asked the Lord Advocate, Whether fair rents payable by crofters are, by Clause 6, Section 2, of the Act of 1886, declared to run as from the first term of Whit Sunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision of the Crofters' Commissioners; whether the decision of the Commissioners as regards the estate of South Uist occurred on the 10th of October, 1887; whether, so early as the term of Martinmas, 1887, arrears on the estate of South Uist could under the Act be dealt with or demanded; whether he is aware that in the case of Dugald Walker, crofter, Kilphedder, of South Uist, whose rent was reduced from £5 to £3, and arrears amounting to £52 5s. 3d. cancelled, except as to £6 payable in half-yearly payments of £1, Walker was asked for the first half-yearly instalment within two months of the Commissioners' decree?

The words of Sudsection 2, Clause 6, are that the rent fixed by the Commission shall be deemed to be the rent payable by the crofter as from the first term of Whit Sunday or Martinmas next succeeding the decision. The decision of the Commission on the South Uist rents was dated October 10, 1887. The Commission hold that they are entitled to order payment of the first instalment of arrears found due by them at the next ensuing term. Dugald Walker was asked for the first instalment of arrears found due—namely, £1—at Martinmas, 1887, which was within two months of the decision; but the proprietor did not, as she was entitled to do, require that the stipulated rent as for the previous term should be paid, but intimated that he need only for that term pay the same rent as would in future be paid under the decision of the Commission, and accordingly only £1 10s., instead of £2 10s., of rent was charged.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether a crofter who may for the season allow a cottar or relative the privilege of planting a few potatoes on a patch of the croft thereby incurs the penalty against sub-division and sublet, under Clause 1, Section 4, of the Crofters Act of 1886; whether he is aware that crofters on the estate of South Uist have been warned against granting the privilege; and, in particular, whether Angus Morrison, crofter in Kilphedder, of South Uist, was warned by the ground officer on the estate, on the 3rd of February, 1888, that if he permitted his brother, John Morrison, with 10 of a family, to plant a single potato, he (Angus) would be removed from the croft?

Without knowing the facts, and exact facts, of any case, it is impossible to expect an opinion on the legal question in the first paragraph, which is stated entirely hypothetically. Crofters have been warned against subletting crofts or parts of crofts in South Uist; and the general body of the crofters there have themselves expressed their dissatisfaction at the common pasture being overrun by stock belonging to cottars to whom parts of crofts have been illegally sub-let, to the injury of the township, and threatened the withholding of rant unless steps are taken by the proprietor against these unau- thorized sub-tenants. Angus Morrison, who is referred to in the last paragraph, allowed his brother, John Morrison, to build a house on his croft, and to house a family of 10 in it; and this brother now has planted six barrels of potatoes, and feeds three cattle and four sheep on the township pasture. The ground officer had no authority to make any such threat as is referred to in the last paragraph, and did not do so.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores requested Colonel Hope to report on the Colling-wood gun; that the Report in question was finished in October; the Commission ceased to exist in December; and that the Report was not yet before the public; and whether he will cause it to be published?

said: I am still expecting to receive from the Royal Commission the Supplemental Report referred to. I shall be exceedingly glad when the Papers on this subject can be published.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to a communication addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the 15th of December last, by Mr. Bennett, editor of The Hackney Standard newspaper, Whether inquiry has been made from the French Government as to the case of James Williams, of Hackney, alleged to have been wrongfully imprisoned in France, and who was after wards released on the intervention of the late Lord Lyons; and, if so, what is the result of such inquiry?

James Williams was convicted on March 1, 1886, of complicity in an attempted robbery in Paris, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. It was represented by the prisoner's friends that he was innocent, and would have been acquitted had he not been mistaken at the trial for one William Chapman, who had been condemned in 1872 to three years' imprisonment for a similar offence. After appeals from Her Majesty's Embassy at Paris in his behalf, the prisoner was released on November 14, 1887, on the ground of his bad health and complete prostration, of his satisfactory conduct in prison, and in consequence of Lord Lyons's recommendation. But the French Authorities considered that Williams was guilty of the offence with which he was charged; and, although he was at first mistaken for another man of bad character, they denied that the severity of his sentence was thereby increased. Inquiries in this country showed Williams's former character to be bad, and that he had been imprisoned three times in previous years.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact, as stated in The Freeman's Journal of the 20th of April, that a few little girls were laughing at the police at Letterkenny, when a constable threw down and trampled on a Gweedore orphan, who became unconscious and was carried bleeding into the hospital; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of this case and the conduct of the police in question?

The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that there is no truth in the accusation against the police contained in The Freeman's Journal. The girl informed the District Inspector of Constabulary, in presence of the doctor, that she fell over a stone and was stumbled on by another girl. She did not allege that she had been ill-used by any policeman. Two days after the occurrence the doctor told the District Inspector that the girl was then quite well, and that the injuries which she had received were very slight.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether householders who are workmen occupying houses belonging to their employers on a tenancy determinable with their employment, but for which they pay rent in the shape of a deduction made from their wages, are entitled to have their names inserted in the "tenant" or in the "inhabitant occupier" column of the Valuation Roll; whether a difference of practice prevails as to this, the names of such householders being in some counties inserted as "'tenants," in others as "inhabitant occupiers;" whether, when their names are inserted as "tenants," large numbers of such householders are qualified for and enjoy School Board and municipal franchises; whereas, being inserted as "inhabitant occupiers," they are wholly disqualified for these franchises; and, whether, if these anomalies exist, he will, in preparing a Local Government Bill for Scotland, provide a remedy, so as to place the local franchises on a broad and equal basis?

The hon. Member's Question involves more than one point of law, as to which I can give no authoritative opinion. Where a deduction from wages is made in respect of the occupation of a house owned by the employer, the usual practice is, I understand, to enter the occupiers in the Valuation Roll as tenants. But the difficulty does not arise from the name given to the occupier in the Roll. If the rental of the house is entered in the Roll, then the occupier is placed on the School Board Roll. I shall inquire whether a difference of practice prevails in the making up of the Roll in the case of the class of occupiers referred to in the Question; and if there is I will endeavour to remedy the anomaly.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that Warrant and Non-Commissioned Officers on Army engagement, serving with the permanent Staffs of brigades and battalions of Militia at stations outside the depôt centres, are denied the privilege of a sergeants' mess establishment, with allowance of fuel and light; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of redressing this grievance?

Sergeants' messes have not been considered necessary for Militia brigades or battalions during the non-training period; and as tire sergeants of the permanent staff are for the most part married men, no grievance on such a ground is known to exist. In case of battalions at the headquarters of regimental districts the depôt mess is available.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is intended to construct a railway to Haputalé, in Ceylon; and, if so, is it to be constructed on the broad or five and a-half feet gauge, at the estimated rate of £17,500 per mile; is the proposed railway to be constructed departmentally, or will the contract be let to an experienced contractor; and, whether, in the interests of economy, he will invite contractors to tender for broad and narrow gauge lines, the light character of the traffic in the Colony not requiring a heavy and costly line of railway?

The Secretary of State has sanctioned an extension of the existing Ceylon Railway, from its present terminus at Nanuoya to Haputalé, a distance of 25½ miles. It has been decided, on the strong recommendation of the Governor and the consulting engineer, not to introduce a break of gauge on this, the last section of a line 158 miles long. The estimated cost of the extension, if executed by contract, is £17,500 per mile; but the consulting engineer anticipates that this will be reduced to £17,100 per mile, if the work is executed departmentally. The conditions in this instance are specially favourable to the departmental system, the adoption of which has been forcibly advocated by the Governor on the grounds of economy and expedition. In these circumstances, there is no intention of inviting tenders for broad and narrow gauge lines.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to compel the retirement of any Civil Service writers pending the Report of the Royal Commission; and, if not, what is the cause of the increase of £4,000 in the Estimates (Class II., Vote II., Civil Service Commission), under the heading "Bonuses and Gratuities to Copyists?"

I am not aware of any intention to compel the retirement of copyists; but I must not be understood to pledge the Departments in any way to take, or avoid taking, any action which may seem necessary in the Public Service; but there is no connection between this question and the £4,000 for bonuses and gratuities, this being the amount which is expected will be required to meet arrangements already sanctioned.

asked the hon. Member for Cumberland (Penrith Division), Whether the Charity Commissioners are aware that the Governors of the Sudbury Grammar School have not acted upon the limitations in the occupation of the Head Master, as conveyed to them by the Charity Commissioners in March last; and, whether they intend to take steps to ensure that the scheme laid down by them in regard to this school be no longer violated?

The Governors of Sudbury Grammar School have acted upon an interpretation of the scheme regulating that foundation which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is not correct; and the Commissioners, in a letter of the 28th of March, informed the Governors of this opinion. The Governors have subsequently been in correspondence with the Commissioners, with a view to justifying their own interpretation of the scheme; but the Commissioners have informed them that, after consideration of those explanations, they adhere to the opinion expressed on the 28th of March. The Commissioners entertain no doubt that the Governors will now conform to that opinion, and will administer the Foundation accordingly.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the correspondence that has taken place between the Corporation of Limerick and the Irish Government, seeking direct representation of the Board of the Limerick Lunatic Asylum, and to the concession of that principle, acknowledged by letters of Sir Redvers Buller, while Under Secretary for Ireland, For what reasons the Irish Government now refuse to ratify the appointment as Governors of the two names submitted by the Corporation for approval; whether the Corporation have intimated that the selections were the best in their interest from their Body, and disclaiming any intention to limit the Lord Lieutenant's selection, that, requiring them to nominate other names, would now be an affront on their part to the gentlemen already named; and, whether, having regard to the fact that one of the gentlemen named by the Corporation has since been appointed High Sheriff of Limerick by His Excellency, and the other is a medical doctor, the Lord Lieutenant will now consent to the appointment of these gentlemen, not relying on a strict interpretation of his letter, and which, in the first instance, was misconstrued by the Limerick Town Council?

The Lord Lieutenant, in expressing his readiness to accord the privilege of increased representation to the Limerick Town Council on the Board of Governors of the district lunatic asylum, stated that he would be prepared to consider the names of any gentlemen sent forward by them, with a view to the appointment of two out of the number of gentlemen so selected. The Town Council met this by sending forward two names only, thereby endeavouring to remove from the Lord Lieutenant any discretion in the matter. The subsequent appointment to be High Sheriff of one of the persons named by the Town Council was due to the fact that under the Municipal Privileges Act His Excellency had no option. A strict interpretation of the letter referred to requires a list of names to be sent forward by the Town Council, who have never alleged that they misconstrued it, nor does it appear how they could have misconstrued it. The Lord Lieutenant is responsible by statute for the appointments in question, and cannot divest himself of that responsibility.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many names the Lord Lieutenant would like to have?

Certainly more than two.

The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the third paragraph of the Question.

Yes, Sir; I think I have. The Lord Lieutenant cannot accept the nomination of two gentlemen under present circumstances.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Secretary for Scotland possesses or exercises any control over the sittings of the Crofter Commissioners; and, if so, whether he can explain why the Commissioners visited in 1887 one estate and part of another only in the Island of Skye; whether there are other estates in Skye in the same position as regards crofters and crofter applications as those visited; whether he has received complaints from the non-visited estates in Skye of the course adopted by the Commissioners; and, whether, if he have the power, the Secretary for Scotland will issue instructions that if a well-defined district, such as Skye, is once taken up by the Commissioners they shall continue their investigations until complete?

It is provided by Section 17 of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, that the Crofters Commission—

"Shall hold sittings in such places to which the Act applies, and in such order and subject to such regulations as the Secretary for Scotland may prescribe."

The Commission, having disposed of over 600 cases, left Skye on 7th June, 1887, (1) because their services were urgently required elsewhere; and (2) because large numbers of the crofters interested in the proceedings of the Commission had left for the fishing elsewhere. There are, no doubt, other estates in Skye requiring the attendance of the Commission as well as those visited already; and the Secretary for Scotland has received complaints from some of them that they had not been attended to before the Commission left the Island. But it was considered that the public interest would be more efficiently served by the Commissioners giving some of their time to other districts having pressing claims than by their returning at once to Skye, where considerable headway had been made. The Secretary for Scotland cannot give any general undertaking as to the movements of the Commissioners. The arrangements for their sittings have invariably been decided on with reference to the requirements of the districts from which applications have been received; and with the view of dealing with them in such manner as was considered best in the interest of the whole crofter area.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, as the statute governing the serving out of lime juice to the crews of merchant vessels only applies to vessels navigating between the United Kingdom and any port out of the same, he will take steps to amend the Act so as to include every voyage taken by such vessels?

I am not prepared to propose an alteration in the law in the sense the hon. Member suggests; because I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to carry such a proposal into effect.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether steam ploughs and threshing machines will be exempted from duty under Clause 2 of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill?

had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether steam ploughing engines, used only for agricultural purposes, and using the roads only when going from the homestead to the fields, or from one field or one farm to another, will be exempt from the £5 duty on locomotives, under Clause 1 of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill?

also had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended that threshing drums, straw elevators, chaff cutters, and four-wheel trollies used for conveying mowing machines from farm to farm shall be exempted from the Wheel Tax?

I will answer this Question and those of the hon. Members for the Stratford-on-Avon and Eye Divisions together, if they will allow me. But I must warn them that my answer must be taken as explanatory only of my proposals in the Bill, and not as an authoritative declaration of the interpretation they are to place upon the terms of the Act when it becomes law. According to the terms and intention of the Bill a licence will not be required for a steam plough, threshing machine, elevator, trolley, or any other implement used solely in agriculture. But locomotives or traction engines used at all on the roads will be chargeable to duty.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether lorries or other vessels used exclusively within the boundaries of docks for transferring timber from steamers to railway trucks, canal barges, or stacking yards within the docks, would come under the designation of "Trade Carts" or waggons used for the conveyance of any goods or burden in the course of trade; and, whether such vehicles would be liable to the new Cart Tax if it can be shown that they never use the roads in the course of trade?

A licence will not be required for the vehicles referred to, if never used on the roads.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, under present Regulations, persons resident in the United Kingdom are liable for Income Tax on all profits arising or accruing from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on outside the United Kingdom, whether such profits are remitted to the United Kingdom or not; whether residents in the United Kingdom are not liable for Income Tax on incomes derived from interest on Government or other securities, or from possessions held outside the United Kingdom, unless such incomes are transmitted to the United Kingdom; and, whether there is any reason for the continuance of this differential treatment under the several schedules?

The question of the liability of persons residing in the United Kingdom to be charged Income Tax on profits derived from the sources named, whether remitted to this country or not, has been recently the subject of a case stated for the opinion of the High Court. The High Court held that they were liable; but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the Court below, and the case is still under the consideration of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. Persons residing in the United Kingdom who are the owners of Foreign or Colonial Securities or Possessions are liable to Income Tax only on the amounts received in this country. Whether there be any differential treatment in the two cases depends upon the ultimate settlement of the point of law involved.

asked the hon. Member for Cum- berland (Penrith Division), Whether the Charity Commissioners make and, and, if so, what, inspection of those endowed schools for which they have established schemes; and, whether such inspection, if any, is an inspection of the educational work or of the administration of the schemes of such schools?

The Charity Commissioners, having regard to the evidence given in 1886 and 1887 before the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the operations of the Endowed Schools Act and to the Report of that Committee, proceeded in the course of last autumn to take measures for the systematic inspection of all the endowed schools for which they had established schemes in the four following counties of England:—namely, Devonshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, and Staffordshire. This is the utmost amount of such inspection that, without such an increase in their staff—by the appointment of additional Assistant Commissioners—as the Select Committee recommended for the purpose, the Commissioners felt able to attempt for the present. This inspection is not an inspection of the educational work of these schools, in the sense that it implies listening to the teaching or criticism of the methods of instruction adopted by the teachers or examination of the scholars for the purpose of testing the results of that instruction. In that sense it is not an educational inspection. The inspection which the Commissioners have set on foot is directed more particularly towards ascertaining whether in each case the school is in a satisfactory condition as regards buildings, finance, number of scholars in attendance, and staff of teachers; whether the provisions of the scheme, educational as well as administrative, are duly carried into effect; and what, if any, modifications in those provisions are rendered necessary by experience or by change of circumstances. And it is evident that an inspection of this kind is not merely an inspection of the administration of the school, but is likely also to afford information of much value in respect of its educational work. The Commissioners hope to be able, in their Report to the Queen at the beginning of next year, to make known some of the results of their proceedings in this matter.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that the present contractors for the Houses of Parliament have recently reduced the wages of their masons' labourers 25 per cent, say from 6d. per hour to 4½d. per hour, and that some of the masons' labourers are often suspended in a cradle, repairing the tower, at a height of between 200 and 200 feet; whether the Government get the benefit of any portion of this reduction in the cost of labour, or whether such reduction was taken into account when fixing the terms of the contract; and, whether this reduction in the rate of wages was made with the sanction of the Government?

I am sorry to say that I cannot give the hon. Member the information he desires, as I have no official knowledge as to the rate of wages paid by the contractor to the stonemason's labourers employed at the Houses of Parliament; nor have I any right to inquire into the subject. How far the contractor took into account the possibility of making reductions in the wages he pays his men I cannot say; but the Government certainly would not directly derive any advantage from such reductions, and their sanction has not been given or asked. In the case of men working in dangerous places we pay our contractor 50 per cent additional; and I be sorry to think that the men so employed did not receive a corresponding benefit.

Will the First Commissioner make some inquiry into the matter?

I am afraid that in the nature of the contract I have no right to inquire.

Will he consider the advisability of seeing to it in future contracts?

That raises a large question, which I could hardly enter upon in reply to a Question across the Table of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, since by Article 1,060 of the Royal Warrant, dated December, 1887, Quartermasters of the Militia, after 30 years of total service, were granted pensions according to Line rates, or a maximum of £200 a-year, and that the duties performed by the old Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces are as important as those of the Quartermasters, the same boon will be conceded to these officers, permitting them to reckon service in similar manner, so as to enable them to get their maximum pension of £183?

I am not prepared to admit any analogy between the cases of the old Adjutants of Auxiliary Forces and the Quartermasters, In the case of the latter, their retired pay is the sole acknowledgment in regard to their past service from the time they first entered the Army. The retired pay of the Adjutants has only reference to their service in the Auxiliary Forces, and is larger than they could have looked forward to when they accepted their appointments. Before becoming Adjutants they had received for their Line service, by the sale of their commissions or otherwise, whatever they were entitled to in respect of that service. I cannot hold out any hope of an alteration in the terms offered.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the inflexible, turret ship, 11,880 tons, costing upwards of £900,000, has been reported unfit to send to the Mediterranean, the cast-iron pathways under her turret rollers having shown signs of weakness and wear; whether these pathways were known or reported to be defective more than eight months ago; whether their state was known to the authorities before and during the repairs, amounting, it is reported, to over £60,000, which this vessel recently received in the Portsmouth Dockyard; what will it cost to replace these defective cast-iron pathways by others made of steel, or of other metal, and what time it will take; who is responsible for the fact that a vessel costing nearly £1,000,000, that has undergone in the yards recently a thorough repair at a cost of £60,000, and has been passed into the first class steam reserve, is now reported, so it is publicly stated, to be unfit to go to the Mediterranean and, to which branch of the Admiralty or Dockyard does the responsibility attach?

The roller-paths of the Inflexible have become somewhat worn during the time she has been at Portsmouth and since she was passed into the First Reserve, owing to her having been used for drill purposes by the Excellent's training classes; but not so much so as to prevent her being sent to the Mediterranean if required. As the period of commission abroad would be three years, it was determined not to send this ship to a foreign station, if there was a likelihood of her requiring repairs before that period of time had been passed. The state of the roller-paths was perfectly well known when the ship was under repair; but as they were efficient for some time longer it was decided not to replace them until it was necessary to remove the guns for re-lining, when the work would be much simplified. The recent expenditure on the ship has not been on repairs merely, but mainly in carrying out extensive alterations. The cost of replacing the roller-paths will be about £3,000, if the time chosen for so doing is coincident with the removal of the guns.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the presentation of the Return relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary for the year ending 31st March, 1888, ordered 20th February last, may be expected?

in reply, said, the Inspector General of Constabulary reported that this Return was in hand, and would be presented as soon as possible; but he was at present unable to specify the exact date. It was a difficult Return to prepare, as it differed from the form in which the accounts of the Department were kept; but it would be laid on the Table at as early a date as was possible.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the cultivators of tobacco in the United Kingdom will be grated any further concessions this season than were allowed last year?

I am quite ready to grant any further facilities that appear to be reasonably required; but, so far, I have been asked for no specific concessions except one. The deputation who recently waited on me only urged me to allow the growth of tobacco duty free in this country for a series of years, till the industry was firmly established. Apart from the other objections that might be brought against such a proposal, I did not feel that, in the interests of the Revenue, I should be justified in acceding to their request. It would be a serious thing to do anything to imperil the very large revenue we receive from tobacco.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the next of kin are entitled to receive prize money duo to soldiers who have died previous to the distribution of it?

Prize money forms part of the personal estate of a soldier, and is subject to the same rules of distribution. It is not necessary that the soldier should live till the prize is distributed.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state to the House, approximately, at what time the new repealing rifle lately decided upon for the Army will be in the hands of all the soldiers of the First and also of the Second Army Corps respectively; and, what probability there is of a further sufficient reserve being in store by the end of the present year for the rest of the Army?

Until a magazine rifle is recommended to me by my military advisers as suitable for adoption it is impossible to commence its manufacture. A certain number are just about to be issued to the troops for trial; and, in the meantime, preparations are being made for its manufacture if approved. There shall be no delay in pushing on the manufacture as soon as the rifle is finally adopted.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to create a new office in the Victualling Department of the Admiralty, at a salary of £1,000 a-year; and, whether it is to be given to an official who in 1878 was a writer in the Secretary's Department of the Admiralty, and who has already received, in an unusually short space of time, promotion to one office of £600 a-year, and to another of £850 a-year?

There is no intention to create a new office in the Victualling Department of the Admiralty carrying a salary of £1,000.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is now more than two years since the Land Sub-Commissioners sat in Kanturk District, County Cork, to hear fair rent applications; whether he is aware that a large number of these applications in this district under the Act of 1881 have been listed for a considerable time, and have not yet been heard, also that a large number of leaseholders' applications under the Act of 1887 have been listed, and not yet heard; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Land Commission will arrange for a sitting of the Sub-Commissioners at Kanturk on an early day?

The Land Commissioners inform me it is the case that a Sub-Commission last sat at Kanturk in April, 1886. All cases listed were then heard, with the exception of one which was adjourned. There are at present, including leaseholders' applications, 500 cases unheard. It is probable a Sub-Commission will sit in the Kanturk Union next July.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state what is the rule of the National Board of Education as regards the payment of salaries to teachers or assistant teachers of National Schools in cases where such teachers or assistant teachers had not entered on their duties until a date subsequent to the first school day of a month; is it customary to pay result fees to a teacher for a period of time greater than that for which he can claim salary; and, whether any cases of such payment of result fees for a period greater than that for which salary was claimed have occurred within the past six months?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the salaries of teachers are computed from the date upon which they enter on their duties. It is not customary to pay result fees for a period of time greater than that for which salary can be claimed. These fees are computed, not like salaries according to days, but according to months. In exceptional cases the Commissioners may sanction result fees in respect of a month for the entire of which service has not been given and salary is paid for part thereof only. Some cases of this kind have occurred within the past six months.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether hackney carriages in London, which have to pay an annual police licence of £2, may be considered trade vehicles, and pay a tax of 5s. instead of 15s?

The Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman mixes up two different classes of vehicles—trade carts or vans, which are used to carry burdens, and hackney carriages, which are used to carry persons. The latter have for some time past been subject to duty as carriages; and the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which has just passed this House, deals with that duty. I see no reason, even if it were now practicable, for classing them as carts and subjecting them as such to the new duty, which will be levied under the Bill now before the House, when it becomes law.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether tradesmen, who paid rates and taxes on their shops, may be exempt from taking out a hawker's licence when they also sent out vans or carts from which sales are made on application by customers in the streets?

Tradesmen whose vans and carts do not go from town to town, or to other persons' houses, are not liable to Hawker's Licence Duty. Sales made on applications by customers in the streets of the town where the tradesmen reside will not render a licence necessary.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the amount which the Government require to be raised by private subscription for colonization of crofters against the £10,000 proposed to be provided by Vote of the House of Commons; what are the conditions on which such private subscriptions are to be advanced, and is their repayment to be secured pari passu with the advances of the Government, or otherwise; what is the rate of interest included in the eight equal annual repayments of £20 17s. 8d. each; what is it estimated will be the effective capital which each crofter family (understood as five persons) will have at command out of the £120 advanced, after paying their passage and building their house and furnishing it; and will it be paid to them in money or in implements and cattle, and first year's rations, and in what proportion; will the Government circulate Papers giving full information on the subject before the Vote is taken, and be willing to receive suggestions for insuring success in this first experiment in State colonization; and, is the Government willing to receive proposals, on similar lines, for similar experiments in other Colonies as well as Canada?

(1) The amount is £2,000; (2) the repayment of the private subscriptions will be made at such times, and subject to such conditions, as may from time to time be prescribed with reference to the advances from the Treasury; (3) it is proposed that the repayments shall be collected by eight equal instalments, commencing the fifth year, at £11 5s. 8d. of capital and £9 12s. interest, and so on; (4) it is proposed that the £120 shall be expended in paying the passage money, and in buying the necessary implements and cattle, and supply, accommodation, &c., for the reception of the settlers on their homesteads; but it is not possible at this moment to give an accurate estimate of what amount, if any, will be handed over to the settler; (5) the Government will be prepared to lay on the Table of the House any necessary information before the Vote is taken, and are willing to receive any suggestions to insure the success of the scheme; but they cannot postpone the operation of the scheme in order to consider such suggestions, as delay would defeat the object in view; (6) the Government will be willing to receive any such proposal for consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has the attention of the Local Government Board been given to the following items of expenditure objected to before their auditor, Colonel R. M. Studdart, as appearing in the accounts of the Belfast Town Council in the years 1885 and 1886, in connection with the visits of His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant and of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, and amounting altogether to the sum of £1,370 4s. 3d.:—1. Payment of £30 for decorating Ulster Hall; 2. Payment of £200 for decorating and illuminating the Town Hall; 3. Payment of £217 16s, for decorations; 4. Payment of £180 for furniture and fitting up rooms for their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales; 5. Payment of £85 for decorating Town Hall; 6. Payment of £75 for decorating and illuminating Albert Memorial Clock; 7. The balance for expenditure of a kindred nature; did the auditor report that the Corporation was justified in this expenditure; and, if so, will he state under what Statute was the expenditure legal; was it the fact that the auditor, Colonel R. M. Studdart, was the hon. treasury of a public subscription fund raised to celebrate the Prince of Wales's visit; and, will instructions be given to the Belfast auditor to maintain an independent position in regard to such matters in future?

I have been promised a full Report on the subject of this Question to be forwarded from Dublin by post to-morrow. I will, therefore, ask the hon. Member to defer the Question until Thursday next.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, How appointments to clerkships, &c., in the offices of the Commissioners of Irish Lights are obtained; if not by open competitive examinations held by the Civil Service Commissioners, why; and, whether there is any, and, if so, what, objection to throwing these appointments open to public competition?

Appointments to the establishment of the Commissioners of Irish Lights are made by the Commissioners, who have not adopted the competitive system of the Civil Service. The Board of Trade have no control over the Commissioners in the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whe- ther any representations have been made to the Treasury, as to the injustice of remunerating the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve out of the Funds of Greenwich Hospital instead of out of the Consolidated Fund?

The Admiralty has been in correspondence with the Treasury; but the Treasury does not see its way to sanctioning the transfer to the Navy Votes of the remuneration paid out of the Funds of Greenwich Hospital to the Seamen Pensioners' Reserve.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to whether, by the terms of the Charter of Greenwich Hospital, it is legal to use any of the funds of that Institution, which were mainly intended for the relief of men disabled or too old for further service, in giving pensions to men of the Naval Reserve, who form part of the Effective Forces of the country?

I am unaware of any reference having been made to the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consider, in conjunction with the Irish Government, the advisability of devoting a portion of the £127,000 granted in relief of Irish taxation to the improvement of the position of the National School Teachers of Ireland?

said: I am afraid it would be impossible to carry out the scheme suggested; and if it were carried out the inhabitants of the localities, whose rates are intended to be relieved by this £127,000, would have good reason to complain.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the quantity of alcoholic liquors received by, or shipped on account of the Niger Company, for consumption in the territories comprised in their Charter, during each quarter of the years 1886, 1887, and to the 31st of March, 1888, inclusive?

I must first point out to my hon. Friend that the Returns for which he asks are of the private trade of the Royal Niger Company, which they are not bound to make public, and which is different from their revenue raised for administrative purposes. The figures which I lately gave in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir George Baden-Powell) were taken from the Table of Imports taxed for administrative purposes. But the Directors of the Company have furnished me with the statement which I am about to read; at the same time, I must guard against their doing so being taken as a precedent for the details of their private commerce being subject to inquiry:—1886.—First quarter, 25,375 gallons; second quarter, 38,265 gallons; third quarter, 39,500 gallons; fourth quarter, 42,800 gallons—total, 145,940 gallons. 1887.—First quarter, nil; second quarter, 36,690 gallons; third quarter, 12,250 gallons; fourth quarter, 31,976 gallons. 1888.—First quarter, 20,125 gallons. I should, at the same time, mention that those quantities, which even now appear large, are distributed among a population of at least 5,000,000. They have been rapidly reduced from 1886; but I am informed that the import in that year was only half that in 1884.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will grant a Return of the produce of the Crown Land Revenue in Wales arising from fee farm rents, leasehold rents, quit rents from mines, quarries, &c., from manors, castles, and royalties, distinguishing the amount realized each year from royalties on gold mining, from each year from 1836 to 1888 (in part continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 468, of Session 1833)?

The hon. Member will find full particulars regarding the Land Revenue of the Crown in Wales in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Woods; but these figures do not show separately the receipts from gold royalties. The total amount of these royalties received in the years 1836 to 1888 is £4,657 17s. 6¼d.; and I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the figures for each separate year if desired.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Freeman's Journal of an eviction at Coolnariska, Queen's County, on the property of Major Fitzmaurice, under the following circumstances: the evicted tenant, Michael Brennan, is 78 years of age, and his family consists of a wife and eight children, four of whom are suffering from measles. The tenant asked to be left in possession for a week or two, till the children were convalescent; but Mr. Stokes, the agent, refused to give any time, and ordered the bailiffs to proceed. That Brennan then offered to pay a year's rent down, and get security for the balance due; but this offer was also rejected. That the bailiffs then carried the sick children out, without giving them time to put on their clothes, and left them sitting on a dunghill, and afterwards threw out the furniture and bedclothes, and locked the house; whether the facts are as above stated; whether, shortly after, Brennan was arrested under an order of the Court of Chancery, and that both he and his wife were imprisoned some months ago in Tullamore Gaol by the same Court for attempting to regain the shelter of his house for his sick children; and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the eviction of Michael Brennan, 78 years of age, his wife, and eight children, four of the latter in measles, on the property of Major Fitzmaurice, in the Queen's County; whether he will inquire if it is true, as stated in the report, that Mr. Stokes, the agent, refused the request of the man, who offered a year's rent down and security for the balance, to give a fortnight's time, until the children would be convalescent; whether the bailiffs carried the sick children out, as alleged, without giving them time to put on their clothes, and left them sitting on the dunghill; and, whether, as President of the Local Government Board, he can say what has become of this family?

I find that Michael Brennan was arrested in August last under a writ of attachment issued by the Court of Land Judges in consequence of his refusing to obey their order directing him to give up possession to Mr. Stokes, the receiver under that Court, of his holding. Immediately on regaining his liberty in January last he again took possession. A further conditional order was thereupon made for an attachment against him. He did not offer to pay a year's rent down and give security for the balance. On the contrary, he distinctly stated in his affidavit that he was wholly unable to pay his arrears; but that he hoped, with the assistance of his friends, he might be able to pay a year's rent. His wife was never imprisoned by the Court. The Constabulary report that they arrived an hour after the turning out of these people, having casually heard of it. The family were standing in the yard, dressed. They would not proceed to the workhouse, but have entered into the occupation of an outhouse, where they are at present living, and are reported to be all now quite well. In connection with the newspaper report on which these Questions appear to be based, I may mention that Major Fitzmaurice had no control whatever in the matter, the property being in Chancery, and that Mr. Stokes was not the agent of the landlord, but an official under the Court. I should further add that Brennan does not appear to have paid rent for a good many years,

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the great success attending the hatching and rearing of sea fish by the Governments of the United States and Norway; whether the Government are prepared to recommend the establishment of hatching and rearing stations in Scotland, for the purpose of increasing by artificial means the supply of sea fish and lobsters; and, if so, whether he will consider the suitability of the Moray Firth or the Cromarty Firth for such an experimental station; would the cost of such a station with all the necessary appliances exceed £1,000, or some such sum; and, will the Government recommend a Supplementary Vote for this purpose?

The Government are not at present prepared to extend the grant of £2,000 given to Scotland for scientific purposes in connection with the Scotch Fisheries. It is estimated that a station of the kind indicated would cost from £1,000 to £1,500.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government have prepared a measure for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Scotch Fishery Board, at page 24 of their Report for 1886—

"That a general measure should be passed to enable fishermen from amongst themselves to organize, under the name of District Fishery Boards, a Local Authority which should be empowered to manage harbours and levy dues, to be expended in their repair and maintenance;"

and, at page 25—

"it is obvious such a measure would be a great boon to fishermen;"

and, if so, when it will be introduced; when will the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board be laid upon the Table of the House; and, will the Government undertake that the Report shall be circulated amongst Members a reasonable time before the Vote on the Scotch Fishery Board is considered in Committee of Supply?

The whole question of the constitution and powers of the Scotch Fishery Board and the development of the fishing interest are at present anxiously engaging the attention of her Majesty's Government, as was intimated by the First Lord of the Treasury on the 25th of April; and it is not thought advisable to proceed with any measure relating to Local Boards, even if considered desirable, until it has been determined what are the steps to be taken to make the central management of the Scotch Fisheries more efficient. The Report of the Board will be laid on the Table before the end of June. The Government will take care that opportunity is given for discussion on this matter after the Report is in the hands of Members.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet received the Report in answer to the full inquiry which he promised into the circumstances of the case of the Cranna Orphanage, in County Tipperary; whether it is in accordance with the facts as reported at the coroner's inquest on the body of the boy Madden; whether the remaining children in that Institution are still on the dietary, the nature of which was then disclosed; and, whether he will take steps to have this and similar Institutions in Ireland visited at intervals by authorized Government Inspectors, so as to afford some protection to the orphan children therein confined, and to prevent the recurrence of such inhuman treatment as has been proved in the case of the Cranna orphans?

The local Constabulary authorities have furnished a copy of the verdict at the inquest on the body of the boy Madden, from which it appears that he died from weakness or syncope; but neither the jury nor the Coroner appears to have attached blame to any individual. The jury, however, in their verdict pointed out certain defects which, in their opinion, existed in the Institution as re- guards clothing, dietary, and attendance. A letter has been received from the Bishop of Killaloe stating that steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations put forward by the Coroner's Jury in order to remedy the existing defects.

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the last part of the Question. I understand the Bishop of Killaloe very rarely visits the Institution.

I do not think a Government Inspector would be at all an improvement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that a lunatic called John Morris, who had committed a murder in Poole, was placed in Dorchester Gaol, to the annoyance of the other prisoners, and that as he left there he threatened the life of one William Clunes, who was an inmate of that prison?

I have made inquiry of the prison authorities, and am informed by them that the Governor of Dorchester Gaol has no knowledge or record of an incident such as that referred to having occurred in that prison. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the date of the occurrence, and further particulars, I will make further inquiry.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, as no Regulations have been laid down recognizing the principle of the Saturday half-holiday in Government offices, the Treasury object to the Heads of Departments granting the half-holiday to Civil Service writers (without loss of pay) in those offices where that privilege is allowed to the established clerks?

I must ask the hon. Member not to press this Question. I am not able to make any statement in anticipation of the Report of the Royal Commission. I would only point out that writers are not in the same position as established clerks, writers being paid either by the hour or by piece work.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the agreements of 1879 and 1883 between Great Britain, Germany, the United States, and Samoa were all signed by Mahitoa as King of Samoa; whether the Government have ever had any reason to complain of the non-fulfilment by Mahitoa of any part of those agreements; whether the attention of the Government has been called to a Proclamation issued to the Samoans on the 25th of August, 1887, and signed by the British pro-Consul, Mr. H. Wilson, in which occurred these words—

"Now, therefore, we, the undersigned representatives of the United States of America and Great Britain, hereby give notice that we and our Governments do not and never have recognized Tamasese as King of Samoa, but continue as heretofore to recognize Mahitoa;"

whether the consent of the British and United States Governments was asked for by Germany prior to the seizure and deportation of Mahitoa by a German ship of war; whether the Government propose to acquiesce in the action of Germany; whether they know that a large majority of the Samoan people are in favour of Mahitoa as against Tamasese; whether Mahitoa has repeatedly wished to take measures with regard to Tamasese, but has been restrained by the repeated assurances of the English Consul that if peace were kept in the Island the influence of England should always be used to preserve Mahitoa's right to the Throne; whether the British Government have ceased to recognize Mahitoa as King of Samoa; if so, when and why; and, whether the Government regard the Convention as being still in force as between Great Britain, the United States, and Samoa?

The first, second, and fourth Questions of the hon. Gentleman must be answered in the negative. Her Majesty's Government have seen no cause to take part on either side in the differences between King Mahitoa and the Emperor of Germany. At present Tamasese is the King de facto, and will be recognized as such in practice by Her Majesty's Government, according to the ordinary Rules. No change has taken place in the Treaty relations between England, Germany, and the United States in regard to Samoa.

inquired, whether Her Majesty's Government had no cognizance of the agreement that had been come to not to recognize Tamasese?

No, Sir. Well, Sir, Her Majesty's Government were informed in this country of the intention of the Government of Germany to ask for satisfaction from King Mahitoa.

Yes, Sir; but what I want to know is, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to disavow the action of their Representative?

I may say that, owing to the delay of the telegram informing the Consul, he took action on his own responsibility. Owing to the delay in sending the telegram from New Zealand to Samoa, he was not informed of the intentions of Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the sentence of a month's hard labour inflicted by Mr. Partridge on two girls called Macdonald for sleeping on a doorstep in Westminster; and, what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that on Thursday last two young women, named respectively Clara and Annie Macdonold, described as governesses, and charged with sleeping in the open air, and having no visible means of subsistence, were sentenced on that charge by Mr. Partridge, the sitting magistrate at Westminster, to one month's hard labour; and, whether there are any, and, if so, what circumstances in the case not disclosed in the reports justifying the sentence; and, if there be no such circumstances, whether he is prepared to materially mitigate the sentence?

I will answer this Question and that of the hon. Member for the Woodstock Division of Oxfordshire at the same time. I have received a Report from the magistrate on the case, from which it appears that these women had been several times convicted, both for breaking windows and under the Vagrant Act. The magistrate suggested that they should go to the workhouse. Both prisoners declined to avail themselves of this suggestion; and, under these circumstances, the magistrate thought it best, in the interests of the young women themselves, to give them a sentence sufficiently long to enable the chaplain of the gaol to use his influence upon them, and, if possible, get them into a suitable home. Should it be found possible to do this, I am prepared to advise the remission of the sentence.

Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the sentence of hard labour?

It is really no part of my duty to express an opinion on the discretion exercised by the magistrate. I will only add that under two previous convictions—I am now speaking from memory—their sentences included hard labour.

With a view of giving them more time to listen to the ministrations of the chaplain, will not the right hon. Gentleman order the hard labour to be remitted? [No reply.]

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any unofficial communications of a political character have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Pope of Rome?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government have recently had brought to their notice a case of "sweating" in connection with the preparation of Army clothing at Woolwich; whether any change in the tailoring or clothing staff at Woolwich has recently been made; and, for what period of time the system now adopted at Woolwich has been in force?

No such case has been brought to notice. The only shops for making clothing at Woolwich are those established for regimental purposes under the military master tailors; and the payments for military and civil labour are those laid down by Regulation. No change has been made in the system; and it is not apparent how the "sweating" system can enter in.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is proposed, under Clause 15 of the Local Government Bill, to transfer to the Council of the County of London the care, management, and repair of the main roads in the Metropolis, which are at present vested in the Vestries and District Boards of Works, and, if so, in what manner a main road is to be defined; what executive duties, at present performed by the Common Council and other Authorities of the City of London, is it proposed to transfer to the Council of the County of London; and, whether the effect of Clause 37 of the Local Government Bill will be to constitute London, Southwark, and Blackfriars Bridges, county bridges, and place them under the control of the Council of the County of London; or whether these bridges will continue to be under the control of the Corporation of the City of London?

The duty of maintaining and repairing main roads in the Metropolis will be transferred to the County Council of London, subject to the provisions in Clause 37 (4) of the Bill; but it is intended that the Vestries and District Boards shall have the same power as an Urban Sanitary Authority under Clause 15 (2) of the Bill. Main roads for the purposes of the Bill will include roads disturnpiked since December 31, 1870, and any road which may be declared to be a main road by the County Council in pursuance of section 15 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878. There are certain duties now performed by the Aldermen of London which the Bill transfers to the County Council. The Liverymen elect the Sheriff of Middlesex, the appointment of whom is transferred to the Crown. The only duties transferred to the County Council of London are those connected with licensing. The London, Southwark, and Blackfriars Bridges are at present maintained by the Corporation out of the proceeds of the Bridge House Estates; and there is no intention to make them county bridges, or to transfer the control of them to the County Council.

inquired what was the intention of the Government with regard to bridges in the County of Surrey—Putney, Wandsworth, Hammersmith, and several others?

asked for Notice of the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the report in the London Daily Telegraph of the 3rd instant, of proceedings under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," at Skibbereen on the 2nd instant, stating that a man named Samuel Paul Kingston, who is 80 years of age, and his wife, were brought before Messrs Warburton and Major Caddell, Resident Magistrates, charged with taking forcible possession; that from the evidence it appeared that the defendants were evicted from their farm on the 20th of February last, and that they went back into one of the outhouses, and when asked to leave said they had no place to go to but the roadside; that, notwithstanding the request of Dr. Lewis, J.P., the landlord, that the defendants might be dealt with leniently, and the entreaties of Mrs. Kingston to the magistrates not to send the old man to gaol for the first time in his life, as he was very delicate, the Bench sentenced the old man to one month and his wife to a fortnight in Cork Gaol; and, whether, taking the circumstances into account, he will consider the propriety of advising the Lord Lieutenant to exercise the prerogative in this case, and remit the sentence on this old man and his wife?

in reply, said, he had been asked a similar Question by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) a night or two since. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was sorry that he had not yet obtained the necessary information that would enable him to reply, but he hoped to have it to-morrow.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he had seen the following paragraph in The Daily News of Tuesday, 1st May:—

"A collision occurred in Limerick on Sunday night between civilians and some men of the Derbyshire Regiment. The soldiers have been confined for some time past, but a dozen of them broke out and paraded with belts in hand. A crowd quickly surrounded them, and some stones were thrown. The soldiers were taken back to barracks by the police. A collision also occurred at Clare Castle, near Ennis, between the Militia now in training and the Derbyshires. One Militiaman was badly injured. Several arrests have been made;"

whether this is the same regiment that sang Rule Britannia going through the streets of Ennis while the people were at Mass, on the occasion of the late suppression of a public meeting in that town; how often have the men of this regiment come into collision with the people of Limerick and Clare; and, whether, having regard to their general conduct, he will have them removed to other quarters?

The Derbyshire Regiment is the regiment which sang Rule Britannia as it marched through Ennis. The inhabitants of Limerick are reported to have come into collision with men of the regiment on nine occasions, and those of Clare on six. As far as appears, the assaults on the soldiers were unprovoked. The corps is well-behaved generally; and I do not see that the fact of its men having been assaulted constitutes a reason for disturbing the military arrangements by its removal to other quarters.

I desire to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a Question arising out of this case. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why two Resident Magistrates—Major Warburton and Major Rolleston—were imported into Limerick to try the cases arising out of these assaults?

I can give no special reasons to the hon. Gentleman. I suppose it is in the ordinary course.

I would ask whether there is any rotation?

There is a certain principle adopted, I believe.

Would it be possible to give the House some indication of what the principle is? [No reply.]

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he has seen a report in the newspapers that another collision between the police and the military has occurred in Limerick?

No, Sir; I have not.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has seen a report in The Freeman's Journal of the 3rd instant, to the following effect, that—

"In Castlerea, on Saturday last, on the occasion of Mr. John Fitzgibbons's trial, a number of little boys with whistles went through the town, the eldest not being over 14 years of age. One of the policemen, who were very excited, attacked a boy only 12 years old, and struck him with a baton on the head, inflicting a severe wound. So much blood flowed that it was deemed desirable to bring him to the barrack and have the wound washed before showing him to the magistrates;"

are the facts as stated; who was in command of the police, and were they ordered to charge the boys and baton them; what was the result of this boy being brought before the magistrates; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police on this occasion?

I have not had time to get particulars of the case referred to, but I hope to be able to answer to-morrow.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can yet state the result of his inquiry into the alleged absence for several days of any Visiting Justices at Galway Gaol; whether any Visiting Justices have recently, and when, visited the prisoners in Derry Gaol; and, whether, having regard to the well-known weak health and impaired constitution of Mr. Blane, M.P., now confined in that prison, he will direct the Visiting Justices and the medical officials to pay particular regard to that gentleman's health?

in reply, said, that the General Prisons Board informed him that there was no rule requiring the Visiting Justices to visit the prisons at stated times. The matter was left to their own discretion. The Visiting Justices visited the prison on the 12th of last month. The Board were of opinion that there was nothing in the state of the health of the hon. Member for South Armagh (Mr. Blane) that called for any special treatment.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Frankford, on Friday last, when 14 men were tried, convicted, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment each, on a charge of taking part in an unlawful assembly on the 7th of April; whether it appeared from the evidence that a tenant, Rod. Dooley, having been evicted on the estate of Mr. C. J. Banon, and the agent having given him time to remove his effects, the prisoners, and others, gathered to give him assistance, and till his ground; whether this was the unlawful assembly with which the defendants were charged; whether it is the fact that the police witnesses testified to the complete peacefulness and order of the proceedings on the eviction farm; and whether he can state under what provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act the said proceedings were indicted as illegal?

The inspector General of Constabulary reports that Dooley, a tenant on the estate of Mr. C. J. Banon, was evicted on March 28, owing six years' rent. He had declined to come to a settlement, notwithstanding a most liberal offer made by his landlord. The agent did give him time to move his effects up to April 7. On that day over 100 persons assembled with ploughs, harrows, and other implements; and instead of assisting in the removal of the effects they tilled the farm from which Dooley had been evicted, and to which accordingly he had no claim.

I wish to know, when that assembly benefited the landlord, whether it can be regarded as a statutable offence?

No, Sir; but I apprehend that they did not assemble for the purpose of assisting the landlord.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he can now state the result of the local reference which he stated would be necessary to enable him to ascertain whether any, and what, alterations in the accommodation provided for persons whose duty required them to reside or to sleep within the gates of the Devonport Dockyard had been made within the last seven years?

Twenty pounds was expended in 1886 in improving the sleeping accommodation and ventilation. The sleeping accommodation now provided is ample, as the numbers have been reduced, and the men are satisfied.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, with respect to a Paper to which his attention has been called, which purports to be a copy of a Memorandum issued from the Office of the Quartermaster General in India relating to the subject of prostitution, Whether he is now able to state if such a document, or any document substantially of that character, has been issued from that or any other Government Office?

; but I am able to state that the Secretary of State has taken such steps that the document, if authentic, will be forthwith cancelled; and orders have, as I have already frequently stated, been sent out to India which will put an absolute stop to such practices if they have existed.

asked whether, seeing the very serious and important character of the document in question, the hon. Gentleman would lay it upon the Table of the House if it existed?

When I find out whether the document exists or not, I will say whether I will lay it upon the Table.

asked, if the hon. Gentleman would take immediate steps to telegraph to India to ascertain whether it existed or not? [No reply.]

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in The Cork Herald of the 3rd instant, commenting on the sentence of four months' imprisonment passed on Wednesday last at Macroom on a man named Creedon, for a murderous assault committed upon Police Sergeant O'Shea:—

"The young man Creedon, who very properly broke a policeman's head to save his own on the occasion of the late suppressed meeting, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment by two removables yesterday. Irwin, in giving the decision, practically admitted the whole case against the Crown; but because (so we gather from his speech) Creedon hit the policeman too hard he sent him to gaol. We are glad Creedon hit the ruffian hard. We hardly think, too, that the outrageous doctrine that a policeman should not be well beaten (or killed if necessary for the preservation of life) when he is breaking the law, will be upheld on appeal:"

and, whether he will institute proceedings against the editor of this paper, on the ground that the paragraph in question is an incitement to violent assaults on the police?

My attention has been called to the paragraph in question; and that paragraph, with the other papers, are now before the Attorney General of Ireland for his direction.

asked, whether the Resident Magistrate who tried the case did not say that he was not there to justify the magistrates, but that he was there to suppress the meeting; and if he did not go on to say that even supposing the meeting was legal the defendant had no right to resist; also, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that no attempt was made by the prosecuting counsel to make out that the meeting was illegal?

I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without Notice.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he could say if there is at present in Ireland any system of inspection of railway carriages carried out by persons under the control of the Government; and, if not, if he could suggest what steps should be taken to remedy the condition of things which exposes that section of the public which uses the third class carriages on Irish railways to inconveniences and discomfort which would not be tolerated on any line in England or Scotland?

As far as I am aware, there is no systematic inspection of railway carriages in Ireland by any officer appointed by a Government Department. No formal complaint has reached the Board of Trade of the condition of the third-class carriages in Ireland since 1884, when an inspection was ordered of the carriages on a line of railway in the South of Ireland. If any well-founded complaint is submitted to the Board of Trade I will consider the expediency of ordering an inspection of the rolling stock in respect of which it is made under the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason that these complaints have been discontinued by the public is that they find it is no use making them?

It is very, difficult indeed for me to answer that Question. If a well-founded. complaint is made, it will receive prompt consideration from me.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Mr. Britten has long been, and still is, in the habit of discharging the duties of the Official Receiver at the Guildford and other District Courts upon the public examinations of, and applications for discharge by, debtors, without being nominated by the Board as deputy; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the performance by such unauthorized persons of the duties imposed by the Bankruptcy Act on the Official Receivers?

The Bankruptcy Rule, 328, authorizes the Board of Trade—

"By general or special directions to determine what acts or duties shall be performed by the Official Receiver in person, and in what case he may discharge his functions through the agency of his clerks."

Under this Rule the Board of Trade have authorized the Official Receiver of the Guildford District (who is also Official Receiver of the Kingston-on-Thames, Barnet, Edmonton, and Brent-ford Bankruptcy Districts) to perform certain of his functions, including those mentioned in the above Question, through the agency of his Chief Bankruptcy Clerk, Mr. Britten, in such cases as he may be unable to perform them personally. But it is the duty of the Official Re- ceivor personally to report upon all applications by debtors for their discharge; and he is responsible, in the fullest manner, for the discharge of all duties thus delegated to Mr. Britten. Mr. Britten has not been in the habit of acting in this matter without authority.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether persons in receipt of salaries from the Local Government Board, or from Poor Law Unions, are ineligible to become Poor Law Guardians or members of dispensary committees in Ireland?

Under Section 22 of 25 & 26 Vict. c. 83, no person in receipt of a salary from the Local Government Board is capable of serving as a Guardian; nor is any person receiving a fixed salary or emolument from the poor rates in any Union capable of serving as a Guardian therein. I am not aware of any legal obstacle in the way of any such person becoming a member of a Dispensary Committee.

Does that observation apply to ex officio Guardians?

That is a legal Question I should be reluctant to answer without Notice. I should think, however, that it would.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any foundation for the statement contained in The Freeman's Journal of the 3rd of May, that Mr. William Gould, of Mitchelstown, a prisoner in Cork Gaol, has been informed by the Governor of the Gaol that—

"He would be released if he would petition the Lord Lieutenant, and promise to abstain from polities?"

The Governor of the prison reports that there is no foundation for the statement made in The Freeman's Journal to which the Question refers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the Notice of Motion given by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir John Kennaway) for Tuesday, the 15th instant, he will undertake to lay upon the Table of the House before that date the Correspondence between the Government of India and the India Office on the subject of the Contagious Diseases Acts, which he has already promised to produce?

If the hon. Member will move for the Correspondence there is no objection, although it is not yet complete, to its production so far as it goes.

asked, with reference to the debate that was to take place on Tuesday, the 15th, whether the hon. Gentleman would before that time be able to state to the House what steps the Government were prepared to take to carry out the decision of the House against the compulsory examination of women?

asked for Notice of the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he feels himself in a position to state to the House what progress has been made with the field equipment of the Second Army Corps, as regards its transport, horses, ammunition, columns; also as to its auxiliary arms—such as Commissariat Staff Corps and Army Hospital Corps; whether the Army Medical Department is in a position to supply the necessary number of companies of Army Hospital Corps, equipped as field bearers, for the needs of the First and the Second Army Corps respectively; and, whether the supply of horses for the Second Corps has been sufficiently provided for.

I have explained, in the Memorandum attached to the Estimates, that the equipment of the Second Army Corps for foreign service is not complete. For Home defence there would be hardly any difficulty in providing it, especially if the House grants us the powers which we are now seeking in the National Defence Bill. The Army Medical Department is in a position to supply the necessary bearers.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the borough occupation franchise includes the service franchise or not; and, if not, how it is excluded?

If, as I imagine, the Question of the hon. Member refers to the municipal franchise, the service franchise is not included in the occupation franchise. The reason is that the service franchise was created by the Act of 1884; and the language, as the hon. Member will find, is different from that of the Municipal Corporation Act of 1882.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government still contemplates the introduction, during the present Session, of the measure described in Her Majesty's Speech on the 9th of February as "intended to facilitate an increase in the number of the proprietors of the soil" in Ireland; and, if so, when it will be introduced?

Yes, Sir; the Government still contemplate the introduction of a measure dealing with the subject; but the period of its introduction must depend upon the course of Public Business.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the proceedings at a meeting of the gun trade, held in Birmingham on the 1st of May, whereat it was stated that that industry was in a condition of extreme depression; and, if any steps have been taken, or are in contemplation, to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1885 to inquire into the depression of trade, and more particularly with reference to the foreign tariffs and bounties, which were unanimously denounced by the Commission as very prejudicially limiting the markets for the production of British industry?

The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been drawn to the proceedings at a meeting of the gun trade at Birmingham; but I have no doubt that that trade, in common, I regret to say, with many others, has been passing through a period of depression. I am glad to state, however, that there are clear signs of a revival of trade; and the number of men out of employment this year will compare favourably to those of last year and of the preceding one. Under these circumstances, I think we must look to trade being revived, not by the adoption of the heroic measures suggested by my hon. Friend, but by the renewal of confidence in the stability of the institutions of the country and the maintenance of the peace of the world.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When will the Public Trustee Bill be introduced?

The Bill is in preparation, but I am unable to say when it will be introduced.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will be able to inform the House what Business will be taken on Friday, and what arrangements he contemplates with regard to the Whitsuntide holidays?

I have already informed the House that any arrangements with regard to the Whitsuntide holidays must depend upon the passing of the Local Government (Electors) Bill before the Recess, as the Register must be got into order before the 20th of June. But in the event of the Bill passing before the Whitsuntide Recess, and other measures being advanced, we propose that the House should rise on Friday, the 18th, after a Morning Sitting, and return on Thursday, the 31st of May. I hope the labours of the Committee on the Local Government (Electors) Bill will be completed. this evening; but in case any accident should prevent it, I should ask the House to sit to-morrow at 2 o'clock to proceed with the Bill in Committee. I think it right to give this intimation to the House, though the contingency to which I refer is most improbable. On Thursday we propose to take the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill for second reading.

asked whether, in case there should be a Morning Sitting to proceed with the Committee on the Local Government (Electors) Bill to-morrow, the right hon. Gentleman would give a pledge that he would take no other Government Business at the Morning Sitting?

I can give no such pledge. If other Business should be put down, it would be our duty to proceed with it. In reply to Sir CHARLES RUSSELL (Hackney, S.),

said, he did not intend to proceed with the Attorney General's Resolution on the subject of the High Court of Justice Chancery Division (Additional Judge) to-night, after half-past 10. In reply to Mr. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.),

declined to give any pledge that the Bill dealing with the Wheel and Van Tax should not be taken before the Whitsuntide Recess.

said, he had stated on Friday that he should feel bound to take an opportunity of consulting the feelings of the House before making any change with regard to the admission of strangers.

gave Notice that when the subject came before the House he would move to reject the Committee's recommendation with reference to the distribution of tickets.

said, he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time before the Recess.

With the indulgence of the House I desire to make a short personal explanation. A few nights ago, owing to the operation of the "count out," I was prevented from answering the very serious and absolutely inaccurate allegation made by the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) as to the existence of 100,000 acres of waste land in the County (Sussex), one of the Divisions of which I have the honour to represent.

Order, order The question of 100,000 acres of waste laud is not a subject of personal explanation on the part of the hon. Member. If he were permitted to make a statement on that point it would be a continuation of the debate.

I was just coming, Sir, to the—

Order, order!. The hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

said, that in the absence of the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Car- narvon (Mr. Rathbone) he wished to move the Amendment which stood in the name of that hon. Member—namely, in page 1, line 19, to leave out from "the burgess," to end of clause, and insert—

"Every person entitled to vote in Parlialiamentary elections in respect of any qualification in any part of a county not within the limits of a borough, shall be entitled to be registered to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate: Provided, that a person having more than one qualification in the same county shall not vote more than once in the election of the same county authority.

(2.) "For the said purpose there shall be added to the lists of Parliamentary electors in counties separate lists of persons who are disqualified for being registered as voters in Parliamentary elections only by reason that they are peers or women, and those persons shall be entitled to be registered as county electors under this Act."

The principle of the Amendment, which substituted the Parliamentary for the municipal franchise, had been supported by various Committees of Quarter Sessions and Chambers of Agriculture throughout the country. Perhaps he might be permitted to trouble the House with a short quotation, which gave in more concise and forcible language than he could use the opinions of a noble Lord in favour of a single register—Lord Thring, who was a high authority on local government reform as well as a strong supporter of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). That noble Lord, in The Nineteenth Century for the present month, said—

"The Parliamentary franchise is universal; the other, the municipal, is confined to the boroughs. Select the first, and you will have one revision, one register—practically, one system of law. Take the second, and you have a country overlaid with two systems, and not the less difficult to carry into execution that, as regards the lowest qualification, the one is only distinguishable from the other by an almost microscopic examination."

That put in a very few words the disadvantages of the course that the Government proposed to take in reference to the Bill. They proposed to create, for the first time in country districts, a new register, different altogether from the register which already existed for Parliamentary purposes in those districts. He would first point out to the Committee that the case of the country districts differed widely from that of the great towns, and his Amendment did not affect the franchise in municipal boroughs at all. There were good reasons why the municipal boroughs should be treated differently from country districts. The franchise possessed by the boroughs had existed for more than 50 years, while in the country districts they were creating a new municipal franchise for the first time. In regard to the Metropolis, the House had decided the other night that a new municipal franchise should be created within the Metropolis. That decision ought not to prejudice the present Amendment. There might be reasons why the Metropolis should be treated as if it were not part of a country district, but a municipal borough. It was the largest town in the Kingdom, and the Government might fairly treat the Metropolis on the same footing as municipal boroughs, while they treated the country districts very differently. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) had somewhat misled hon. Members on that side of the House, at all events, as to the nature of the new register which would exist in the country districts when this Bill was passed. He had given a description of the ingenious manner in which the double register was made up for municipal boroughs under the Act of 1878. He had pointed out that the list was made up in three divisions, the first of which included those who were entitled to vote for Parliamentary and municipal purposes, while the other two divisions included those who had a vote for one of those purposes. He (Mr. Hobhouse) wished to point out that under this Bill a double register, made up, no doubt, on this ingenious system, was proposed to be extended to the country districts. This system did not snake one register out of two; but was calculated to save cost in printing and in mechanical matters rather than to save trouble to the overseers, who had to snake out the lists. Hon. Members had only to study the precepts contained in the Schedules to the Registration Act of 1885, in order to see that the task of the overseers in making up the register was not an inviting one for any person. Each of these precepts covered a space of no less than 30 pages of the large edition of the Statutes; and the person, whether he was a trained lawyer or a layman, who had to make out one of these precepts, was certainly not a person to be envied. In the next place, he (Mr. Hobhouse) desired to point out, in regard to the divisions, that the first division was simple enough, because it included every person who had a vote for Parliamentary elections, and also for municipal purposes. But the second division included a class of voters who might not be very numerous, but whose qualifications it was extremely difficult to detect and to classify without very considerable trouble. In the second division, which contained Parliamentary voters only, there were such classes as £10 lodgers, service voters, occupiers of £10 houses who did not pay borough rates, and certain householders who sublet for short periods. Then there was a third division, containing the names of Peers, women, persons who were occupiers of buildings that were not dwelling houses, and other persons who had no right to vote for Parliamentary purposes. He mentioned these facts, to show how difficult it was to make up the double lists, even under the present system of divisions, and he would suggest that it would be infinitely more simple to have a single register for both election purposes, with the addition of Peers and women ratepayers as was suggested in the Amendment. It would be a far more simple matter to add Peers and women to the roll for Parliamentary elections than to make up double registers as was at present done in municipal boroughs. The change would also give great popular satisfaction. It was certainly impossible to bring home to the mind of the ordinary voter why he should have a vote for a Member of Parliament, and be denied a vote for the members of the new County Council. There was another great argument in favour of a single register. As the Bill now stood, they were practically disfranchising those who had been enfranchised for Parliamentary purposes. The Parliamentary franchise at present excluded Peers and women, who were qualified to vote at municipal elections. No Member of the House objected to these persons being admitted to the franchise under the present Bill. On the other hand, many persons were included in the Parliamentary franchise who were excluded from the municipal franchise—such as lodgers, owners who were not in occupation of dwelling houses, and service tenants. None of these persons, however, were so numerous that hon. Members need be afraid that any of them would swamp the rest of the constituency. Take the case of the lodgers. As a rule, they constituted a superior class of voters, and he could not see why they should be denied a vote for a member of the County Council when they had a right to vote for a Member of Parliament. Take, also, the service tenant. He had been considered specially worthy of enfranchisement by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) three years ago, and the admission of that class created a new distinction between the Parliamentary and municipal franchise. He thought the Government would be well advised if they would include the service tenants. Then came another class—the freeholders. He maintained that that class had a very strong claim to be enrolled upon the list of electors—certainly a much stronger claim than they had to vote for Members of Parliament. It was confessed by financial authorities on both sides of the House that the owners of land were large ratepayers. He had referred the other night to the able Memorandum of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that subject, and there were also high authorities to the same effect on that—the Opposition—side of the House. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) told them the other day that in the rural districts land ultimately bore the weight of the rates, and he also showed by elaborate calculation that all over the country the owners of property bore more than one-half of the rates. It was an undoubted fact that in the present condition of the agricultural districts the rates very soon, if not immediately, found their way on to the shoulders of the owners of property. Surely that was a convincing proof that the owners of land were vitally interested in the question of local taxation. He wished to put this question to Her Majesty's Government. Was not an owner of a large estate, who resided more than seven miles from the county in which he owned property, quite as much interested in the wealth of that county as the occupier of a very small holding, on which the landlord paid the rates, but who happened to reside within the county? He would take the two cases—that of a landlord who owned property and paid the rates, but who did not reside in the county, and the other of a tenant who occupied a holding and did not pay the rates, but did reside in the county. In the one case the Government disfranchised the owner of the property who had by far the largest interest in it, while they enfranchised the man who had a comparatively insignificant interest in it. The disfranchisement also involved disqualification because none of the men to whom the privilege of a vote was denied had any right to sit on the County Councils, either as elected or selected Councillors. That was a very serious matter. That disqualification as regarded the owner was an entirely new thing. At present he had a right to vote for and sit on Boards of Guardians, Local Boards, and Boards of Improvement Commissioners; and he was only disfranchised in municipal boroughs, where the incidence of rate-paying was very different. If the owners of property were entitled to vote at the election of Members of Parliament for the country districts, surely they ought to have a voice in voting for those who were to conduct the local administration, and a right also to become local administrators themselves upon questions in which they bad so much interest. No one who had listened to the debate on the question of the Poor Law on Thursday night could doubt that within a few years the new Authority would exercise Poor Law powers; and surely they would not deny to the owner as such the right to have a voice in the administration of those Poor Law burdens which had always been regarded as hereditary burdens on the land. He trusted the Committee would allow him to refer to one or two objections which might be raised to his hon. Friend's (Mr. Rathbone's) proposal. In the first place, the Government might say that this was a small matter; that very few persons would be qualified under the Parliamentary franchise, as proposed, who would not be qualified under the present Bill. He granted that, but it did not affect the principle in the least. No doubt, there were very few women who would be qualified to vote under the Bill; but that was not a reason why they should deny them the right of voting, or declare that their names should not ap- pear upon the register. Then, again, there was a certain class of persons who had, to his mind, a strong claim to the right now proposed to be denied them. He knew a gentleman who, at that moment, was compelled to serve the office of High Sheriff of a county, on the ground of holding large property in the county; but, nevertheless, he did not reside in the county, and would, therefore, not be allowed to vote for members of the County Council, or sit upon it, notwithstanding he was considered fully competent to serve a responsible and most burdensome office. Then, again, there were hon. Members in that House who took an active part in local business who would not be qualified under the Bill to sit on the County Council of their county. He maintained that it was most undesirable to exclude Members of that House from taking an active part in the administration of local affairs. The Bill affected not only large owners, but small owners who did not happen to live in the county. It affected a large class of elder sons, who were at present magistrates, and many others who, if it passed in its present shape, would have no status either to vote or to sit as County Councillors. He warned the Government that, unless they made a concession in the matter, six mouths hence there would be a considerable outcry; because in many counties it would be found that very useful and active men, who ought to be candidates for seats on the County and District Councils, were prevented by the Bill from standing for election, and serving the public interests. It was said that these could easily manufacture a qualification by occupying some portion of their property; but he maintained that that suggestion was preposterous, and only worthy of the time of rotten boroughs and faggot votes. Even if an owner of property Were to sleep for a few nights upon some portion of his property, it would not meet the case, because it was impossible under the Bill to get a qualification to sit on the County Council the first period of three years, unless the person seeking the qualification had been in occupation for 12 months preceding a certain date in June next. It must be remembered that the first session of the County Councils would be the most important session in their history, seeing that they would have to lay down broad lines of administration, and determine what their future should be—whether for good or for evil. It was most important, therefore, that good men should not be disqualified for taking part in the first election of the County Councils. Another important point was whether or not the Parliamentary franchise was inconsistent with the doctrine of "One man one vote." He would put it to his hon. Friends who believed in that doctrine, that it either meant that no man should vote more than once for the same representative Body—[Cries of "Hear, hear!"] He was glad to receive the assent of his hon. Friends. It that was the real meaning of the doctrine, it was certainly embodied in the Amendment. It was, however, quite possible that some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House might desire a further and more sweeping provision, and might say that no man ought to vote for more than one County Council. If that was not accepted as the meaning in any part of the House, it was not necessary to argue the point. [cries of "Hear, hear!"] Then he looked upon that argument as being entirely disposed of, and he would put it to the House that the true test of qualification was this—that every man possessing a substantial interest of any kind, whether as occupier or lodger, service tenant or freeholder, within a county or district, should have a full qualification both to vote and sit on the local Councils under the provisions of the Bill. For all those reasons, because of the inconvenience and utter want of necessity for setting up a new register, because it was unjust to disfranchise and disqualify the classes he had referred to; and, lastly, because it was extremely unwise to limit the field from which the local constituencies should choose their administrators in future, he urged the Government to give their best consideration to the Amendment which he now begged to move. Amendment proposed,

In page 19, to leave out the words from "the burgess" to the end of the Clause, and insert—

"Every person entitled to vote in parliamentary elections in respect of any qualification in any part of a county not within the limits of a borough shall be entitled to be registered to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate: Provided that a person having more than one qualification in the same county shall not vote more than once in the election of the same county authority.

(2) "For the said purpose there shall be added to the lists of parliamentary electors in counties separate lists of persons who are disqualified for being registered as voters in parliamentary elections only by reason that they are peers or women, and those persons shall be entitled to be registered as county electors under this Act."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse) had done so on two grounds, the principal of which was that if the Amendment were adopted, there would only be one register, and that more than one register would be extremely inconvenient in the country districts. The hon. and learned Gentleman also advocated the acceptance of the Amendment on the ground of the injustice to those who would be excluded if his proposal were not adopted. Upon the question of a single register, the hon. and learned Gentleman implied that he (Mr. Ritchie) had somewhat unintentionally misled the House as to the effect the Bill would have if it were passed in the way it had been proposed. He did not think, however, although he might be a prejudiced person in the matter, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had fairly pointed out in what way he (Mr. Ritchie) had misled the House, when he said that the effect of the provisions of the Bill would be to establish a single register in the country districts in precisely the same way as it was now established in boroughs. The only difference between the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the plan of the Government, so far as simplifying the list was concerned, was that there would be two lists according to the former, and three according to the latter. It was quite clear, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that the Parliamentary franchise and the municipal franchise should be identical, that it would be impossible to have only one list, and he did not propose to give to Peers and women the power of voting for Parliamentary purposes. Therefore, in any case, the only difference between the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman and that of the Government was that there should be two lists according to the hon. and learned Member's proposal, instead of three lists now. He could only repeat what he had said on a former occasion, that if the Bill passed as it now stood, the register which was now prepared in all the boroughs would be the same register, neither more nor less, as would be prepared for all the country districts. One curious part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, and he (Mr. Ritchie) did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman justified it, was that it would leave the borough register exactly as it was now, and would create in country districts a totally different register for the same purposes as that which was now in existence in boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman justified that by saying that the borough franchise had been in existence for 50 years. He (Mr. Ritchie) did not understand by what process of reasoning the hon. and learned Gentleman arrived at that conclusion. He (Mr. Ritchie) should certainly arrive at a totally different conclusion from the facts the hon. and learned Member had adduced. If it were the case that the borough franchise had existed in the boroughs for 50 years, and had been successful in operation for that period, surely it would be to cast an unnecessary slur upon that franchise which had existed so long, if they were not to take advantage of it when they were extending municipal franchise to the whole country. The proposition was that the municipal duties, which had been so long and so well performed by Municipal Councils throughout the length and breadth of the land, should be extended to the whole country. They said that to do that it was necessary to extend the qualifications. The municipal franchise was a ratepaying occupation franchise, and that was the franchise which the Government proposed to extend to the counties. So far as the register was concerned, he thought he had shown that if the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was adopted, it was not likely to simplify the register; whereas if the register, as proposed by the Government, were adopted, the fact that it would not be a complicated or expensive register was amply shown by what the hen, and learned Gentleman had himself said. He would point out what the state of things would be if the proposal of the hon. and learned Member were adopted. There would be a different franchise within the borough from that which existed outside the borough—that was to say, that if an elector lived outside a borough, and happened to be a service voter, or a lodger, or an owner, and not an occupier, he was outside the limits of the borough, and would have a vote, for the County Council; whereas those persons who lived inside the borough, and were under the same conditions, would not have a vote in the election of County Councils. He (Mr. Ritchie) confessed that he did not know how it was possible to justify the retention of two franchises for the same purpose. Then, again, there would be this further anomaly—that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman would establish two franchises for elections to the County Councils, which could not in any way simplify matters. In one district, there would be a totally different franchise from that which would exist in another district. Then the hon. and learned Member said, why not give the franchise for lodgers in the country districts, and he gave this curious argument in favour of making a difference between an inside borough and an outside borough. He said that in places outside the boroughs,. lodgers were not numerous. What did that mean? Inside the boroughs they were numerous, and there the hon. and learned Member did not propose to enfranchise them; outside they were not numerous, and he would give them a vote.

said, he was sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but as a matter of fact, he had never discussed the question of enfranchising lodgers inside boroughs.

said, the hon. and learned Member had certainly used that argument indirectly by saying that lodgers were not numerous in the country districts, while they were numerous in the boroughs. In the one case, he was not going to enfranchise them for municipal purposes, although they were numerous, and outside the boroughs, where they were not numerous, he proposed to enfranchise them. What he would say in reference to the point and others, was that it might be all right and proper to consider the whole question of the municipal franchise, in order to see whether it ought to be amended so as to include some of those who were not now included in it; but he maintained that that question ought to be dealt with as a whole, and that what was done in the country districts should also be done at the same time in the boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed also to give the owner in the country districts a vote. He (Mr. Ritchie) was not prepared to argue that there was not much force in what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said as to the share in the rates borne by owners; but he would point out that the number of unoccupying owners in the counties was exceedingly small, and, therefore, unoccupying far as the unoccupying owners were concerned they were in the same position as the lodgers, and it was a very small matter. [Cries of "No!"] He ventured to say that the number who would get the franchise, and who did not possess it at present, would, in the counties, be very small indeed. In the boroughs, however, there was a large number, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to exclude them. By the distinct words in the Amendment they were excluded in the boroughs. Why was that? Because he knew very well if he proposed to give the municipal franchise to owners in boroughs, the boroughs would at once raise a great outcry against the proposal. If no other argument could be adduced in support of the proposal, it was certainly not desirable to extend the provisions of the Bill simply for the very small advantage which owners outside the boroughs would obtain, while it was withheld from owners inside the boroughs. It might be a very proper thing to consider hereafter; but he was perfectly certain that if they entertained that great question now, it would endanger the success of the Bill. He knew that his hon. and learned Friend who had moved the Amendment, and his hon. Friend the Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvon (Mr. Rathbone), who originally put it down on the Paper, had been for a great number of years staunch supporters of the principle of the division of rates between the owner and the occupier. On that side of the House, no doubt, there were many hon. Members who were not prepared to ac- cept that principle. There was not much force in the argument used as to the division of rates, and he did not think that if due consideration were given to the question of the representation of owners, there were few Members on that side of the House who would not be prepared to accept the doctrine of the division of rates. What was said was that if the owners were to be made liable for the payment of half the rates, they should have au adequate share of direct representation on the County Councils. This giving of a vote to owners would undoubtedly raise the whole question of the insufficiency of the representation of owners, notwithstanding that they were saddled with the liability of paying one-half of the rates. It would undoubtedly create and raise the point whether, if the owners were represented, it would not be a strong argument for dividing the rates equally between the owners and occupiers. One of the arguments used by the hon. and learned Gentleman was worthy of the attention and consideration of the Committee. The hon. and learned Member said that the owners, if they were not also occupiers, would not be capable of being elected to the County Council under the provisions of the present Bill. He (Mr. Ritchie) acknowledged that that was so, and he was quite prepared to say that he thought it was a point which ought to be remedied, but the Government could not, consistently with the lines of the present Bill, accept a franchise other than the franchise they had laid down—namely, a municipal franchise. He did think, however, that there was a strong argument in favour of saying that owners of property in counties, whether ratepayers or not, should be qualified to be elected to the County Council of the county in which they held property. That, however, was a matter which did not arise on this Bill, but would arise on the larger Bill, and the Government would be glad to give a most favourable consideration to any proposal to that effect, which might be suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman when they came to discuss the larger measure. He thought he had now disposed of all the points which had been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he would repeat that the proposals contained in the Bill were proposals to extend municipal rights and privileges throughout counties, and that they took the municipal franchise as they found it. That franchise had been in existence for a great many years. It had been wisely exercised, and the Government could not ask the House to depart from the principle they had laid down.

said, he thought there was one point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse), which had not been answered by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. One of the arguments raised by the hon. and learned Member had reference to the incidence of the service franchise, and he (Sir Richard Paget) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, when this Bill was extended to Scotland, or when it was applied to England, where the service franchise was operative to a large extent, those who now voted under the service franchise, such as agricultural labourers, would be disqualified under the municipal franchise. He thought they might look forward to the time when the provisions of the Bill would be extended to Scotland, and what he wanted to know was whether, in that case, those who voted under the service franchise would enjoy none of the privileges of the electors under the Bill. That was an important point, and he should be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in regard to the matter. Reference had been made to the question of divided rates, and it was admitted on all sides that it would be impossible to divide the rates between the owner and the occupier without giving the owner proper representation. The question of divided rates, however, was not at that moment properly before the House, and when it came up for consideration would be the proper time for saying whether the franchise ought to remain in its present condition. His point was, that when the question of divided rates came up for consideration, then would be the moment to say whether the franchise was such as it ought to be, and whether the owners ought not to be fully represented. If they were going to divide the rates, it might be fairly contended that the owners should be adequately represented on the Council. The point raised by the Amendment had reference more particularly to the adoption of a single register, and he was strongly of opinion that something in the nature of the Amendment should be adopted. Certainly, the matter was one which required a little more consideration than had been given to it.

said, he did not think it of much use to prolong the present discussion, because it was clear that it would arise in a better form afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had rightly stated that one great reason why he (Mr. Rathbone) was anxious to raise the question now was that, to his mind, it was of great importance that there should be a division of rates between the owners and occupiers, and that taxation and representation ought to go together. He thought a great many of those who did not take much share in local administration themselves were not aware of the danger which might arise from the withdrawal of the owners of property from taking their fair share in Local County Government. It was not, however, in the County Councils that the danger would arise, but in the local Councils they were now multiplying. As the Bill now stood, with two bodies dividing the work now done by one, and owners not directly taxed or represented, he believed that in the District Councils it would be found extremely difficult to get them to look after the interests of the locality until they found debts and difficulties tied round their necks for generations. He should certainly raise this question again when they came to the other Bill, and he hoped that those who valued good administration, and thought it ought not to be in the hands of a single class, but of all classes of the community, would agree with him as to the necessity of bringing the experience and qualifications of all to bear upon the question of Local Government. It was only in that way that they could get any approach to efficient and economical Local Government, and he repeated that the present industrial position of Great Britain was what made the question of rating, taxation, and debt a very serious one in the country. He thought his hon. and learned Friend would do well not to press the Amendment at the present moment, but to reserve it until the larger Bill was reached.

said, he was sorry that the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvon recommended the hon. and learned Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) to withdraw the Amendment. It related to a question which had been much discussed in the country, and he could assure the hon. Member that there had not been a dissentient voice raised against it. In his opinion, it would be of great advantage only to have two registers instead of three, and he trusted the Government would reconsider the matter, and that, while doing so, they would remember the class of men to whom it was proposed to hand over the County Government.

said, he did not think the argument of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, that because the municipal franchise had worked advantageously in the boroughs for 50 years, it would, therefore, be a good franchise for the counties, was altogether a sound argument. He was inclined to think that, whether property was rightly or wrongly shut out from the exercise of a vote in the boroughs, at any rate it was much more important that it should be enjoyed by property in the counties. He was strongly disposed to think that property ought to have full representation upon and a large voice in the construction of the various County Councils. He said this not in favour of property as such, but rather in favour of the rates that were to be paid by property. He could not understand how hon. Members could resist a proposal to give a vote to men who now paid the rates, whom they hoped to compel to pay the rates, and on whom all the rates would ultimately fall. In spite of the difficulties which might be experienced in recasting the Bill so as to give property a vote, he maintained that those who were in favour of that principle ought upon the present occasion to vote against property being excluded altogether by the Bill from a voice in the new county government. He trusted that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. Hobhouse) would take a Division in order, at this early stage in their proceedings, to decide definitely whe- ther it was proper or not to extend the municipal franchise over the whole country. If the hon. and learned Member pressed the Amendment to a Division, he would certainly vote with him.

said, he wished to record his voice in favour of the acceptance of this proposal by the Government. He had not gathered from the hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) any adequate reason why the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board declared that, as a matter of convenience, it was desirable to retain the register which already existed in municipal boroughs; but he had always been given to understand that it was most desirable to have one register for all purposes, both Imperial and local, Parliamentary and municipal. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman, before going further, to reconsider the decision he had arrived at, with a view of establishing one register without following the principle of a household franchise in boroughs, which practically excluded many thousands of persons from the enjoyment of the vote. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in the remarks he made, had certainly grappled with the reasons given by his hon. and learned Friend for making this proposal. It was highly improper to exclude from any voice in the management of county affairs those who contributed very largely to the rates. If there was anything to be said against the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, it ought to be fully stated and properly discussed. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the question of giving the franchise to owners did not arise under the present Bill.

No; I did not say that. What I said was that the question of the owners being qualified to sit on the County Councils was one which did not arise under this Bill, but under the other.

said, he was sorry if he had confused the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He would only add that those who resisted the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend were disqualifying those who very largely con- tributed to the rates from taking part in the future municipal government of the country and the administration of the local funds. He should have no hesitation in supporting his hon. and learned Friend if he took the Bill into the Lobby.

said, he should support the Amendment to the extent that it gave the owners of property a vote in connection with the management of the county affairs. The hon. Member for the Arfon Division of Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), however, placed the Committee in this difficulty. He had associated the owner franchise with the lodger and service franchise, and many hon. Members on that side of the House—certainly he, for one—were of opinion that such franchises could scarcely be recognized in purely county questions. Surely lodgers and service tenants were not entitled to have a voice in the management of roads and county property. Therefore, he could not vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, although he was anxious to accept an owner franchise.

said, he had taken part in Local Board elections as a resident owner, but under this Bill that privilege would be taken away, and he could never vote except as a resident. At present, in the election of Boards of Guardians, the owners' suffrage existed. If the Bill passed, however, the character of Local Board elections would be entirely changed. They would be conducted under the provisions of the Bill, and those who now voted as owners would no longer vote as such. In other words, in every Local Board district owners would be actually disqualified from voting. As an owner he had enjoyed the privilege of taking part in various Local Board elections; but hereafter he would have no voice in the management of local affairs, except he happened to be a resident. He hoped he had made the position sufficiently clear to the Committee. They were now, as the Bill stood, taking away a right and a privilege which had been confirmed as recently as 1875 by the Public Health Act. He quite agreed that at this particular moment it would not be convenient to continue the discussion; but he trusted that, though it might not be discussed now, the question would be revived hereafter. Speaking for himself alone, he was not absolutely sure that the Municipal Corporations, and those who took part in municipal elections, would be unwilling to add an owner suffrage to the other suffrages now in existence in the boroughs. In his opinion, a certain amount of owner suffrage would give solidity and character to municipal elections, and he thought the experiment was worth trying by a Conservative Government. He did not think that any loss would be incurred by it, and he was sure that such a proposal would be regarded by Members of the House with great satisfaction, and would be cordially welcomed by those who were in the habit of supporting the Government. In regard to the other point, which had been alluded to by his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he hoped provisions would be made in the other Bill for establishing an ownership qualification for a seat on the new County Councils. He believed that such a provision would give very great satisfaction to the electors, and he was also of opinion that the new institution about to be created by the Bill would thereby be materially strengthened.

expressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would reconsider the provisions of the Bill, because, if they were passed in their present shape, as he understood them, an owner of property might be rated at any sum; but unless he actually lived on the property he would be disfranchised, and have no voice in the elections in that part of the county where his property was situated. It was absurd that the possessor of a highly rated property for woods, fishing, and shooting should be deprived of a voice in the government of a county in which it was situated merely because he lived elsewhere. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would correct that statement if it was inaccurate.

said, he understood the Government proposed to adopt the same franchise for the election of county councillors as now existed in the municipal boroughs, which he thought was right; but the Amendment before the House proposed, among other things, that freeholders should be added to the burgess list, but to this he objected, and he thought this suggestion would not give satisfaction to those who lived in towns. He had taken an active part in the borough management, and he knew that the existing borough qualification gave satisfaction. When the revising barrister came round to revise the Parliamentary list of voters, he also revised the municipal list, and all those who occupied land, or buildings to the value of £10, or were householders within the borough, were put on the list with a double qualification, both Parliamentary and municipal. Then at the end of the list came those who were rated under £10 and the women who were entitled to vote as occupiers were added. He had found that system to work exceedingly well; but by the Amendment, as it stood, every owner would have a vote whether he was a resident or not. He opposed that provision, also any system of plural voting; and if a Division was taken, he should support the Government.

said, he was afraid that it was impossible for him to support the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for East Somerset. In the first place, although this was not an argument he would press upon the Committee, there would hardly be an excuse for the Government, after having introduced a measure in a certain popular direction, that they should be willing to make provision in it for the special representation of owners of property. As a matter of fact and experience, he did not believe that the number of owners who would be disqualified owing to their having no residence would be sufficient to justify the introduction of such an Amendment. He gathered from what fell from the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) that he and others would be prepared to vote for the Amendment as far as it conferred a vote upon the owners of property; but, on the other hand, that he and others were not prepared to support, or would unwillingly support, the Amendment as it stood, because it involved the introduction of the service and lodger franchise. He thought that the Committee, before they accepted the Amendment, ought to weigh carefully all that it involved. It involved the creation of gross anomalies. If it were agreed to, municipal boroughs and rural districts would be placed under totally different systems of franchise. With all deference to hon. Members who had spoken in the debate with great authority and experience, he should like to ask them whether they supposed that the borough's of England would approve of any proposal which would have the effect of conferring upon the ground landlords in towns who paid no rates a direct vote on municipal matters. Having been a Representative of a borough for some time, he could entirely endorse from his own experience what fell from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. T. Robinson)—that such a provision would be strenuously opposed by the towns. Another reason why he (Viscount Lymington) objected to the proposal was that it would introduce the lodger and service franchise. There were many lodgers in the towns, but very few lodgers in the rural districts, and while the lodgers in the counties would be enfranchised those in the towns would still remain disqualified. Did hon. Members who supported the Amendment on Conservative grounds, and with the knowledge that the Metropolis would in any case be excluded from its operation, wish to swamp the ratepayers' vote in the boroughs with a low-class lodger franchise? So far as the service franchise was concerned, it might be a very proper franchise for the election of Members of Parliament, but he did not think that one's butler or gardener ought to have the right to vote upon rural questions. He would, therefore, support the Government in their resistance to the Amendment, but he hoped it would not be pressed.

said, he did not know whether the discussion was purely academic or whether it was to result in a Division. He had only risen for the purpose of saying that if the Amendment went to a Division he should vote with the Government, because he looked upon the proposal as distinctly retrogressive.

said, that if the Amendment went to a Division, as he hoped it would, he would support it on this ground—that the anomalies it was intended to remove were anomalies which might be dealt with in different stages of the progress of the Bill. The Government and the country were embarking under the Bill in an entirely new system of Local Government administration. They were sure to have anomalies arising in any attempt to introduce an entirely new condition of things, and as they arose an attempt must be made to deal with them, and, undoubtedly, it would be necessary to sweep others away on a future occasion. They were now striving to assimilate and bring into an intelligible and homogeneous form the local administration of the Imperial administration of the country, and he should certainly support the Amendment, as it was a step in the direction in which they wanted to go. He could not sympathize with the argument of the noble Lord the Member for the South Molton Division of Devon (Viscount Lymington that one's butler or gardener was perfectly fit to vote upon matters affecting Imperial policy, but was not fit to vote upon the question of a county loan or a county rate. He (Mr. Waddy) should have thought that, so far as the question of interest was concerned, it would be all the other way. In small matters there could be no harm in letting the butler have his vote, but in matters of Imperial policy and legislation it was desirable that more provision, information, and a deeper sense of responsibility should be brought to bear. Sooner or later it would become necessary to assimilate the two existing franchises, and in so doing he trusted that they would greatly improve them wherever they needed improvement, and that they would get rid of that monstrous absurdity, the plurality of votes. He entirely approved of the principle which they were about to inaugurate in the new legislation—namely, that they were going to assimilate the government of the country in Imperial matters in Parliament with the government of the country in local matters elsewhere. He was prepared to support and carry out that principle wherever it might lead him, and, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment moved by his hon. and learned Friend.

said, he hoped that hon. Members were quite alive to the results which were likely to ensue—according to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy)—if the Amendment were passed. What they had to do was one of two things—either of accepting the proposal to create great anomalies which could not possibly be defended, or to introduce a series of changes which would practically amount to municipal reform. It was extremely undesirable, that in a measure of this kind, they should do either the one or the other. It had already been pointed out that the anomalies would be extremely great, and that in endeavouring to remedy an evil in one part of the district they would be creating a far larger grievance in the municipal boroughs. There was another point he mentioned to which no hon. Gentleman had alluded, and that was that at two different parts of a country district there would exist different franchises relating to the same county government. That was an anomaly which could not possibly be defended, and if it were extended to the boroughs they would be practically introducing municipal reform. His hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell) said, that the extension of the ownership vote to boroughs would be acceptable. All he could say was that he believed any proposal of that kind to extend the ownership vote to boroughs would be refused by the municipalities. He recollected that when Sir Charles Dilke was proposing a Bill of this kind in a speech which he made at Halifax, he said that, although there was a desire that the rates should be divided between the owner and occupier, he greatly feared that even with such a boon as that the boroughs would not consent to have the ownership vote extended to their municipal life. The hon. and learned Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) asked what it was proposed to do with the service vote in Scotland. All that he could say was that the Government did not propose in the present Bill to disqualify or disfranchise any person. They did not confer a new franchise upon anybody, nor did they disqualify or disfranchise anybody. As to Scotland their aim and belief was that no occupier of a cottage should be disqualified from having a vote. Of course, the gardener and the butler and so on would be disqualified, but if he was disqualified for the enjoyment of the county franchise, surely it would be necessary to disqualify him for the enjoyment of the borough franchise also; and the Government certainly did not contemplate the introduction of a measure which would entail such consequences. They had taken the municipal franchise as the basis upon which the Bill should proceed. That was the franchise upon which municipal privileges were based at present, and the Government felt it was the only safe ground they could stand upon. If they were to depart from it they would find themselves embarked on all manner of disputable points, and it would be seen from the discussion which had already taken place that whilst some other hon. Members were prepared to vote for the Amendment, because it would do certain things, others were prepared to vote for it because it would not do other things. He asked the Government, therefore, to assent to the proposals contained in the Bill and not to adopt the Amendment.

said, he was grateful for the concession which the Government had made, which he understood to mean that they would introduce into the second Local Government Bill a prevision to give to the owners of property, whether registered as county voters or not, a qualification for sitting on the County and District Councils. In consideration of that concession, and impressed as he was with the desirability of not unnecessarily occupying the time of the House, he would not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but would withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

referring to the Amendment standing in his name, in page 1, line 19, after "the," leave out to end of Clause, and insert—

"Qualification of electors for members of Local Boards under The Public Health Act, 1875, and the scale of voting prescribed by section eight, and rules 10, 11, 12, and 13 of schedule 2 to that Act, shall extend to every part of a county not within the limits of a borough, and a person possessing in any part of a county outside the limits of a borough the qualification specified in rules 10, 11, 12, and 13 of schedule 2 to the said Act, shall be entitled to be registered under this Act as a county elector, in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate, in accordance with the scale of voting prescribed by such rules,"

said, that he did not intend to move the Amendment in that form. His intention had been, if he was successful enough to secure the omission of the original words of the clause, that the Amend- ment should then become a Substantive Motion, and it would be competent for hon. Members to move such Amendments to it as they deemed proper. The Amendment involved two principles—one was that the owners and occupiers of cottage property should have a vote, and the other was the abolition of the plural vote, against which a strong opinion had already been expressed by an hon. Member opposite. He proposed, therefore, to break up the Amendment as originally drawn, and to deal, in the first instance, only with ownership votes. As regarded the ownership vote for Parliamentary purposes, it consisted of a freehold of the value of 40s. per annum, or a freehold of £5, or a leasehold for a specified number of years of a certain value. These qualifications practically minimized the property rights and reduced them to next to nothing, and it was well known that in dealing with questions of that kind many difficulties would be placed in the way of persons claiming the right to vote upon a property qualification. According to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, these owners were to have no sort of voice in the election of Councils, by whom they might be subjected to the heavy penalties under the Local Government Bill. His right hon. Friend said the question was only a small one. He (Mr. Ambrose) admitted that in respect of the election of Parliamentary Representatives it was a small matter; but he denied that it was small if they dealt with property owners in the sense in which they were to be used by the Local Government Bill. He would ask his right hon. Friend, who told them that this Bill was to be on a popular basis, how he established his proposition? In what respect was it on a popular basis if he began by narrowing the electoral basis, and striking out a portion of those who were entitled to vote? His right hon. Friend said there were not many persons who would be affected. But he (Mr. Ambrose) had considered how the Bill would act with regard to one parish out of six in his Division—namely, Willesden, and in that parish alone there were no less than 640 registered owners who were entitled to vote on the election of members of the Local Board, every one of whom would be disfranchised by this Bill. Only a quarter of the number entitled to vote were at pre- sent on the register. They had heard something about coachmen and gardeners being entitled to vote. He did not say that those in service should not have a vote at all. If they were ratepayers, or if they occupied houses, they would have their vote; but that was quite another matter. His point was that the service franchise holder who lived in another man's house, and the lodger franchise holder also, might be very proper persons to be on the Parliamentary Election Register; but in this case they would have to do with the expenditure of local funds. In the parish of Willesden, again, there were no less than 1,805 tenants at weekly rents. Not one of those tenants paid rates directly; not one of them was affected by the amount of the rates; all of them might with a light heart vote for any policy, or any councillors who might be in favour of extravagance, and they would not be affected by it. Let the Committee consider how unjust it would be that the 1,805 weekly tenants should have each a vote, although they paid no rates, and that not one of the owners of the property, although they paid the rates, would be entitled to vote in respect of this franchise. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had announced that this was to be a popular measure. He (Mr. Ambrose) wanted it to be so, and he would make it popular by extending its basis, and including a large number of persons who would otherwise be shut out. It was said it would be an anomaly if they gave owners a right to vote, because it would be side by side with the borough franchise. But he would point out that there was a very considerable distinction between the management of boroughs and that of districts which were partly urban and partly rural. The borough was an area with a dense population; you might draw a line around it, and the population would be found to be inclosed within a very small circumference; there was in a borough a community of interest, and what suited one part of the people was likely to suit another part. By means of newspapers everyone knew what was taking place, and public opinion was thus brought to bear upon the Town Council, and there was some security that good measures would be passed. But in a rural, or partly rural and partly urban district, there was nothing like homogeneity; there might be a very large and straggling area, and a large number of people liable for rates from which they derived no benefit, He could refer to a case where in consequence of a sewage scheme the rates of an owner were increased by £20 a-year, although the work, having proceeded a certain distance, was stopped because it was found that at a particular part there were only a few gentlemen's houses who would be served by it. He mentioned that to show that there was not in these districts the same community of interest which existed in boroughs. The borough franchise which was created in 1836 was a considerable extension of the franchise then existing, and it was a popular measure within the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. But the case now was very different. He only asked by his Amendment the maintenance of what was the status quo; in other words that there should be no disfranchisement, and he thought it only fair to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the second part of his Amendment which dealt only with the ownership vote. Amendment proposed,

In page 1, line 19, to leave out all the words after the word "England," to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "Every owner and also every ratepayer as defined by Rules 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' in respect of property situated within any part of a county, and within the limits of a borough, shall be entitled to be registered under this Act to vote as a county elector in the parish in which the qualifying property is situate,"—(Mr. Ambrose,)

—instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the word 'The' stand part of the Clause."

said, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not think him desirous of saying anything die respectful in regard to his views. if he did not follow him in the discussion raised, because he understood that his hon. and learned Friend proposed by his Amendment to do practically that which the Committee had just decided should not be done, that was at least the effect of the withdrawal of the Amendment. His hon. and learned Friend now proposed to give to owners a vote as county electors, and he was going to follow that by proposing another Amendment which would give the owner, if he were an occupier in both capacities, a plural vote. That he (Mr. Ritchie) took to be entirely antagonistic to the principle of the Bill, and he regretted for the reasons already given in reply to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hobhouse) that the Government were unable to accept the proposal.