the Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Act which interferes with proprietary rights.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, with regard to the concluding observation of the noble Earl, I am afraid that if he attempts to amend the Act which has just passed by another Bill in the same session, he will find that that is contrary to the practice of Parliament.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Then in that case, if I am alive, I will bring forward my Bill next year.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The main contention of the noble Earl is that one of the Clauses of the Act just passed is a great infringement of the rights of property. I hope he will not think that I am chopping logic with him when I say that, as a matter of fact, there is no real proprietary right in the trout itself. The proprietary right exists in the right to capture the trout. What gives the right is that the proprietor of the bank of the stream or loch is the only person who can get into a position from which he can catch the trout. I venture to say that the noble Earl will

    1095
    look through the Act which has received the. Royal Assent tonight without finding a single sentence which, changes the right of capture from one person to another. What is interfered with is the method by which the fish may be captured.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My noble friend entirely misunderstood my argument. I did not say that any right of capture was transferred from one person to another. I said that certain rights of proprietors were limited; that there was an interference with proprietary rights.
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I accept the noble Earl's correction. It is true that we have limited the methods by which the owner of the proprietary right can exercise it, and the whole point between us is whether that was or was not a reasonable limitation. I under stand from the noble Earl that he thinks this is the first invasion of a right of this kind that Parliament has ever entered upon. If that is his case, the noble Earl is entirely mistaken. In this, there is no violent departure from precedent. Salmon—
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Salmon is dealt with on totally different principles. I confined myself absolutely to trout fishing
    LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I listened with patience to the speech of the noble Earl, and I hope he will do me the fairness and justice of listening with equal courtesy to what I have to say in reply. I know the difference between salmon and trout. One is a more migratory fish than the other; but trout is also in part migratory, and the same right of fishing exists for both. There have long been restrictions as to the methods of capturing salmon. There are other precedents. The noble Earl is the owner of an estate on which game abounds. It is true that we do not by statute limit the methods by which he may kill his grouse or his partridges, but we do limit the time of year when they may be killed, which is to that extent an interference with proprietary right. But I have a more direct precedent than that. Twenty-three
    1096
    or twenty-four years ago the State, in the public interest, interfered as to the, method in which a rabbit might be killed, and said that no steel traps should be placed in open runs. If we say that the destruction of trout by dynamite is contrary to the canons of fair fishing, it is entirely within the rights of Parliament, and in the public interest, to lay down rules and regulations, and to deal with a matter of that kind. I do not in the least regret the part I have taken in passing this Bill, I believe it will be a very useful Bill. and that in a short time there will be no controversy about it, because it will be proved to be in the interests of legitimate sport, and of the greater number, and not an invasion of due proprietary lights.
    THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I shall certainly persevere with my Bill next session. For the present, I congratulate my noble friend on being a legislator well up to date.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, to Thursday, 16th October, a quarter past Four o'clock.