said, that he desired to make a statement with regard to this Bill. Some days ago he had intimated his intention to oppose the measure in the interests of his constituents, but the discussion had then been adjourned in view of the peculiar circumstances under which the House had met. The Bill would be again brought forward Tomorrow, but as the result of an agreement that had been entered into between the parties interested his opposition to the measure would be withdrawn. The principal point in dispute was with regard to the regulation of the train service from Kirkcaldy, and as the railway company had now given an undertaking that permission should be given to passengers to travel by a particular train he should not further oppose the Bill.

on behalf of of Sir J. CARMICHAEL, moved for a Return Public Expenditure (Exchequer Issues), on Taxes, for each year 1857–;8 to 1894–5 Charges (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 255, of Session 1894).

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any agreement has been come to between the Irish Government and the National Commissioners of Education with regard to the Christian Brothers' Schools?

The Chief Secretary is not a member of the House at the present moment, but I may say that we have had no time to consider this or any other question since we came into Office.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence which has passed between the late Lord Lieutenant and the Commissioners?

That question will be at once considered by the new Irish officials, but until they have had an opportunity of seeing the correspondence it would be premature to make any promise that we will make it public.

On behalf of Mr. William Redmond: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Committee to inquire into the grievances of the Post Office servants will consider the claims of the rural postmen for better wages and an eight hours day?

As the late Postmaster General stated on June 21, in reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, the Committee on Post Office Establishments have a discretionary power to examine any persons in the service of the Department, other than those belonging to the clerical establishments of the chief offices, who the Committee may have reason to believe have authority to make representations to them on the position and prospects of any classes of employés in the service of the Department. This, of course, covers the case of rural postmen. I beg, however, to add that, though the attendance of rural postmen may be spread over a longer period, their actual work is now limited to eight hours.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, as Ecclesiastical Commissioner, whether the Church Estates Commissioners have sanctioned an application by the Vicar of Cowfold, Sussex, to let on building leases a portion of the glebe which, since the year 1804 has been let as allotment gardens to the occupiers of a row of cottages directly opposite, and standing on a narrow piece of ground between the road and the churchyard; whether a petition against the granting of such application has been presented to the Commissioners and to the Bishop of London (the patron of the living), signed by the county and district councillors representing the parish, all the members of the parish council, the church wardens, and almost all the owners and ratepayers of the parish; and whether, under these circumstances, the Commissioners will withhold their consent from the proposed building scheme, or from so much of it as will deprive the occupiers of those cottages of the privilege which they have so long enjoyed of renting allotment gardens which are virtually necessary for the enjoyment of their houses?

A proposal has been submitted for letting upon building leases certain portions of the glebe of Cowfold, Sussex, having a frontage to the village street. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with the concurrence of the patron, cannot withhold their sanction if they are satisfied, after a full consideration of the circumstances, that the proposal will conduce to the permanent advantage of the benefice. The Commissioners will doubtless suggest that other suitable land shall be found for the allottees before they are disturbed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a girl has been dismissed from Messrs. Swan and Edison's Works at Ponders End for joining the women's union, a branch of the Electrical Trades Union; whether the manager has stated that any girl joining the union will be dismissed; and whether the Admiralty mean to enforce the decision accepted by the Treasury in the McCorquodale case, that any worker employed on a Government contract should be at liberty to join a trades union?^*The right hon. Baronet further asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to the strike of electrical workers at Ponders End, whether an answer had been received by the Admiralty from the company; and, if so, to what effect?

I regret that the Admiralty have not yet at their disposal information sufficient to enable me to reply to the questions of the right hon. Baronet. The Admiralty are in communication with the Edison and Swan Electric Light Company on the subject, and I hope shortly to receive their explanation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether anyone who is a wholesale wine and spirit merchant, and who advances money to publicans, can be allowed to sit and vote on the Watch Committee of a Town Council?

The members of the Watch Committee of a borough are appointed by the Town Council, under Section 190 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. I am aware of no legal disqualification which would prevent such persons as are referred to in the question being members of a Watch Committee. By Subsection 3 of Section 22 of the same Act it is enacted that—

"A member of the council shall not vote or take part in the discussion of any matter before … a committee, in which he has, directly or indirectly, by himself or by his partner, any pecuniary interest."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with regard to the case of Surgeon Lea, of H.M.S. Ringarooma, who, doubting the mental fitness of Captain Johnson for the Command of the ship, had him put on the sick list, whereupon the captain put the doctor under arrest, from which he was released almost at once by the senior naval officer of the port; what was the finding of the Court Martial convened by Admiral Bridge to try Surgeon Lea; whether he is aware that the Court ruled that they had not anything to do with the question of the captain's health, and refused to hear evidence on the point of his mental fitness, and also refused Surgeon Lea's offer to produce medical evidence; whether telegrams and reports have been received at the Admiralty from Sydney, where the Court Martial was held, and what decision has been come to on the question; what length of service has Surgeon Lea had; and whether it is a fact that his record is an untarnished one?

The papers have only just reached me, and I must have time to consider the evidence given at the Court Martial, and also to consult with my naval advisers upon the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Return Navy (Shipbuilding Programme), of which Notice was given on the Order Book on 19th February, and which was ordered by the House 28th March, will be presented?

The Return in question has been prepared by the Admiralty in accordance with the prescript; but on examination the presentation of the figures was found to be somewhat misleading. I will consider in what manner the form of the Return can be improved so as to convey the desired information, so as to give satisfaction to the hon. Members interested.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that it is very little known by the public of the United Kingdom that, by the Coinage Acts, the bronze coins issued from the Mint are required to be struck of the following weights, viz.: the penny, one-third of an avoirdupois ounce; the half-penny, one-fifth of an ounce; and the farthing, one-tenth of an ounce; whether, in order that the public may understand that they enjoy the advantage of carrying in their pockets these divisions of an ounce (five farthings, or a half-penny and a farthing together making half an ounce), he will in future issues of bronze coins consider the advantage of having the weight of each coin stamped on its face; and, if he will also consider whether the diameter of the half-penny, which is exactly one inch, might with advantage be marked on the face of each coin?

The weight of the bronze coins and the diameter of the half-penny are correctly stated, but the hon. Member's addition is a little at fault, as it is not the case that "five farthings, or a half-penny and a farthing together," make half an ounce. The words should be "five farthings, or two half-pennies and a farthing" together. I do not know whether the object of the hon. Member in making the suggestion is that the coins in question should be used by the public as measures of weight and length. I think there would be obvious difficulties in such a course, and as at the present advised, I do not think it would be desirable to make any additions to the inscriptions on our coinage.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will at the same time consider the advisability of stamping upon the coins, in addition to their weight and diameter, where they come from, so that we may recognise whether they come into an empty pocket from a Peer or a Baronet. [Cries of "Order"]

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any financial provision will be made to give effect to the recommendations of the Department Committee (Educational) regarding the superannuation of teachers in elementary schools in England and Wales?

I am quite aware of the importance of this subject; but my hon. Friend will, no doubt, understand that nothing in the way of financial provision can be made without the previous passing of an Act of Parliament defining the nature of the scheme to be adopted. I find, on inquiry, that the subject has received much consideration from the late Government; but at present I can say no more than that the matter shall receive my early and careful attention.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, with regard to the strict wording of the Sheriff Court Act of 1838, Section 2, in relation to the necessary qualifications of sheriff deputes, it is his intention, following the precedent of 1887, to introduce a short Act to legalise the appointment of the hon. Member for North East Lanarkshire as sheriff depute of Aberdeenshire, Banff, and Kincardine?

I do not intend to introduce such a Bill, as I consider that the Gentleman referred to in the question possesses the statutory qualifications for the office to which he has been appointed. The case of 1887 was essentially different.

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. T. LOUGH), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Parliamentary Electors serving on board the Channel Fleet, vessels mobilising, port guard ships, and other vessels on Home service, will be given facilities to exercise the Franchise at the approaching General Election?

Yes, Sir; all facilities will be given as far as the conduct of the Service will admit.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would convey the information to the proper quarters in order that the men might be duly informed that they had the privilege?

said, there was every disposition on the part of the Admiralty to see that each voter should have all possible facility for voting, having regard of course to the requirements of the service and the safety of Her Majesty's vessels.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the exact nature of the obligations incurred with the French Government, in pursuance of which the Extradition Bill has been introduced; and by what means were such obligations contracted?

said, the statement he made in the answer previously given in regard to this Bill was influenced by the view taken by the Home Office. He had made further inquiries, and found in the Foreign Office that there were no treaty obligations to fulfil which required this Bill. Therefore, the statement originally given by him was made under a misapprehension.

Has there been any correspondence on the subject?

So far as I remember, this matter has not been the subject of correspondence.

asked the Leader of the House whether he could relieve the uncertainty which was still felt as to whether the borough pollings could take place on Saturday if the Writs were sent out on Monday afternoon and were not received by the returning officer until Tuesday morning.

Yes, I have made inquiries into the matter, and I am informed that if the Writs are received before 4 p.m. on Tuesday the polls might take place on Saturday, Saturday being in that case the earliest possible day.

Is it not possible for the Prorogation and the Dissolution to take place on Saturday?

I am afraid it would be impossible, or almost impossible, to carry out that plan. It is quite true that two Councils were held in 1892 on the same day, one for the Prorogation and the other for the Dissolution; but on that occasion there was no work to be done in the House of Lords before the Councils met. On this occasion the House of Lords must sit on Saturday, as they will have to pass the Third Reading of various Bills. After that has been done the Royal Assent will have to be given, and it would not be possible to do all that business in the House of Lords and to hold two subsequent Councils on the same day. But the hon. Member will have gathered from my previous answer that this will not affect the pollings taking place on Saturday.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he intended to explain to the House the precise terms of the mail contracts which were on the Paper for to-day.

The contracts and Treasury Minutes were laid upon the Table of the House a few days ago, but they have not yet been circulated. There would, no doubt, be some objection to taking these Orders to-day. I propose, however, to make a statement in regard to them, and if the House is satisfied with my statement the contracts might be approved to-day.

desired to ask whether it was intended to proceed with this Bill, and whether the Government were not aware that there was considerable opposition to it. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Well, he was opposed to it, and he was aware that several of his hon. Friends, who were not present, would have resisted it in a most determined manner had they been in the House. His hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was warmly opposed to it. No one had a wider knowledge and experience than his hon. Friend had of the law—["Hear, hear?" from the Ministerial Benches]—which he had found already quite drastic enough if enforced. [Renewed ironical Ministerial cheers and laughter, and cries of "Order."] At any rate, there was opposition, not only from those who believed that the law itself was properly enforced, but from those who felt that the conditions of this Bill were of so vague a character that they would have the effect of excluding poor men from the House.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the Bill passed its Second Reading nemine contradicente, and that it was most carefully considered in Grand Committee, where it met with no opposition.

pointed out that, although there was no Division on the Second Reading, yet a Division, which was largely supported, took place on the question of adjournment, which was really the same thing.

asked whether the hon. Member was aware of the circumstances under which that Division took place? The only question was, whether the Bill should be sent to Grand Committee, and in the Grand Committee the only discussion that took place was as to whether the Bill should be further extended. No opposition was made to the principle of the Bill in the Grand Committee.

If many more questions are asked about this matter, I shall know all about the Bill. I think there has been no opposition to the principle of the Bill and no desire to minimise it, but that there was rather a desire to extend its operation. Under the present circumstances hon. Members will probably agree that half a loaf is better than n bread. I hope under the circumstances there will be no opposition to the Order for the consideration of the Bill, but if there is to be the kind of opposition that has been foreshadowed it would be impossible and, indeed, the Government would have no desire to force the Bill down the throats of hon. Members.

said, that it was understood to be a measure intended to meet the case of Dr. Herz, but if that were so it would be useless unless a provision were inserted for trying an accused person in his absence. He had spoken to the late law officers on the subject, and they had informed him that they saw no objection to the inclusion of such a provision. The text of the Bill dealt everywhere with fugitive criminals only, and he was not lawyer enough to say whether this would cover the case of a man who was willing to meet the charges brought against him. He did not know whether the Bill would really cover a case like that of Dr. Herz.

said, that while not disagreeing with the principle of this Bill, he desired to know a little more as to its history. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated the other day that the Bill had been introduced in consequence of obligations incurred with the French Government, but that statement had been to a great extent removed to-day. (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: "Entirely."] It was said it had been entirely removed, and that there were no treaty obligations and no correspondence on the subject between this country and France, but he thought it would be well for the House to know that there had been no pressure of any description used by one Government towards the other. The Bill as it stood could not possibly have any application to a case where a defendant was willing to meet the charge against him but was prevented from doing so owing to his health having declined. During the period that Dr. Herz had been in England his health had so declined, and, even if a charge could be heard in the particular place where the accused person resided, unless the Bill were so extended as to allow of the hearing of a case in the defendant's private residence it would not benefit either the French Government or Dr. Herz. If the system of espionage, and apparently the spirit of persecution could be done away with he had no objection to the extension of extradition. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cardiff if it were moved.

said, that as the late Government were responsible for the introduction of this Bill, he might be allowed to say, first, that it was a wholly unfounded idea which had been put forward in some quarters, that this Bill was brought forward in response to pressure from any foreign Government. There had been no correspondence or communication between the British and French Governments on the subject. The Bill was, undoubtedly, suggested to the late Government by the case of Dr. Herz. Without going into the general question of the treatment of Dr. Herz, or the suggestions that he had been subjected to unreasonable espionage, he desired to state that, within the limits which the existing law allowed, the treatment of Dr. Herz, so long as the late Government were responsible in the matter—and he had no doubt that it was so still—had been, not only humane, but most considerate. Dr. Herz had from first to last been treated with indulgence, and there was no foundation whatever for the statement that, so far as the existing law permitted, he had been subjected to any hardship. There was, however, undoubtedly a defect, not only in the existing Act, but in our treaty with France, inasmuch as the treaty demanded that the inquiry should be held in London. He had, however, no doubt that a representation that this condition should be waived would meet with a response from the French Government. It had been said that the Bill would be inoperative to relieve Dr. Herz from the undoubtedly hard position in which he had been placed; but if the opinion of Dr. Herz's doctors were accurate—and he had no doubt that they were—he was not now and never had been while in this country in such a state of health that his examination could have been conducted at all without some danger to his health. He could not help thinking, however, that the health of Dr. Herz might possibly improve, and, if it did, and if this Bill were passed, one objection to the present law as applicable to his case would have been removed. He should object to the Government accepting the proviso unless it were safeguarded by an Amendment.

hoped that if this Bill were to pass the hon. Member would amend his Amendment before he put it on the Paper, in conformity with the conditions suggested by the late Home Secretary.

asked whether under this Bill Cape Colony and Natal would be able to extend their borders without reference to that House.

replied in the negative. The Bill was brought in by the late Government. It was intended to remove doubts, but not more than doubts, as to annexations which had taken place. Such doubts had arisen, and the Bill would remove them.

said this Bill was regarded in some respects as a dangerous Bill. He thought that it could not be doubted that the Bill contained a dangerous principle. It exposed a poor man to actions at law, and where a poor man opposed a rich man there would be a petition. With regard to the first clause, there was a provision as to a statement made before a Parliamentary Election. At any time before? Surely that would need Amendment. He had hoped that the Bill would be withdrawn. Then, again, "any person who makes or publishes any false statements;" but a man might make or publish a false statement without having the slightest intention of doing a candidate any injury.

said, that was provided for in the Bill.

thought the Bill was unnecessary, and that the existing law met offences covered by this Bill. He regarded the Bill as placing an additional obstacle in the way of the poor man.

regarded the opposition of the hon. Member as an absurd farce. The hon. Member had claimed that many Members with him objected to this Bill. He should like to see the number of Members who supported the hon. Member in opposing this Bill. Nothing would delight him more than to put that to the test of a division. The hon. Member wanted to know how long before an election the Bill would apply. That was a practical question. He assumed that the responsibility would commence when a candidate had issued his address. Charges were often made against many of them after their addresses were issued. He was one who had suffered very grievously, and many Members on both sides had suffered, and this was a practice which they ought to put a stop to. Let the hon. Member go into the Division Lobby, and then they should see the number of supporters he had got.

was sorry the hon. Member who had just spoken had mentioned anything like taking a Division, as the statement of the Leader of the House was that they should take only unopposed Bills. No Division which was now taken would be any real test of the opinion of the House with regard to this Bill. It was understood that the Bill would be considerably amended. What was the fear they entertained? It was that in the case, say, of a poor man who was contesting a seat against a rich man a foolish story might be circulated in the constituency during the progress of the election; and under this Bill it would be possible for a petition to be brought against the poor candidate, even as a matter of revenge, and thus he would be in the position of having the petition hanging over his head, with the consequent worry of having to contest it in an Election Court, which eventually might decide in his favour. Hon. Gentlemen would, no doubt, say that this position of affairs was not possible and that the election agent must be personally responsible for any statement made. But he pointed out that under the Bill as it stood if any money was paid for the publication of any particular statement the candidate was liable.

Only if paid by the candidate himself or the expense agent. The hon. Gentleman will find in the principal Act that the illegal practice, to sustain a petition, must be done by the candidate himself or by the principal agent.

said, that this particular clause did not apply to the special Act. If a sub-agent in the excitement of the election day, having a story brought to him which might be hostile to the candidate and which might prove to be untrue, took the responsibility of printing and circulating it, the candidate was responsible and liable for all the expenses. The Bill would have been much more acceptable if the responsible agent had been made liable with regard to the circulation of any particular statement. There was no definition of the words "any other agent." "Agent" was a term capable of wide interpretation indeed, and it might be held to include a private secretary or a chairman of Committee. He contended, therefore, that the definition was so wide that any person feeling aggrieved by a foolish statement would have reasonable ground for lodging an election petition. This was the only objection he offered to the Bill. They were all anxious that everything should be done to put an end to the circulation of slanderous statements, but, at the same time, they were also anxious that it should not be possible for a man, solely because he was defeated, to take the advantage which this Bill would give him, to bring forward an election petition and keep it hanging for months over the head of a candidate.

referred to the statement of the hon. Member that the First Lord of the Treasury had promised that no Bill would be taken if it was opposed. This was not the statement of his right hon. Friend. What the Government had said was that they would not take any Business that might fairly be called contentious. He thought, however, that this could not be called a contentious Bill, looking especially to the circumstances in which it had reached its present stage. Indeed, the hon. Member and his Friends said that they were burning with a desire that something should be done to prevent the circulation of the slanderous statements against which this Bill was directed. He did not accuse the hon. Member for Shipley of having any sympathy with the circulation of slanderous statements, but he maintained that it was the interest of both sides of the House that a practice already very common, and of late grown much more common, should be peremptorily put down. The hon. Member was afraid that something would happen if statements were made before an election. The contingency contemplated was not probable; but it was a common practice at election times to find that some statement detrimental and dishonourable to the candidate was brought forward on the eve of the election, and when the candidate might find himself in a position where it was impossible promptly to contradict it. He did not think that a more disgraceful practice could be conceived, and he was sure that the desire of the House would be to deal with such a scandal. He thought also that there was evidence even in the present election that the necessity of some such Bill as this was paramount. He would take his own case. He had that morning received nearly half-a-dozen letters calling his attention to statements made in newspapers, and also by candidates and their agents, to the effect that the vote he had given with reference to small arms ammunition was dictated by the fact that some of his relatives had a pecuniary interest in an undertaking which had received an order from the Government.

Does the Bill deal with that?

Yes, I think it would. In one of the cases brought before him it was said that his hands were tainted. He was not a lawyer, but he imagined that this statement was a libel. According to the opinion of his hon. Friend, however, his proper remedy was to proceed by action for damages for libel. But his hon. Friend knew that it was not a very plea- sant thing to appeal for damages, because in order to secure damages one must say that he had been specifically damaged by the statements. He had not been so damaged by this statement, and his opponents could make it until they were black in the face. [Laughter.] Under this Bill, however, if a statement of that kind were made by a candidate under all the conditions stated in the Bill without being able to show reasonable ground for believing it, he would be guilty of an illegal practice; and this would be a more deterrent remedy than a probable action for libel which he or any one else should be inclined to bring. In these circumstances he could not believe that the hon. Member who had expressed sympathy with the object of the Bill could persist in his opposition to its progress. The hon. Gentleman was afraid of some abuse arising under the operation of this Bill. That was not his fear. On the contrary, his fear was that the Bill did not go far enough. There was no doubt that it afforded all kinds of loopholes to the persons who were guilty of these acts; but, at any rate, he did not think that the hon. Member need have the slightest fear that any person not clearly guilty could come within its provisions. He trusted, therefore, that this useful Bill would be proceeded with.

showed that the Division which was taken after the Second Reading was whether the Bill should be referred to the Grand Committee or whether the Committee stage should be proceeded with in the House itself. For reference to the Grand Committee 254 voted, and 38 against; but the Division was taken in no sense against the Bill itself. The Bill was very carefully considered in the Committee, and his only difficulty as the Member in charge of it had been to prevent it from being made too drastic. Every Amendment was proposed with that object, and his anxiety had been to cast the Bill in such a form as not to raise any opposition to its further progress in the House. The illegal practice constituting the basis of a petition to unseat must be an illegal practice which the candidate or his principal agent had been a party to, and therefore the measure would only punish a Member who was directly implicated, and who deserved to lose his seat.

suggested that his hon. Friend should allow the Bill to go through the House. They were all agreed that the making of statements of this kind affecting the character of a candidate on the eve of and during an election was a most reprehensible practice. It was a policy which they ought to try to stamp out if possible, as it was certainly reprobated by every reputable politician. On the other hand, he must say that there was a growing tendency to be too thin-skinned in these matters. Most Members of Parliament had in their time been accused of a fair proportion of the crimes in the calendar. He had himself; but he had never looked with concern upon these accusations, which were not seriously meant, which were not believed, and which never influenced a vote on one side or the other. He was sure that the sensible practice would prevail in the future as it had done in the past; and this Bill would only be put in operation in cases where the statement was so clearly malicious, and its possibility of influencing votes was so dangerous, that it could not be treated with absolute indifference. As to the possibility of frivolous petitions, he thought that the safeguards in the fourth clause were adequate. No one would go to the length of presenting a petition unless he had an overwhelming case. He thought his hon. Friends would do well to allow the Bill to pass.

hoped that, in their own interest, hon. Gentlemen who had objected to the Bill would withdraw their objection. It was not necessary to present a petition in order to punish people who might be guilty of slandering a candidate. Such slander would be constituted an illegal practice, and would subject the guilty person to immediate prosecution.

said, that after the appeal of the right hon. Members for West Birmingham and East Fife it was clear that the sense of the House was in favour of passing the Bill. He should not object, therefore, but his own opinion was that the Bill would give rise to election petitions.

asked for an explanation of the Amendment.

said that it was to provide for the case of property which might be let, say, for 30s. a year, while a building on a part of it might have an annual value of £1,000 a year. Without this contribution such property would escape contribution to the local rates.

asked what course was to be taken with regard to the Amendments standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen to include police burghs in the clause.

said, that the Amendments must have been put down under a misapprehension. It would be impossible to carve a police burgh out of the county for the purposes of assessment, as it was not a separate unit of assessment. It was only a part of the county, and if separate principles of valuation were to be applied in the same area, there would be great injustice.

said, that he had read a petition from the burgh of Thurso on this subject. There were a number of Royal burghs in Scotland with less than 1,000 inhabitants, and police burghs with 40,000 to 60,000 inhabitants. In the Police Burgh Bill of 1892 the intention was to place all these burghs in the same position. The Law Officers agreed in Committee to all this, but it was found that, both as to registration and valuation and licences, the large police burghs had not the power the royal burghs had. It was the desire of the large police burghs to have those powers, and he thought they ought to have them.

said, that unless they were to go the length of making each police burgh a unit for the purpose of assessment, they could not carve it out of the county for the purposes of valuation. The counties would, probably, have something to say to such a proceeding. The question was a large one, but was not, however, raised in the Bill.

, in rising to move—

"That the contract dated the 24th day of May 1895, entered into with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company for the performance of the West India mail service be approved,"

said, he was sorry that, owing to delay at the printers, the papers containing this and the Holyhead and Kingstown contract and the Treasury Minutes upon them had not been circulated, as he hoped they would have been that morning. All the Standing Orders required was that the contracts and minutes should be laid on the Table, and that had been done, but he confessed that under ordinary circumstances he would have been inclined to propose to postpone the voting of the contracts. At present time pressed, and therefore he would give a somewhat full explanation of the terms of the contracts in the hope that that would satisfy the House. The first contract was with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and was signed on the 24th of May last. It covered the period from July 1, 1895, to June 30, 1900. The speed on the main line was to be 13 knots and the subsidy £80,000 a year. Under the former contract, which expired on June 30 last, the speed was the same, but the subsidy was £5,000 a year more. Tenders were called for in March last, but the only offers received were from the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. Details of their tenders were given in the minute. After full consideration and communication with the Colonies concerned it was decided to accept the tender now embodied in the contract. The colonies contribute a certain share of the subsidy—in the present year £20,000—but the Treasury did not yet know exactly what the future contribution would be, as it depended partly on the amount of mail matter. He concluded by moving the Motion which stood in his name.

said, he would have been glad to have seen, if possible, a copy of the contract. The question dealt with was one of the greatest practical importance, not only to Ireland but to England, and it was inconvenient, as the right hon. Gentleman had confessed, that a Motion of this kind should be made without Members of the House being afforded the slightest opportunity of considering the terms of the arrangement. Although the letter of the statute had been technically complied with by laying the contract on the Table, he believed the contract had not been printed or circulated, so that the House was asked to affirm a public contract of great importance when it had not had an opportunity of examining its terms and conditions. That, no doubt, was due to the pressure of the time and to the extreme peculiarity of the Parliamentary situation. There were, however, one or two questions he would like answered either by the right hon. Gentleman or by the late Postmaster General, and he could not refrain from acknowledging the debt due from the public to the latter Gentleman for the energy and care which he had applied to the subject. He was glad to hear that the Department retained absolute powers to arrange the times of departure and arrival of the steamers, because future acceleration of the service would have to depend upon the times of arrival and departure, and if the times were now fixed permanently the greatest inconvenience might arise hereafter. He also thought the arrangement whereby the service after the term of 20 years might be brought to an end by one year's notice on either side was a reasonable and satisfactory one. The public in Ireland did hope for a more material acceleration. They believed that if the Department had exerted itself as much as it might have done an acceleration of nearer two hours than one might have been effected. He thought, however, a substantial improvement had been made, and that the arrangement might be regarded with general satisfaction. He desired to know what the estimate of cost of the new ships was, and what were to be the dimensions and powers of the new vessels. It might be more satisfactory if they were told how far the dimensions and powers of the new ships would exceed the dimensions and powers of the ships now in use. It was also well they should be informed what provision was made for such increased accommodation for the mails as the development of traffic in the next 20 years might render necessary.

was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he had said with regard to the manner in which the negotiations had been carried through. The contract provided for ample accommodation on board the mail boats, but as a matter of fact it was found that a great deal of the work which now had to be done on board the ships would be done in the train and the result would be that in the future less instead of greater accommodation on the mail steamers would be required. The specification for the new ships provided that the vessels should be larger than the Ireland, which was the largest of the ships now in use. They would be 371 feet long, of 2,676 tons burden having an indicated horse power of 2,850 horses and have a draught of 14 feet.

, who had an Amendment upon the Paper to leave out the clause, said that he did not intend to press the Amendment, but he should like to hear whether compensation for loss or damage would include compensation for loss of time through the detention of nets which were seized.

said, that the compensation referred to the nets taken. The clause did not raise the question of general damage.

seconded the Amendment because the Bill affected the fishermen at Hull, Grimsby, and various other places in England. The Scottish fishermen, while quite within their right in protecting their own fisheries, ought not to do so in a way which might seriously affect others without those likely to be injured having at least a right to be heard.

said, they did not object to the first part of the proposed Amendment. The language of the second part, however, was very wide. It was proposed that notice should be sent to all sea fishery districts in the United Kingdom; that might mean to Cornwall and other parts which had no interest in the matter. He could not imagine that that was intended. He suggested that for the word "all" in the Amendment the word "such" should be substituted, and that the wording should be—

"And notice of such inquiry shall be sent to such sea fishery districts in the United Kingdom as the Board of Trade shall by rule prescribe."

This, he thought, would meet the case, and he hoped this suggestion would be adopted.

said, there was not such a very large number of sea fishery districts in the United Kingdom, and perhaps some might take umbrage if they did not receive the same notice as the others. There seemed to be a slight objection to bringing the Board of Trade into the matter when the discretion rested entirely in this matter with the Fishery Board for Scotland. He thought the point of difference between the two sides on this matter was a very small one, and he hoped the hon. Member would be prepared to accept a compromise.

said, the matter was not of very great importance, but he did not think there was very much to be gained by sending the notice to other districts than those affected. He thought the number of Scotch fishermen who went down into these English districts was not large, and he did not think anything would be gained by applying the provision to such districts as Cornwall, or by sending notice of these matters to those who were not likely to be concerned. If the hon. Member thought that something would be gained by it they would not press their objection, but he thought that what his hon. Friend had offered was sufficient to meet the case. He thought he might safely say, as the President of the Board of Trade was not present, that the Board of Trade would have regard to any sea fishery interest that might be affected.

said the interests affected were daily increasing in extent, and the question had also to be considered from the point of view of the steam trawlers. These interests were very large, and the amount of capital invested in steam trawling was very great; he thought there could be no objection to the Amendment.

said he was much obliged to his right hon. Friends for the way in which they had received his suggestions. At the same time he thought that interests in Cornwall, which had been instanced, should be protected as much as other interests elsewhere; he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

said it was not a very large question, and possibly the sending of the notices in some cases superfluously would not do much harm. They would be prepared to accept the Amendment with the introduction of the word "Committees."

thought the wording of the third sub-section of Clause 10 was ambiguous, and suggested that it should be made negative instead of positive. The clause as it stood put the position of foreigners and British fishermen somewhat uncertainly. He thought it ought to be said that the exclusion might only take place where conventions had been entered into for placing foreigners under the same disability of fishing within the limit of 13 miles as British subjects. It would be monstrous if these districts should be closed to British fishermen while foreigners should be allowed to come within the area, and catch and sell the fish, and his object was to place foreigners and British fishermen on the same basis.

thought the object might be obtained by substituting the word "no" for "any" in line 16 of the third subsection, and "unless" for "if" inline 18.

said, he should be quite content with this.

then moved, in Subsection 3, line 18, to substitute the word "unless" for the word "if."

said, he would not press his Amendment to omit the clause, under the circumstances, feeling that it would be disastrous to the Bill, but he did not wish it to be supposed that he was at all satisfied with the clause.

said, he was glad that there had been no attempt to amend the Bill in such a way as to make it thoroughly acceptable, because any such effort would no doubt have prevented it from passing altogether. He was quite willing, therefore, to see the Bill pass; but it must be understood, at the same time, that the measure would not be accepted as a settlement of the question. During the last 10 years several attempts had been made to reconstruct the Fishery Board satisfactorily, but without success, and this Bill again failed in that important direction. Three years ago a Bill was introduced by the present Leader of the House which might have led to a settlement of the question if it had been passed, for that Bill contained a principle in regard to the election of the Fishery Board that might have proved satisfactory in working. The fishermen and their representatives in that House were not satisfied, and never would be satisfied, with the existing system of election of the Fishery Board by nomination. In short, the fishermen would never be content, and there would be no settlement of the question until their interests were protected on the Fishery Board by direct representation. Efforts had been made to secure this end in the Bill of 1892, but the present Bill went back to the old system and gave them only a Board of Nominees. The Bill of 1892, moreover, made it compulsory to have the fishery areas round the coast, but the present Bill made it simply permissive. Again, there was no provision for finance in the present Bill as there was in that of 1892. In those respects, therefore, they regarded this Bill as inadequate; but there was one clause in it that would prove beneficial, that which increased the penalties for illegal trawling, and for that clause alone the Bill was worth passing, but he repeated that it would not be regarded as a settlement of the question. In these circumstances he should not oppose the Third Reading.