I have to ask the House to read this Bill a second time. It is exceedingly brief, in character, and proposes simply to repeal one clause in the Act passed in 1885 for the improvement of the town of Eastbourne. It is necessary that I should give the House in some detail—and nobody deplores the necessity more than I—the history of the transactions, or, rather, I may say, Of the legislation, which led up to the legislation of which we now complain and which we ask the House to repeal. The House is aware that the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835, subsequently consolidated with all amending Acts by the Act of 1882, and the "Public Health Act of 1875," are the two Charters by which the action of alb our Local Authorities, whether Municipal or Urban and Sanitary, is regulated, and for many years—I may say, for a long period of years—there was no fault found or complaint made of the use of the powers given to Municipalities and Local Bodies by those two great Acts of Parliament. But as the work of Committees increased and sanitary science developed itself, Local Authorities asked Parliament to give them greater powers than were contained under those two Acts, and financial difficulties also, arose, Bills being brought into the House asking for very great financial powers, and Committees—perhaps too easily— gave those powers. The period for the re-payment of debt was extended, and extended, and extended, until at last, it reached, I believe, in one case, a period of 100 years. Parliament, felt that the time Lad arrived for dealing with this state of things, fraught with the utmost danger, and in 1882 the attention of the House was called to it in a very long and able speech on the then state of affairs by a gentleman who is not now a Member of this House, but who is very much respected by all who know him; I mean the Recorder of Liverpool (Mr. Hopwood), and I may Say in passing, and I am sure there are many hon Members who will endorse; the remark, Mr. Hopwood in this House showed himself a sincere friend to Local Government, and he was the last man to advocate centralisation in any shape or form. In the speech, in, which he drew the attention of the House to the extraordinary powers which were being asked for by Local Authorities, he almost, I might say, prophetically marked out what has happened, and especially in reference to the case which is the cause of this Bill before us. Having shown that the powers sought in the Bill he referred to had not been fully discussed, Mr. Hop-wood went on to say—

"The House would see that, in the form in which legislation of this kind noted—namely, in the shape of a Private Bill, it acquired the status of a Statute, and the matters prescribed in it went down from the Legislature, not to be debated in the Town Council, and ordered as it thought fit, but to become at once the future rule of right in the locality. If anyone said—'Why is this the law? Is the law so severe as this? I certainly was not aware of it.' He was answered at once by the assertion—It is the law, and, therefore, you must obey it."

He pointed out to the House—I am not going to trouble the House with a large number of details—various matters in relation to police and sanitary administration, for which extensive powers had been asked by Corporations. He contended that no power in excess or, variation of the general law of the land should be introduced without the application of a uniform guiding rule by Parliament; and he proceeded to raise his point by a Motion for the rejection of the Private Bill then before the House. He was immediately followed in that Debate by Sir Richard Cross, and I think no one sitting on either side of the House will dispute the statement that Sir Richard Gross was one of the ablest and fairest Ministers who ever held the office of Home Secretary. Sir Richard Cross expressed his concurrence in Mr. Hopwood's view, and said the House was indebted to that Gentleman for having brought the matter forward; then, after dealing with the facts generally, Sir Richard Cross suggested:—

"That all those Bills might go to a Committee upstairs, whose duty it would be to deal with those portions which belong to the Private Business of this House. But I think that there ought to be a special Instruction from this House to the Committee, to report to this House on all the particular Clauses to which objection is taken on general grounds. Further, there ought to be a distinct understanding that the Third Reading of these Hills should not be taken until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee, so that the House itself may be able to pass an opinion upon the general principles involved in these different measures."

I will show the House how this suggestion was dealt with and how it has been totally departed from. There was, in relation to the Eastbourne Act, no such Special Report before the Third Reading. Sir Richard Cross was followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), then Home Secretary, who concurred entirely in what Sir Richard Cross had said, and he proposed a Select Committee with an Instruction that when a Bill contained exceptional powers, the Committee should make a Special Report to the House. Sir Richard Cross proposed further—for this my right hon. Friend had omitted—that these Bills should not be read a third time until the House had had the opportunity of considering the Report of the Committee, and my hon. Friend said "certainly." It was under these circumstances that in 1882 a Committee was appointed to deal with all these Bills. Now, that Committee was, I think I may say, a fairly representative one. I was going to say a strong Committee, but perhaps that would be impertinent, as I happened to be on that Committee myself. At all events it had a strong Chairman in Mr. Sclater-Booth (now Lord Basing) who for many years, was President of the Local Government Board, and intimately acquainted with matters of local administration. The Committee included Members from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and was fairly ^representative; it sat several months and considered all the Bills brought before it. At the close of its proceedings it presented a Special Report to the House, and I must ask the attention of the House to two or three paragraphs of that Report. The Report says—

"It must be admitted that Parliament has given encouragement to the practice of seeking this House for variations from or amendment of the general law for the convenience of particular localities."

The Report further recommended—

"That where such a proposal is made, some step should be taken, by the House to secure more uniform and stringent supervision of the unopposed clauses in Private Bills."

I omitted to state that the Reference to the Committee was in the following terms:—

"That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding seven in number, to consider and report on any provisions in Private Bills promoted by Municipal and other Local Authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police and Sanitary Regulations which deviate from, or are an extension of, or repugnant to, the general law; and that it be an Instruction to such Committee to make a Special Report to this House in respect of any such provisions as aforesaid as the Committee may sanction, together with the reasons on which the grant of such powers are recommended, and the recent precedents applicable to the case."

Well, the Committee went on to say in their Report—

"The Special Report which the Committee are instructed to make divides itself into two branches—namely, I. Sanitary and II. Police Regulations."

I have not to trouble the House with the Sanitary branch of the inquiry. The Committee, under the able guidance of Lord Basing, drew up a large number of model clauses in relation to sanitary matters, wisely extending the existing law, and these were subsequently enacted in general legislation by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Now before this Committee arose the question of these street processions accompanied by music, and this question was very fully considered by the Committee, and the Committee reported to the House that they had drawn a clause which, in their opinion, was a proper extension of the general law, and which they advised the House to adopt. This was the clause the Committee drew, and I think the House will see it is a clause which may fairly be said to meet the exigencies of the case. The Committee reported—

"Many applications in excess of the general law for police powers were made, which the Committee felt themselves unable to sanction, except where such powers were already in force Within the borough, and as to which their re-enactment was only in the way of a consolidation of previous Acts.

Clauses, however, dealing with (1) street music, (2) street belling, and (3) the sale of coal in small quantities, (4) obstruction of footway," &c.—

A variety of other things with which I need not trouble the House, but which were proved to be much needed to be dealt with. The Street Music Clause was as follows:—

"Any householder, personally, or by his servant, or by any constable, may require any street musician or singer to depart from the neighbourhood of the house of such householder, and any person who shall sound or play upon any musical instrument, or sing in any street near or within hearing of such house after being so required to depart, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings."

According to Parliamentary practice, this was submitted to and approved by the House, and that was the new legislation inserted in a variety of Bills. Nothing further was done in this matter of street music until 1884, two years later, when the town of Brighton came to Parliament and asked for the necessary clause to give the Mayor power to interfere with street processions of all sorts and kinds. That clause was discussed before the Committee, and the House will see that the question we are called upon to settle was raised eight years ago. A representative from the Corporation said—

"There is another matter that we very much wish to regulate, large meetings such as the 'Salvation Army' processions going through the town."

The Chairman—who I think was my hon. Friend the junior Member for Oxford—said—

"It is very desirable you should be able to control them, but it is a question whether you should not be able to do so under the ordinary law. I should have thought that ordinary police powers would have been sufficient."

Then another Member of the Committee asked—

"You actually propose that the Mayor with the Watch Committee, should have the power to forbid any kind of popular-procession they think likely to create a disturbance. Of course you mean to use it for the Salvation Army, and could against a political procession. We have refused this to a Local Authority in a case we had before us." The Chairman: "If there was no breach of the peace intended of course the police would not prevent the procession."

Then another Member of the Committee asked—

"Why do you want an alteration in the general law for Brighton? Can you give us an illustration of any breach of the peace more likely to arise in Brighton than in any other town? Can you give us an illustration of any difficulty you have had?" Witness: "We have had great complaints of processions on Sunday mornings, disturbing the quieter parts of the town. A large number of people are constantly coming to Brighton. This is a thing that is growing, and we desire to take the opportunity to get the power of regulating these proceedings. In fact the objection to the Salvation Army is their going among other classes of people where they are not wanted." The Chairman: "I do not think you were in the room when the other Bill was discussed. I do not carry in my memory the conclusions we arrived at, though I know the question, came before us."

Well, in the result the Committee unanimously struck out this section in the Brighton Bill, although they gave Brighton what is called the "Bury Model Clause," and this clause has remained in the code of Brighton administration since, and under it Brighton is governed at the present time. When the Session terminated, this Committee, presided over by my hon. Friend opposite, reported to the House, and I must call the attention of the House to a paragraph in that Report, because upon this the House of Commons and a Department of State acted. Alluding to various matters that came before them, the Committee went on to say it was obvious that to many matters upon which the Committee were pressed for a decision. Parliament must give due consideration on general grounds,

"and the Committee were strongly advised that pending the enactment of a general measure care should be taken in succeeding Sessions to control the attempts which local bodies not unnaturally made to arm themselves with powers which the General Law does not sanction, and for this purpose they suggest that the Local Government Board should continue their valuable representations upon those Bills, and further that the Home Office should report upon matters coming within their province."

I need hardly say that the Home Secretary adopted the recommendation of the Committee, and in the next stage I shall have to bring before the House the Home Office intervenes for the first time; hitherto it has been the Local Government Board only. In 1885 the two towns of Eastbourne and Hastings came before Parliament with Bills in which this clause now in dispute relating to street processions with music was proposed. So far as Hastings is concerned, I only mention it because it was the Hastings case that came before the Committee first and settled the decision in the Eastbourne case. I cannot put my finger on the evidence at the moment, so I am not in a position to say how the case was presented; but it came before the Committee in the month of May, and on Clause 104 (Processions on Sundays) the room was cleared, the Committee deliberated, and the question was put, "That this Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." The Committee divided, and for the Ayes there voted Mr. Hastings, Mr. Charles Parker, and Mr. West, and for the Noes Mr. Arthur Arnold. Therefore the House will see the clause now under discussion was inserted in the Bill by a majority of two in a Committee of four, and the three Members whose names I have mentioned were responsible for the insertion of the clause. Well, I am happy to say, so far as Hastings is concerned, no difficulty whatever has arisen. Common sense and common justice have prevailed in the town of Hastings, and no difficulty has arisen there. It is in regard to Eastbourne I ask the House to repeal the clause. Upon this clause the Home Office reported for the first time, and this is what the Home Secretary said:—

"Clause 271 (Processions on Sundays). It is suggested that this is a question for general legislation, and that the clause should be struck out."

That was the opinion of the responsible Department of the day. This Committee, as we have seen, was to report specially upon clauses they might sanction which deviated from the general law. They were now dealing with a perfectly new clause, against which the Home Office protested. Let us see how they reported upon it. The! Report from the Home Office was—

"This Bill, in some respect, gives power relating to the police in excess of the provisions of the ordinary law."

This Report and the representations of the Local Government Board were referred to the Committee, and the manner in which these recommendations were dealt with is set forth in an appendix to this Report. Of this Clause 271 the Report states—

"The Committee have amended these clauses and, as amended, consider them expedient."

Now the case I am going to submit to-the House, or, at all events, a prime part of my case, is that this legislation was enacted behind the back of the House of Commons, that the House knew nothing of what was going on, the Committee did not say a word about the deviation from the law in the clause they inserted, and the clause which the Home Office refused to sanction the Committee did not report as Sir Richard Cross said they should report, specially. I say the House had no opportunity of discussing the clause, and I venture to say that outside the four Members of the Committee nobody in the House, Liberal or Conservative, Government or Opposition, knew anything about what was going on in this matter. But the Committee had to make a general Report to the House, telling the general result of what they had done. They called the attention of the House again—and I hope that again and again the attention of the House will be called to it—to the necessity of a general measure extending and consolidating the laws relating, to police and sanitary matters. Then they say—

"In the meantime, continuing the practice of the Committees of 1882 and 1884"—remember what they did in 1882—"the Committee have to the best of their ability enforced two leading principles which they believe to be accepted by the House, viz.: (1.) That no local powers should be given in excess of the general law unless there can be shown either (a) strong local reasons for such powers, or (b) general reasons so strong as to render desir- able the preparation of clauses which (pending public legislation) may be granted to every community that shall think fit to apply for them and (2) that as a rule on statutory enactments should be permitted for purposes which can be effected under bye laws. The local reason which have moved the Committee to sanction special legislation have been of two kinds: (1.) In a few cases where exceptional powers already existed under old local Acts, the Committee have consented, while repealing the greater part of these, to keep alive (sometimes in more modern from) such portions of them as were in use and working well. This, however, they have done with much reserve, lest such clauses should be quoted as precedents for similar legislation, elsewhere. (2.) In other cases regard has been had to special wants of the community concerned. At watering places, for example, where there is a great influx of summer visitors, larger powers have been granted for regulation of pleasure traffic, boating, and bathing."

Well, is this clause concerned with pleasure traffic, boating or bathing? Is it pleasure, traffic? Here is not a word of the very serious alteration in the general law the Committee had sanctioned:—

"On general grounds the Committee have sanctioned the insertion, in most of the Bills submitted to them, of the 'model clauses' referred to in the Report of last year, for the preparation of which they are indebted to the Committee of 1882."

I may say, in reference to this Eastbourne Clause, which was passed in this perfunctory manner and referred to in a general paragraph about clauses dealing with pleasure traffic boating, and bathing, that the only mention I can find of it is in the speech of the counsel, Mr. Littler, who brought the Bill before the Committee. He said:—

"I should like to call your attention to Clause 271. You have passed something similar to that, though not in the same words. I am told that in the exact form you have passed it, therefore we may go on."

That is all, and I do not think that anything further passed. Then—and I am sorry to trouble the House with so many details, but they are necessary to show how these matters were dealt with—Torquay followed in the footsteps of Hastings and Eastbourne, and, of course, the same Committee granted to Torquay the same powers. The result was that great disturbance arose in the town of Torquay. I believe upwards of 100 people were sent to prison. The Torquay case was brought before this House in July, 1888, when I had the honour of moving the repeal of this clause. I see in the statement circulated among Members the extraordinary allegation is made that the Torquay clause was repealed "under pressure." Well, the pressure of an adverse majority is certainly very powerful pressure, but I am aware of no other pressure. The Torquay people came to the House asking for further powers for the Local Authorities, and I took the opportunity to ask the House to restrict some of the power already granted in ignorance. I asked the House to refer the Bill to a Committee of nine Members—five chosen; by the Committee of Selection and four by the House. That Motion was unanimously accepted by the House, it, was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—it had, in fact, the support of the Government. It went to the Select Committee, and that Committee, without a dissentient voice, repealed that clause. It was repealed, and I am happy to tell the House, on good authority, that peace was restored in Torquay, and, no, difficulty has arisen since, or any conflict between the authorities or the people and the Salvation Army. There, I think, is a justification for the "pressure" which this extraordinary statement says was put upon the Torquay people. Well, we have had the subsequent proceedings at Eastbourne, but for the purposes of my argument I need not detain the House with an account of these proceedings. I believe that many Members, notably the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. E. Ellis), have been on the scene and can tell the House, if necessary, what they have seen with their own eyes. It will be admitted that the state of things is disastrous at Eastbourne. This legislation has not worked well. It has embittered local feeling, it has engendered the bitterest phases of religious bigotry, and has stirred up in a peaceful town, every Sunday, a scene of disorder every right-thinking man must deplore, Whether the character of this legislation be good or bad, it will be accepted on both sides that the legislation has worked—is working—most unsatisfactorily. There are statements in the Paper circulated among Members showing what attempts were made to meet the special difficulties of the case; how terms were proposed by which the Salvation Army should confine their operations to one part of the town, and how every one of these proposals were rejected; that a large number of constables were sent into the town; how litigation ensued—and, I think, the effect of the litigation in the judgments of Mr. Justice Hawkins were not very commendatory of the proceedings of the Local Authorities. But I want to argue the case rather on general principles that such legislation should not be passed behind the back of the House of Commons. But I have been told, and sometimes in language most offensive and disgusting, what an inconsistent politician I must be to advocate devolution to Local Authorities of certain matters of administration and yet to object to devolution in the case of this town. But, Sir, this is not a case of devolution. This is the case of an Act of the Imperial Parliament; there is nothing said in the clause about Local Authorities at all. It is an enactment, the law of the land, and the Local Authorities are bound, I think, to enforce the law so long as it stands. I find no fault with them for the performance of their duty. Let me proceed a step further. Local Administration, Local Government, Local Option, means a delegation from the supreme authority—you do not mean that the Local Authority may say "We will not have this or that." Let me put the case, by way of illustration, of the Episcopalian community in Scotland. In many towns, in many counties of Scotland, Episcopalian opinions are in a very small—I may say an insignificant minority. Would Parliament sanction for a moment, that the Local Authority should have power to interfere with the religious liberty of this body, because it is in a minority? ("Oh, oh!") Hon. Members opposite seem amused. I think the hon. Member (Mr. Johnston), who is a representative of Protestants in Ireland, would strongly object, as I would object, to putting the Protestants of Ireland under the heel of any other denomination, to interfere with, to prejudice, to embarrass, one jot or tittle of their religious rights. But the Imperial Authority has already delegated to Local Authorities, by the Municipal Corporations Act, powers on this very question. Parliament has said what Local Authorities may do By Section 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act it is declared that—

"The Council may from time to time make such bye-laws as to them may seem meet for the goodwill and government of the borough, and for the prevention and suppression of nuisances."

That is a delegation to the Local Authority of an exercise of power no man in his senses will object to. But if they go beyond, and for other purposes attempt to make that a nuisance which is not a nuisance, then they are subject, not to the control of this House but to Her Majesty's Courts of Law, and when one impulsive Town Council did prohibit these Sunday processions by a bye-law, what said the Court of Queen's Bench? Mr. Justice Hawkins said—

"I am of opinion that this bye-law is bad, as being unreasonable and not warranted by the statute under which it is made; the conviction, therefore, must be quashed. It does not seem to me unreasonable to suppose that there might be a case in which the inhabitants of a street might desire to have music of a certain kind played, and which would cause no annoyance. This bye-law would include any sort of music played under any circumstances, however harmonious and free from offence. If the Town Council desire to put a stop to music of such a character as is offensive and likely to cause annoyance, I think, probably, there might be a means of amending the bye-laws to effect that object. It is not for us to suggest how such a bye-law should be limited as to become reasonable."

I need not read the rest of the judgment. There are limits, not only to bye-laws, but to the powers of all delegated bodies, in matters of this description, with reference to powers, which Imperial legislation alone can deal with; but Mr. Justice Hawkins was dealing simply with the case of a bye-law made under the 23rd section of the Municipal Corporations Act-Lord Basing's Committee recommend Parliament to enact that when a householder objects to music before his house, that music shall cease. I say at once that if this Bill is read a second time, and referred to a Committee, I have no objection to the insertion of a clause similar to the model clause which governs this matter at Brighton, and in all other boroughs but Hastings and Eastbourne. Let me say, in passing, for I forgot to say it before, that in no other town in Great Britain or Ireland does such a law exist as exists in Hastings and Eastbourne; there is no precedent for it; no example for it; no parallel to it. Under these circumstances I submit to the House that the clause ought never to have been inserted in the Eastbourne Act. It was a miscarriage of legislation. This is no interference with local control. If Parliament by a Bill, openly discussed in the face of the country, chooses to delegate to a local authority the widest and amplest powers, then I say, if Parliament does that, it is the duty of those who become subject to those powers to obey the law of Parliament. But there is no parallel in this case; this was not open legislation, it was not legislation by Parliament, it was private legislation, and it assumed the form of a statute never having been properly reported to Parliament as Parliament directed. ("Oh, Oh!") "When and where was it reported to this House? Let the hon. Member who interrupts me point to one jot or tittle, line or syllable, where this was reported to the House of Commons. This legislation ought never to have been passed. It is legislation which has been most unhappy in its consequences, and it is to some extent, I do not shrink from saying, an infringement of the religious liberties of the people. Whether this be so or not hon. Gentlemen may differ, but evidence brought before a Committee upstairs may modify the judgment of the House, and the Committee may offer suggestions it may be wise for the House to consider. But wise or not my point is this. I impute nothing of deceit to Members of the Committee. These three Members of the Committee are as much entitled to consideration and respect as any other three Members sitting in the House, but legislation such as this should not be passed by any three Members. Before I sit down let me make an appeal to the House on behalf of a religious community against whom avowedly this legislation is directed, and against whom it has been ruthlessly enforced. I know they are a poor despised sect. ("No, no!") I rejoice to hear that "No." I know they have no representative in this House belonging to their body, but I know also there are Members on both sides of the House who strongly appreciate their work and sympathise with them in it. I imply no imputation on any Member of the House of a different character; but because they have no representative in this House to speak on their behalf they are entitled to some consideration at our hands in dealing with grievances of this description. Disagree as we may with their methods and their machinery, and perhaps with some of their tenets, the Salvation Army have achieved a great and noble work in reforming and reclaiming among the population. They have in London and in our large towns confronted vice and intemperance and misery in the most odious slums, and in the most loathsome shapes. They are fanatics. Yes; and so were the early Puritans fanatics, so were the Quakers, so were the Methodists fanatics. But let me ask any man—I do not care what his opinions are—is there a man who desires to blot out from the pages of our religious history the magnificent results achieved by the fanaticism of Puritans, Quakers, or Methodists? When the records of the Salvation Army are made up, though they may have made mistakes—and what religious movement, ancient or modern, has been without mistakes?—I say they will have a bright record to present to the people of Great Britain. They are endeavouring to grapple with problems of the greatest gravity affecting the social life of our people, and they are doing this by means of an organisation no other Church possesses or has used. I say, on behalf of these poor Salvation Army people, persecuted as they have been, harried as they have been, sent to prison as they have been, that I ask the House of Commons to wipe from the Statute Book a section which has enabled religious persecution to be carried on to the disgrace and shame of the last decade of the Nineteenth Century.

I second the Motion for the Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman in his able speech has clearly shown that the granting of these powers in excess of the ordinary law to Local Authorities, is contrary to the spirit and intention of Parliament; and that the power so granted in the Eastbourne Act is contrary to general law has been clearly laid down by the Lord Chief Justice in reference to Salvation Army bands, who said that every Englishman had a perfect right to go about his business and perform a legal act under the protection of the law, and that walking through the streets in procession even accompanied by music was perfectly lawful, and in doing that a man was entitled to protection. Parliament was not asked by special Report from the Committee to sanction a clause outside the provisions of the general law, for reasons shown. This clause was passed against the recommendation of the Home Office, and, therefore, I think it is fair to say the clause was passed behind the back of the House of Commons. Now, the question arises: The Local Authority, having been given that power, is it reasonable to take it away? I say it is, because the use of that power by the Local Authority has, unfortunately, resulted in making Eastbourne a bye-word for lawless disturbance, and brought the town into unenviable notoriety. It certainly seems to me the town cannot be worse off without the clause than with it. We must look also at the way the clause was passed, and the animus with which it has been used against the Salvation Army. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that the gentleman who fills the position of Mayor of Eastbourne, and on whom rests the responsibility of executing the law, should have committed himself to the statement some time back that he thought the Town Council should do all in their power to put down the proceedings of the Salvation Army, which were opposed altogether to the spirit of true religion. It was very unfortunate that he should have expressed such an opinion. I know it was said the remark was made in a jocular vein, but the result has been anything but jocular. When we look at the way the clause has been put in force, we find that the utmost penalties have been enforced against members of the Salva- tion Army. Seventeen of them have been fined £5, with the option of a month's imprisonment, and seventeen, of them have been sent to gaol. On the other hand, when others were brought before the Magistrates charged with assaulting the police, they were only bound over to keep the peace, or light fines were inflicted, except in the case of the man Mason in August last, when the Magistrate put his foot down, and sent the man to prison for seven days. What was the result? The Magistrate's windows were broken that night, and the consequence has been that no more of the assailants have been sent to prison. If the evidence before me is to be relied on, the Magistrates have proved themselves to be helpless in the face of the mob, and the mob since then has had its own way. And what about the conduct of the Salvationists themselves? There is a strong feeling against them I know, and the feeling has been expressed in letters from all classes. So strong is the feeling that some courage is required to get up and deny that these people should be placed outside the protection of the law because they have contravened the law. No doubt they are not a popular body. Their commander is not very modest, and in the instructions he issues to his lieutenants he rules with an almost papal authority. Nevertheless, we must bear testimony to the honesty of their intentions, and the courage with which they carry them out. We must realise that these Salvationists have set themselves to reach a social stratum which churchmen avowedly have proved themselves unable to reach. ("No.") I am glad to think there has been a great deal of success, but, at the same time, I must adhere to my statement that we deplore our inability to raise the masses to the extent we wish. The Salvation Army claim that they have a special mission to that end, and under the law of the land they claim to do that in their own way. When they find themselves confronted by a legal enactment they feel it their duty to go forward, facing abuse, outrage, and even imprisonment, in carrying out what they believe to be their sacred mission. When men and women showed themselves ready to face punishment, there was some time ago a great deal of sympathy for them throughout the country, and I remember strong representations were made to the Home Office not to carry out a sentence which seemed to be contrary to the spirit of the law. But now the question is, Are we prepared to let the present state of things continue? The enforcement of the law has resulted in all these disturbances. Let us be guided by what happened at Torquay. There were disturbances there, but when the law was repealed there were no further disturbances. Why should Eastbourne continue to possess a power which was refused to Brighton and other towns? The Salvation Army is working in harmony with Local Authorities in hundreds of towns; take away the cause of offence, and we may expect harmony at Eastbourne. Eastbourne is not strongly sabbatical—there is no objection to Sunday music. The inhabitants and visitors enjoy the band at the pier head on Sunday, but the people in other parts of the town enjoy their music too. The remedy is to let these people alone, not to interfere with them by special legislation, and if their work has reality in it it will prosper, if not it will fail.

I rise very reluctantly and with very much diffidence to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is a very old Member of the House and much respected for his ability and eloquence. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that nearly the whole of his speech was quite irrelevant to the issue before the House. He talked a great deal about the ancient history of this clause. Whether it is ancient or not, so long as it is part of the law of the land, it ought to be observed. Who is to blame for the present state of things in Eastbourne? My hon. Friend who seconded this Motion thinks that if the clause is repealed there would be peace and quietness in Eastbourne. If I shared that view, I would hold up both hands for the repeal of the clause, but I believe nothing of the kind would happen. If the clause were repealed, it would be doing violence to the principles held by hon. Members opposite—that the inhabitants of the locality should be the first consideration; in other words, that local option should prevail. I am surprised to find that a champion like the right hon. Gentleman should be found to champion this attempt on the part of Mr. Booth and his party to trample down this particular law. I should have thought that a lawyer of his eminence, and other lawyers associated with him, would rather have addressed this observation to Mr. Booth:—

"There is the law; as long as it is the law, it is your duty to obey it, and resort to constitutional methods to get the law repealed."

(Opposition laughter.) Hon. Members laugh at that sentiment. I will give them a quotation which, perhaps, they will respect. There is a great European orator on the Continent of Europe—Signor Castellar. Many years ago, during the time of the Spanish Revolution, Signor Castellar said, in the Cortes at Madrid:—

"If the laws are bad, obey them; if they are good obey them; if they are bad, obey them that you may expose their badness, and that, you may hasten their reform."

I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have given that same advice to. Mr. Booth. It is an amazing thing to me that the lawyers should be found on the side of the law breakers, and that we laymen are to be found on the side of the law. I can only account for that extraordinary circumstance by this idea, that the great lawyers of the country are so constantly occupied one day in prosecuting the law breakers, and the next day in defending the law breakers, that their minds get a little mixed, and they scarcely understand what side they ought to go for, whether for the law or against it. I had hoped—but it is a vain hope now—that I should have had the benefit of the burning eloquence of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General on my platform at the next election. But I will say "Good-bye" to the Solicitor General. It appears that Mr. Booth wrote to him for his views, and the following extract from the reply of the Solicitor General was published in the Press:—

"I fully admit the force of what you say, as to the necessity of maintaining an active protest against the Eastbourne Act in order to have any chance of getting it repealed."

(Irish Nationalist cheers.) I quite understand those cheers from the Irish benches. I think hon. Members have a perfect right to cheer such a sentiment as that from their point of view. Then the Solicitor General goes on to say—

"I personally should be glad to help in securing the repeal, on the grounds I have before stated."

I do not know what the grounds are. What does my hon. and learned Friend mean by "maintaining an active protest?" Anything from arguments to blackthorns? Some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite may have been shut up inside Tullamore for inciting persons to break the law, and not using stronger language than that used by the Solicitor General. If my hon. and learned Friend, in some other capacity, had been found in Ireland making such an observation, do you think he would not have got into difficulty with the late Chief Secretary for Ireland? But that is not all. We have an interesting correspondence between another hon. and learned Queen's Counsel, my hon. Friend the Member for Asbton (Mr. Addison), who writes to the Solicitor General for advice, and the Solicitor General writes him a long letter of advice, in which he says—

"I hope you will help to repeal this exceptional law. The right of public meeting and the right of public procession are so important that I view with jealousy any attempt to limit these rights."

Then this other learned Q.C. writes to the editor of his paper, the Manchester Courier, to this effect—

"I will not add more because I enclose a letter from the Solicitor General which puts the matter powerfully and concisely, and serves to show what is being done."

I have always had great respect for learned Q.C.'s, and I have still respect for them, but after this my respect will not be of the same kind as it was; and I rather think the naval view of the Q.C. is a very sound one. Though we admire them in the abstract we rather think Q.C. stands for "Queer Customer." The right hon. Gentleman opposite made a statement that Justice Hawkins had condemned the action of the Local Authority of Eastbourne. Judge Hawkins did nothing of the kind. I have his Judgment here, and it goes entirely against the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman, for it strongly supports the Mayor of Eastbourne, the Local Authority, and the police. What does he say in summing up?—

"The facts in this case lie in a very narrow compass. It is only fair to say that, as regarded the police, nothing has been brought forward to justify me in saying that they had not to the best of their ability properly discharged the duties imposed upon them. The Mayor also appeared to have done all he could. It was he doubt to be regretted that the police had not at their disposal a sufficient force to put down and disperse a meeting of irresponsible men gathered together to make an attack on others who were doing no harm. He gave the Salvation Army credit for honesty and sincerity in the discharge of their duty; but the Salvation Army, like all other people, must be bound by the existing law."

If they had been bound by the existing law not one of these troubles would have risen, not a single scene of violence would have occurred. How can the right hon. Gentleman stand by the Salvation Army and Mr. Booth when they deliberately break the law? Persons in various positions in life subscribed liberally to Mr. Booth in Eastbourne. One gentleman, I am told, actually gave £200 on the condition that the Salvation Army were to observe the law. They built their citadel; they never brought out their bands on Sunday for a long time; and the loeal leaders never would have brought out their band if they had been left alone by the leaders in London. Is there any other religious Nonconformist Body under the dominion of one man? Is the right hon. Gentleman a believer in one man rule in religious life? If he believes in one man rule in political life it is more than I do. Mr. Booth sends down his order, and the band is brought out at Eastbourne, and then the row commences. Let Mr. Booth obey the law and there will be no disturbance. Mr. Justice Hawkins says—

"Whatever might be the verdict of the jury, whether it was for or against the defendants, no one would understand by it that it could or would sanction disobedience to the law existing. It could not be too often proclaimed that while the law was known and was in existence, however much it might be disliked, it must be obeyed; and if there was a grievance, or a supposed grievance, legitimate Steps must be taken to obtain a repeal of the Act."

What becomes, then, of the accusation that the Mayor and the Corporation were condemned by the Judge? They were praised by the Judge, and it is not fair of the hon. Gentleman to make such an accusation unless he is sure of his facts. I am much obliged to Mr. Justice Hawkins for vindicating the Mayor and the Local Authority, and he did it much more admirably than a humble sailor like myself. I think it rather hard that I should have to stand up and be wounded in the house of my friends. Now a word to those who are friends of the Unionist cause. The Unionist cause rests upon law. That is what we have been fighting for all along. No wonder right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are against this law. I have noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite are often on the side of the law breakers and lawlessness, notably in the discussion on Mitchelstown and the riots in Trafalgar Square. All the rioters were defended by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was us, the Unionists, who were on the side of law, but now some of my friends are in favour of lawlessness and the law breakers. I also appeal to gentlemen identified with Local Option. Is Local Option to apply only to liquor? Here is Local Option in its best sense. If logic is to have any influence upon the minds of men, I appeal to their understanding. Can they vote against Local Option in its best form? I notice, on this very question of local control, that the Prime Minister, in a memorable speech in 1888 at Carnarvon—the words of which I may paraphrase—the Prime Minister said: "I have thought for many years that the soundest method of dealing with this controversy is to allow each locality to decide for itself whether it will close public-houses or whether it will not. This is agreeable to an obvious principle of liberty, and it has also this advantage over closing them by Act of Parliament, if you do not like what you have done you can go back."

Yes, I have no objection to Home Rule in that form. I am anxious that the right hon. Gen- tleman, who is a Local Optionist and a Home Ruler, should be consistent. I am sorry to trouble the House at such length, but we are in for a big fight on this question. Everything has been done by the Local Authority which possibly could be done to bring about peace, and to induce Mr. Booth to conform to the law. Mr. Justice Hawkins suggested a compromise at the first trial and Mr. Booth's counsel accepted the proposal. The Mayor said he would do his best to see whether it could be carried out. Very properly the Mayor took the people into his confidence. And the Watch Committee of the Town Council decided that it would not be fair to give the Salvation Army leave to use certain streets in the east end of the town without consulting the ratepayers in the locality. A requisition had also been presented to Mr. Booth signed by clergymen of all denominations asking him to suspend the procession with bands, if only for two Sundays, in the hope that peace might be restored. But this Dictator—and religious Dictators were the worst of all—would have none of it. The Corporation, as I have said, refused to give the Salvation Army permission to break the law without consulting the ratepayers. Therefore they sent out voting papers—"Are you in favour of any compromise as to the Sunday processions?" The answers from the district marked out as that which would, be used by the Salvationists showed that only 47 out of the 298 were in favour of a compromise. The number of votes1 against was 224. If after that the Corporation had allowed the processions: in the east end of the town they would only have brought about worse riots and disturbances. Now we come to another test of public opinion. The Mayor and Corporation summoned a public meeting to consider whether the town should spend money in opposing this Bill. By an enormous majority the Town Council were instructed to oppose the Bill. The minority demanded a poll, and the result is very remarkable: 4,692 voting papers were issued and 4,284 were collected by the police. The result of the poll showed 5,331 votes in favour of the resolution to oppose the Bill and 738 against. The number of persons in favour of the resolution was 3,257 and the number against 470. Another objection which very clever men have addressed to me when I asked their support on this matter was, why should Eastbourne have an exceptional law? Eastbourne has no exceptional law. The Local Authority have endeavoured by means of the Municipal Corporations' assistance to find out how many towns and Local Authorities have a similar or identical law; and there are no less than 36 large towns and Local Authorities which have a similar or the same law. In order to mark their sympathy with Eastbourne it has also been ascertained that 187 other Local Authorities in England are in favour of such a law if they can obtain it. The whole of Scotland has a more severe law. Why does not Mr. Booth go to Glasgow and play his bands on Sunday? Let him try this action in Scotland; let him act in an equal way in all towns; but I suppose he is too wise a man to do that. He does not want to outrage Scotch feeling and Scotch opinion. The whole of Scotland has got a more severe law than the present law; and I have a decision here of a Scotch Judge on this very point where a conviction was obtained, but I need not read it. The number of towns that have got this law is a large one. I will mention a few:—Liverpool, Reading, St. Albans, Birkenhead, Birmingham, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Leicester, Shrewsbury, Chatham, Portsmouth, Manchester, Tunbridge Wells, Hereford, Sheffield, Chester, Ramsgate, and many more, and 187 Local Authorities, as I have said, are in full sympathy with Eastbourne in this matter. I have here the reply of the Town Clerk of Birmingham—I was very anxious to get the support of the Members for Birmingham. (Laughter.) You would like to get it too, if you could. But to refer to the opinion of the Local Authorities for a moment, this was the question put to them—

"Do you approve of the principle contained in the section of the Local Act as a provision for the good government of the town? Would you be prepared to support a Bill making the provision applicable where the Town Council adopted the Act?"

The answer in reply to that question was in the affirmative from all those towns quoted, thirty-six in number. From Birmingham the answer is somewhat different. It says:—

"We inserted a clause, above quoted, in our Local Act because we thought it a necessary provision for the good government of the town."

Will the right ton. Gentleman bring in a Bill to repeal this clause which they enjoy in Birmingham?

It says:—"We inserted the clause"—I am quoting the Town Clerk's answer. I cannot guarantee whether it is correct or not; but I believe him to be an honourable man—

"We inserted the clause above quoted in our Local Act because we thought it a necessary provision for the good government of the town. I think every town considers it is a serious matter for itself, and a good deal depends on the discretion with which such a provision is enforced."

If you grant every town a special power you must accept the manner in which they use that power. ("No!") Then you would be passing Acts and repealing them next day. But I was speaking of Scotland. In Scotland all the burghs have got the same law or a more severe law; and of the burghs in Scotland 29 in number are in favour of the provision in the Local Act, and not one against it, and only four remain neutral. Will the Scotch Members give me their support or vote with the right hon. Gentleman for the repeal of the clause? I know I have a wall of prejudice to beat down. I cannot hope to beat that wall in every case, but as I said to a number of hon. Members, if they retain an open mind on this question, I hope to convince some that it would be unfair and unjust to repeal this clause simply at the bidding of a Dictator at the head of an organisation in London. Some hon. Members have already prejudged the case. Now, I do not like hon. Members to prejudge a case; but if they are all so clever as to prejudge a case, I cannot possibly hope to convince them. But it is a remarkable thing that most of the hon. Members who prejudge a case are lawyers, not laymen. One of them is the son of the Chief Justice of England. I should state that the Mayor of Eastbourne addressed a circular letter to every Member of Parliament, asking them if 'they professed an open mind to suspend their judgment. A copy of this letter was addressed to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield, who, I believe, is a son of the Chief Justice of England, and this was his reply, which was published in the papers:—

"The letter of the Mayor of Eastbourne, asking Members of Parliament to suspend their judgment on the proposal to repeal the now notorious Section until," quoting the circular, "the authorities have had an Opportunity of placing before you their views on the question."

The hon. Member goes on to say—

"You ask me to suspend my judgment with regard to the conduct of Eastbourne towards the Salvation Army. I shall do nothing of the kind."

The hon. Member, I presume, has the very reasonable ambition that he should some day sit as a Judge on the seat of justice. If he has not an open mind on this matter, how can he be expected to adorn the Bench later on, in company with the hon. Member for Ashton and others? No doubt the Solicitor General for England hopes to be Lord Chancellor some day, and if he prejudges such a small matter as this, how can he be expected to have an open mind as regards larger questions? As I have said, I have been wounded in the house of my friends. This letter has caused much mischief in Eastbourne. I did my best to minimise it. I told my good people in Eastbourne it was only his private opinion, worth no more than mine. Of course, I admit it would be worth a great deal more on a matter of law. When Mr. Booth returned from Australia, why there were special steamers sent to meet him, and special trains. Nelson, returning from Trafalgar, could not have had a better reception. And he made a speech in Southampton afterwards, in reference to which the Times said:—

"The General is reported to have indulged in something like a threat, in his speech at Southampton, that if the law at Eastbourne was not altered to suit him, he would defy it. He is stated to have said that if the Local Act to which he objects were not repealed, it would not be for the peace and quiet of Eastbourne."

Is this the map you are going to support? He defies, all law, and wants the law repealed for his own sake. Some day, perhaps he wall come down to the House and ask Parliament to pass a law in his favour.

"Possibly," it continues, "he might meet any attempts to restrain his operations elsewhere in a similar spirit, but he is too shrewd a man not to know in his heart that bluster of that kind docs not pay. The people of England are pre-eminently law abiding, and they will be slow to believe in the worth of a creed which, under any pretext, bids them assume an attitude of disobedience and defiance to the powers that be."

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) says Eastbourne is a pleasure town, and left us to infer that the people there occupied their time with pleasure. Well, I admit it is a pleasure town, and a residential town, and I venture to think that many hon. Members who work hard would improve their health by going there. I think the right hon. Gentleman was not very wise if he meant to impute the slightest—

I read the order made by the Select Committee on the Bill, and said they inserted a clause dealing with pleasure traffic, and I asked the House whether a procession of the Salvation Army was pleasure traffic.

Eastbourne is a residential town, and it dislikes these Sunday bands, and by its present, law desires to put a stop to them. It wishes to have no controversy, no trouble of this kind with the Salvation Army. And I desire to recognise all the good that it is doing and endeavouring to do, although I do not like the methods adopted in carrying out that work. But it is a lamentable thing that Mr. Booth should insist upon defying the law and upon acting, as I venture to say, contrary to the faith which he is supposed to teach. I ask, would any other religious body in England defy the local law anywhere? Would Mr. Spurgeon, that distinguished Nonconformist who has gone to his account, do as Mr. Booth is doing in Eastbourne? The right hon. Gentleman knows he would not. Would the ministers of the great Wesley an body do it? He knows they would not. All the religious bodies are watching the action of this House to-day; and I ask it to be just and fair in this matter. The Roman Catholics, of whom we ought to speak with respect—they live amongst us, and a great body of them live in Ireland—their bands are suppressed. The Roman Catholics in this country rest under a very severe law. We prohibit their processions through the streets; we prohibit the clergy of that persuasion from even wearing canonicals, except in places of worship and private houses. We know very well that if we permitted them to go in procession through the streets the things which they hold sacred would call forth the worst passions of the mob. The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 these prohibitions were carefully retained by Parliament. This is a serious matter. We cannot legislate in favour of one religious body, and leave others outside the pale. As to what has been said about the Mayor and the Local Authority, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have been to Eastbourne of late, or he would have known that there is no more popular matt in Eastbourne than the Mayor. He is so popular that the people of Eastbourne have decided to present him with a testimonial on account of his services. Over 2,000 persons have subscribed towards the fund, which at present amounts to over £600. Mr. Booth is a very powerful man, and I am not sure that he will not be a danger to some of us later on. But I wonder he does not take example from the Highest Authority, and follow in the footsteps of the Apostles, who were bidden by the Great Master, if a town did not receive them, to shake the dust off their feet and depart out of that city. As I have said, we have all denominations represented in Eastbourne. Even the National Church of Scotland is represented by a very efficient member.—(No!)—All denominations have free scope with us in Eastbourne. Scotland is represented. ("No!") Well, I do not know what you mean then. I recollect that, not many years ago, I have seen some of the clergy of the Church of England shut up in prison, because they did not obey the law as laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They did not come whining to this House, asking to have the law repealed, but cheerfully accepted their imprisonment. I was sorry to see them going to prison, but every person felt that they brought their fate upon themselves. Are the clergy of the Church of England to be imprisoned because they break the law, and Mr. Booth allowed to come to the House and agitate to get the law repealed, because, he does not like the law? I wish to read one extract from an authority that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will appreciate, Sir Henry Maine, on Popular Government. In the second essay, on the Nature of Democracies, Sir Henry Maine says—

"If any Government should be tempted to neglect even for a moment its function of compelling obedience to law—if a Democracy, for example, were to allow a portion of the multitudes of which it consists to set some law at defiance which it happens to dislike—it would be guilty of a crime which hardly any other virtue could redeem, and which century upon century might fail to repair."

I venture to make an appeal to the House to put aside prejudice. We all deplore the riots. Who was responsible for them? Not the inhabitants, but the men who disobeyed the law—the men who deride the law and execrate the law. This is the best form of Local Option; and I challenge any man, who puts aside prejudice and personal feeling, he cannot fail to vote against this Bill and support those who are endeavouring to do their duty. I beg to move that this Bill be read this day six months.

I rise to second the Resolution. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that in the case of Hastings, when the Hastings Bill came before the Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman, in 1885, the Committee divided upon the question; three gentlemen voted on one side, and one on the other. All the Members that voted for that clause were Members of the Party to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. This is simply a historical point. I believe the right hon. Gentleman imputes to us—

I imputed no motive.

I know he did not. I think it right to point out that the Local Authority of Hastings represented to us that they were in favour of this special provision. I have a very distinct recollection that this matter on that occasion was put before us with very considerable minuteness of particularity, and we took care to ascertain the feeling of the locality and not to act unless we were acting in accordance with the expressed opinions of the Local Authority. Then Eastbourne came before us in the same Session, and here again we took particular pains to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants and to act accordingly. As I understand it, the Salvation Army processions are not prohibited unless they are accompanied by bands of music. In that small compass lies the whole of this vexed question. The majority of the inhabitants of Eastbourne are as much opposed to bands of music accompanying processions now as they were in the year we passed the clause. Although I do not wish to go so far as to say that the Committee reported with all the particularity with which we reported in the case of Hastings, I cannot admit, and it is not right to say that this Clause in the case of Eastbourne was smuggled through Parliament. The only remaining argument is as to the present condition of things, and on that point I should like to read to the House a letter which I have received from a member of the University of Oxford. He says—

"I see that the subject of Eastbourne and the Salvation Army riots will come before the House in a few days, and I hope you will not think me very officious if I (as one who has spent three or four months every year for the last nine years in Eastbourne) put before you some points that ought to be presented to the House. The element of religious principle has long disappeared from this painful controversy. On one side are the Army, who persistently attempt every Sunday to break what they know to be the existing law by marching with music through the (once so peaceful) streets of Eastbourne. Their plea is that the law they try to break was passed in some unfair way, that is, they assert the principle that if you disapprove of a law you are justified in breaking it—a principle that, of accepted, would simply do away with all our laws. And they advance the monstrous plea that all this noise is necessary to Christianity. On the other side are also lawbreakers (for their main object is to smash these illegal drums and trumpets), the roughs of the place, who enjoy the whole thing as much as undergraduates enjoy a 'town and gown' row. For a wonder they are on the side of law, and cheer the police, but the blasphemous parodies of sacred words which they yell about the place tends to destroy all feeling of reverence in the youth of the place. The gross absurdity is committed every Sunday of the Army openly going forth to break the law, claiming the protection of the police, and actually getting it. It is as if a burglar, in the act of robbing a house, should call on the police to protect him against the assaults of the owner of the house. The main point I wish to urge is that whether it is or is not desirable that the local Act empowering the Eastbourne Town Council to forbid Sunday bands should be repealed, to do it just now could not, certainly, be interpreted otherwise than as an encouragement to lawbreakers. The householders of Eastbourne are, I believe, almost unanimous in their wish that the existing law shall be maintained."

Now, Sir, it is in the name of religion that all this has occurred. If these people were truly religious would not they have refrained from having those demonstrations with musical accompaniment so long as the law was against them? They could preach what they liked, have as many processions as they liked, so long as they did not have bands of music, and I should like to ask whether it is contended that music is necessary to make their views effectual. Sir, whatever may be the merits of this case, I trust the House, as a whole, will not now pass this Bill, because it will be a direct encouragement to persons, when their convenience is interfered with by any law, to break that law, and then to come to Parliament and ask that it should be repealed. I beg to second the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, after the references that have been made to me and to the letters that I have written upon this subject, the House will think it only fair that I should, with a brevity appropriate to the occasion, say something on the controversy that has been brought before the House. The speech that has just been delivered by my hon. Friend has afforded two contributions to the discussion. The hon. Gentleman objects to a phrase which I was not aware had been used in those terms by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—the phrase that this clause had been smuggled through the House. I do not think it is quite fair to the Committee that they should be charged with smuggling the clause through the House, but the unfortunate thing is that when that Committee came to make a Report, having altered the decision arrived at in previous cases, they did not call the specific attention of the House to that alteration; and those who knew that in the earlier case of Brighton the Committee had acted upon a principle which they had definitely and clearly expressed might reasonably hope that they would not cover a departure from that principle by such a casual reference as was made in their Report on this Bill. I think it is fair to say that, without at the same time passing any censure on the Committee. Now, Sir, there is another observation I should like to make; it always seems to me that the argument of inconsistency is the weakest argument in the world. It has been said that if you are in favour of Local Option, you ought not to be in favour of this Bill. If my hon. Friend behind me were in favour of Local Option, and having that principle in his mind were urging its acceptance, I could understand the weight of the argument; but that those against Local Option should refuse to vote for this Bill because their opponents will be inconsistent if they support it is not to my mind a very rational mode of proceeding. Now, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Eastbourne has made a good-humoured attack upon me, and I will only say of his speech that he has done his duty like a man. I am sorry to have been warned off the platform of Eastbourne, and I think it is unfair and inconsistent on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend. He objected to my assisting a friend of mine by expressing an opinion for publication, whilst he says he would gladly have had my assistance to commend him to the people of his borough. He said he intended—the right hon. Gentleman opposite having introduced an utterly irrelevant matter—to say nothing that was not absolutely relevant. I do not think he kept his word. There were matters in his speech not so relevant as the manner in which this clause was put upon the Statute Book. It got there without any discussion, and without the knowledge of the House, and that alone, entitles the House to deal with it as if it were a fresh subject altogether. Now, Sir, I have not taken part in this controversy because of any special sympathy with the work or methods of the Salvation Army, but I do not disavow sympathy with that great organisation in the work it has been doing in this country, and I desire to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said in that matter. Anyone who knows anything of the work of the Salvation Army knows this cardinal fact, that every one of the hundreds of thousands of persons who join it becomes an abstainer from all intoxicants, and also, which often involves a greater self-denial, an abstainer from the use of tobacco in any form; and anyone knowing that, can realise the extraordinary importance and value of this religious organisation. It is the only organisation, so far as I know, which the world has ever seen which makes the only test of membership personal purity and holiness of life, and not a religious creed. But the merits or demerits of the Salvation Army are not the most material questions in this case. I look at the matter on another ground. I do not think we should give to each locality power to do just as it pleases with the lives and the conduct of the minority in that locality. Parliament should insist upon definite limits being assigned to the powers of local authorities, and in the Municipal Corporations Act Parliament did impose definite and limited powers on Municipal Corporations. If it could be shown that the Salvation Army processions constituted an interference with the convenience and comfort of the lives of the people of Eastbourne, then the Corporation of Eastbourne could make a bye-law and put it into force to control their processions. Every Municipal Corporation in the country has that right, and it has probably been, the exercise of that right by many Corporations which misled my hon. and gallant Friend when he said that there were 36 towns in this country which have a law similar to that obtaining in Eastbourne. My hon. and gallant Friend is entirely mistaken. There are two towns, Carlisle and Reading, which have such a law in a qualified form, one being the form that the Mayor has a right to prohibit any procession from passing. With regard to other towns, if they have made any bye-law in the terms of the clause which it is now proposed to repeal, it is a bad one and would be set aside by any Court of Law. But I am quite sure there has been some misunderstanding, though the bye-law, which was not read, would have cleared up a difficulty. I look at this matter very much from the point of view of the right of public meeting and public processions. I have always held and I hold strongly now the belief that the right of public meeting and the right of public procession, which is another form of the exercise of that right, are two cardinal and invaluable rights, rights so invaluable that Parliament should not allow them to be tampered with at all by any local regulation, but should insist on dealing with them here openly and in the face of the country. It is for that reason mainly that I have interested myself in this question. Now, Sir, an attack has been made upon me, good humouredly I admit, for the letter which was written by me to, one of the officers of the Salvation Army; and with my full consent printed in the newspapers. Now, what did I Say—

"I feel the force of what you say as to the necessity of maintaining an active protest against the Eastbourne Act, in order to have any chance of getting it repealed."

In previous communications, with my correspondent I had expressed my views, and he pointed out to me that if the Salvation Army were to stop within its barracks, or discontinue its processions with music, no notice would be taken of it at all, and it would be perfectly hopeless for them to come to Parliament and endeavour to get the law repealed. But, Sir, the Salvation Army has never resisted the enforcement of the law; it has done something which is entirely different. Believing that there existed in Eastbourne an exceptional rule of limited application, which had been brought into force, without the knowledge and sanction of Parliament, the controllers of the Salvation Army determined that on each Sunday there should be a violation of that rule by some of its members. Having violated the rules, they at once yielded to the authorities and were prepared to suffer any punishment that might be inflicted. It was represented to me that they felt it an absolute duty to maintain their protest in the only way they could, by committing a breach of the law and suffering, without remonstrance or complaint, the penalty that was imposed. I could not say in answer that I thought there was no force in their contention. If they had given that up there would have been no hope of getting this clause repealed. The hon. and gallant Member drew a contrast at the end of his speech between the conduct he imputed to the Salvation Army and the action he described as having been followed by the clergymen of the Church of England who were sent to prison for violating the law. But, Sir, those clergymen did precisely the same thing as the Salvation Army; absolutely the same thing. The object of their knowingly breaking what had been declared to be the law was that their sufferings and the punishment following the infringement might attract the attention of the country and obtain the intervention of Parliament. It was not necessary for me to discuss that question with my correspondent, but I did, and do, admit the necessity of maintaining an active protest. Now, Sir, I only rose to say a few words, my desire being to have an opportunity from my place in this House of maintaining the opinions that I have expressed elsewhere, but I should like, before sitting down, to refer to some instances in point which the House ought to consider. It is said that there are local circumstances at Easthourne which make it important to maintain this Clause. We have two examples: one is the case of Torquay. In Torquay, unhappily, the same rule was set up, and immediately there began scenes of confusion and disorder of the most painful kind. Fortunately Parliament repealed the clause, and since then there has not been the smallest difficulty in Torquay between the Local Authorities and the Salvation Army. There has not been the slightest nuisance, and it is by a Member representing a Division near Torquay that the Bill now before the House has been seconded. There is another instance. I was in the habit some years ago of spending some time every Autumn at Folkestone. At Folkestone there was no law such as that we are now discussing. There was set up at Folkestone an organisation which, I am sorry to say, has received some sanction from the gentleman who is now Mayor of Eastbourne, and which called itself the Skeleton Army, which met every Sunday evening and harassed the processions of the Salvation Army, and most serious riots took place. The Magistrates did their duty. The offenders, some of them young lads, were sent to gaol for from four to six months, arising from committing assaults upon the Salvation Army. Their only desire was to get into a row. But what was the result of these convictions? Why, that the annoyance absolutely stopped. If anyone goes to Folkestone he will find the Salvation Army processions passing along the Lees, and along the road running parallel at the back, in the afternoon, and through the main streets in the evening. Nobody hears their music for more than two or three minutes, and most of those who do hear it like it. ("Oh!") Yes, they do. Hon. Members must not judge everybody's taste by their own refined and delicate taste. No one hears it for more than two or three minutes. There is no nuisance to anybody. The Salvation Army is doing its work in its own way, and there is no interference with the comfort of the inhabitants of Folkestone. I support as strenuously as I can this Bill for the repeal of this clause, and what I am hoping for is not only the assertion of a definite principle in regard to Parliamentary action in this matter, but I also hope the repeal of this clause will bring the speedy restoration of that quiet for which Eastbourne is longing.

Sir, I fully admit that we are dealing with a very grave subject, which ought to be treated with consideration, and as a matter of principle. The question has been raised as to the extent to which a locality should have the right to deal with local subjects. I fully recognise that localities should have absolute power to determine purely local matters. In respect, however, to the Bill now before the House, I would ask the House to consider whether the question is now a local one. We unfortunately every Monday morning during the past year have had to read in the newspapers of a renewal of disturbances at Eastbourne on Sundays. We have had to read that assaults have been committed by one body of the community upon another, and we have had to recognise that, while in this country the law is definite, there is no power in the Local Authority properly to assert that law; therefore, Sir, it is not Eastbourne alone, but it is the country generally, which is standing upon its trial. After a trial of twelve months the Local Authority has proved itself unable to maintain the peace, and it is impossible that the state of things existing at Eastbourne can be allowed to continue. What should be done? At any rate, Parliament has a right to proclaim that the time has come for its judgment to be taken. There is one principle upon which the hon. and gallant Gentleman relied in his able speech. He appealed to many of us when he said it is a dangerous precedent to allow a law to be repealed by the action of those who have been breaking that law. That argument received the approval of those who think it contains the expression of a great principle; but let the House consider the circumstances of the case at Eastbourne, and see how far that principle can be maintained. When there is a conflict between men who are breaking the law, and those who are maintaining the law, it is generally found that law and authority are ranged against the evil-doers who are breaking the law. But what is the condition of things now existing at Eastbourne? You have a law which it is now sought to repeal, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "I will maintain that law, because those who seek to repeal it have been engaged in contesting and violating it. But, Sir, I am told that for twelve months there has been no attempt to enforce that law. In July proceedings were taken, not under this statute, but at Common Law, for the Law of Conspiracy. The conflict, therefore, is not between the law-breakers and those who have a law which they do not enforce, but between the law-breakers—if you call them so—and the men who, having power to enforce the law, yet do not do so. What is Parliament to do? Parliament has to recognise that there are law-breakers besides those who constituted the Salvation Army. For twelve months there have assembled every Sunday a great number of men acting in absolute defiance of the law, and yet, unfortunately, within the shadow of it. That mob received some moral shadow of justification for its conduct, because it is said there is the section of the Local Act which is broken by the Salvationists. But has the hon. and gallant Gentleman nothing to say to the maintenance of the law against those law-breakers who use violence, and almost place life in danger—

There have been a number of prosecutions against that crowd.

Be it so, but notwithstanding those prosecutions this state of things continued. In these circumstances let moderate men who sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Friend) ask themselves this question—What must be done? Does my hon. and gallant Friend wish things to remain as they are?

No.

Then what is the remedy he proposes?

Stop the bands.

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his remark. Does he wish the bands to cease by virtue of maintaining that local Act? You have had that Act during the last twelve months and have not been able to cause the bands to cease. You have such a zealous Local Authority, supported by public opinion, and backed up as they are, and during the last twelve months they have failed to suppress these disturbances. This disorder is now increasing instead of diminishing, and it seems to me that some active steps must be taken by the Legislature if we are to stop the bands. You have no power to stop the bands unless you take some step. What is the best course to take? I think it is one of conciliation, and so long as this Statute remains in force, unrepealed and unaffected, I do not think this feeling of conciliation is likely to arise. If the Statute should be repealed in accordance with the Bill, the Municipal Authority of Eastbourne will be in a different position from the present. It will have the power of regulating everything short of prohibiting the music; it will have power to regulate the extent to which the music may be played on Sunday. I ask every one who desires to see peace whether they are not in favour of conciliation? There are two distinguished persons—one of them the Duke of Devonshire and the other my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampten (Mr. H. H. Fowler)—in regard to whom I may say that if they would endeavour to deal with this matter in a spirit of conciliation there would be no difficulty in arriving at a decision. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he would not agree to the music of the Salvation Army being played under regulations, so that they might have the right at some time, in some part of Eastbourne, to play their music? By passing this Bill you will be enabled to tell the Local Authority of Eastbourne that there are conditions under which their power can be exercised, and by which they can regulate the extent to which this playing should take place. Refuse to repeal this present Act, leave it as it is, and the conditions of the past twelve months must continue, we shall witness again the scenes which have been referred to in an intensified degree. And in regard to the observa- tion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, "Stop the bands!" you cannot stop them except by force, and, if you do that, scenes of violence will occur. Unless, therefore, this Bill comes into force, and the Municipal Authority of Eastbourne regulates the extent to which this music should be allowed, they will not be able to remove that which we all wish to see removed—a state of things which is a disgrace not only to Eastbourne, but to the whole country.

I rise only for the purpose of saying that the Government see no reason, in regard to this Bill, to depart from what has been the almost invariable practice of Government in regard to Private Bills—namely, to remain absolutely neutral. I myself shall offer only my own personal opinion just as the Solicitor General has expressed his. I would rather say nothing about the work of the Salvation Army, its merits or demerits. I would still more wish to avoid that very critical and burning question of "active protest" about which there might be a great deal to be said. I must express my strong disapproval of protests which take the shape of disobedience to the law. I cannot help feeling that that is a most disturbing topic to have introduced into this Bill. That disturbing topic I will endeavour to shut out of my mind, and not allow it to influence my judgment on the Bill. The reason why I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill is that I have uniformly protested before the Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations against any enactment which alters for a particular locality what I may call the general Criminal Law of the country. That seems to me a principle of very great importance. I was not in office when the Eastbourne Act was passed, but in all the other cases I know of the same course was pursued. The only other precedents are Torquay, Carlisle, Hastings, Reading, Darwen, and Lancaster. In all these cases my action was uniform; I urged the Committee not to introduce into a Private Bill anything that would alter the Criminal Law of the country and so make acts unlawful in one place which would be lawful in another. Any change of that kind ought only to be made after full consideration by Parliament itself, and not by a Committee. That contention was successful in all cases but four—namely, Hastings, Eastbourne, Carlisle, and Reading. And in the last two cases the clauses adopted were somewhat different. They enabled the Mayor of the city to prohibit processions on Sunday if he thought fit. The Committee departed from ordinary precedents in introducing those exceptional clauses. I wish to add that I can conceive possible cases in which a special law ought to be made; but for these special cases, certainly, overwhelming evidence of exceptional circumstances in the particular locality ought to be given before exceptional legislation of any sort is adopted. I am bound to say, examining the proceedings of the Committee, it does not seem to me that the evidence before them did warrant exceptional legislation in Eastbourne, and I therefore thought it was an unfortunate and ill-advised step to insert this clause. I believe my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) and the inhabitants of Eastbourne can get all they can legitimately desire under the powers of the Municipal Corporation Act by bye-laws: they can prevent processions by Salvationists or any other persons that are a nuisance to the inhabitants, and they ought not to desire more. I therefore endeavour to shut out of my mind all prejudice against one side or another, and I give my vote for this Bill on the simple grounds I have stated, and which seem to me sufficient grounds for taking that course. There are, of course, many considerations which arise connected with the circumstances of Eastbourne, but I think these considerations ought not to weigh with the House.

I will not make any apology for detaining the House even at this late period of the Debate, as, having been intimately associated with Eastbourne for many years, I think it necessary to say a few words on the subject, and I can assure the House I will be brief. There was a tendency in the speech of the right hon. Gentle-man the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) to call in question a decision of a Committee of this House. I was under the impression that whatever had been passed by a Committee in a previous Session had been submitted to, and authorised by, this House, and whatever departure from the usual course had been made by the Committee was duly sanctioned by the House, and I regret the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman as a bad and unfortunate precedent. With regard to the reference to Hastings. I know Hastings well, after a residence of 25 years, and I say it was never tried as Eastbourne has been in the matter of these unlawful processions with bands of music on Sundays. The Solicitor General argued that the Salvation Army was justified in the course they had taken, and that they never resisted the enforcement of the law, but everyone knows that it was owing to the enforcement of the law that these disturbances occurred. My own view is that the Municipal Authorities deserve every credit for their endeavours to maintain peace and order by and with the authority of the law, and for their efforts to suppress disorder with a firm hand. Everyone is aware that Eastbourne is a health resort, and that invalids require quietude. I entirely endorse what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton with regard to the Salvation Army. I am a believer in the Salvation Army, and my only reason for speaking and voting against the Bill is the opposition of General Booth to the authorities at Eastbourne, and his open defiance of the law. The Bill of 1885 was framed, owing to disturbances caused by the Salvation Army at Worthing, and other towns in the county, and the same clause is in the Bill of the Hastings Corporation. Surely Eastbourne must be the best judge of its own affairs. On a poll of owners and ratepayers in the town, 3,257 voted in favour of opposition to the Bill before us, and only 470 against. This is purely a question of Local Self-Government, and I cannot understand any plea for outside interference. There was great sympathy with the Army when they first went to Eastbourne, and many of the inhabitants gave liberally towards its support. The processions are objected to by the poor, in the East of the town, as well as, by the more wealthy classes—in fact, by the tradespeople and all alike. The opposition to this Bill comes from ministers of every denomination and religion, school superintendents and teachers of every grade, and all who are interested in the well-being of the place. The opposition is founded on legality and justice, and I earnestly beg hon. Members not to be led away by sentiment or feeling, but to support the law, and neither to surrender to "General" Booth, or the mob, under any pressure whatever in the circumstances.

I would not have risen but for the speech of the Home Secretary, and I simply wish to express a little dissent from the view he has taken. He has recommended, as no doubt his predecessors have recommended, the Police and Sanitary Committee not to embody in the Bills submitted to their notice provisions in excess of the ordinary law. And he has expressed considerable jealousy of an increase of the Criminal Law. I think these words are not accurately adapted to describe perfectly such provisions as are now under discussion. Police regulations, in order to be effectual, must be connected with a penalty; but a police regulation connected with a penalty does not extend the Criminal Law even in a locality where that police regulation is brought into force. Now, the Police and Sanitary Committee exercised great caution in considering additions to the police regulations, which may be required in one district and not in another. I will explain why I am going to vote for this Bili. The particular regulation now under discussion does not appear to me one improper to be adopted on due cause shown. The due cause shown must be considered with reference to particular cases. The Police and Sanitary Committee paid great attention to this; they divided upon it, not in respect to the clauses in the Eastbourne Bill, but in respect to the clauses in the Hastings Bill, which was also considered. The clause was introduced after all due notice, was voted upon, was considered by the Committee, and was adopted. It may be that the Committee did not call attention to it in their Report; but I must not be understood to admit that that is really a matter of substance rather than of form. No doubt they ought to have called attention to it. But how many hon. Members are there in this House who read the Reports of the Police and Sanitary Committee and are cognisant of what they do? I conceive the clause, in point of form, rightly adopted, and that it cannot be impugned as having been smuggled through Parliament. Now, I must admit that no clause could well be presented to the House with a greater command of local feeling. Why, then, send this to a Committee upstairs? A great deal depends upon the discretion with which the law is administered. It appears to me, from the evidence which one reads in the newspapers, and which comes before us in many ways—I recently spent a Sunday in Eastbourne and saw what was going on—that the ground for the disturbances is not the lawlessness of the Salvationists, but the lawlessness of the 'upholders of the law—lawlessness with which the Eastbourne Magistrates have shown themselves incapable of dealing. That is a grave statement to make, but it may be substantiated by a sufficient amount of trustworthy evidence. If it be true that the lawlessness of those who presume to uphold the law and take the work out of the hands of the Magistrates is of such a character that it cannot be endured, and if the Magistrates cannot keep that lawlessness under; then I confess there is a strong case for sending the Bill upstairs to see whether the clause of the Bill would work, or whether the Committee could adopt a reasonable working clause. The position is intolerable. The Eastbourne Magistrates are the law makers, and if they cannot be the law keepers, where are you to go?

Not to the law breakers.

The law breakers might not have prevailed if certain persons had not presumed to take the law into their hands and presented spectacles which it is impossible to endure.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the so-called "Club" trains between London and Dover, and the steamers run in connection therewith between Dover and Calais, which are advertised in the South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railway Companies' time tables as starting every day at fixed hours, are trains within the meaning of those Companies' Acts; and, if not, whether the fares charged by these trains and boats are illegal, as being considerably in excess of the maximum fares authorised by either of the Companies' Special Acts; and also whether he is aware that, whereas the French law entitles each railway passenger of all classes to 66 lbs. (30 kilos.) of luggage free of charge, and the Acts governing the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Companies entitle each first and second-class passenger to considerably greater free weight, each passenger via Boulogne or Calais to the interior of France is charged excess rates on all luggage over 56 lbs. in weight, and what legal justification there is for such charge being made; and whether, if he be satisfied of the illegality of these charges, he will consider the propriety of taking proceedings against the companies under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act 7 & 8 Vic., c. 65, commonly known as the Cheap Trains Act?

I have been in communication with the South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Companies with regard to the matters referred to in the hon. Member's questions. I am informed by both com- panies that the fares charged by the club trains are within their statutory powers. The trains are run under an arrangement with the International Sleeping Car Company, who provide saloon cars and attendants and render special services as regards registration and Customs examination of luggage, for which they make a charge. As regards the charge for baggage referred to by the hon. Member, the South Eastern Railway Company inform me that no charge is made for the conveyance by the club train of passengers' luggage unless it exceeds the weight and dimension specified in the Company's Acts. The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company state that every passenger is allowed the full statutory weight of luggage free, when conveyed in the ordinary way unregistered; but that, for the registration to the Continent, conveyance between the train and steamer at Dover, conveyance between Dover and Calais, transhipment from the steamer to the train at Calais, and for other services incidental to through registration, the Company, in conjunction with the foreign Railway Companies, does, as a matter of special contract with the passengers for their convenience and at their option, provide special facilities in return for a fixed payment in respect of the excess in weight beyond 56 lbs.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the recent affrays in Cork Harbour between water bailiffs and poachers; whether he is aware that shots have been interchanged; and whether it is his intention, considering the grave danger to the public peace and to the lives of the inhabitants, to order the coastguard to patrol the river, and prevent this illegal fishing as they formerly did?

The coastguard officer has reported that shots were fired, not at, but by, the water bailiffs of the River Lea on three occasions during the past month. The affrays occurred, however, a considerable distance inland, and beyond the limits of the guards supplied by the coastguard station. The coastguard have received instruction to report any infraction of the Salmon Fishery Laws which they may observe, and they will co-operate so far as they can with the authorities who enforce these fishery regulations, but I am very doubtful if it would be expedient to take the coastguard away from the performance of their duties along the sea coast, in order to undertake police duties in inland or river waters.

May I ask if the Government intend to prosecute the bailiffs who fired the shots?

That is not a question which ought to be addressed to me.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the secretary to the County Leitrim Grand Jury has died since the introduction of the Local Government Bill; and whether the Government will suggest that the appointment of a successor should be suspended till that measure passes, or provide that it shall not apply to officers appointed since the Bill was brought in?

I am informed that the Grand Jury of County Leitrim filled the vacancy referred to, and the Government have no control over the action of the Grand Jury in regard to these appointments.

I beg to ask the Secretary to-the Treasury will he explain why, although the Fishery Commissioners in 1885 granted £12,750 to erect a fishing harbour at Clogher Head, and the locality contributed £4,250, the Board of Works changed the plans and ordered the contractors to build a straight pier, as the Royal Commission had meantime recommended the place for a harbour of refuge; is he aware that the pier was subsequently damaged by storms, costing an extra £7,000 to repair, and that, although a total of £25,950 has been spent on it, the harbour is practically useless to the fishermen except when the wind is due south, and is absolutely useless in an east, north-east, or north wind; that, to make it available in all weathers, it should be extended 300 feet into deep water, with a "bend" on it and a groin on the west side; is there any intention of acting on the Report of the Royal Commission and making the place a harbour of refuge; will the Board of Works do anything to make the money spent profitable, and after the repeated complaints about this Board, will the Government ask for the Report of an independent engineer?

I am informed that the original plans were changed, and that the pier was carried further in a straight direction expressly in order not to prejudice the question of eventually making a harbour of refuge when funds are available. The damage done by storms cost £2,251, and not £7,000, to repair, and the total cost was £19,251, and not £25,950. My information does not confirm the accuracy of the other allegations contained in the question. The end of the pier is already in deep water. I am advised that with the addition of a "cant" 80 feet long at the end of the pier (which the Government intend to commence as soon as funds are available) the harbour may be considered a harbour of refuge. I see no grounds for consulting an independent engineer.

When will funds be available?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it has now been definitely settled that the advantages which the United Kingdom derives under the Most - Favoured - Nation Clauses in the Treaties with Belgium and Germany extend also to all British Colonies and Possessions; and whether the reduced rates of duty and facilities of transport, accorded to each other by the various Treat Powers under the recent Treaties negotiated in Central Europe, will also be accorded to all British Colonies and Dependencies?

Her Majesty's Government interpret the Treaties with Belgium and Germany to mean that the advantages derived by Great Britain under the Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses in them extend to all British Colonies and Possessions, and that the reduced rates of duty and facilities of transit (not transport) recently granted by Germany and by Belgium are given to British Colonies and Dependencies, under Great Britain's Treaties with those two countries1. From a statement which appeared in the Times a few days ago, I gather that this view has been acted upon by the German Government, but I have no official information on that point.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can now state when he expects to introduce a Bill for exempting elementary schools from the payment of rates?

The question has already been twice answered within a short time. The Government can make no statement as to the time when the Bill referred to will be introduced by my right hon. Friend; probably not till the Public Business is more advanced than at present.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the establishment of a Local District Registry for the issue of Writs of Summons at Belfast, whether he can state if any action has been yet taken in the matter?

I communicated to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, as I stated in answer to a former question. The matter can I only be dealt with by a majority of the Judges. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has the matter under consideration; but as most of the Judges are now on circuit, he has not hitherto been able to ascertain their views on the matter.

May I take it that the Lord Chancellor will ascertain their views?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been directed to an article in the Whitehall Review of the 5th March, 1892, which alleges that 94,229 deaths above the normal death rate have occurred in the famine areas in the Madras Presidency during the period of seven months from August, 1891, to February, 1892; whether the Secretary of State for India can give any explanation of the causes of this mortality; and whether any steps have been taken to obtain prompt statistics of the progress of mortality over the entire famine area in India, and to lay these statistics upon the Table of the House?

The Secretary of State has, seen the article. The total of deaths which it, gives is admittedly conjecture, being, calculated, on the assumption, that the death rate for August, 1891, given in my answer to the hon. Member last week, would remain the same in the affected districts till February, 1892, But while the Returns for the subsequent months—down to December which were the last received—exhibit a rise in five of the affected districts, there is a marked improvement in the other five. The cases of increased mortality are: Chingleput, 52 deaths in December per 1,000 of population against 35, in August. North Arcot, 39 against 30; South Arcot, 59 against 34; Salem, 38 against 23; Coimbatore, 41 against 27. On the other hand, the cases of decrease are: Bellary, 21 deaths in December per 1,000 against 49 in August; Kurnool, 22 against 59; Nellore, 19 against 27; Amantapur, 15 against 52; Cuddapah, 25 against 40. As regards the districts in which there has been an increase in the death rate, the Madras Government have explained that this is mainly due to cholera resulting from the low water supply and to other indirect results of the drought. It should also be remembered that there is a normal increase of mortality in September, November, and December of each year in India. The Secretary of State will lay on the Table a despatch just received from the Viceroy, which contains a review of the situation throughout India, and a forecast of the operations which will be necessary till the end of June when the rainy season sets in. The Secretary of State has asked for detailed monthly Reports in addition to the weekly telegrams, regarding the progress of relief and distress and also the statistics of mortality in the affected districts.

I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the result of the interview of a deputation to the Treasury consisting of Members of Parliament, gentlemen, and merchants of the towns of Sligo and Enniskillen, and railway directors, in August last, with suggestions for placing the Sligo and Northern Counties Railway on an independent footing; and whether the Treasury are prepared to adopt their suggestions; and, if not, whether they have any alternative scheme to propose?

The deputation having been received by my predecessor I am not aware of the details, but I am informed that the proposals made to him were not such as the Treasury would accept. I do not think it any part of my duty to propose an alternative scheme.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that no fewer than 12 families, tenants of Mr. Orr, in the townland of Letterilly, near Glenties, in county Donegal, have been decreed in ejectment processes with heavy costs, and are now about to be evicted from their holdings; and whether, having regard to the fact of the extreme poverty of these tenants, who promised severally before these ejectment proceedings to pay immediately the full rent for two years up to May, 1892, and were ready and willing to fulfil that promise, he will decline to allow Forces of the Crown to be employed in the eviction of these tenants?

I am informed that decrees have been issued for the ejectment of the tenants on the estate mentioned, but I have no official knowledge of the circumstances referred to in the second paragraph. The Government cannot undertake to withhold police protection from sheriffs and bailiffs in the due execution of the law.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if I am able to prove that the tenants here are willing to pay two years' rent and that it is a mere question of the costs of the land agent, he will consider the question of allowing the employment of the Forces of the Crown in the extermination of these poor people?

I am afraid, Sir, I am not fitted to act as arbitrator between the parties concerned.

I must again press the right hon. Gentleman. Will he not allow the police of the town to be employed? It is in his option to do so. The President of the Board of Trade refused the use of the Forces of the Crown on similar occasions.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any of the Public Elementary Board and voluntary schools in the country have established classes for manual training in accordance with the Regulations of the Code of 1890; and if any have done so, how many, and in what places; whether provision has been made by the Science and Art Department for the examination of such classes at the next ensuing annual examinations of elementary schools; and whether sufficient evidence has been supplied to the Department of the educational value of any classes that have been so formed, as to warrant the issue by the Department of a Circular to School Boards and the managers of voluntary schools throughout the country, urging upon them that they should at once form classes for manual training in every elementary school under their control?

I find that schools for manual training have been established in 213 schools, of which 115 are Board schools and 98 voluntary Schools. I can give the hon. Member a list of the places if he cares to have it. Provision is made for the examination of such classes on or about the same date as the annual examinations of the schools in drawing. Sixty-three classes were examined in the year ending 31st August, 1891. In twelve of these the instruction was reported to be excellent; and as good in the other 51 cases. The Minutes authorising grants for manual training was first published in June, 1890, and since that date Circulars giving full information on the subject have been from time to time issued to all schools in which boys are taught drawing, and the Department does not think that a further Circular is required urging the immediate foundation of classes for manual training in every elementary school throughout the country.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whose authority were the police engaged on Sunday, the 28th ultimo, in assisting a man named M'Auliffe, who holds an evicted farm at Knock, County Clare, to erect weirs; and will he take steps to prevent such employment of the police on Sunday?

I am informed that the police did not assist as alleged in the question; they only afforded personal protection to M'Auliffe.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of submitting to Parliament an annual grant from Imperial Funds to the National Lifeboat Institution?

I have received no intimation from the responsible committee of the National Lifeboat Institution that any pecuniary assistance is required from the Government, and I am averse to the interference of the Government in the management of any institution so long as its affairs are properly administered, and the voluntary support it receives is adequate for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is correctly reported to have refused the request of the inhabitants of Lerwick to be allowed to raise there a corps of Rifles or Artillery Volunteers, on the ground that he would be unable to assign a definite post for its operations in the event of its mobilisation for Home defence; will he state whether any force has been assigned for the defence of the Shetland Islands; and, if so, what force; what is the destination of the Orkney Artillery Volunteers in the event of mobilisation; and whether he will re-consider his decision and permit the people of Shetland to maintain one or more batteries of Artillery, and prove themselves as able to contribute to national self-defence as their neighbours?

Any attack on Shetland would be met by naval defence, and in view of the heavy expenditure which has been incurred in the defence, by Land Forces, of more vulnerable places, it has not been considered advisable or necessary to establish Volunteer corps in Shetland.

What is the case with regard to Orkney?

The same answer applies to that question, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that page 590 of the Local Government Board's Annual Return (1890–91) only gives the number of officers under Local Authorities to whom superannuation allowances were awarded during the year, together with the total amount of these allowances, he will state what was the total amount of money expended during the year by the various classes of Local Authorities upon pensions and superannuation allowances; and whether he will agree to a Motion for a Return dealing with the matter?

The Local Government Board have particulars of the superannuation allowances awarded by the Poor Law Authorities in each year, but they have no Return of the amounts actually paid by the Authorities in respect of pensions during the year. If the hon. Member will give notice as to the Return which he desires to move for, I will consider whether the Motion can be assented to.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Ex-Sultan Abdullah of Perak has yet been transferred from the Seychelles to Singapore; and what has been the cause of the delay?

Abdullah and the other Malay exiles delayed their departure from the Seychelles to Singapore of their own accord, in order, as it is understood, to realise their property and arrange their private affairs; but they can set out, if they have not already done, so, whenever they please.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House what number of vessels were reported missing in the last year for which accounts are available, and also the number of cases into which inquiry has been made?

The number of British vessels reported missing in the last year for which accounts are available is 79. Inquiry was made by the Board of Trade officers in every case, but official inquiries were held in only seven cases. I have no reason to believe that an official inquiry could have been usefully held in any case in which it was not actually ordered.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £96,988,849 18s. 4d. Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consols, now held by the several Government Departments, as stated in Parliamentary Paper, No. 401, of the Session of 1891, and of the £34,625,777 15s. 11d. Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consols, recently held by the Court of Judicature, as stated in the same Return, was converted under the provisions of "The National Debt Conversion Act, 1888;" and, whether any commission was paid in respect of such conversion?

The whole of the Three per Cent. Stocks held by the Government Departments at the tune of the conversion, including the Stock held on Chancery account that had been un-replaced by the Annuity created in 1883, were converted into Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consols under the Conversion Act of 1888, with the exception of a certain amount of Stock belonging to the Chancery suitors and the Savings Bank depositors, amounting in all to £6,376,000, for which assents to the conversion were not received, and which accordingly was paid off in money under the Redemption Act. The amount so converted did not, of course, correspond with the figure quoted by the right hon. Member, because that figure represents the amount of Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consols held by the Government Departments on 31st March last—three years subsequent to the conversion, during which period there have been many sales and purchases of Government Stocks. No commission was paid in respect of the Stock held by Government Departments which was converted, except as regards so much of the Stock belonging to Chancery suitors and converted as required the intervention of recognised agents.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the age of the officer in the sorting department of the Edinburgh post office, who retired at the end of last year after 49 years' service, and ten days afterwards resumed duty, was at the date in question considerably beyond 65 years; and if he will explain on what grounds it is held that this officer is not subject to the operation of the Order in Council of the 15th August 1890, by which it is ordered that "retirement shall be compulsory for every officer on attaining 65 years of age?"

I have been asked to answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend, who has just gone to see a deputation. The words quoted from the Order in Council appear in Section 10. But this section, like every other, is controlled by Section 1, which provides that the Order shall apply only to Civil servants drawing salaries or placed on scales of salary in excess of those of the second division. The officer in Question was outside this condition.

;: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have received a statement and appeal from the inhabitants of Ballybunion and neighbourhood with regard to the erection of a pier, and what action has been taken in the matter; whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the adjacent districts of Ballyconry, Gullane, and Ardagh, which are scheduled as congested districts, are at present in great distress and require immediate relief, such as would be afforded by the construction of this work; whether complaints have reached him that the Ballybunion fishermen at present labour under serious disadvantages, there being no pier or landing place at Ballybunion, and that, although a large number of English, Scotch, Manx, and French boats are always engaged in mackerel fishing in the bay, the people of the locality are shut out from this source of industry and wealth owing to the want of a pier; and, whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the advantages which the pier will confer on the locality, he will direct the work to be proceeded with at once?

The Congested Districts Board have received the statement referred to, and will make inquiries and consider whether the electoral district mentioned is an area which ought to be included.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of a man, named James Hawkins, aged 24, who was arrested at Carlow on the 13th ultimo, on a charge of assault, and committed to Kilkenny Gaol, on remand, on the 15th, and who died in the police barrack Carlow on the 23rd; is he aware that Hawkins was placed on punishment diet, bread and water, on the 17th, 18th, and 19th, because a small piece of tobacco was found con- cealed in his clothes when they were taken from him; did Hawkins complain of illness in the prison, and was he sent to hospital; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds; was he medically examined on arrival at the prison, and again before he was put on bread and water; is he aware that the Coroner's jury found that Hawkins died from influenza and congestion of the liver caused by the treatment he received in gaol; censured the prison doctor for want of care in the treatment of Hawkins; and condemned the rules that permit a Governor to inflict such punishment for so slight an offence on an untried prisoner; whether he will cause a sworn inquiry into, the prison treatment of this man; and whether he intends to advise the Government to give any compensation to his mother and sister, of whom he was the principal support?

The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. The prisoner was charged with deliberately breaking the prison rules by having tobacco concealed in several parts of his clothes. On the 21st he was reported sick to the medical officer, but his temperature was normal, and the medical officer did not consider it necessary to place him in hospital. But as influenza was prevalent in the district, he offered to detain the prisoner, who, however, insisted on going to Carlow to get his trial over as soon as possible. The answer to the inquiry in the fourth paragraph is in the affirmative. I understand the verdict of the Coroner's jury was to the effect indicated in the question. The Government see no necessity to adopt either of the courses suggested in the last two paragraphs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tobacco was in this man's clothing when he reached the prison? The Governor-had power to search him when ha entered; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that to punish this, man two or three days afterwards was going beyond the circumstances of the. case?

According to the information supplied to me, he was warned to give up anything he had, and I take it that this tobacco was subsequently found.

The Act gives the Governor power to take the clothing from prisoners, and the Governor swore at, the inquiry that he took the clothes from the man because they were in a bad sanitary condition. If that is so, I think it is pretty clear they must have been in a bad sanitary condition when the man was received at the prison.

That does not arise in the hon. Gentleman's question on the Paper, and I have no information as to that particular matter.

I will put another question on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a tenant named James Convery of Longfield, South Derry, signed an agreement to purchase his holding under the Ashbourne Act from the Drapers' Company (London), in November, 1887; that the Company undertook through their solicitor to complete the sale free of charge to Mr. Convery; and that the Land Commission advanced the purchase money, but sent the conveyancing order or deed to another solicitor who refuses to deliver the same to Mr. Convery except on payment of fees; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter, and state the result?

The Land Commissioners report that in the case in question the vendor agreed to pay the cost of the vesting order, and this agreement was carried out. The tenant had employed a solicitor, and the copy of the vesting order was sent to his solicitor, who was entitled under an existing general rule to claim a fee of 10s. 6d. from the tenant purchaser.

The conveyancing order was sent to another solicitor with whom he had no dealing.

No; that is not the information that comes to me. The information that comes to me is that the conveyancing order was sent to the solicitor who was employed by the tenant to examine the order on his account, and that the conveyancing order was sent to the solicitor on condition that it was made a charge at the fee mentioned—namely, 10s. 6d.

I put the; names of both solicitors in the question, but they were struck out at the Table, Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether there were two solicitors engaged in the case?

If the hon. Member will send me the names of the two solicitors, and will put the question again, I will endeavour to answer him.

I included the names in my question. Will the right hon. Gentleman give them?

I cannot be responsible for what is handed in at the Table.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether County Court Judge Barber (of Derbyshire) has retired on a pension; and, if so, will he state the amount of such pension, and the length of his services as a Judge?

Yes, Sir; His Honour Judge Barber retired on a pension of £1,000 per annum in November last. He was appointed on 26th September, 1889.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Constable Henry Lynam, who was discharged from the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 13th February, 1892, as unfit for further service, with a pension of £12 per annum; whether he is aware that Constable Lynam became disabled in consequence of a fall off a ladder while endeavouring, at great risk to his own life, to extinguish a fire at Mullingar on the night of the 10th March, 1891; and that he is now in very weak health, with no hope of recovering sufficient strength to enable him to earn a livelihood; and whether, as Constable Lynam received the injuries which necessitated his discharge while on duty, and that he bore an excellent character while in the force, he will re-consider his case with the view of increasing his pension?

The constable referred to was incapacitated from service under the circumstances recorded by the hon. Member. The Medical Board considered his case and reported it to be one of partial incapacity to earn a livelihood, and the pension was fixed at £12. The maximum pension would have been something under £15. The period of service was short, and the constable would not have been entitled to any pension in respect of it had he not met with this accident.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the following remarks in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the account of the Irish Land Commission in respect of Church Temporalities in Ireland, dated 4th January, 1892:—

"The arrears on the collection rentals show an increase as compared with the same Return for 1889–90. For that year the arrears due at its close averaged 29·1 per cent. of the total amount receivable, while for 1890–91 the percentage rose to 31·9. In the following cases there is even a larger growth of arrear shown: (1) Renewable leaseholds (including fines and other tenures); (2) mortgage account (convertible leaseholds) interest.

"I called the attention of the Land Commissioners to these classes of receipts, and to the increase of amounts uncollected at the close of the year; but their reply with reference thereto did not appear to me of a satisfactory character."

What was the average number of years' purchase of the rental in these cases of arrear; and whether he will lay upon the Table similar particulars concerning them with respect to localities, vendors, purchasers' accounts, &c. as are prescribed in Section 33 of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," with respect to purchases under its provisions?

The Comptroller and Auditor General reports that the arrears on the collection rental of the Irish Church Fund bore a higher proportion to the total amount collectible on the 31st March, 1891, than on the same day in the previous year. I think that in this Report it has been oven-looked that the rental column on which the percentage has been calculated by the Auditor General includes, besides rental proper, capital sums paid in redemption of income. These capital sums vary from year to year, and the proper course is to deduct them from the total amount collectible, and then, if you like,, to measure the arrears by the proportion which these arrears bear to the true income of the Fund. Measured by this test, the arrears bear exactly the same proportion to the income in both years. The actual amount of arrears has decreased. The Comptroller and Auditor General notes also an increase of arrears on two special heads—namely, (1.) Renewable Lease holds, and, (2.) Mortgage accounts in respect of Convertible Leaseholds. The first item represents the income of unsold Church property of various kinds.. It is small in amount, being only £1,762 in 1890–1. The sources of it are scattered and difficult to collect, but the arrears have only increased by £200. The second represents the charge of renewable leases, which, under an Act of William IV., have been converted into perpetuities. The collectible amount in this case also is small, and the increase in the arrears only £200. There is nothing significant in either of these two cases, and neither of these two heads are in any way connected with or analogous to purchases under the Land Act. They represent perpetuities, and therefore there is no question of "number of years' purchase." It will be evident, therefore, that with regard to them I cannot give account of sales which have not taken place; and as regards the account of the Church Temporalities, I have stated that there is no increase in the percentage of arrears, whilst there is a decrease in the actual amount.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inquest held on Monday 22nd February, at the Booths, Pontefract, on Arthur Buckley, who was killed whilst shunting at Monkhill Station, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway; whether he is aware that it appears from the evidence that Buckley was only 15 years of age, was sent at 8 p.m. to hook on waggons, and was crushed between the buffers, and that Buckley was doing the work of an ordinary platform porter named Higgins; whether he is also aware that the staff at this station have been working on and off for months past with two or three men short, and with boys occasionally set to do the work usually done by men; and whether he will make a strong representation to the Company on the subject of employing inexperienced boys for duties involving so much danger?

I have seen the Coroner's Return, but not the depositions in reference to the case in question. I have communicated with the Railway Company, and I am informed that—

"Buckley, who was 15 years and 11 months old, was in the employ of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company from November last, and it was no part of his duties to couple or uncouple waggons in the goods yard. It has, however, transpired that Thomas Higgins, in the Company's service upwards of 20 years, and employed in the goods yard, told Buckley very improperly to do the work of coupling the waggons, but he had no authority to do so, as he should have coupled the waggons himself with a shunting pole with which he was provided for the purpose."

With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, the Company state that—

"In consequence of the foreman porter having been off duty owing to sickness, a man was drafted from the goods department to take his place, and an additional man was also sent to the station several days each week to assist generally in the passenger department, and it is not correct to say that the station is being worked with two or three men short. It is also incorrect to state that boys are occasionally set to do the work usually done by men, as junior porters not less than 17 to 18 years of age are employed for the purpose. No doubt during the past winter there has been sickness at this as well at other stations, and the vacancies thus caused have been filled up as speedily as possible."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what have been the receipts and expenditure of the Irish Interme- diate Education Board in respect of the Customs and Excise Duties Grant; and what proportion of their total annual income the Board have recently expended?

The Assistant Commissioners of Intermediate Education report that the receipts in respect of the Customs and Excise Duties Grant have been £39,042, and the expenditure thereunder, up to the present, has been £5,108. Exclusive of this grant the Board report their income amounts to £33,756, of which they expended about 94 per cent.

Is it a fact that this Board has only expended one-eighth of the money? I beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make any financial proposals?

Of course it is rather early to ask that, because it must be borne in mind that, having received the money, it was their duty to make rules for the disposition of the amount. These rules have now been issued, and no doubt the next year's expenditure will show a large increase. But so far as I am at present able to form an opinion the sum allotted for this purpose is really in excess of the requirements of the case, and I have been considering whether I should not make some proposals to allocate some portion of this money for technical education and for other purposes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five tenants of the Dalway Estate (Carrickfergus), who purchased their holdings in the Landed Estates Court in 1884, paying down one-fourth of the purchase money, and who, about two years since, were awarded small sums as compensation for a narrow cut made through their farms by the Belfast Water Commissioners, have been ordered by the Land Commission to pay over these moneys to them; whether the Commission refused the offer of the tenants' solicitor to pay the cost of a valuation to determine whether the value of the holdings had been materially affected; and that, in addi- tion to the fourth part of the purchase money deposited in 1884,; the instalments falling due since then have all been regularly paid; whether the Commission suggest that the holdings, i.e., the value of the combined interests of the landlord and the tenants, are not security for the price of the landlord's interests, less one-fourth already deposited, and seven years' instalments, of the remainder; whether the Commission have claimed to impound the sums awarded to the tenant purchasers till the end of the term of 49 years; and whether, they intend to persist in. their demand?

The Irish Land Commissioners apprehend from the terms of the question that their practice in such cases as this referred to is misunderstood by the hon. Member. The Commissioners are of opinion that where any portion of a holding purchased under the Land Purchase Acts is subsequently sold, the capital sum received must be applied to reduce the mortgage debt due to the State. The effect of this is not to impound the sums awarded till the end of 49 years, but it causes an immediate reduction in the capital amount due by the tenant purchaser to Government, with a consequential immediate reduction in the amount of half-yearly instalments payable. The tenant purchaser benefits by the reduction, and the security to the State for the original advance is preserved. The Commissioners do not consider that it would be advisable to adopt any other course.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners whether they will consider that these tenants had to incur considerable cost and loss of time, in proving their case before the arbitrator, and will they allow the amount of these costs and the value of the loss of time to come out of the award?

I see the particular point raised by the hon. Member, but I apprehend that the purchaser gets all the advantages of the payment, and I do not see the inconvenience. I apprehend that when land is taken under the Land Clauses Act compulsorily, the ex- penses are paid by the purchaser. I think the principle acted upon by the Commissioners is a sound one, that the tenant purchaser really gets all the advantages.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the position of Her Majesty's Government towards the harbours and fortifications of Esquimalt, whether the land upon which the dockyard buildings stand is reserved to the Crown, or is it the property of the Dominion Government; if it is, the property of the Dominion Government, by what tenure is it in the occupation of the Admiralty; if any rights are exercised over this land by Her Majesty's Government, by what Statute or other instrument are they secured; what rights of control, if any, has the British Admiral commanding on the Pacific Station over the harbours or anchorage of Esquimalt; are any advantages secured to the vessels of Her Majesty's Navy at Esquimalt which would not be accorded to them in any foreign port; is the land upon which it is proposed that the Canadian Government should erect fortifications at a cost of £11,000, to be armed at a cost of £50,000 to the people of the United Kingdom, the property of Her Majesty's Government, or of the Dominion Government; when the fortifications are erected, and the guns mounted, whose property will they be; will the garrison be under the orders of the Canadian Government or that of the United Kingdom; if manned by Canadians under Canadian Government, will Her Majesty's Government have any means of insuring that they shall be available for the defence of the British Fleet; and if, as was suggested, Canada should join the United States, to whom would the guns belong?

In reply to the first three questions, the land upon which the dockyard buildings at Esquimalt stand is the property of the Crown? By an Order of the Dominion Privy Council passed in 1889 a portion of Esquimalt Harbour was reserved for the exclusive use of Her Majesty's ships. The sites for the fortifications will be provided by the Dominion Government, with, whom also will rest the responsibility of providing the garrison. The remaining questions seem to have been framed for the purpose of suggesting that in time of trouble or danger the Imperial Government could not rely upon the Canadian Government taking common action with them in defence of common interests. I must decline to answer any hypothetical questions which seem to me to be prompted by suppositions which are both injudicious and baseless.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in the event of Canada leaving the Crown—

That is an exceedingly hypothetical question.

Whether the guns would in any case belong to the British Government?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate where the ship recently commissioned for the further protection of the Scottish inshore fisheries is now stationed?

The station of the ship referred to is the North East Coast of Scotland, from Kinnaird Head to Cape Wrath.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what has been the total cost of the alterations in the boilers of H.M.S. Vulcan and H.M.S. Barracouta since the boilers were taken over by the Admiralty from the contractors?

The expenditure incurred on the boilers of the two vessels in question has been up to the present time—Vulcan, £230; Barracouta, £12.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state when the management of the Stores Department Accounts of the Navy may be expected to be placed on such a footing so as to comply with the requirements of the Comptroller and Auditor General; whether he has observed those portions of the Auditor General's Report in which he calls attention to the unsatisfactory condition of the store accounts at the foreign yards, and especially at the Jamaica and Bermuda yards, and also of the store accounts of Her Majesty's ships and the victualling yards; and whether anything, and, if so, what, is being done to guard the taxpayers against the serious state of things disclosed in this part of the Appropriation Account 1890 and 1891 just issued, especially from such loss as that of the stores sent out to Sierra Leone in 1890, which were condemned on arrival at that place, and which cost this country the sum of £1,100 7s. 6d.?

The attention of the Admiralty has been directed to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the apparent absence of proper care in accounts for naval stores at Jamaica and Bermuda, and these establishments have already been requested to furnish explanations in the matter, which it is hoped will be received before the Public Accounts Committee meet to consider the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report. In regard to the delay in examination of ships' stores, alterations in the establishment of stores, rendered necessary in the types of ships, have been a cause of delay. The increase of vessels in commission has also added to the difficulties. Steps will be taken to accelerate the completion of the examination of accounts. The victualling accounts have also been delayed from increased work, and the whole matter is now under consideration. With respect to the matter in the third paragraph, the hon. Member erroneously quotes the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The stores consumed were not, as the question suggests, sent out in 1890 to Sierra Leone, and condemned on arrival there. They were articles that had been stored at Sierra Leone for various periods, and, owing to a reduction in the requirements of that station, were returned to England, and being, from the effect of the African climate, unfit for re-issue to the Fleet, were sold.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has any objection to give the name of the Irish officer who elected to take a place in the Irish post office, in preference to one offered him in England, and name the English office which he was offered?

I have to-day heard that the officer to whom I alluded prefers, on personal grounds, to remain where he is, and I therefore think it unnecessary to give his name.

That is not the point of my question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Official Receiver under the Winding-up of Companies Act, 1890, has been, or will be, authorised to employ any public money, and, if so, how much, in connection with the liquidation of any, and what, companies respectively; and in what cases the shareholders have made themselves liable to the Official Receiver for his costs and expenses; and, if so, up to what amount?

In two cases certain payments not exceeding £80 have been authorised to be paid out of public funds on the ground that inquiries were necessary in the public interest, the facts being in each instance such as to disclose a primâ facie case of fraud. I am not prepared to state the names of the companies. In addition to the above sum there may probably be a charge against the Vote for the Bankruptcy Department for the cost of shorthand notes of public examination of Directors and others in cases where there are no available assets. With regard to the latter portion of the question, the Official Receiver reports that he has not found it necessary in any case, up to the present, to ask the shareholders to become liable for any costs or expenses incurred by him.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the suitable acknowledgment of the bravery exhibited by the Lowestoft fishermen in saving life in the North Sea on 13th December last, which he has already promised to consider?

Yes, Sir; a silver medal for gallantry has been awarded to the skipper and a bronze medal and £2 to the third hand in the case alluded to by the hon. Member. The Board of Trade have also offered to pay for the boat lost and to defray any expenses incurred for the subsistence of the rescued crew.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Volunteer Artillery will be supplied with the Martini-Henry carbine; how many there are ready for issue, and if there should not be sufficient to supply the whole force; will he direct a certain number to be issued to each brigade or battery, thus following the precedent set in the preliminary distribution of Martini-Henry rifles to the Rifle Volunteers?

A large number of the Martini-Henry rifles are being converted into carbines, but I am sorry to say there will still be a little delay before they are ready for issue.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in order to simplify the express delivery of letters, he will have provided for sale to the public crimson stamps similar in shape to those used in the United States, and having the word "Express" printed across them, so that a person who wishes to send a letter by express post may do so, as in the United States, by affixing such a stamp and posting the letter, without the necessity of giving his name and address to a postal official; and whether he will also provide crimson envelopes marked "Express," and each impressed with a 3d. stamp, to be used as aforesaid for the express post?

A person wishing to send a letter by the Post Office express service can do so without giving his name and address to any postal official. Also, by marking the letter in the manner prescribed by the regulations, he can, if he wishes, post it in any letter-box, and it will be picked out from the ordinary correspondence and delivered as an express letter. In these circumstances, it does not seem necessary to issue a special stamp for express letters. Moreover, there is a serious objection to the use of a special stamp, because persons would often not have one in hand at a moment of emergency. If the use of the stamps were optional, so that some express letters bore them and others not, there is a serious risk lest letters not bearing such stamps might be overlooked. The same objection applies to the use of special envelopes. If a special stamp or envelope were issued, about 17,000 offices would have to be supplied with them, and this would involve a good deal of labour and cost.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding his statement, with the very express letter which I sent to him, enclosing this question, I had to give my name and address to the officials, who would not accept it otherwise?

I am told it is quite unnecessary.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, now that permission has been given to transmit bookpost matter in open envelopes, he will provide envelopes for sale to the public, and embossed with a halfpenny stamp, and at what rate; whether he will make arrangements for the halfpenny stamp to be embossed on envelopes provided by the public, and what will be the charge for such embossing; and whether, now that adhesive halfpenny stamps may be affixed to open envelopes containing circulars, &c., he will allow such adhesive stamps to be affixed to privately provided postcards?

The expedient mentioned in the first paragraph is being considered with reference to the probable demand. I may mention that the public have never taken much to the Post Office envelopes with embossed penny stamps. If it be adopted there would probably be no objection to emboss private envelopes with a stamp of the same value. The charge for so doing would be settled with the Inland Revenue Department. The question of allowing privately printed cards with an adhesive halfpenny stamp to pass as postcards is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the new "letter cards" are printed by contract; and whether he is aware that they might be printed for 11d. per ten, leaving a fair trade profit to the printer?

The letter cards are printed under an arrangement which admits of a re-consideration of the price whenever a fresh order is given. There is no contract for a period of time. In the second paragraph of the question 1d. for ten is no doubt meant, not 11d., as the latter would be the price to the public including the postage. So far as the information obtainable by the Inland Revenue Department enables them to judge, the cards cannot, in view of the difficulty of manufacture, be supplied at anything like so low a charge as 1d. for ten.

Who is the present printer, and does he at present charge 2d. for every ten cards? And I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be good enough to take into consideration the whole facts of the case; and whether, if I will bring a printer who will print these cards at 1d; for ten and still make a profit, he will entertain the offer?

As I have already stated, the Inland Revenue Authorities considered that the price was not more than, sufficient to cover the expense; but I shall always be glad to receive and consider any information which may be given to me.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the price per million we are paying for printing these cards?

I cannot answer that question offhand.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House what instructions have been given to the representative of the Board of Agriculture, who is to hold a local inquiry respecting the proposal to form a camp and rifle range in the New Forest; and whether such instructions extend to an inquiry into the injury that will be inflicted upon the cottagers of the New Forest, who exercise common rights, and upon the public, who resort to the New, Forest, for purposes of recreation and art and scientific research?

Mr. Pelham's instructions are to inquire into the suitability and safety of the proposed rifle range, for which purpose he will hear and report upon any objections which may be made by the commoners or others resident in the locality. I think the instruction to the Commissioner is sufficiently, wide to cover any question which can arise in connection with the use of the New Forests. As to the appointment of. Mr. Pelham, I may add that he in no way represents the Board of Agriculture, and that he has been selected in consequence of his having had so much experience in holding public inquiries for Boundary and other Commissions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the proposed rifle range in the New Forest actually comes Up to a road much frequented in summer between Lyndhurst and Hythe; and whether it is intended to close this road during the annual camp?

I cannot identify on the map any road between the places named which can be interfered with by the proposed rifle range; or which can be rendered unsafe to the travelling public. The matter is one, however, which would naturally be included in the local inquiry about to be held. If the hon. Gentleman would care to point out to me more particularly the road to which he alludes, I would be prepared to give him the information.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British and American Behring Sea, Commissioners have signed a Joint Report, embodying a statement of facts as regards all points connected with the seal industry on which there is no dispute; if so, will he state what these are; and whether any agreement has been arrived at on the main questions at issue, regarding a close season and the prohibition of pelagic sealing; and, if not, will these and other points, upon which no agreement has been arrived at, be referred to arbitration?

The British and American Commissioners have signed a Joint Report as stated in the hon. Member's question, but the details of the contents thereof have not yet reached the Foreign Office. No agreement has yet been arrived at regarding the establishment of a close season or the prohibition of pelagic sealing. These points and others, upon which the two Governments are unable to agree, will be referred to arbitration under the Convention recently signed and now under the consideration of the Senate of the United States.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will inform the House what is the estimated total cost of the British Army for 1892–3; and what portions of this amount will consist of receipts from British taxes, sundry receipts, and receipts out of taxation from India and certain Crown Colonies?

The House is already informed, on page 231 of the Army Estimates, that the total gross cost of the British Army, including the Auxiliary Forces, but excluding that portion of it serving in India, is £18,611,450. Of this it is estimated that £980,250 will be paid by India, the Colonies, and Egypt, leaving £17,631,200 to be met by taxation in the United Kingdom.

Does that amount include the Indian contribution?

That is, of course, part of the deduction which is made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the basis on which it is estimated that the expenditure for raising and training recruits for India was £750,000 in 1891–2, and will be £850,000 in 1892–3; whether his attention has been called to the statement that this large sum of money "is simply a tribute paid by India to the War Office for the privilege of receiving British regiments on loan at India's expense from the moment they leave England until the day when they are safely landed back again"; and whether the increase for the coming year of £100,000 under this head has been made with the sanction and approval of the Indian Government?

The sum to be paid by India for effective charges in 1890 exceeds that of the previous year, because there is included an estimated sum for arrears for 1887–88, of which the final adjustment has not yet been made. The exact amount to be awarded will be determined by Lord Northbrook's Committee. The state- ment referred to in the second paragraph of the question seems to me quite inaccurate. India pays partially the cost of raising and training the drafts required to keep the European Army in that Dependency complete and efficient.

I would like the right hon. Gentleman to answer the last paragraph of the question, which I think he has omitted.

I think it is apparent that the precise amount will be settled by Lord Northbrook's Committee, and neither by the Indian Government nor the War Office.

Is it not the fact that the people of India pay all the expenses of the troops in India?

Certainly.

And is it not the fact that the removing charges are being increased this year by £100,000?

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman must ask the representative of the India Office about that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost entailed by doing away with the stoppages for sea-kit; and whether this expenditure is to be borne by the British or Indian Exchequer?

The estimated cost entailed by doing away with the stoppages for sea-kit will amount to about £1,000 a year on the British funds, and to about £3,500 a year on the Indian Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when a Bill will be introduced to enable County Councils to contribute towards the expense of inquiries into parochial charities, in accordance with his communication of January last to the Conference of Joint Education Committees, under the Intermediate Education Act for Wales?

I should be disposed to introduce such a Bill at once. It, however, will have to be understood that the Government will not press the Bill if Amendments are brought forward for the purpose of enlarging its scope. If it is generally understood that the discussion on the Bill will be confined to this one point, I should endeavour to pass such a measure.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has considered the desirability of providing for a cash-on-delivery system in connection with the Parcel Post, similar to that in use in other countries; and, if so, whether he proposes to adopt the system?

Such a scheme as that suggested has been very fully considered, but the Treasury have intimated that in their Lordships' opinion it is not expedient to adopt it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether tenders have been invited for a mail car service from Castletown Berehaven to Lehanmore; whether he has received a tender to give such service at the same or even less remuneration than is paid at present to two rural messengers; and whether, in view of the fact that a mail car service will be a great convenience to that district at no extra expense to the State, he will at once sanction it before the fishing season commences?

Tenders have not been invited for a mail car service, and no tender has been received for such a service at the same rate as that now paid or for less. The posts in this neighbourhood already entail a loss on the Revenue, and no arrangement is practicable for securing the improvement desired.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider any proposal which may be laid before him on the subject?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the present condition of Pahang is satisfactory; and whether Sir C. C. Smith, Governor of the Straits Settlements, was able successfully to suppress the late disturbances with police in a few days; and, if so, whether any considerable expense was incurred?

The condition of Pahang is satisfactory in so far as a disturbance has been quelled without any disposition being shown on the part of the general population to side with the disturber of the peace. This result was attained in a few weeks (not days) with police and local levies. The amount of expense incurred is not yet known, but was probably very moderate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the detailed accounts of the Shipbuilding Votes will be presented; and whether they will be in the hands of Members, in accordance with practice, before the Navy Estimates are taken in Committee of Supply? I should also like to ask when the Navy Estimates will be taken?

In reply to the question on the Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the information now given by the Shipbuilding Votes is very voluminous, and far exceeds in detail and minuteness that given a few years back. Owing to the Audit Act passed two years ago, all these details are now subject to the audit of the Comptroller and Auditor General; and, therefore, this information has to be prepared and checked with an amount of care not previously considered necessary, and as the future Estimates are regulated by the expenditure of the past, the Return cannot be finally completed until the latest and most accurate Return is available as regards the past. I am afraid that this detailed information will not be in the hands of Members before the general discussion, but I have arranged that 150 copies of the abstract of the Shipbuilding Programme shall be distributed on Saturday morning, and any Member requiring this abstract who leaves his name at the Vote Office will have a copy sent him. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's further question, I have to state that we hope to take the Navy Estimates on Monday.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there has been any further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Isle of Sheppey since the first case reported some weeks ago; and if not, whether, considering the enormous loss which will be occasioned to Sheppey farmers if they are not permitted to receive back their sheep which have been put out to keep, many thousands of which would, under ordinary circumstances, be now returning to the island, he will now either withdraw the order of isolation or reduce the area of isolation to the places that have been infected?

The first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on the Isle of Sheppey occurred on the 12th February on premises at Cowsted Marshes, near Minster. On the 27th the disease broke out on a farm about a mile distant belonging to the same proprietor. To-day, I regret to say, a further outbreak is reported on a farm about three-quarters of a mile from the last-named place, as occurring among sheep on the marshes. In these circumstances, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that I am not justified in withdrawing the order for isolation, nor do I think it would be safe, having regard to the peculiar position of the Island of Sheppey, to reduce the area of isolation in the manner suggested.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, the importation of cattle from Denmark having been prohibited by Order in Council since 1st February, and it having been clearly shown by evidence officially taken in that country that no foot-and-mouth disease has existed there for many years, or exists now, he will intimate when he proposes to remove the prohibition, and so re-open a very important branch of trade materially affecting the wants of consumers in the Metropolis and elsewhere?

It is true that, according to the latest official information which I have received, there is no evidence of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease in Denmark, and I believe that that country is free from it, and I have received assurances to that effect; but it does not follow that the Danish beasts, among which it was first discovered in the Metropolitan Market, had not contracted the disease before their arrival in England. The disease is known to be extremely prevalent across the Danish frontier, especially in Schleswig-Holstein; and, as hon. Members are no doubt aware, it can be conveyed with the greatest ease in a variety of ways; and I am still of opinion, from all the information I have before mo, that the Danish animals were infected with the disease before landing in this country. I must also demur to the assumption that the wants of consumers in the Metropolitan area and elsewhere are materially limited by the prohibition of the import of live animals from Denmark. The hon. Member is probably not aware how trifling these imports are in proportion to the whole meat supply of the country, and perhaps I may be allowed to state to the House, as it is a matter of some importance, what these imports are. It is estimated that the home produce constitutes nearly 70 per cent. of the whole consumption. Over 22 per cent. consists of imported dead meat. Seven per cent. consists of live importations from other than European countries; the live animals imported from European countries constitute less than 1 per cent. of the whole consumption of this country; and of that 1 per cent. less than one-third comes to us from Denmark. In view, then, of these facts, and of the loss and the inconvenience already entailed upon this country by the return of foot-and-mouth disease, and of the further loss which I am afraid, in spite of every exertion which has been made, and will be made, is still before us in the future, I am clearly of opinion that this is not the time to relax any precautions on the imports of cattle from abroad, and that, on the contrary, if I take further action at all, it must be in the direction of an increase of those restrictions rather than a diminution.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for. War whether he is able to state the exact results of recent experiments conducted with a view to ascertain the effective range of the Lee-Metford rifle, and especially what is found to be the extreme range of a ricochet shot fired from that rifle?

The recent experiments show that the Lee-Metford rifles, at the extreme range, give an average of 3,500 yards, and the longest obtained was 3,700 yards. I am informed that a ricochet shot would certainly not travel so far, and that the extremest point of possible danger from ricochet may be taken at 3,000 yards.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have received a Copy of all laws promulgated by the South Africa Company in Mashonaland and Mata-beleland, and whether, if so, he will lay it upon the Table of the House; whether the Company possesses any power to legislate in regard to the natives of these countries; and, if so, from whom it derives this power; and whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Proclamation of the High Commissioner of South Africa in regard to the worthless character of all land concessions alleged to have been granted by Lo Bengula, which Proclamation was issued in July last or thereabouts, and state whether the land concession now owned by the Chartered Company of South Africa is one of these concessions?

Three Ordinances have been passed by the British South Africa Company. There will be no objection to lay them on the Table, as well as any future Ordinances of the Company which the hon. Member may desire to see. The power of the Company to legislate for the preservation of peace and order, which involves to a certain extent the exercise of authority over natives, is derived from the Crown by Clause 10 of the Charter. As regards the third paragraph of the question, the hon. Member will perhaps state more specifically what proclamation he refers to. I do not know of any answering the description, but there is no doubt that the recent Land Concession of Lo Bengula is not of a worthless character.

Am I to understand that the Crown claims authority over all natives within the sphere of British influence—sovereign authority?

No; I said that the power of the company to legislate for the preservation of peace and order is derived from the Crown by Clause 10 of the Charter.

But whence does the Crown derive it, and claim sovereignty over all natives within the area of British influence?

I must ask notice of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that by law the water rates become due quarterly, and on the first day of each quarter in advance; that persons neglecting to pay the rate when it becomes legally due are liable to have their water out off; with the result that most householders are usually legally in arrear owing to the custom of the water rates being demanded only half yearly, when one quarter has expired, and another is partly due; and of the abusive power that this difference between law and custom places in the hands of the Water Companies, he contemplates legislative action to amend the law on this point?

I do not know, Sir, whether, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary supposes that I should answer this question, but as he is not in the House I will do so. The Acts of the Water Companies usually provide that the water rates shall be paid in advance by equal quarterly payments, and I believe it is the case that the water rates, as a general rule, are only demanded half-yearly. The Acts also usually empower the companies, where the rates are payable by the occupiers, to cut off the supply if the water rate is not duly paid at any of the times of payment specified in the Act. The result of these provisions would appear to be that a company might cut off the supply if the rates were in arrear, although they had not actually been demanded. The question of the continuance of this power is, I think, one which should be considered when there is any further general legislation with regard to the Water Companies. At the same time, I may say that I have never had brought under my notice any case where this power has been abused by a company.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the mode in which a Treaty between the King of Uganda and the British East Africa Chartered Company was received from that Monarch by Captain Lugard; and whether any steps were taken to learn whether the King was a free agent in the matter before the Treaty thus obtained was recognised by Her Majesty's Government?

The Reports respecting the conclusion of the Treaty were carefully considered. They show that the King signed voluntarily, after full and careful explanation of its contents and after having taken time for consideration. The force with Captain Lugard was far too small to coerce or overawe so powerful a Chief.

Am I to understand that Captain Lugard was wrong in his conclusion when he wrote in his Report that the Treaty was signed by the King in the presence of a body of picked men with fixed bayonets?

The hon. Member must not understand anything more than the Report contains. If my memory serves me aright, the Report says that there were 20 men with bayonets in a tent, but that the tent was surrounded by a large crowd of the Uganda people.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in performance of the pledge given by the late Leader of the House on 6th July last, he will move for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the whole question of the revision of the Statute Law?

I have to say that a Statute Law Revision Bill will shortly be introduced in another place, and the Government propose to redeem the pledge given by the late Leader of the House last year, and to ask for the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the general question of the Statute Law Revision, to which this Bill may be referred. I hope this will meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before taking the Report of the Vote of £91,000 in aid of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund, he will lay upon the Table, or communicate to the House, the actuarial Reports of 1885 and 1891, and the Report of the Committee of Actuaries recently appointed to investi- gate the alleged error of 1885, in consequence of which it is proposed to subtract £91,000 from the Irish education grant?

There will not be time before the end of the financial year for the Government to lay on the Table an exhaustive Report on this subject; and it would be inconvenient to present a too early actuarial valuation. A Treasury Memorandum is being prepared, and it will be laid on the Table of the House and in the hands of Members in plenty of time for the discussion on the Report of this important Vote.

; I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is prepared to grant a Select Committee to inquire into the question of the registration of midwives, with power to take evidence on oath?

The Government have no objection to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Draft Charter of the Gresham University being referred back to the Privy Council, it is understood that it will be brought before a Royal Commission?

The answer to my hon. Friend is in the affirmative. It is not possible to refer this Charter back to the Royal Commission. All that can be done is to refer it back to the Privy Council; and if that be done, as I trust it will, it must be on the understanding that it will be subsequently referred to the Royal Commission. The Commission, however, must be a new Commission, because the old Commission has come to an end. Care will be taken to make the Commission a stronger one; but my answer must not be taken as indicating that the members of the old Commission are not to be asked to serve again.

Will the whole question of University education in London be referred to the Commission?

I think that would be too large a question. I think the inquiry should be confined to the establishment of a teaching University in London on a broad basis, and in accordance with the views of the House.

If the Commission is dissatisfied with the present proposal, will they have power to make a new proposal themselves?

Very full powers will be given to the Commission. It will be a vain machine if it has no power to make a proposal.

Will the Commission have power to inquire into the arrangements made by the examining University?

I think it would be a misfortune to interfere with the existing examining University. The object of the House generally is to obtain a teaching University worthy of this great centre, and I do not think we should gain by adding to the labours of the Commission an inquiry into the examining University.

Will the right hon. Gentleman propose any Motion on the subject to the House?

Some Motion must be accepted to-night, because the Draft Charter is on the Table of the House, land must be got rid of in some way or other. The Motion to be accepted by the House ought, of course, to be drawn in conformity with the answer I have given.