asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the promised Government Bill for the constitution of a Public Trustee is in preparation; and if, having regard to the urgent need in the public interest for the formation of such a self-supporting office, hope may be entertained that it will be assigned a favourable position in the legislative programme for next Session?

No, Sir. No such Bill is at present in preparation; and in view of the great body of legislative work before the Government I cannot promise that such a measure will be brought forward next Session. Personally, I am very favourably disposed to the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I do not wish to say anything to discourage his idea. But I can give no pledge on behalf of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Who is responsible for the proper application of the sum of £20,000 recently raised to improve the means of communication of the Island of Dominica; if there is any truth in the statement that the money is being wasted; if it is a fact that a Mr. Robins, recently sent to Dominica as an engineer, is paid £500 a-year, instead of £350 a-year paid his predecessor; and, if so, what is the reason for this increase of salary; what Mr. Robins' qualifications are; and whether he has as yet submitted any plans or specifications for roads or bridges; if it is also a fact that, in addition to this engineer, a Mr. Rankin has been appointed clerk of works at a salary of £150 a-year; and, if so, what his exact occupation is; if it is true that these two gentlemen are in the habit of ordering most expensive stores, which are put down to extras, and charged to the Public Works Account; and whether there is any, and, if so, what, check upon their expenditure under this head; and, if it is also true that the Government quarters at Mona Bruce are being repaired, rebuilt, and redecorated for Mr. Robins and his family; that a Government store has been opened, and a storekeeper appointed, in a building rented by Mr. Robins' directions; and that large orders for materials and supplies have been made out by him; and, if so, who is responsible for this expenditure, and out of what fund is it to be met?

The Governor of the Leeward Islands, the President of Dominica, and the engineer in charge of the works are responsible for the application of the £20,000 raised for the improvement of the means of communication in Dominica, and the Secretary of State has no reason to believe that the money is being wasted. Mr. Robins' engagement is a special and temporary one at £500 a-year; and he has had no predecessor. He is an experienced engineer, who has been employed by the Governments of various Colonies; and, doubtless, his plans and specifications have been submitted to the Colonial Government. He is provided with a house. The requisite stores have been ordered by the Colonial Government, and are, doubtless, charged to the Island Public Works account. The expenditure must be authorized by the Governor or the President of the Island. Orders have been made out by Mr. Robins and approved by the Governor. The Governor is responsible for the expenditure, which is to be met out of the proposed loan.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If it is true that in the Island of St. Lucia there is only school accommodation for 6½ per cent of the population, and that the teaching staff is utterly inadequate to the requirements of the public; if it is also true that the inhabitants of St. Lucia have repeatedly asked for more schools and more teaching, and that they have offered voluntarily to tax themselves to provide education for their children; and, if so, why the Government have not acceded to their repeated requests; and, whether there is any likelihood of their doing so?

It appears to be substantially true that there is school accommodation in St. Lucia for only about 7 per cent of the population, and that the staff is inadequate for the teaching of all the children of school age. The Secretary of State is not aware that the inhabitants have repeatedly asked for more schools, or have offered to tax themselves to provide education for their children. The question of making better provision for elementary education in St. Lucia is under the consideration of the Governor of the Windward Islands, and he will be asked for an early Report.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the trial of a Petition of Right in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland on the 14th and 19th of November, where it was found by the Court that the petitioner, Professor Pye, of Queen's College, Galway, had by the dissolution of the Queen's University, in which he had held an office, lost certain fees to the extent of £300 a-year, being nearly one-half his total income; whether he has considered the statement of Baron Dowse, in giving judgment for the Crown, that the Act dissolving the University should have contained provisions dealing with this loss; and, whether, as the Act was passed by the Legislature on the understanding that no financial injury should be inflicted on any office-holder by its operation, Government will propose legislation or submit an Estimate with a view to carry out the suggestion of the learned Judge?

The attention of the Irish Government has been called to the trial alluded to; also to the representations of Professor Pye as to the extent of his losses, and the statement of Baron Dowse in giving judgment. No application has since been made by Professor Pye; but on its receipt the matter will be carefully considered.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When Her Majesty's Government intend placing upon the Table of the House all Correspondence relative to the Anglo-American Fisheries Treaty, recently arranged by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); whether, seeing that the United States Senate has rejected the Treaty, it is the intention of the Government to negotiate for a new Commission, and, in the meantime, owing to the divergence of legal opinion relative to the meaning of the Treaty of 1818, it is intended to suspend enforcing its provisions, as interpreted by the Government of Canada; and, whether he considers that the modus vivendi under the Treaty is still in force?

Her Majesty's Government do not propose to publish the Papers, or to make any statement on the subject at present. The modus vivendi is still in operation.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Sergeant John O'Brien, of Cappamore, has been appointed a Special Sergeant "Crime Special Branch," County Limerick; what extra pay and allowances will he receive; has any examination into his fitness been held, and by whom; why has he been appointed, without competition, over the heads of 100 sergeants in Limerick City and County, many of whom possess superior qualifications; and, is this the same Sergeant John O'Brien who, while stationed at Glin in 1886, was guilty of a serious violation of Police Regulations, for which he was reprimanded and removed from his station; and, if so, was this promotion made with the sanction of the Chief Secretary.

The Constabulary authorities report that it is the case that Sergeant John O'Brien has been assigned the duties mentioned in the Question. He receives 1s. 6d. per day extra pay; no allowance attaches to the appointment. He had not to undergo a special examination, nor is there a competitive examination for an appointment of this nature. This sergeant was transferred from Glin some two years ago for a breach of the Regulations of the Force. His appointment did not come before the Chief Secretary for sanction, inasmuch as his sanction was not required. Sergeant O'Brien has always borne an excellent character; and his officers, who have a high opinion of him, consider him well qualified to carry out the duties now assigned to him.

asked, whether it would tend to maintain the discipline in the Force if a man who had been reprimanded for a breach of the Regulations should afterwards be promoted over the heads of other men?

said, he did not think that a slight breach of discipline should for ever debar a deserving officer from promotion.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention was directed to a meeting of the Bann Drainage Trustees, held on Friday, November 9, in the Imperial Hotel, Belfast, where, after the routine business was disposed of, the Engineer submitted his Report and Estimate for maintenance of works in 1889, and the Board directed an assessment for a rate of £1,000; is he aware how many of the above Board are agents, and do not pay any of this assessment; how much of this assessment will be expended to pay officials, and how much for the maintenance of the works; and, what amount has been assessed for the last five years on the owners and occupiers of lands from the weir at Movanagher to the Cutts at Coleraine?

I am not aware of any official records which would furnish a reply to the Question. If, however, the hon. Member desires to repeat it, and will be so good as to give some five or six days' notice, I shall make further inquiry; and, if necessary, cause a copy of the Question to be sent to the Secretary of the Bann Drainage Trustees, inviting them to make any observations they may wish in to regard to it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware of the new Rule of the Land Commission, whereby every tenant applying to have a fair rent fixed, and the Poor Law valuation of whose farm is upwards of £5, is obliged to lodge with the Sub-Commission an ordnance map of his farm with the farm coloured thereon; whether directions have been given to the Sub-Commissioners to dismiss every fair rent application made by such a tenant where the map has not been lodged prior to the hearing; whether, for the last seven years, such an obligation was only imposed where the valuation exceeded £30; whether he knows of the general dissatisfaction which the extension of this rule has caused among the small farmers who are unable to bear this additional expense in making their applications; and, if he will suggest to the Land Commission the desirability of withdrawing this rule, which presses so severely on poor farmers?

The Land Commissioners report that their present Rule requires the ordnance map showing the boundaries of the holding to be lodged in every case of an originating notice where the valuation is £5 or upwards, and that the former limit was £30. They state, however, that it is not the fact that, in the absence of a map, the case is over dismissed. It is only adjourned. The Commissioners are aware that there is some dissatisfaction with the Rule, as it at present exists, and they are considering how its provisions can be in some degree modified.

said, he was not aware of the details in regard to the cost to which tenants were put in procuring these maps.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Estimates upon which Supply is voted by the House of Commons accurately represent the actual staff and expenses of the various Public Departments; whether there has been a material reduction under Vote 3, Class III., since the Estimates for 1888–9 were laid upon the Table; whether the number of Masters of the Supreme Court has been reduced during the past 12 months, and whether all the Masters have been in daily attendance throughout that period; whether the number of clerks in the Central Office of the Supreme Court is 77, and not 84, as shown in the Estimates, and whether it is true that the scale of salaries for all these clerks is from £100 to £600 a-year; whether the office of Pursebearer to the Lord Chancellor has been abolished, or is merely being carried on under another name with the same salary; and why, if material changes have been made in the Vote, the House was not informed of the fact when the amount was asked for on the 13th instant?

The Estimate upon which Supply is voted represents accurately the staff and costs of a Department up to the middle of January, when the Estimate goes to the printer. It is, of course, impossible to foresee what retirements may take place during the course of the following year. The alterations in the staff of the Supreme Court since the Estimate was laid on the Table in March last have not been so material as to call for a departure from the usual practice. In the Central Office the number of Masters has recently been reduced by retirement from 16 to 15, and the number of clerks from 84 to 77. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, 1887, the vacancies thus caused and the three next which may occur among the clerks will not be filled up. The scale of salary for the clerks is that recommended by the Committee—namely, from £100 to £600 a-year; but there are three clerks in receipt of £700, in consequence of rights acquired before the Committee's inquiry and Report. The attendance of the Masters during the full office hours is at present the subject of inquiry by the Lord Chancellor. There is no separate office of Pursebearer. The duties have been assigned without an increase of salary to the office of the Lord Chancellor's Clerk of the Chamber, an office declared to be necessary by the Royal Commission of 1874. The economy effected will be apparent by comparing the Estimates of 1884–5 with those of the following year, when the change was made:—1884–5, Gentleman of the Chamber, £400, with an allowance for discharging duties of Pursebearer £100, and Sealer, £50—total, £550; 1885–6, Pursebearer and Clerk of the Chamber, £400. Pull particulars of the changes and economies effected in the Lord Chancellor's Department by the re organization which then took place will appear in the Correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury, which has been moved for by the right hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers).

asked when the alterations were made; and whether it was not a fact that on the day the House voted £400 under the head of Purse-bearer to the Lord Chancellor the office had been abolished?

I do not admit it is the fact that the House voted £400 under the name of Pursebearer; because, if you will look at the Estimates, you will see it is for the Pursebearer and for the Clerk to the Chamber. If I might venture to criticize the wording of it, I think, when the change was made, it would have been better if the duties of Clerk to the Chamber had been put first. Putting the office of Pursebearer first has given rather undue prominence to it.

When were these changes made? When was the number of clerks reduced?

I cannot give the precise dates; but I may remind the House that when this Vote was under discussion I stated that redundant clerks had been called upon to retire; I was not aware at that moment, but I believed, that four of them had actually retired. Of course, I cannot know what changes take place in various Departments from day to day; but I meant to convey to the Committee that the Government intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, and I stated distinctly that as vacancies occurred they would not be filled up.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government has yet decided upon taking the rifle range at Castlecomer, in the County of Kilkenny, for military practice; whether the Military Authorities, upon examination, have fully approved of the projected range; and, whether the Local Committee have in every way facilitated the acquisition of the same, and further have expressed themselves as prepared to remove the difficulties, if any, that may present themselves to the Authorities; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in carrying out the project?

The range at Castlecomer offers many advantages over the ranges now available, and the War Department would be glad to acquire it. But, notwithstanding the help afforded by some gentlemen of the locality, it has been found impracticable to come to terms with several of the occupiers whose land would be required or rights interfered with.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to certain proceedings of the General Prisons' Board, Dublin Castle, in relation to the threatened dismissal of Thomas Nolan, Warder, from his service in Her Majesty's Prison, Kilkenny; what is the charge, or breach of discipline, proved against the warder; whether he is aware that the Board's Minute of November 13, based upon a Report of Captain Hill, calling for the warder's resignation, is not regarded as satisfactory in the interests of justice by the local Visiting Justices of Kilkenny; and, whether, in view of the same, and having regard to the good character of the warder, and the difficulty, under present circumstances, of his being able to procure employment from the public upon dismissal, he will direct a further and independent inquiry to be instituted by the local Justices, or otherwise, as to the facts and circumstances of the case?

The warder referred to was called on to resign, owing to a gross breach of discipline in removing a prisoner from his proper class, and for making a misstatement of facts. These circumstances, taken with his previous unsatisfactory record, rendered his further retention in the Public Service undesirable, and he was accordingly given the option of resignation or dismissal. The Government see no ground for calling for further inquiry into the matter.

stated, that in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of this answer, he would call attention to the matter on the discussion of the Estimates.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a separate account is kept at the Valuation Office of every sum received for (a) certificates of valuation, (b) ordnance maps, and (c) colouring and marking farms on such maps; whether any, and what, allowances, over and above their regular salaries, are made to clerks in the Office in respect of (a) or (b); and, whether any persons are, or have been, employed in addition to the staff in respect of these matters, and on what terms?

The Commissioner of Valuation reports that the reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the affirmative. No allowances over and above their regular salaries are allowed to the clerks in the Office for those duties. Up to the present no addition has been made to the staff in respect of the recent increase of work for the Land Commission Department; but an application for additional assistance is now before the Treasury.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, as owing to the large use of steam power and machinery on board ship the duties and responsibilities of the Engineer Department of the Royal Navy have of late years enormously increased, and as the officers of this Department are still far behind every other class of commissioned officers (except accountants) in the matter of rank, and behind every other class in the matter of pay, he will take steps to remedy this grievance, and to place these officers on an equal footing in these respects to those of any other branch of the Navy?

The question of the pay and position of the officers of the Engineer Branch of the Navy has, from time to time, received the careful consideration of the Admiralty; and so late as in February, 1886, an Order in Council was obtained defining and re-adjusting the relative ranks of the officers of Her Majesty's Service, based on the recommendation of a Committee specially appointed to consider the question. I am not disposed to disturb this settlement.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that Daniel Mahoney and two comrade fishermen did, at great personal peril, in Dunmanus Bay, County Cork, recover a torpedo, the property of Her Majesty's Government; whether they did restore same to Coastguard authorities at Schull, subject to the usual demand for salvage; whether the value of the torpedo is £500; whether the usual salvage awarded by the Court of Admiralty is sometimes one-half, and never less than one-tenth, of the value of the property saved; and, whether these men have received half or a reasonable amount of the value of the torpedo in question; and, if not, what reason can be assigned for deviating from the usual practice of awarding salvage?

The fishermen in question found the torpedo floating, and towed it about four miles to a place of safety, from whence it was handed over to the Coastguard. The torpedo not being loaded, there was no peril attaching to this service. The value of the torpedo is £340. The Admiralty Court occasionally awards salvage as high as one-half of the value of the property salved; but it is not correct to say that less than one-tenth is never awarded. The present case is, however, one of recovery of wreck and not of salvage, and is, therefore, not one for the Admiralty Court to deal with. The Admiralty, in these and similar cases, award such remuneration as the circumstances of the case justify. In this case an award of £1 per man was considered adequate.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether an Order was made by the Irish Land Commission, under section 15, sub-section 2, of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," reducing the terms payable by landowners for redemption of tithe rent-charge from 22½ years, as fixed by "The Irish Church Act, 1869," to 20 years' purchase; whether the Commissioners of the Treasury have assented to such an order; by what sum would the Irish Church surplus be reduced under such an arrangement on transactions already entered into; and, what is the estimated reduction of the surplus if sales of land representing the £5,000,000 contemplated by the Land Purchase Bill now before the House should be carried out?

The Land Commissioners report that no Order has been made reducing the terms of redemption of tithe rent-charge; but that they applied to the Treasury in November, 1887, for the requisite consent that on sales under Lord Ashbourne's Act of land liable to tithe rent-charge, payable to the Land Commissioners and ordered to be redeemed, such redemption might be carried out at 20 years' purchase of the charge, less such sum in the pound as the payer of such tithe rent-charge was entitled to deduct for poor rate on an average of live years prior to December, 1887. If this suggestion were carried out it is estimated that £11,445 would be the total loss up to the present time. It is not possible to calculate the prospective loss to the Church Surplus as estimated in 1869 on the assumption that the redemption price of tithe rent-charge was reduced by two-and-a-half years' purchase in the case of lands which may be hereafter sold under Lord Ashbourne's Act, inasmuch as it cannot be told what lands will be sold. Some lands are not now liable to tithe rent-charge; while on other lands the charge varies considerably in amount.

asked if the Treasury had consented?

No, Sir; the application has been made, but no arrangement has been come to yet.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether any expenses are now being incurred in relation to the abandoned Irish Drainage Bills; and, if so, out of what Vote are they being paid; whether there has been a very general condemnation by competent authorities of the proposed method of effecting the drainage of the Barrow; and, will the Government reconsider the whole question before proceeding further with these projects?

The Government having decided to re-introduce the Irish Drainage Bills next Session, expenses continue to be incurred in relation to them, which are being met partly out of the Vote for Public Works and Industries (Ireland) (Drainage Works and Surveys) and partly out of the Vote for Law Charges (England) (Parliamentary Agency). It is not the fact that there has been a general condemnation by competent authorities of the proposed method of effecting the drainage of the Barrow. The Government do not see any ground to reconsider their decision to bring again before Parliament for its consideration the proposals already made by them in the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Elective Council of Cyprus, after duly considering the Estimates presented to them by the Government, have reduced the same by several thousands of pounds; and, whether the votes of the Elective Council have been overruled by Her Majesty's Orders in Council?

The Estimates were so reduced by £7,962. As these reductions could not be carried out summarily without injury to the Island and its credit, and breach of faith to some public servants, the greater part of the amount has been sanctioned by Order in Council under the powers reserved to the Crown by the Constitution Order in Council. And it is hoped that a corresponding reduction may be effected in a less objectionable way, as explained in pages 174 to 180 of Blue Book C, 5,523.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that the administration of Cyprus is a matter of increasing difficulty, owing to the financial condition of the Island and the heavy tribute payable to the Porte; and, whether any steps have been taken either to commute the Turkish tribute, or to relieve Cyprus of a burden from which she derives no benefit?

My answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is, Yes. But the hon. Member will bear in mind that the tribute payable to the Porte results from an International agreement, and is not in our power to alter. In stating this I also answer the second part of the hon. Member's Question as to relieving Cyprus from the burden of the tribute. The annual sum of £92,000 must be paid to the Porte. Whether it may be possible to arrive at a financial arrangement for the commutation of the tribute is a question with regard to which I am not able at present to give a definite answer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case, heard before Mr. Lushington, at the Clerkenwell Police Court, on the 15th instant, in which it was proved that the head mistress of the Penton Street Board School, Pentonville, had, in the discharge of her duty, kept a child in school, and that an elder sister of this child, who had been sent to bring her little sister home, had knocked the mistress down, when the latter had ordered the child to go back to the corner into which she had been sent, and in which case Mr. Lushington, though informed that, by the Rules of the School Board, the mistress could only have punished the child by keeping her in, gave it as his opinion that the mistress had no right to detain the child when the mother had sent for it, and that the mistress had not been so grievously assaulted as she had sworn to have been the case, and had decided to do no more in the case than require the defendant's mother to become surety in £5 for the defendant's keeping the peace for six months; whether he is aware that such is not the first case in which Mr. Lushington has treated complaints of a similar character by board school teachers; and, whether he can give the House any assurance that he will at an early date introduce some measure for the better protection of all Government certificated and fully qualified teachers in public elementary schools?

I have received a Report from Mr. Lushington on the case from the Penton Street School, in which he informs me that, in his opinion, it was at least doubtful whether the schoolmistress was within her legal rights in insisting that the child should not be taken home upon the mother's order. The defendant was 14 years of age, but did not look so old; and the magistrate felt a difficulty in deciding what punishment would be suitable for so young a female culprit. He considered, on the whole, that the another's recognizance for her good behaviour would be the most appropriate determination of the matter. I have no reason to believe that the law presses hardly on school teachers, and I think it can be left to the discretion of the magistrates to protect them in the exercise of their duty; but I shall be happy to consider any suggestions of my hon. Friend.

asked whether the defendant did not knock the schoolmistress down?

said, that he was not informed on that point, but would inquire.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has taken, or proposes to take, steps to deal with the question of allowing permanent Civil Servants, entitled to pensions, to hold places of profit outside the Government service, in the direction recommended by the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, Second Report, paragraphs 98 and 100; whether, meantime, anything has been done to abate abuses of this kind, in contravention of previous rulings of the Treasury, when the holders of important offices are Directors of many Companies which hold meetings in the day time, and when Directorships are held by higher officers whose example may guide their juniors; whether the Comptroller of the Treasury and the Receiver General of Inland Revenue still hold the Directorships attributed to them in the Directory of Directors—namely Sir Rivers Wilson, Director of the Alliance Assurance Company; Sir Alfred Slade, Director of the Union Steamship Company and Director of the Cadogan Estate Company; whether the opinion of the latter case expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year was brought to Sir Alfred Slade's notice, and whether it had any effect; whether the Treasury has yet solved the question raised by their letter to the Home Office, of April 6, 1878, quoted by the Royal Commissioners, as follows:—

"The mention of the whole time, however' involves a definition of office hours, which, of course, this extra sort of service tends to limit to the extremest point;"

and, whether the practice enforced by Her Majesty's present Government is that a permanent Civil Servant is bound to give his whole available time to the State whenever required, or is only bound to render a certain number of hours' service and entitled to make money in other ways in all the rest of his time?

, in reply, said, that the Government had not yet had time to come to any Cabinet decision on the very important recommendation of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments with regard to the question of allowing permanent Civil Servants, entitled to pensions, to hold places of profit outside the Government service; but, in the meantime, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were about to issue a Circular to Heads of Departments begging them to intimate to those serving under them that, pending the final decision on this matter by Her Majesty's Government, they should not accept any public Directorships. It was true that, as stated in the Question, the Comptroller of the National Debt Office and the Receiver General of the Inland Revenue still held the Directorships attributed to them—namely, Sir Rivers Wilson in the Alliance Assurance Company, and Sir Alfred Slade in the Union Steamship Company and in the Cadogan Estate Company—but he must demur to any two members of the Civil Service being specially selected for mention in this way while others were in precisely the same position. The reference to Sir Rivers Wilson was peculiarly unfair, as he consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day nine years ago, and obtained his sanction to accepting this Directorship. With regard to the general question, he was still of opinion that it was undesirable that gentlemen high in the Civil Service should hold these Directorships; but it ought to be borne in mind that the case with regard to all members of the Civil Service was not the same. There was a class whose regular hours were from 10 to 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock; and it would clearly be wrong to prohibit members of this class from devoting their evenings to other work which would not prejudice the service of the State. Other members of the Civil Service who filled responsible positions did not consider themselves bound to any particular number of hours, and when it was necessary they worked till 7 or 8 o'clock. It was, therefore, difficult to lay clown any absolute rule on this point.

further asked if it was not the fact that the existing Rules of the Civil Service demanded from officials entitled to a pension their whole time; and whether the gentlemen he had referred to could be, therefore, entitled to pensions?

said, the answer to that Question would necessitate a definition of what "whole time" was. That was very difficult. In the case of the two responsible officials named, their attendance, as Directors, twice a week, might well be set off against the large number of additional hours they gave at other times. Still, he must repeat that his own opinion was distinctly in the direction of prohibiting members of the Civil Service, especially those in responsible positions, from accepting Directorships in Public Companies.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the amount of the Local Loan Stock held by the Bank of England?

I am not aware of the amount of the different kinds of securities held by the Bank of England; nor if I were aware should I think that it was open to me to make the information public.

Is any excessive amount held by the Bank of England?

I presume not in the opinion of the Directors of the Bank.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to the propriety and expediency of levying a Stamp Duty upon bills, posters, placards, and such like mural advertisements; and, whether he will consider the desirability of substituting such an impost for the proposed tax upon wheels?

also asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the expediency of levying a small tax upon advertisement posters, according to a principle which has been in force in several Foreign States for many years past?

Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer answers that Question, may I ask whether it is in the knowledge of the Government that the Conservative candidate for Holborn has pledged himself to vote against the Van and Wheel Tax?

The latter Question is rather an improper one. In reply to the Questions which are on the Paper, I may say that numerous suggestions have been made to me to impose such a tax as that which is suggested by the hon. Member; and I do not say there are not arguments to be used in favour of such a tax: but I must frankly add that the difficulties of persuading the public to accept new taxation are such as not to encourage me to adopt any of those suggestions.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that the Harbour at Grey-stones is being filled up with shingle so rapidly that there is every prospect of its being filled up completely in a short time; whether it is a fact that many unavailing attempts have been made to get a groin built to the north, to stop the travel of the shingle; whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Royal Commissioners in 1887, in which the harbour, as designed, is described as a "trap to catch the shingle;" and, what steps the Government propose to take under the circumstances?

, in reply, said, he was informed that a great increase in the accumulation of shingle at Greystones Harbour had recently taken place; but that it was not so great as to threaten to completely fill up the harbour in a very short time. He understood that the Board of Works was about to submit some proposals to the Treasury for remedying this state of things.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether an action was recently pending in the Supreme Court of Mauritius by Thomas Wilkinson against Mr. Pickersgill, Her Majesty's Consul at Madagascar, for acts alleged to have been done in his Consular capacity; what has been the result of that action; whether, under the judgment of the Supreme Court or otherwise, any and what moneys have been paid by the Acting Consul at Tamatave to the solicitor of Thomas Wilkinson; whether such payments will be included in a Supplementary Estimate; and, whether the Government will lay upon the Table the Papers relating to this case?

The action in question was tried before the Supreme Court of Mauritius in 1885. It was brought against Her Majesty's Consul for acts done in his judicial capacity. The Supreme Court decided that, on technical grounds, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment, and awarded nominal damages with costs. These costs amounted to about £250, which was paid, and is provided for in the Accounts of 1887–8. No Supplementary Vote will be required on account of it. It is considered unnecessary to lay upon the Table Papers relating to this case.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is yet in a position to inform the House what decision has been come to regarding the appointment of Sir Henry Blake as Governor of Queensland; whether he has received particulars of the Resolutions unanimously passed by the Parliament of New South Wales on the question of the appointment of Colonial Governors; and, if he will communicate to the House a copy of the Resolutions moved by Sir Henry Parkes, the Prime Minister, and of any telegraphic despatch on the subject received from Lord Carrington, Governor of New South Wales?

I regret that I am not in a position to make any further statement at present with regard to the Governorship of Queensland. Her Majesty's Government have received by telegram the copy of an Address to Her Majesty from the Legislative Assembly, not the Parliament, of New South Wales. I think it is hardly convenient to communicate to the House the telegraphic Correspondence on this subject as it is received; but I hope it may be possible soon to present Papers to the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House if the Government have received information, corresponding with that given in The Times of November 23, as to the intention of the German Government to increase their maritime defence by building 28 men-of-war at a cost of about £6,000,000, 13 of which vessels are to be iron-clad battle-ships?

No, Sir; we have received no official information on the subject. I have, however, seen a fuller report of the proposals in the Imperial Budget, which says that the expenditure in question is to be spread over a period of 10 years, and the construction to be gradual.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the arrangements for levying the new duty on sparkling wine are working in a satisfactory manner?

From the Revenue point of view, the working of the Act is completely satisfactory. Taking the first four months after the modification of the extra duty, by which it was restricted to sparkling wines, I find that the yield of the extra duty was £47,700. At this rate the yield for the whole year would be £143,000, as against my estimate of £125,000. There has, of course, been a certain amount of friction in the working of the Act, and some complaints about the manner in which it has been administered by the Customs authorities, though, considering the difficult task intrusted to them, I consider that those authorities have discharged their duty in a manner which does them credit. I may give, as an instance of the kind of friction which arises, that a firm which advertised a certain wine at 80s. a-dozen, and described it as "the highest class champagne shipped, the best cuvées of the best vintages only," yet claimed to pay the lower rate of duty, on the ground that they bought the wine for less than 30s. a-dozen. Without disputing the accuracy of their statement, the Customs were of opinion that this was not the kind of wine for which the lower rate of duty conceded to cheap wines was intended. I think the House will agree with me that the firm in question may well pay 5s. tax out of the 50s. a dozen profit which, on their own showing, they make. Speaking generally, I may say that, though numerous disputes have arisen, they affect only a small proportion of the sparkling wines imported; and that the friction is not greater than was to be expected before the trade became familiar with the principle of the new duty. Nothing which has yet occurred leads me to think that it will necessary to withdraw the concession by which sparkling wines of under 30s. a dozen are admitted at the lower rate of duty.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer kindly give the name of the firm to which he has referred?

No; I am afraid that to do so would increase the friction.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any applications are now being made for the sanction of Her Majesty's Government to a renewal of the importation of coolies into the Island of Jamaica; and, if so, whether it is proposed that a portion of the cost of such an importation shall be defrayed from the general taxation of the Island?

The question of the resumption of the importation of coolies into Jamaica has been considered by the Legislative Council of the Colony; and a Resolution has been passed in favour of allowing it to be resumed, on condition that the whole expense is borne by the employers to whom the immigrants are indentured.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Sugar Bounties Convention has any binding effect whatever previous to the exchange of ratifications, which is fixed by Article XI. for "the 1st August, 1890, or sooner if possible;" whether there is any probability of the latter alternative (of an earlier ratification) being realized; and, whether, meanwhile, each of the Powers represented by the signatories is free, both in honour and in International Law, to withdraw from the Convention?

The Sugar Bounties Convention has no binding effect whatever without ratification. As regards the second inquiry, no opinion can at present be expressed. As regards the third, unless special circumstances intervene, contracting States ought to proceed to ratification; but there are many instances in which Treaties have been signed but not ratified. In the present case legislation will be necessary in order to give effect to the Convention; and, therefore, when a measure is submitted to Parliament for that purpose, an opportunity will be afforded for discussion.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why public meetings announced to be held on Friday last in Kilkenny, New Ross, and other places in Ireland, were prohibited by Proclamation; why, although the meetings had been announced for weeks, and extensive preparations were made in many districts, the Proclamations were not promulgated until the date of meeting; whether meetings for the same purpose have been held annually in many places in Ireland during the last 20 years without any incident prejudicial to public peace and order, and without interference by the Government; and, why the course of repression has now been adopted?

In answer to the Questions of the hon. Member, I have to say that the Proclamations referred to in the first and second paragraphs of the Question were issued in each case as soon as possible after the Government had received definite information that the meeting would be held. As regards the action of Government during the last 20 years with regard to such meetings, I have to say that there does not appear to have been any uniform line of action adopted by the present Government or by its Predecessors in Office, who sometimes allowed the demonstrations to take place and sometimes prohibited them. The meetings referred to in the Question were prohibited because the Government were advised that they were illegal in their character, and because they believed that it was for the public benefit that they should not be held.

said, he should like to press the Government on this point. These meetings had been held every year since 1867, and had never resulted in any breach of the peace. Under what law did the Government prohibit them on this occasion?

I endeavoured to convey in my answer the fact that they were prohibited because they were illegal under the Common Law.

In what sense illegal? I shall have to ask leave to move the Adjournment unless I receive a proper answer.

They were illegal because held for an illegal purpose.

What is that purpose?

That purpose, Sir, was to commemorate, or to celebrate and recommend to the public, the action of certain persons who had suffered for an offence against the law of the land. A public demonstration of such a character is an illegal meeting at Common Law.

If it is illegal now, why did Conservative and Liberal Governments, for the last 20 years, allow it to take place in Ireland without even a word of opposition?

These meetings have been, from time to time, forbidden by both Conservative and Liberal Governments.

asked whether a similar meeting in this country would be illegal at Common Law; whether they had not frequently been held, and had never been put down?

It is not my duty to answer for this country; but this I may say—that the Common Law is the same in both countries.

inquired whether an exactly similar meeting had not been allowed to take place in Dublin yesterday, although, according to the statement of the Solicitor General, it was illegal?

The hon. Member must give Notice of Question as to any particular meeting.

If some were permitted and others prohibited, is it because there is one Common Law in Dublin and another everywhere else?

I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether these meetings were not intended to celebrate the murder of a policeman at Manchester?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, At what Petty Sessions district Mr. William S. Bird, a Justice of the Peace for the County of Cork, elected to attend when he was appointed to the Commission of the Peace?

I am informed that it appears from the Papers in the Lord Chancellor's Secretary's Office that Mr. Bird's customary or appointed Petty Sessions districts are Bantry, Carrickbue, and Reenmneen.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will give instructions to Mr. J. Wolfe Barry to report to the Treasury upon the present condition of Ballycotton Pier, and specifically whether the original plan and specifications adopted by the Board of Works, and contracted for by the Messrs. Martin, were adhered to in the construction of the pier; and, if not, whether the alterations made are, in his opinion, better calculated to secure the stability of the structure; whether the samples of the stuff used in the hearting of the pier, which have been sent him from the holes made in the pier, are the same materials specified in the original contract; and, is the concrete, which has now split in the pavement, face, and north side of the pier head (specimens of which have been sent him by his representative), the concrete ordered by original specifications?

, in reply, said, that the form of reference to Mr. W. Barry would not preclude him from dealing with any point he might think important as regarded the construction and condition of Ballycotton Pier; and he (Mr. Jackson) did not wish to fetter his discretion by suggesting to him points to be dealt with in, or omitted from, his Report. He might say, however, that the Board of Works were instructed to furnish all and every information which might be necessary for Mr. Barry to possess, and that that had been done.

asked, whether the hon. Gentleman would take steps to have the Report ready before the Irish Estimates came on?

said, it would be impossible to undertake to do anything of the kind.

said, he would then have to ask that the Vote for the Irish Board of Works be postponed until the Irish Members saw Mr. Barry's Report.

said, he hoped it would not be necessary to do anything of the kind.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether

"The offence of using threatening and abusive language to District Inspector Rodgers, Royal Irish Constabulary, while in the discharge of his duty,"

for which Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., on the 16th instant, reported to Mr. Speaker he had ordered Mr. Sheehan, a Member of this House, to be imprisoned for one calendar month, consisted solely, as alleged in the report of an appeal to the Dublin Exchequer Division on the case in The Times of the 20th instant, in Mr. Sheehan's having used to the Inspector, who was searching his house, the words "Oh, you wretched!" and then shouted "Boo for Balfour"?

The hon. Member for East Kerry was convicted under the ordinary law by a full Bench of Magistrates, consisting of two Resident Magistrates and four local Justices of the Peace, all of whom were unanimous in their decision. This decision was affirmed on appeal before the Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice. The words addressed by him to the District Inspector are not accurately represented in the Question. The streets were full of numbers of people, it being a fair night; some of them were more or less under the influence of drink, and the crowd, which had hitherto been peaceable, became excited and turbulent through the hon. Member's action. The order of the magistrates was that he should find bail for his good behaviour. This he refused to do, electing the alternative of one month's imprisonment.

pointed out that the words, "Oh, you wretched!" printed in the Question, should have been "Oh, you wretch!" Was this the inaccuracy to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred?

said, there were additional words used by Mr. Sheehan. He had told the police officer that "ho might fare worse."

said, he had been present in Court at the trial, and he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman was not the expression used by Mr. Sheehan, "You may go farther and faro worse"; and whether two witnesses swore that be did not use the expression, "Oh, you wretch!" He also asked whether Mr. Sheehan had not been summarily arrested and taken to Tralee Gaol, bail being refused pending the trial?

asked for Notice of the Question.

asked whether the expression for using which Mr. Sheehan had been convicted—namely, "Boo for Balfour!"—was held to be threatening and abusive in respect of Rodgers?

No, Sir; but that is only a portion of the language which he used.

Under what Statute is it laid down that the expression, "You may go farther and fare worse," is illegal?

Order, order!

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can give an estimate of the amount which would be produced by the Van and Wheel Tax in England, and also state how much will be received by the various county boroughs, and how much by each of the separate counties independently of the county boroughs?

The estimate of the produce of the Van Tax, after the ex eruptions which have been made, is £180,000 a-year for England and Wales. I cannot give the exact distribution, but without pledging myself to an exact estimate the figures may be given approximately as follows:—London, £37,400; the county boroughs, £60,000; the counties in England and Wales, £82,600.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, considering the great number of applications to have fair rents fixed made by farmers in the Waterford Union, When a Sub-Commission will visit Waterford?

The Land Commissioners report that a Sub-Commission will sit in County Waterford early in the ensuing year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that the original organ of the Criminal Investigation Department (The Police Gazette) appears to be sometimes used as a means of depriving the relations of those who have been convicted of offences of employment by referring to them by name; and, if he will order this practice to be discontinued?

I have made inquiry, and the Commissioner of Police informs me that he is not aware that such use is ever made of The Police Gazette as the Question assumes. Were any instance of its being used in such a manner brought to his notice he would order a strict investigation. The Gazette is a confidential document, intended for circulation exclusively among the police; and its purpose is not to give information concerning convicted offenders or their relations, but to furnish such information respecting fugitives from justice as will lead to their apprehension.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state why the Police Rules of Wednesday night last were signed by Sir Charles Warren, seeing that he is no longer Commissioner? The hon. Gentleman also asked, whether it was true that Mr. Monro had been appointed Commissioner of Police?

Although Sir Charles Warren has sent in his resignation of the office of Commissioner of Police, he has not yet been relieved from the responsibility of the office; and, therefore, properly continues to discharge its functions. No successor has yet been appointed to Sir Charles Warren?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, at the earliest possible time next Session, to inquire into the question of the Bann Drainage, and the best means of meeting the difficulty?

I apprehend the course will be that the Bill will be introduced next Session; and when read a second time it will, in the ordinary course, be referred to a Select Committee as a Hybrid Bill.

asked, would there be any opportunity afforded to Irish Members to express any opinion during the second reading of that Bill?

asked, would the Representatives of the British taxpayer be afforded a similar opportunity without being closured?

asked whether, between then and the introduction of the Bill, the Government would take steps to ascertain the local feeling, and also the feeling of Irish Members generally, on this Bill; and whether they would also see if some better system of voting on the question could be devised than the property tax?

said, the Government would gladly receive any suggestions from any quarter with the view to the possible improvement and development of the scheme.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will state what has been the number of advances to tenants for the purchase of their holdings under the Land Purchase Act, in sums of £100 and under; of from £100 to £200; £200 to £500; £500 to £1,000; and £1,000 to £2,000 respectively?

said, that the time since the Question was placed on the Paper had been too short to enable him to obtain the necessary information, and he was not, therefore, in a position to answer it.

Will the information be here by to-morrow?

I hope so.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he can give an assurance that the Education Code of 1889 will carry out the unanimous recommendations of the Royal Commission on Elementary Education in England and Wales; that in Wales permission should be given to take up the Welsh language as a specific subject; to adopt an optional scheme to take the place of English as a class subject, founded on the principle of substituting a graduated system of translation from Welsh to English for the present requirements in English grammar; to teach Welsh along with English as a class subject; and to include Welsh among the languages in which candidates for Queen's Scholarships and for certificates of merit may be examined?

Welsh has been accepted as a specific subject for the last two years, with the result that in 1887 192 scholars in 12 schools were examined, and in the year just passed 369 scholars in 16 schools. The other points to which the hon. Member refers will receive most careful attention in connection with any changes made in the Code.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the recommendation unanimously made by all the Members of the Royal Commission on Education, that the State-aided University Colleges of Aberyst-with, Cardiff, and Bangor, should be utilized for the training of teachers, can be adopted at an early date; and whether he will enter into communication with the Councils of the three Colleges as to their readiness to form educational faculties, and make other arrangements necessary for the effective carrying out of the recommendation of the Commissioners?

The recommendations of the Royal Commission on this head are under consideration; and though disposed to view with favour some experiment in the direction indicated, there are many difficulties, financial and otherwise, that have to be approached, and the Department have not yet had time to deal with them.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether he will afford any information to the House, by a Return or otherwise, as to the number of cases tried at the late sittings of the County Courts in Ireland, in which the presiding Judges availed themselves of the power vested in them by Section 30 of the Land Act of 1887, to extend the period of payment of arrears of rent and costs over one year from the date of decree, in conformity with the following decision of the Superior Courts, delivered previous to the sitting by Mr. Justice Morris, and concurred in by Mr. Justice O'Brien and Mr. Justice Gibson, in a case stated from the Assizes of the County of Londonderry by Mr. Justice Andrews:—

"The Court has the power to extend time of payment beyond one year from date of decree and to stay execution in meantime, and that if default is made in complying with the order for payment the decree may he executed in the prescribed form. He thought such was the translation of section 30 of the Land Act of 1887. It was admitted that the Superior Courts had power to extend payments over 20 years if necessary and reasonable. He thought it most unreasonable if this were not to apply to Civil Bill Courts, because in 99 cases out of 100 ejectments are brought in Civil Bill Courts" (Law Times Report, 3rd November, 1888).

I find that there will be no difficulty in giving a Return of the nature in question if the hon. Member desires to move for it. I would suggest, however, that it should date from the commencement of the Act.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which contains the offer of Messrs. De la Rue, in connection with their proposal for an extension of their contract, leading up to a reduction in the price of postcards, in order that the House may be in a position to form an opinion as to whether there are exceptional reasons for accepting that offer which may outweigh the advantages likely to arise from competition and from short contracts; whether there is any truth in the rumour that the reduced prices offered by Messrs. De la Rue practically correspond with those which Mr. Purcell, the Controller of Stamps, indicated in his evidence before the Select Committee on Revenue Estimates would be fair and reasonable; whether it is a fact that, at the present moment, post cards are being turned out at Somerset House which, as retailed by stationers at 6½d and 7d. per dozen, compete with practically similar postcards for which, owing to the Inland Revenue contract, the Postmaster General is compelled to charge as much as 8d. per dozen; and, whether he will consider the advisability of putting an end to this arrangement?

My answer to the hon. Member's first Question is in the affirmative. With regard to his second Question, I am Dot aware whether the reduced prices of Messrs. De la Rue correspond with those indicated by Mr. Purcell. I have not compared the two, nor would it be easy to do so, as Mr. Purcell's calculations were based on the cost of existing materials; whereas Messrs. De la Rue's offer includes a change in the material of the stout postcard. The answer to the third Question is in the affirmative. As to the fourth, I have not yet had time to confer with the Postmaster General on the subject.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether a Mr. Maconochie has just been appointed a County Court Judge by the Lord Chancellor; whether the gentleman is either nearly or quite 70 years old; and, whether he has practised before any Court during the last 20 years; and, if so, when?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Lord Chancellor believes that Mr. Maconochie's age is 65. As to the third paragraph, the Lord Chancellor has no information on the point, Mr. Maconochie not being personally known to him. He was appointed on the testimony which was borne to his fitness for the office by the highest judicial and professional authorities. Mr. Maconochie has been for many years Recorder of Winchester, and for the last 12 years has frequently sat as Deputy County Court Judge.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the Taxing Master, H. G. Campbell, is Chairman of the Bahia and San Francisco Railway Company, and Director of the Law Eire and Law Life Insurance Companies, of the Trust and Agency Company of Australia, and of the Trust and Loan Company of Canada; whether other Taxing Masters are Directors of various Companies; what are the official hours of attendance of these gentlemen as Taxing Masters; and, whether, during these hours of attendance, they attend the Boards of the various Companies of which they are Directors?

I am informed by Mr. Campbell that he is not a Taxing Master. He held the office of Associate to the Lord Chief Justice of England; and by the Act of 1879, on the abolition of that office, Mr. Campbell became a Master—but not a Taxing Master—of the Supreme Court under special provisions as to the performance of certain duties. Mr. Campbell informs me that he is a Director of the Companies named by the hon. Member; but that he has never allowed his position as Director in any way to interfere with the due and complete discharge of his official duties. It has not been possible for me, in the time which has elapsed since the Question first appeared upon the Paper, to obtain the necessary information in relation to the other parts of the Question, as there are between 30 and 40 officials from whom information has to be obtained. I am, however, informed that before the Question appeared upon the Paper the Lord Chancellor directed an inquiry to be made as to whether there were any instances of any of the Masters attending Board meetings during the hours of attendance. As soon as I have obtained complete information I will communicate with the hon. Member.

asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to ascertain Master Campbell's official hours, and whether any of the Companies met during those official hours?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the statements made by the deputation of the Members of the Royal College of Surgeons of England to the Lord President of the Council on November 11, 1887, upon the subject of the Supplemental Charter since granted to the said College, and of all documents and correspondence relating thereto lodged in the Privy Council Office, including the Petition to Her Majesty signed by 4,665 members of the College?

, in reply, said, that if his noble Friend would move for the document in question the Government would be glad to give it.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend appointing a new Minister to the Government of the United States at Washington on the departure of Lord Sackville, or not until the President Elect enters upon the duties of his office?

The Government are unable at present to make any statement as to the appointment of a new Minister to the United States.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to give effect to the recommendation contained in Clause 123 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, in which the Commissioners expressed a hope that steps might without delay be taken to carry out the recommendation made in paragraph 31 of their First Report, and repeated in the Second, to the effect—"That the hours of service in all Offices for all classes should be fixed at 7;" and, whether there is any objection to the immediate application of the recommendation in the case of the clerks of the Lower Division, seeing that provision has already been made for the salaries of such clerks under such altered conditions by the Order in Council of 1876?

The general approval of the Government of the seven-hour system has already been expressed, and they will give effect to the principle whenever and as opportunity occurs; but the introduction of seven hours means in most cases a corresponding reduction of staff, and, therefore, the case of each Office must be considered by itself. The Government are not aware that any of the Public Departments are suffering from a deficiency of clerks; but the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will receive careful consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of his promise that the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Housing of the National Science and other Collections at South Kensington should receive the attention of the Government, and that a statement should be made to the House without unreasonable delay, he is now prepared to carry out that promise, and to make a statement on the subject?

In answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, I have to inform him that shortly before the holidays the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I spent a morning at South Kensington, where we met the Vice President of the Council and the permanent officers of the Department, with a view to satisfy ourselves as to the necessity for further accommodation; and the conclusion we came to was to invite the assistance of some gentlemen well known in the scientific world to go through the Collections at South Kensington, with the view of ascertaining whether space may not be gained by the disposal of useless or unimportant articles or duplicates. As that Committee will be requested to meet at once, the Government propose to await its Report before arriving at any final determination as to the extension of building recommended by the Departmental Committee. I should say that the hon. Gentleman called my attention to Reports of previous Committees; but it appears that no Committee has yet sat with a view to going through the Collections for the purpose of excluding useless or duplicate specimens.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had informed himself of the fact that in 1883 and 1884 Committees of Experts examined into the "whole question of the housing of the various Collections, and the sifting out of articles which were redundant or useless?

No doubt the Committees in question did report in favour of additional accommodation for South Kensington; but the Government are not satisfied that they did go through the Collections for the purpose of sifting them, and they are satisfied there are some things which could be got rid of with advantage.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence given on Wednesday before the Special Commission by Sergeant Meehan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who stated on cross-examination that he had come to London without a subpoena, and in consequence of a telegram received from Mr. Rogers, his District Inspector; and, whether, in view of the declaration made by him, that the Government maintained a position of impartiality and neutrality as between the parties appearing before the Commission, this proceeding on the part of an officer of police, who is under the direct control of the Executive, has been sanctioned by the Government?

I am informed that the police sergeant named was directed to proceed to London in consequence of a telegram announcing that a subpoena had been issued for his attendance before the Special Commission, and awaited his arrival. There was nothing in this proceeding which was inconsistent with the expressed views of the Government as to their attitude in the matter. Precisely the same course would be followed on a similar application on behalf of any of the other parties to the cause.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if this sergeant was directed by the telegram from his superior officer to report himself at the office of Mr. Soames; whether the office of Mr. Soames constituted a Department of the Irish Police in London; and, whether he will lay on the Table of the House a Return—in time for the Irish Estimates—of the names, rank, and pay of the public servants brought from Ireland and kept in London at the instance of The Times, showing the dates of their departure from Ireland and the periods of their detention?

I have no information beyond that which I have given to the House; therefore, I cannot reply to the Question of the hon. Member. It is obviously impossible for us to produce a Return of the officers who acted under subpoena under formal process issued by a capable authority.

I wish to ask, as a matter of Constabulary Rule, if the absence of every policeman—of every grade—is not reported immediately to the Inspector General, who has, therefore, in his hands material to give the Returns?

The hon. Member must be aware that I have no personal knowledge of the Rules of the Constabulary in Ireland.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly state why the subpoena was not served on the police officer in Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that I cannot tell anything of the kind.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be regular and more fitting that the subpoena should be served by the solicitor in this ease, and not by officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and whether, as the Attorney General is counsel in this case, he would not see that such a course, which is the proper course, should be pursued?

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that I have no personal knowledge on the matter. No doubt any suggestion coming from the right hon. Gentleman will he duly considered by the Attorney General.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the following Question, of which he had given private Notice:—Whether the men Egdell and Richardson, who recently confessed to the commission of the crime of burglary at Edlingham in 1879, were on Saturday convicted and sentenced; whether he would now advise Her Majesty to extend her free pardon to the men Brannaghan and Murphy, now released on licence, who were in 1879 convicted and sentenced in respect of the same offence; whether he would take into his consideration what sum of money ought to be offered to Brannaghan and Murphy by the State as some reparation for nearly 10 years' penal servitude which they had undergone for an offence which they never committed; whether he had determined to take any, and if any what, proceedings against the police upon whose testimony Brannaghan and Murphy were convicted?

Yes, Sir; I am informed that the two men who recently confessed to having committed a burglary in 1879 were on Saturday convicted and sentenced; and I shall accordingly advise Her Majesty to extend a free pardon to the men Brannaghan and Murphy, who were convicted in 1879 of this offence, and who have been released on licence. I am now considering what recommendation I shall make to the Treasury on the subject of compensation. I propose to refer the Question which my hon. Friend asks affecting the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

On this day week, I intend to ask whether a free pardon has been granted to those men, and what sum of money has been offered to them?

Order, order!

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could inform the House why the two men had on Saturday been sentenced to only five years' penal servitude, while the men convicted in 1879 had been condemned to penal servitude for life?

I gather from the reports I have seen that the men who were sentenced on Saturday last pleaded guilty to burglary only, and not to the counts charging them with shooting with intent to murder and shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm, of which more serious offences the two men sentenced in 1879 were found guilty. That probably accounts for the difference in the sentences.

asked the Home Secretary whether he would consider the propriety of instituting an inquiry into the cases in which innocent men were unjustly convicted, with a view to ascertaining the causes which led to such convictions? He had had occasion of recent years to consider the matter, and he thought it desirable some such inquiry should be made.

said, he should be happy to consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. The materials had been in a disjointed shape before him more than once.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that frequent Petitions were sent to the Home Office on this matter during the time the present Opposition were in Office, and that no reply was made to them?

said, he was not in a position to state whether that was so or not.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider some change in the law which would devise some other mode of releasing innocent men than by a pardon for offences they had never committed.

The hon. Member put the Question he has just asked in my hands about five minutes ago; but this morning I received from him private Notice of another and a different Question, the answer to which I have brought with me. The hon. Member asks me whether I am aware that on Friday evening an orderly public meeting held in support of Earl Compton's candidature for the Holborn Division, at the corner of White Lion Street, was dispersed by the police; whether the ground for this dispersal was that the meeting was said to cause an obstruction; whether any complaint of obstruction has been made to the police, and, if so, by whom; whether I am aware that meetings have been previously held at the same place without interference; whether I am aware that Holborn is very badly provided with public Halls; whether I have considered the difficulties likely to arise if at the time of a contested election bonâ fide political meetings are interfered with by the police, acting under the direct control of the Executive Government; and whether I will instruct the police not to interfere with such meetings at such at a time, even although they do cause some obstruction of the traffic. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that I have made inquiry, and am informed by the police that a meeting did take place in Seven Dials on the evening of the 23rd. The Inspector of Police, seeing that the whole thoroughfare was blocked and the traffic was impeded, acting on his own discretion, requested the people to leave. He was not aware that the meeting was in support of Earl Compton's candidature, and saw none of his agents there at the time. I am informed that meetings have not taken place at this particular spot, at which the crowd stood across a route of omnibus traffic; but at a point further down White Lion Street, where no appreciable obstruction has been caused, and where the meeting in question would not have been interfered with. I am informed that Holborn is badly provided with public halls; and I am aware of the difficulties that are likely to arise under these circumstances during an election. The standing instructions given to the police are not to interfere with meetings unless in cases of disorder, obstruction, or danger to the public peace; and if those who desire to hold meetings would endeavour to co-operate with the police in the performance of their difficult duties, and to select convenient places, I feel sure they will have no reason to complain of the intervention of the police.

I do not know whether the Chief Secretary is sufficiently recovered to answer a Question; but, if so, I would like to ask him a question which has been accidentally dropped off the Paper to-day, and which appeared several days last week. The Question is, Whether, in view of the grave charges made by him at Glasgow against Members of this House, in their capacity as such Members, in connection with the inquest on the body of the late Mr. John Mandeville, he will exert his influence with the First Lord of the Treasury to obtain special facilities for the early and adequate discussion of the same?

, in reply, said, he was not aware of the particular passages to which the hon. Member alluded; but he did criticize two hon. members in that speech, though not, so far as he was aware, in their capacity as Members of Parliament. However, he was extremely anxious that the Irish Estimates should come on at an early date; because nobody was more desirous than he was that full opportunity should be given to hon. Members to ventilate whatever views they might have on the subject of Ireland.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider that a discussion on the Irish Estimates, in which all sorts of topics were huddled together, did not afford a proper opportunity for such a close and consecutive treatment of the question as alone would enable the House to judge between the Chief Secretary and Irish Members.

said, he could not agree that the Irish Estimates were an inappropriate occasion for such a discussion. It was more possible to carry on a close and reasoned discussion upon the Estimates, when a Minister had more than one opportunity to speak than, perhaps, any other occasion; and it rested, after all, with hon. Members from Ireland themselves whether they would keep the discussion to one subject, or allow it to wander into all sorts of topics.

, referring to a statement of the First Lord of the Treasury as to the course of Public Business, in which he promised to consider whether seven Irish Members should not be prevented, by reason of summonses issued or threatened against them, from the discharge of their Parliamentary duties in connection with the Irish Estimates, asked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that summonses had been served on several already, ordering them to appear in Ireland on Monday next, the first day on which the Irish Estimates were to be discussed, and what steps he would take?

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is he aware of the fact that Mr. Cecil Roche at Tralee to-day refused any adjournment in the case of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington), and ordered a warrant to issue for his arrest?

, said, he was personally anxious that those hon. Members should be able to be present at the discussion of the Estimates, and he would see what could be done in the matter; but, of course, it was impossible to interfere beyond a certain point with the ordinary course of the administration of justice.

asked the Lord Advocate, If he would state the names of the members of the Board constituted under the Government Crofter Emigration Scheme to represent the Imperial Government, the Canadian Government, the private subscribers, and the important Land Companies respectively, and the dates at which they were severally appointed?

These appointments are not yet completed; but the names proposed are the Secretary for Scotland, to represent the Imperial Government; the High Commissioner for Canada, to represent the Canadian Government; the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the private subscribers; and Mr. Peacock Edwards, the Land Companies. I am informed that they will be appointed under one warrant and will bear the same date.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there was any truth in the report that appeared in all the newspapers this morning that it was intended to employ British troops to fight at Suakin?

In case the officer commanding the Division at Suakin should deem it necessary that the native troops should be supported by British troops, Her Majesty's Government would certainly sanction their employment.

Am I to understand that the discretion is to be vested in an officer in the service of the Egyptian Government?

No doubt the duty of the troops will be limited to the object of the Expedition—namely, driving the rebels out of the positions they now occupy. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the officer commanding the troops in Egypt.

asked, whether it was not the case that the troops to be employed were not under the officer commanding the British troops in Egypt; and whether the discretion to use them had not been vested in an officer of the Egyptian Government?

Communications are going on between Her Majesty's Government and the General Officer commanding the troops, and on the result of those communications any future action will depend.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in an early part of the Session, gave a distinct pledge that no British troops should be employed at Suakin?

inquired, When the House would be in possession of the names of the gentlemen who had had money allotted to them under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act; and whether the £280,000 which had been allotted to the Duke of Abercorn was paid out of the original £5,000,000, or whether it was to be paid out of the coming £5,000,000?

replied that the names of the owners of estates had not hitherto been given for the purposes of a Return, though he was willing to supply them if they were ordered by the House.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us now whether the Duke of Abercorn has got the £280,000?

I have no official knowledge, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement which has been made to the effect that the transaction is a completed one, from which it will follow that the money has been allocated out of the original fund.

, in moving to add at the end of the clause the following words—

"Provided, that no money shall he advanced for the purchase of more than one holding in the occupation of any one tenant if such holding he of the rateable value of not less than £20 per annum,"

said, the Amendment was intended to provide as much as possible for the useful distribution of the sum of money which Parliament intended to allocate under the Bill. He had always held that the necessary dimensions of the purchase question awaiting solution by Parliament were not nearly so large as was generally supposed. He considered that beyond providing the tenant with the holding upon which his house stood, and beyond making his homestead secure, it was not requisite that the State should interfere. He did not see upon what grounds they could ask the State to advance large sums of money for the purpose of enabling a tenant who had two, three, four, five, or six holdings to become the owner of those holdings to any extent. If they would look at the question of land purchase from the point of view he invited them to look at it, it became narrowed down to the necessity of securing that the holding on which the tenant lived should be his, and there was no claim and no argument in favour of extending the principle of purchase beyond the limit suggested by reasons of State. And what were those reasons? Parliament, in olden times, before there was any land agitation in Ireland, never thought of making the tenant the owner of his holding. It was one of the great misfortunes in the history of the relations between England and Ireland that the crisis following the years 1846, 1847, and 1848, which brought so many estates into the Landed Estates Court, was not utilized for the purpose of making the tenants of those estates the owners of their holdings. But agitation commenced, and now they had the Tory Party assisting the State to provide sums of money for the purpose of converting the tenants into the owners of their holdings. But the necessity did not go further, from the point of view of practical experience, than that the tenant should own the land upon which he lived; and it was not desirable to extend the principle beyond what was absolutely necessary. From the point of view of those who desired to see land purchase carried out as much as possible, it was desirable not to limit the number of owners but to go in the direction of creating a bonâ fide peasant proprietary by making the money reach as far as they possibly could. One of the objections he had heard against the Bill was that it proceeded upon a haphazard plan. It enabled money to be spent upon holdings upon which it was not necessary to spend it, and holdings where expenditure was necessary were not touched. It was for this reason, among others, that he had always advocated compulsory purchase; because, under a compulsory scheme, the State would be able to say what holdings it was desirable, from economical and political points of view, to purchase. It was not necessary to compel the State to advance money where it was not desirable that purchase should take place. When they came to a case in which it was not desirable that the holding should be purchased, it became more than ever necessary for Parliament, if it would not give the Commissioners power to decide what holdings should be purchased, to say at least that the Commissioners should have power to decide what holdings should not be purchased. It was a well known fact that the tenants of Ireland might be roughly divided into two classes—those who had far too much land, and those who had too little. The majority, of course, had too little land; and he might cite, as a proof of that, the congested districts in the West of Ireland, where disturbances had taken place during the Land agitation. He came now to the class of tenants which he desired to guard against in this Bill; and he would describe them as tenants who, to use a familiar Irish term, had "too much land under them," which they were neither fitted by capital, skill, or industry to make useful to them. Everybody practically acquainted with the rural economics of Ireland knew that many of the holdings they saw throughout the country, as they travelled through it, were holdings used by the tenants of other holdings as "draw farms." Such holdings were absolutely neglected, because the tenants had not sufficient capital to enable them to cultivate them. If they could be brought into cultivation, one of the gravest questions in dealing with the masses in Ireland might be greatly helped. "What he wished to guard against in the first place was this. He wished to provide that the money voted under this Bill should be spent, as far as possible, in the creation of a genuine bonâ fide peasant proprietary, and in securing that the tenant who lived on his land should have the opportunity of making it his own property. But when they came to the case of "draw farms" on which the tenant did not live—farms which he scarcely cultivated, or did not cultivate at all, but in reference to which he was perfectly well able, and would be much better able if this Bill passed, to make his own by purchase; for he was perfectly well able to make his own bargain with his landlord in nine cases out of 10. Then, he maintained, there was no occasion that the beneficence of Parliament and of the English taxpayers should step in, and no case had been made out for the expenditure of large sums of money to enable the tenants or occupiers of such farms to become their own landlords. If the Committee adopted his view in this respect, be believed they might go half as far again under the present circumstances. It might be said that it would be a hardship for the landlord to have still to collect the rent from isolated farms scattered here and there over the country, but he submitted that if that was a hardship at all it was a small one, and as Parliament was doing so much for the Irish landlords in granting these millions of money, it might be fairly called upon, where they sold at their own option, and were not obliged to sell if they did not like to do so, to face this still smaller hardship of collecting their rent from small holdings. Prom this point of view he thought it was right that the Amendment should be passed, and he had every confidence in commending it to the favourable consideration of the Committee.

said, that the hon. Member had avowed his preference for a system of compulsory purchase, and he had stated to the Committee truly that under such a system the State would be able to effect the compulsory transfer of the fee simple from the landlord to the tenant in precisely those cases in which it would, in the opinion of the State, be most necessary to make the transfer. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) quite admitted, whatever might be said for or against compulsory purchase—and there was a great deal to be said on both sides—that it would no doubt have the advantage to which he had alluded. But the whole framework of this Bill was founded upon the voluntary plan, and because it was so founded, and because, he thought, that the Amendment would to a great extent interfere with the smooth working of any voluntary plan, he would ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member in a very able and moderate speech. The hon. Gentleman had told them in a large number of cases the tenants with several holdings had not sufficient capital to work them, that in consequence the holdings were neglected, and that they were not a class whom the State or the Country should specially desire to favour by lending money on favourable terms, in order to induce them to purchase. But the hon. Member bad omitted to consider that many of these men—probably the larger number of them—were really among the flower of the Irish farmers; they were men who had generally succeeded in their occupation; who had accumulated money and invested it for the benefit of their children, and by the possession of those various holdings they had proved themselves to be competent, energetic, and thrifty farmers. It would, he thought, be a serious misfortune to exclude that class from the advantages of the measure. Nobody could contemplate the course of land legislation in Ireland during the last few years without seeing that some of the very gravest difficulties with which they had to contend arose from the fact that their measures left out of account some small nucleus or class of tenants who did not benefit by their proceedings, and who, for that reason, afterwards became centres of dissatisfaction and discontent. That limitation might perhaps have been necessary in the past; but, at all events, let them not repeat it when it was unnecessary. Let them not arbitrarily introduce a limit which might excite a kind of agitation against that Bill, which he should be sorry to see spread in any part of Ireland. Another practical objection to the Amendment which he asked the Committee to consider was this, that in many cases it was an enormous convenience, not so much to landlords as to the tenants in the first instance, and to incumbrancers in the second place, if any estate could be sold as a whole. That was a cheaper and a better process, but an estate could only be bought by the Land Commission if four-fifths of the tenants in number and value combined in a request that the purchase should be effected. If, therefore, an Amendment of that kind were adopted, the power of purchasing estates en bloc by the Land Commission would become almost a dead letter, and one of the most useful provisions of the Act of 1885 would lose all its virtue. Under these circumstances he earnestly asked the Committee not to insert this limitation in the Bill, which would probably not have any material effect in making the £5,000,000 go any further, while it would certainly interfere with the sale of many estates which would otherwise be dealt with as a whole. Much as he desired to see this £5,000,000 used in as economical a manner as possible, he could not consent to the proposed limitation.

said, he was sorry in respect of this matter, as in the case of others which had arisen in the course of these debates, to complain, and complain strongly, of the insufficiency of the information which had been placed in the hands of hon. Members. Since that morning he had been afforded the opportunity of a cursory examination of the Blue Book containing the last annual Report of the Commission. But while the Blue Book gave them information as to the number of applications for purchase which had been made, and the number which had been granted, it afforded no information as to the number of individual tenants who had applied. There was no information whatever to enable them to discover how far plurality of purchase had been allowed by the Commissioners —or, in other words, how far individuals had been allowed to purchase more than one holding. He wished to know whether it was not possible to supply that information?

was understood to say that he would make inquiry and see whether the information asked for by the hon. Member could not be supplied.

said, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman. It would be most important, if possible, to have the information. He did not think there was any force, whatever, in either of the two reasons which had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman in opposition to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork. The right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it would be better for a tenant to be in possession of two farms because he might thereby be able to make provision for his younger children; but surely a peasant proprietor who had only one farm was in an infinitely better position to make provision for his children than the man who was unable to purchase any farm at all. He asked the Committee to look at the inequality which the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would establish. He would allow a man to obtain one or two or even three farms in order that he might be in a position to make provision for his younger children, while, on the other side of the road, there might be a tenant who was unable to make provision either for his elder children, his younger children, or himself, and yet he must continue to occupy the one farm alone. Therefore, public policy, even as interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman, was in favour of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Madden) had taken pride to himself, in the course of the debate, for the number of small holdings which had been created, and had told them that the greater portion of the £5,000,000 already voted had been applied to the purchase of small holdings. But if they allowed a man to purchase more than one farm they would initiate a system which would tend to create a new class of small landlords. As a rule, a man who bought two or three small farms was not likely to occupy them, probably he would hold one as proprietor and let the others. The object of the proceeding in which the Committee were now engaged was certainly not to replace the Irish landlords by smaller landlords. The smaller the landlord became, the more sordid would be the nature of his transactions and the greater the evil. Instead of replacing larger landlords by smaller ones what was wanted was that they should replace rent-receiving landlords, large or small, by cultivating proprietors. He hoped they were not prepared to ignore that principle by allowing plurality of purchase. It would almost seem that right hon. Gentlemen opposite had made up their minds that they were going out of office very soon, and that it might be a long time before they came back again, they were so anxious to do all they could to foster the principle of large landed proprietors. The second reason given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for opposing the Amendment was that unless they allowed plurality of purchase it would be impossible or difficult for the Land Commission to buy whole estates. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman could have inquired into the facts of the case or could have examined the Records of the Commission upon this question. How many entire estates had the Commission purchased during the last three years? The number was 12. Twelve throughout the whole of Ireland, and even those estates were very small seeing that the purchase money represented only £70,000. It was, therefore, evident that the Land Commission seldom purchased an entire estate for re-sale, and, consequently, any argument based upon the purchase of whole estates by the Land Commission was an argument of no force; and there was nothing whatever in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the Land Commission must not be debarred from purchasing whole estates, or otherwise the integrity of an estate might be prejudicially affected. The right hon. Gentleman said the Amendment left out the thrifty class. It did nothing of the kind. They were desirous that thrifty men should buy their farms, and thus secure an independent home of their own, as that would ensure the stability and secure the harmony and order of society, but they did not want them to add field to field and farm to farm, as that would tend to create a class of small rent-receiving landlords. There was another reason why he thought the Government, from their point of view, ought to adopt the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland boasted that a great number of small holdings had been created under the operation of Lord Ashbourne's Act. They had been told, in various forms, in the course of the debates that the Ashbourne Act was the competitor of the National League. In the language of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) the Ashbourne Act would "knock the bottom out of the National League," and it was said that most of the tenant farmers, since they became proprietors of their holdings, had given up The Freeman's Journal, and had ceased to subscribe to the funds of the League. Personally, he preferred that a tenant should be able to improve his position, even if, after purchasing his holding, he ceased to be a member of the National League or to take in The Freeman's Journal. There had never been the slightest desire to maintain the National League to the injury of the Irish tenants, and if a tenant on becoming a purchaser was willing to abandon his position in connection with the National League by all means let him do so. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes; certainly. He could only repeat that he should prefer to see the tenant improve his position, even if after the improvement he left the League, rather than he should remain in it and suffer in his position. What he objected to was the plurality of purchase. Instead of one man being allowed to purchase three farms, three men ought to be allowed to purchase them. He was astonished that the Government could not see the force of his argument, because if his suggestion was carried out, instead of taking away one man from the National League they would take three. He was quite willing, in that way, to lose them as members of the League. So, also, was his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, notwithstanding the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that every man who became a purchaser and left the League became a loyal supporter of the Tory Party. Surely that was no reason, even from the Government point of view, why the Amendment should be rejected.

said, the Amendment only referred to the status quo which existed in the Act of 1885, before it was altered by the Amendment Act of 1887. He might add that the provision which effected the alteration passed through the House without amendment and without debate, and, indeed, without any notice having been taken of it. The second section of the original Act was construed to mean that a man should not be allowed to purchase a holding upon which he was non-resident. But this Government slipped into the Act of 1887, in Section 14, Sub-section 3, a provision that any person in occupation of, and paying rent for, the holding, held under a contract of tenancy, should have power of redemption and purchase. It was quite evident, therefore, that the Land Commission construed the Act of 1885 to mean that only occupying tenants should become purchasers. His hon. Friend's Amendment simply proposed to revert to what was the original meaning of Lord Ashbourne's Act, and he thought it was only reasonable that the Government should accept the Amendment, and go back to the original position. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had that night made one of the most important admissions which had been extracted from him since his occupation of his present Office—namely, the admission he had made in reference to mistakes in the previous policy of the Government in excluding certain portions of the tenants from the benefits of Irish legislation. The Irish Members had always pressed the case of these tenants; but when last year they succeeded in placing them in the position of town park holders, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary refused, when his own Amendments were refused, to insist upon them. All the right hon. Gentleman was now asked to do was to revert to the original provisions of the Ashbourne Act. For his own part, he did not see that the Land Commission would be at all able to apportion and allot this money properly, unless some attention was given to the suggestion he had made at the close of the debate the other night. He thought it would be admitted that it was more desirable to make some persons tenant proprietors than others. It would be admitted, further, in the words of the Ashbourne Act itself, that occupying tenants had most claim to this £5,000,000 sterling. If, however, the Land Commissioners adopted the improper principle of "first come, first served," merely because a particular claimant put in a claim for money on a Monday, although a great deal better tenant presented himself on Tuesday, they would, in his opinion, be adopting a principle which would defeat the good intentions of Parliament. If the Ashbourne Act was to be carried out, his hon. Friend's Amendment would have considerable weight, and would prevent the Commissioners from adopting the principle of "first come, first served." He would suggest that the Commissioners, before sanctioning advances, should wait for a period of three or four months after the passing of the Bill, and, instead of adopting the "first come, first served" principle, should advance the money, on adequate security, to resident tenants—or, in the words of Lord Ashbourne's Act, to occupying tenants resident on their holdings. Before they scattered their money about, because some man happened to have got into his own hands some three or four different holdings—certainly a man who least desired State aid—they ought to be told what steps the Commissioners would take to give effect to the provision relating to occupying tenants which was contained in the Ashbourne Act of 1885, and drop the pernicious principle of "first come, first served." If the Commissioners would wait until they got in a reasonable number of applications, they would have a complete purview of the work before them, and be able to decide upon the merits of each case.

said, he was anxious to say a word or two upon this Amendment from the point of view of a Scotch Representative. He believed there was not a Scotch agriculturist—and there were many of them in Aberdeenshire—who would not readily buy his holding on the terms offered under the Ashbourne Act, especially if he could obtain it for from 17 to 20 years' purchase. Scottish agriculturists, who were called upon to vote £10,000,000 to Ireland, on conditions they could not obtain for themselves, were entitled to ask that the credit of the State should not be used except on behalf of those tenants in Ireland who were in strictly necessitous circumstances. He did not believe that the Scotch agriculturists had any jealous feeling towards the agriculturists of the Sister Island, and if strong claims were shown for the aid of the State they would not be unwilling to interpose their own position as an integral part of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Irish tenants. But he submitted that they ought not to be called upon to pledge their credit for the well-to-do tenants of Ireland, and to confer upon them privileges which were denied to themselves. Therefore they ought not to be asked to give the necessary security for this advance of £10,000,000 without being assured by Her Majesty's Government that the money would only be given to those whose necessitous circumstances entitled them to ask for such an advance. What could he say to his Aberdeenshire constituents to satisfy them that he had done right in asking them to become security for the well-to-do farmers of Ireland in obtaining advances of the public money at a low rate of interest? At any rate the advances ought to be restricted to necessitous eases. The land was an exact quantity and ought to be distributed among as many tenants as possible. But although it might be desirable to increase the number of the holders of land, the money of the State ought not to be used in enabling tenants to buy farms of 300 or 400 acres, especially when the Scotch agriculturists, who contributed a considerable portion of the money, were unable to obtain money on any terms for the purchase of the small holdings on which they live. He claimed the support of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) on this point. He understood that the noble Lord was to be invited to contest a constituency in which he (Mr. Esslemont) was interested.

In order to save the time of the Committee, I may tell the hon. Member that I have received no such invitation.

said, he was very sorry to hear it, being prepared to give the noble Lord a hearty reception. He would, however, warn the noble Lord that if he did go down to Scotland he ought to be provided with a fair and reasonable answer to the questions which were certain to be put to him on this head—namely, whether the Scotch agriculturists wore to be called upon to give security for the advance of money to Irish tenants to enable them to purchase two or three farms while they were unable to obtain money on any conditions whatever for the purchase of their own farms from the Imperial Exchequer?

said, that two or three matters had been brought forward in the coarse of the discussion upon which he should like to say a word. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) had referred to a clause in the Act of 1887, which he contended amounted to a departure from the Act of 1885. The impression of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not quite correct. The Policy of Lord Ashbourne's Act was in no respect altered by the legislation of last year. The primary object of the Ashbourne Act, no doubt, was to enable the occupying tenant to become the owner of his holding, and the object of the Amendment introduced into the Act of 1887 was not to interfere with the preference given by the Act of 1885 to occupying tenants, but to enable the Land Commissioners to dispense with formal devolution of title and the tenants' interest in certain cases. That was the object of the Amendment, and that alone. It did not at all interfere with the section of the Act of 1885, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, but the occupying tenant still had the preference. He concurred that the primary object was to enable the occupying tenant to become the owner of his holding; but that object would be best carried out by not laying down a hard and fast rule, that in no circumstances should the tenant of a holding, covered by the Amendment, become the purchaser of any adjoining holding. He was informed that cases of purchase by tenants not in occupation were not numerous. There were, however, some instances in which a man was in possession of what was substantially one entire farm, but which technically consisted of several holdings, and why should he be prevented from becoming the owner of the entire farm? It must be remembered that there were very stringent provisions in the Act of 1885 against sub-letting, by which it was impossible for a tenant purchaser to constitute himself into a landlord. That, he thought, was a complete answer to the mischief which was present to the mind of hon. Members opposite. The hon. and learned Member said that he (Mr. Madden) had asserted that the effect of Lord Ashbourne's Act had been largely to enable small tenants to become the owners of their holdings. It was true that he had said so. He had divided the holdings into various classes, small holdings which were very numerous; moderate sized holdings at a rental of from £10 to £30, of which there was a larger number; and large holdings; and he had added that the working of the Act had been in the direction of creating peasant proprietors. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary had pointed out that the purchase of any large estate would be seriously impeded by the adoption of the Amendment, and the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) replied to that argument that very few entire estates had been purchased by the Land Commission. That was quite true, but although that was one of the cases in which the Amendment would have a detrimental operation, it was not the only one. There were not only cases of purchase by the Land Commissioners for the purpose of re-sale to the tenants. There were, in addition, a large number of cases in which the landlord had sold, or been anxious to sell, an entire estate. It appeared to him that substantially the Act had operated in the direction the hon. Member desired, and it would be difficult to extend its operation in that direction by laying down a hard and fast line.

said, the Blue Book—which had at last found its way into the hands of hon. Members—placed them for the first time in a position to examine the case presented by the Government. The Act of 1885 was regarded as an experiment, and it was the apparent intention of the Government to enlarge the scope of that experiment without supplying the House of Commons with information by which it was possible to judge whether the experiment, as far as it had gone, had been a success. The hon. Member for Cork had hit the right nail on the head when he characterized the scheme as altogether a haphazard one. He felt certain that the House of Commons would not have allowed it to have proceeded as far as it had gone unchallenged, if it had been known outside the Government that the Commissioners would have been allowed to carry out such schemes as they now found from the Blue Book had been the rule. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to one or two considerations in regard to the number of tenancies, but not the number of tenants, which would make the case worse, because the information supplied by the Government was confined to the number of tenancies. The average area of a holding was 40 acres, and the average rental £33. He did not see why the people of this country were to be landed in an enormous loan for the scheme of this kind for Ireland alone. According to the view of his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen, upon some future day they were likely to have a similar claim from the Scotch agriculturists, who would object to have the credit of the country so largely mortgaged that the chance of any other part of the kingdom obtaining aid would be very small indeed. These facts, he thought, proved the necessity for the limitation proposed by the hon. Member for Cork. If £5,000,000 had been squandered, it was very desirable that a second £5,000,000 should not be treated in the same manner. If the intention of Parliament was really to assuage the suffering and remove the disaffection and political discontent of Ireland, then the poor ought to have had the first consideration. But the very opposite had been the case. Take the case of Ulster. During last year 80,000 acres had been dealt with, and the number of tenancies were 2,300, representing an average in the case of each tenancy of nearly 40 acres. For his own part, he was more than ever convinced that what was in the mind of the Government in originating the scheme was the relief of the landlord class and not of the tenants, and, in the second place, the facts shown in the Return proved that neither the Government nor the Commission had sought to reach the lowest depth of poverty in Ireland from which the great majority of tenants was suffering. He did not know what might be in the mind of the Government now, but he trusted that the majority of the poor tenants would be reached. Nevertheless, as far as the present scheme went, there was nothing on the face of the Return to show that any substantial good had as yet been done to the majority of the Irish tenants. His own opinion was that it was a scheme which had been manipulated in the interests of Ulster primarily, where the landlord pressure had been greatest. Now the Committee had been made acquainted with the mode in which the Act had been administered, the security asked for by the Amendment on behalf of the mass of the tenants became absolutely necessary, and it was in the highest degree desirable that the Commissioners should be prevented in future from taking the line they had hitherto taken. Unfortunately, precedents had been established which made it almost impossible to do anything like justice to other parts of Ireland, still less to give consideration to claims from other parts of the United Kingdom. For his own part, he thought that if the Committee had seen reason to limit the further progress of the experiment to a loan of another £1,500,000 the Government would have been saved from falling into a serious mistake.

said, he failed to see that either the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had given any substantial reason why the Government should resist the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork. He thought that they had carefully suppressed their real reasons for opposing the Amendment, which was that where a man was holding, perhaps, three or four farms in a certain locality, it might be necessary for the landlord to hold on to a certain portion of the estate after he had sold the rest of it, and, consequently, he would not be able to march off, as an hon. Friend near him had said, with the whole of the "swag." Personally he preferred to have large landlords to small ones, and he entirely denied that a farmer who resided on one holding and had three or four other holdings scattered about, could be any improvement on the existing class of landlords. A considerable number of men who had taken these farms did not work them themselves at all, but stocked them with cattle and let them out to dairymen, who took them at so much per cow. That was a cheap way of getting rid of all the responsibility of working the farm. But was it a system on which this country ought to expend its taxes in promoting? If the Bill was to pass, he did not see why Parliament should not provide assistance for every speculator out of the taxes, as the men against whom this Amendment was directed were mere speculators in land and not bonâ fide peasant occupiers. He saw but one reason for the measure—namely, that it was a scheme to enable the landlords to get out of the country, while he would prefer to see them obliged to hold on to such portions of their estates as this Amendment would exempt from the provisions of the Purchase Act, and so give them some tie to keep them in the country. It would be far better than that a new landlord owning three or four farms should be created.

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). The Ulster tenants had always taken advantage of Acts of Parliament intended for their benefit because of their confidence in the Imperial Parliament. The applications for fair rents under the Act of 1881 were more numerous from Ulster than from any other part of Ireland. As regarded the particular Amendment, he had some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork, and he should be sorry to see this Grant consumed by men holding two or three farms. But he doubted the wisdom of putting a limitation into the Act, and the Amendment would have such little operation that it was hardly worth while putting it into the Bill.

said, the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee said that the Ulster tenants had always distinguished themselves by their acceptance of any legislation on the part of the House of Commons that was intended for their benefit. That was quite true, and in enormous numbers they swarmed into the Land Court the moment the Land Act was passed. They were, however, the first to discover the blunder they had made, and ever since they had been groaning under the rents they had been in such a hurry to have fixed. From the Blue Book just printed, they would appear to have been bitten again by the purchases under the Land Purchase Act of 1885, because he found that the rate of purchase in Ulster was a decimal over 18 years, while the rate in Munster, where the tenants were not so eager to take these things at a rush, was only 16 years' purchase. It would probably turn out that, in the long run, there was some wisdom in waiting. In discussing the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had used a very remarkable expression in the course of his speech. He had said that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork would be prejudicial to the "flower of the smaller tenantry of Ireland." He was rather afraid that the expression was only the right hon. Gentleman's picturesque way of describing what in Ireland were known as "land grabbers." He thought that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman contained an admission that the Act did operate unquestionably, to a large extent, as a bonus to land grabbers. Of the agricultural tenants, in Ulster at least one-fourth held duplicate or triplicate tenancies—that was to say, that there were two or three farms in the holding of one man, and that one man was very frequently a professional land grabber. Out of the 8,000 sales under the Act of 1885, it would be found that from 1,500 to 2,000 of the purchases were made by the holders of two, three, and four farms. And this would very naturally happen, because what the Commissioners had to look to was the security for the loan much more than the class of tenants who were to have the land, and the land grabber who had accumulated several farms in his hands, and who had acquired means by trade in neighbouring towns and not by cultivating the land, would be considered far better security than the cultivating tenant. Those were the men who obtained the loans very much in preference to the poorer tenants. But was it that class of men that this Act was intended to benefit? They might as well take a prosperous shopkeeper in one of the principal streets of London, and buy up his shop in order to present him with the fee-simple of it. As far as he could gather from the administration of the Act, there was no guarantee that the State might not be buying half-a-dozen farms for the same man. Very often this class of man had four or five different farms on the same estate, and the Land Commission had no means of ascertaining how many farms were in the occupation of a particular tenant. There was another disadvantage which this system of buying up all the land of the large farmers had—namely, that it increased the difficulty of establishing a peasant proprietary in Ireland. He believed that £50,000,000 or £60,000,000, properly expended, would buy out all the small agricultural holdings which could by possibility be called peasant properties. The remainder of the Irish tenants could fairly well take care of themselves, at all events, as to the purchase-money; but the difficulty of the system was that the Land Commissioners naturally had their eye first on the security of the British taxpayer. Consequently, the State did all it could for those who were well off already, and did nothing for those who were unable to do anything for themselves. At the last Election they were told that £200,000,000 would be necessary to buy out the Irish landlords. Why, one quarter of the money, if properly expended, would answer every good purpose. He should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork, and he did not think the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had disturbed the contention of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford that the Amendment simply carried out the principle of the Act of 1885. Although he took a different view in some respects from the hon. Member for Cork as to the effects of the present system, he thought the Bill was a Bill for encouraging land grabbing.

said, he thought that if it was desired to arouse a strong Conservative feeling in Ireland by the creation of an Irish peasant proprietary, it would be absolutely necessary to make some such limitation of the Bill as was proposed by the Amendment.

said, he felt unable to give a silent vote upon this Amendment. He had the honour to represent an agricultural constituency who took great interest in these debates, and, although he intended to support the Government and vote against the Amendment, he wanted to hear something from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland in answer to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). Many of his friends had been much exercised by the way in which the Act had been worked for the benefit of Ulster tenants who were already prosperous and on good terms with their landlords. He agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last that the Act was introduced with the best intentions; the desire being, if possible, to assist the occupying tenants in purchasing their holdings. He did not believe it was ever intended, or indeed that it was ever thought of, that it should be a measure to apply mainly to Ulster. He said that there must be enormous difficulty in prescribing the operation of the Act and to say what portion of the fund should be spent in one part of the country and what in another. He wished to know if it was not possible that some proper instructions might be given to the Land Commissioners so that a months' delay should elapse before any scheme of purchase was sanctioned. In the meantime, advertisements for applications made might be inserted in the local papers. He knew the difficulty of laying down a hard and fast line, but precautions should be taken not to allot the money unduly to particular localities. He, therefore, though it was the duty of hon. Members on that side of the House not to sit silent but to tell the Government what their view of the matter was. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had made no reply to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. He thought they were worthy of some reply, and he would therefore ask if it were not possible to frame some instruction of the kind he had suggested?

said, he thought a considerable part of the discussion really dealt with the Amendment disposed of on Friday night rather than the Amendment now before the Committee. With regard to what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Field) it would seem that he desired that the money should be more evenly spread over the whole of Ireland. That object was a natural and desirable one, but, unfortunately, it was impossible to provide any machinery to carry it into effect. The number of pluralists did not, he thought, exceed 100. The essence of the voluntary system was that those should come into it who desired to come—"first come, first served." No doubt, if he had the power he would allocate the money according to his views as to the necessities of the case, and he should probably spend more money in certain districts than in others—such, for instance, as grazing districts. If they had a compulsory system they could allocate the money to their own views of the public needs, but they could not have a voluntary system, and, at the same time, the advantages of a compulsory system. He had given his best consideration to the matter, and he could find no method by which the suggestion of his hon. and gallant Friend could be carried out—that was where equalization could be arrived at—consistently with the voluntary system.