May I ask, Sir, why I was not called upon to move the Amendment which stands in my name upon the Paper?

I was told that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to move it.

Although I did not intend to move it I desired to make a statement.

Under those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make a statement now.

I am much obliged to you, Sir, for affording me the opportunity. The object which I sought in giving notice of the Amendment was the protection of certain owners and occupiers who believe they have the right of enclosure and of user in regard to certain portions of the foreshore; but their wishes have, to a certain extent, been met by the Amendments which have been introduced into the Bill at the instance of the promoters. My intention was to move that—

"Nothing in this Act shall restrict or interfere with the rights of an owner and occupier of unfenced ground adjoining or abutting upon the foreshore from using the same for the purpose of his trade or business in connection with his premises now existing."

I may say on behalf of the promoters that the statement which has been made by the hon. Member is correct.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it true that the Government have caused the County Clare to be assessed for half cost of extra police in the last eight years, as follows:—1881, £169 13s.; 1882, £2,973 7s. 1d.; 1883, £6,608 3s. 8d.; 1884,£6,896 2s. 3d.; 1885, £6,153 1s. 8d.; 1886, £3.807 1s. 4d.; 1887, £4,164 7s. 5d.; 1888, £5.735 9s. 1d.; 1889, £6,915 5s. 7d.; total, £43,422 l1s. 1d.; can he explain that since 1886, when Colonel Turner was sent there, the cost has nearly doubled; and will anything be done to relieve the people of this heavy impost?

The amounts presented at Assizes in each of the years mentioned in respect of extra constabulary for the County Clare are as stated in the question. The increased charge referred to was owing to the appointment of an additional extra force, whose presence was rendered necessary for the purposes of affording increased personal protection and patrolling. A reduction in the number was a short time ago made, which I understand reduces the annual charge to about £5,600, as compared with about £6,900 last year. It was found that the improvement in the state of the county admitted of this reduction of the extra force, and, when a further improvement takes place, further reductions can be made.

If, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, the condition of the county is improving, why should these extra police be necessary?

No doubt there has been an improvement, but I am afraid that it is due to the employment of these extra police. The hon. Gentleman will see, however, that there has been a reduction of £1,300 in the cost of the force this year.

I beg to give notice that I will move that the Licensing Tax be devoted to the reduction of the contribution of the county to the maintenance of extra police.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho can state when a Return will be given of the judicial rents fixed in Ireland since 1st December last; whether he is aware that for the three months ending on 30th November last, only 502 judicial rants were fixed by the Land Commission in respect of present tenancies in Ulster; and whether, considering that there are upwards of 9,000 fair rent applications served and still undisposed of from Ulster, and that it would at this rate take upwards of four years to hear the applications already made, he will either make some provision to protect applicants from the enforcement of the old rents pending the fixing of the fair rents, or appoint such a number of additional Sub-Commissioners as will dispose of the arrears in reasonable time?

The Return of judicial rents fixed in Ireland during December was laid upon the Table on the 2nd inst., and the Land Commissioners report that the Return for January will be presented in a few days. They state that the number of rents fixed in Ulster in the three months ending November 30 was 629, not 502, as mentioned in the question; but they point out that these figures do not afford a true test by taking them as for three months, the Assistant Commissioners having been on vacation throughout September and up to October 8. The total number of fair rents fixed in Ulster during the four months to March 31 was 2,509. Every effort is being made to facilitate the hearing of applications.

How many of the applications have been decided?

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before the light railway line sanctioned by Mr. Price on the recommendation of Mr. Barton, and the line of Mr. Barton sanctioned by Mr. Price are approved by the Treasury, he will give his personal supervision to the proposed advances of public money involved in these schemes?

I think that I shall satisfy the hon. Member by saying that the necessary indispensable supervision of this question will rest mainly in the hands of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, than whom there is no man more competent to deal with it. If, however, the hon. Member has any information which ought to be in the possession of the Treasury regarding this subject, I shall be glad if the hon. Member will communicate with us either personally or in writing.

The whole point is in a nutshell, namely, that one gentleman was appointed to supervise one line at the recommendation of one Government Inspector, and that the second gentleman was appointed to supervise another on the recommendation of the other Government Inspector—that the two, in point of fact, recommended each other. Is it the fact that in one of the cases the Grand Jury of the County of Galway were bullied into accepting the line? Surely this is a serious matter, and the hon. Gentleman ought to be able to give an explanation.

The statement of the case made by the hon. and learned Gentleman is hardly a fail-one. No single member of a Court of five could decide the case any more than another member. I have previously stated that the utmost care was taken in arriving at a proper decision. The hon. Member is probably aware that in the case of Galway the scheme adopted was one which had been previously adopted by the Grand Jury.

The hon. Member is mistaken. It was the scheme of Mr. Whit by, an English gentleman, which was adopted.

The scheme followed practically the same route.

No.

I shall be glad to give the hon. Member any information in the possession of the Treasury in order to convince him that at all events, as far as the Government are concerned, they have only had one object in view, namely, to secure the best scheme.

Will the hon. Gentleman refer to Sir R. C. Cusack, the Chairman of the Midland and Great Western Railway, and ask him whether the line approved by the Grand Jury was Mr. Whitby's line or the Government's line?

I have no objection to refer to the Chairman of the Midland and Great Western Railway; but I understand that the arrangement was refused unless the ordinary principle adopted in the construction of railways was recognised.

I shall be perfectly satisfied if the hon. Gentleman will refer to Sir R. Cusack.

Was the threat made, that unless Mr. Price's line was adopted there would be no line at all; and is it not the fact that Mr. Price is the engineer of two or three works which are regarded as disgraceful swindles?

I am not aware of that fact.

At the outset did not the Grand Jury refuse to make the line unless it was to be made on the old Irish railway gauge of 5 ft. 3 in.?

No, Sir; there was no refusal, because it was never proposed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man of the name of Hegan, who is a well-known emergency man, and whose income is increased by the number of convictions, served on the jury at the last Londonderry Assizes; and whether, under the circumstances, he is qualified to be on the list of jurors?

I have had no intimation either one way or the other on the subject of the hon. Member's question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the jury in the first instance disagreed, and that it was then that Hegan, who is in the pay of the Government, was put upon the jury, after the counsel for the prisoners had exhausted all their challenges?

I cannot answer that question off-hand.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the removal of James Flood from the Union, Paisley, Scotland, to the Cootehill Union; whether the said James Flood served for many years in the Army, and was for a long time on the Staff of the 4th Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders, and had a pension of 17s. 6d. a week; whether his removal is legal; whether it is fair to the man Flood or to the Union that, after the best of his days in the Army, ho should, at a time when his health failed him, receive such ill-treatment at the hands of the law; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will bring in a Bill to amend the present state of the law?

The last part of the question is irregular, and cannot be put.

The facts stated in the second paragraph of the question appear to be correct. The removal appears to have been legal. As to the rest of the question, I will refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply which I gave on the 22nd March, 1889.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the following paragraph in the Ulster Weekly News, of the 12th April, 1890—

"James Daly and his follow prisoners, who were convicted at the last Derry Assizes for boycotting the engines and waggons of the Great Northern Railwav, Ireland, woe transferred on Tuesday front Deny to Belfast, in charge of three policemen. They were clad in prison garb, and, on their arrival at Belfast, were handcuffed two and two, like common felons. and taken away on cars; and. to an ordinary observer, it seemed that their clothing (they had no overcoats) WAS hardly sufficient for the kiting winds of the day;"

A great part of this question has been answered before. In regard to the new part of it, I have made inquiry, but have not yet received a reply.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the reports in the newspapers of the trial of Messrs. Kennedy, P.L.G., Doyle, Milligan, Kavanagh, and Mordaunt, at Gorey, on Monday 5th instant, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act: what was the nature of the evidence on which these men were sentenced to three months' imprisonment each with hard labour; whether it is true that two of the defendants, Messrs. Mordaunt and Kavanagh, were sentenced at the same Court on the same day to six months' imprisonment each with hard labour, in addition to the three months already inflicted; and whether it is true, as stated, that counsel for the defendants applied to the two Resident Magistrates to have a casestated, on the grounds that there was no evidence to go before a jury; and, if so, why was the application refused?

I am informed that sentences were inflicted, as stated in the second and third paragraphs of the question. The Magistrates refused to state a case on the ground that the application was frivolous, as they were satisfied there was very strong evidence to go before a jury. I am unable to make any statement bearing on the nature of the evidence, two of the defendants having appealed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Law Officers of the Crown in order to have a case stated?

I do not see that there is any necessity in this case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that at the last Fermoy fair, on Monday, the 5th instant, a number of cattle dealers and farmers were persistently followed by policemen all over the fair; if so, what is the object of this constant watching; and, in view of the complaints made by the parties that they cannot buy or sell their cattle on account of being so followed, whether suitable instructions will be given to the constabulary to desist from the practice complained of?

The Contabulary Authorities report that no persons were watched by the police at he fair mentioned except those whom they had reason to know were endeayouring to boycott the sale of cattle belonging to so-called obnoxious persons. No cattle dealer was followed.

In reference to the second paragraph of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether it is not possible to issue instructions to the constabulary to desist from the practice complained of in the case of persons engaged in the pursuit of their own legitimate business?

If these persons have been engaged in illegal transactions they must expect that disagreeable consequences may follow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that, on the 7th instant, in the town of Tipperary, Mr. Robert Paul Gill, civil engineer and architect, of New Tipperary, was accompanied by two policemen named Maddock and Gurry, who walked alongside of, and keeping step with him: whether Mr. Gill asked the policemen had they any business with him, and again would they persist in accompanying him in the same manner; whether Gurry said to Maddock, "Answer no more questions, we will do what we like," and continued to accompany Mr. Gill; and whether this procedure of the policemen is according to any special instructions to the police of Tipperary? I wish to supplement the question by another— whether a Roman Catholic priest in Tipperary has not also been followed in this way; and whether, when he goes TO fulfil his sacred function, he is not accompanied by the police, who walk by his side in the street, no matter where he is going, or for what purpose? Does such conduct receive the approval of the Government, and is it by their instructions? If he is unable to answer the question will he take a note of the particulars, make inquiries, and give a satisfactory answer?

I understand that Mr. Gill is not under police supervision, but that he was accompanying Mr. Cullinane, who is.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Gill is an architect who is now engaged in superintending important building operations in New Tipperary; and is it fair that a professional gentleman should be so interfered with in the transaction of his ordinary business?

I am not aware of the fact stated by the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why Messrs. Mulligan, Kavanagh, Mordaunt, and Grannel, who were sentenced by a Special Court, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, at Gorey on Monday last, were handcuffed in pairs, and conveyed under a heavy escort to Wexford Gaol?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the course referred to was rendered necessary to secure the safe custody of the prisoners, a, large number of persons having assembled and surrounded the escort in charge of the prisoners. The police are responsible for the custody of prisoners, and it might be that they anticipated a rescue.

Has there been a single attempt at rescue for the last five or six years?

If that is the case, I suppose it is because the precautions taken have been adequate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is true, as reported in the local papers, that a young woman named Mary Cullinane was sentenced by Colonel Evanson, R.M., on Monday last, at Clonmel, to six months' imprisonment for the alleged boycotting of two men named Duggan; and, if so, what explanation can be given for the infliction of such a heavy sentence?

I am informed that the facts are not accurately represented in the question. The defendant was charged with persistently following and preventing a man who occupied a farm from which this woman and her brother had been evicted from pursuing his lawful callings. Her conduct was suck as to lead to a breach of the peace. The Magistrate ordered the defendant to find bail. This she refused to do, electing to go to prison in default.

said: This was the third time this woman was brought up for the same offence. If she had found, security she would have been liberated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Return has been presented to Parliament giving the municipal population and number of municipal voters in Ireland; and, if not, whether there would be any objection to furnishing such Return?

Yes, Sir; there is a Return of 1885, giving this information with regard to England, Scotland, and Wales, and a Return of 1886, giving it with regard to England. There would be no objection to continuing these Returns, if the hon. Member wishes it,

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now make his promised statement as to the conduct of the police at Ballinasloe on the occasion of the funeral of Mr. Harris, M.P.?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the police waited on the leaders of the committee organised to carry out the public funeral or Mr. Harris, and mentioned that if a funeral oration were delivered a Government shorthand writer would be present, and requested to know whether any objection would be raised. The police were informed at once that there would not be the slightest objection, and that, on the contrary, every facility would be given to the police. The police, accompanied by a shorthand writer in plain clothes, simply walked into the graveyard with the rest of the concourse of about 2,000 people, and paid as much respect to the dead as any one present.

As there is a direct conflict of testimony on the subject, will the Chief Secretary give any facilities for inquiring into the truth of the allegatio: against the police?

Well, really, do not know what further inquiry ca be made unless by a Special Commission

The right hon Gentleman has had enough of Specie Commissions for the present. Did the right hon. Gentleman approve of the intrusion of the police on the relatives o the deceased; and, if he approved of the presence of an armed force at funerals it Ireland, would he, at least, undertake that this should be done on the orders of the Executive, and not at the discretion of the local police?

I think the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the facts. He talks of an armed force as if there had been an army of police, with swords drawn, bayonets fixed, and all the rest of it.

They had swords.

The police were not armed in the manner suggested. There were only, I think, eight policemen altogether, a far less number, by the way, than would be present in the case of a large public funeral in England or Scotland. It seems to me the Head Constable acted properly in asking the committee making the arrangements for a public funeral whether they had any objections to the police attending or not. The request in this case seems to have been made in a respectful manner. With regard, however, to the question, I am distinctly of opinion that unless there was some ground to think that illegal speeches were going to be made there was no occasion for having police reporters about the grave; and that unless there was some proof that the funeral was to be made the excuse for illegal speeches the police reporters should not be present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the constables had their side arms, and also not merely attended in the churchyard, but formed a line immediately about the grave and shut out the mourners from the coffin?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct in his facts. The police had their batons only, and not their side arms. Of that I am not quite sure; but I am distinctly informed that no obstruction of any kind was offered to the mourners by the police.

The grave of the late Mr. Biggar was similarly "mouacharded."

I myself saw the side arms. Will the Chief Secretary make further inquiries, there being a great deal of dissatisfaction in the district on the subject.

Is it the custom, when men are buried in Westminster Abbey, to have police notetakers to take notes of speeches?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as the mails for the Straits Settlements, now sent fortnightly by French Packet, are frequently delayed in their arrival till after the departure of the Home Mails, it would be possible to send the outgoing alternate mails, now transmitted by the French Packet Service, by Bombay and Negapatam, as the Home going mails are now fortnightly sent?

The French Packets conveying mails fortnightly from this country to Singapore are timed during part of the year to arrive at that place about five days in advance of the departure of the mails sent home by the same line of steamers, and I have no official information of the delays referred to by my hon. Friend. But I will make a point of inquiring of the Singapore Post Office whether inconvenience does not arise from the present Postal arrangements with the colony, and whether the remedy which my hon. Friend suggests could, with advantage, be adopted.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, having taken for other purposes the evening allotted by the fortune of the Ballot to the discussion of a proposal for a return to the ancient freedom of Debate on the Indian Budget, will propose some amendment of the procedure of the House in this respect?

My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has asked me to answer this question. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to recommend the House to make any change in its Rules in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend. The effect of his proposal might be to postpone the statement of Indian finance and the discussion on the most important questions of Revenue and Expenditure for the consideration of some local or personal matter. Hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in India have opportunities, in common with other hon. Members, to put Motions on the Paper, and there are other occasions of Bills affecting India on which discussions may arise.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that in connection with other questions there is always an opportunity of raising a discussion when we are asked to vote money. But in the case of India none of the salaries are voted here.

No doubt the Indian salaries are not voted by this House in the same way as other salaries are; but I am afraid that any new course of procedure would only be likely to land us in difficulty.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is correct that the Naval Manoeuvres conducted by Admiral Sir Nowell Salmon on the China Station, between the 17th and 20th March, resulted in the following casualties:—A second-class torpedo boat cut almost in halves by one of the boats of the attacking squadron by a blunder on the part of the engine room artificers; that the Alacrity despatch vessel, with the Commander-in-Chief on board, ran ashore in a fog whilst steaming 12 knots an hour, carrying away four square feet of her prow, and that her repairs will occupy at least three weeks, and that all the attacking boats were more or less injured by collisions; whether these collisions were caused by the boats being worked by artificers in place of certificated engineers; if it is correct that the Im-Périeuse flagship, in returning' into Hong Kong Harbour, collided with the German flagship there at anchor by not making sufficient allowance for the tide; and what inquiry he intends making with regard to the manoeuvres and casualties?

The casualties referred to by the hon. Member did, unfortunately, occur during the course of the recent Naval Manos uvres on the China Station. The Report of the grounding of the Alacrity is now under the consideration of the Admiralty; but no official Reports on the other casualties have yet been received. Until these Reports are received the Admiralty will not be in a position to come to any decision with regard to the circumstances in question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is true that he has again postponed for several months the enforcement of the Regulations drawn under the Saving of Life at Sea Act of 1888 by a Committee of Experts; and in such case, what is the reason for the further delay, having regard to the three years which have nearly elapsed since the Select Committee reported the total inadequacy of present arrangements for the safety of passengers or sailors, and to the fact that the requirements of the Act as to the provision of life-saving gear have long been in force in the United States and elsewhere?

The operation of the Rules drawn under the Saving of Life at Sea Act of 1888 by a Committee of Experts has been postponed until the 1st of November next at the request of the Committee of Experts which framed them, and which was appointed under the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act, 1888. The ground upon which the postponement was recommended was the necessity for carefully re-considering the Rules as affecting vessels in the short-sea and coasting services. Some other points more generally affecting the registration of the Rules are also under the consideration of the Committee.

Will the Rules be laid on the Table before they are finally adopted?

I believe so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the Report of Mr. Robson, the Mines Inspector of the South Wales District, for 1887, in which he says that the fatalities from falls of roof and sides were "very excessive," and could not be accounted for by the inferiority of the roofs and greater "squeeze" in the South Wales coalfield, and to the paragraph in Mr. Robson's last Report that—

"After two years' experience in this district, I am convinced that the supervision of the colliers' working places, where the majority of the falls occur, is not all that can be desired. The supervision is, I believe, generally given, but it is of too cursory a nature, &c.;"

I have no reason to believe that the Inspectors are unmindful of the Rule providing that no persons shall be allowed to work alone as a collier in the face of the workings until he has had two years' experience of such work. On the contrary, at their last general meeting it formed the subject of discussion. No complaints have reached me that the Rule is disregarded. If the hon. Member will bring to my notice any instance of disregard I will do all in my power, by issuing instructions to the Inspectors, to secure, as far as possible, its proper observance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will direct the particular attention of the Mines Inspectors to Rule 39 in the General Rules under "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887,"which provides that no person shall he allowed to work alone as a collier in the face of the workings until he has had two years' experience of such work under the supervision of skilled workmen, and which Rule it is alleged is not generally observed; and what steps have been taken by the Inspectors of Mines to carry out the intention of the Rule, namely, that no inexperienced person is to be allowed to work in a stall except together with, and under the direction of, a skilled workman?

I must somewhat modify the hon. Member's figures. The number of persons employed per life lost was 480 in South Wales, 741 in the Durham, and 757 in the Newcastle District last year. The lives lost from falls of roof were last year 77 in South Wales, against 87 in the previous year. I am informed by the Inspector that these are the accidents against which inspection is of the least avail. The timbering of the working places devolves upon the colliers, who resent interference or advice from the Inspector; and it would he absolutely impossible for Inspectors to supervise the timbering of the shifting working places of a district where upwards of 70,000 men are employed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present system under which paints are tested and selected for use on the bottoms of Her Majesty's ships; and who is responsible for the selection of the compositions which are ordered from time to time to be used for this purpose; by whom was he appointed, and for how long; and on what principle does he make his selection?

The system under which paints for coating ships' bottoms are selected for use in the Navy was very carefully revised by the present Board of Admiralty after a Committee of experts had reported on the whole subject. An officer who was a member of that Committee has been charged with the special duty of watching not only the results of the paints applied to Her Majesty's ships, but he also reports upon the various coatings used in the Mercantile Marine. With the information thus obtained, the Admiralty select those paints which, so far as present experience goes, have given the best results, and they find it advantageous, once a certain description of paint is applied to a, vessel, to continue the use of the same material when the vessel requires subsequent coatings. I may add that compositions for coating the bottoms of Her Majesty's ships are first of all chemically tested to ascertain whether they contain anything that might act injuriously upon the plating. They are then practically tested on a ship's bottom alongside other compositions used in the Navy.

Will the noble Lord take precautions to guard against storing paints and dryers containing chemicals liable to cause explosion?

These things are used externally and not internally.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of officers of the outdoor branch of the Inland Revenue Department censured, reduced, and dismissed during the past three years; and what is the number so censured, reduced, and dismissed in what is called the indoor branch of the same Department during the same period?

Comparisons are proverbially odious. I do not see any advantage in a public statement of censure inflicted on two great Departments, both of which, as a rule, perform their functions well. Nor could any comparison be fair looking to the different circumstances and size of the two branches in question.

May I ask whether any Circular has been recently issued in connection with this or the Customs Department asking to be supplied with a Return of the nationality of the persons employed; and, if so, what is the object?

I am not aware of the fact; but if it is desired I will obtain the information. It is possible that it may have been the case.

I will put a question upon the subject again.

I bag to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take into consideration the question of providing reasonable accommodation for the numerous deputations having business at the Board of Trade whilst kept waiting for an audience, so as to prevent them from being detained in ill-ventilated passages, or on the staircase, as was the case with a deputation on the 2nd May, for about 20 minutes after the time appointed for their reception, such deputation having been composed of numerous Members of Parliament and others, assembled to discuss the question of the proposed bankruptcy legislation?

I very much regret any inconvenience that may have been caused to any members of the deputation on the occasion referred to. It was due to the fact that the deputation which immediately preceded them detained me much longer than had been anticipated, so that the room ordinarily used for deputations to assemble in was not at their service.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to an advertisement in the Schoolmaster of the 26th ultimo, issued by the Thwing School Board, for a certificated master, stipulating that candidates must be able to play the harmonium, and will be expected to do so in the parish church; and whether this requirement, that the instrumental music in church shall be provided at the cost of the rates, is in accord with the law of the land; and, if not, whether ho will take the matter up with this School Board?

The Department have no power to prescribe to School Boards the terms of their advertisements: but if it should appear that any part of the master's salary is paid in respect of services tendered as organist in the pariah church, it would, no doubt, be for the auditor to disallow the amount, and it would not be taken into consideration by the Department in estimating the grant due under Article 114.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is true, as reported in the Birmingham Daily Post of 4th March, 1890, that the cost of the Railway Rates Inquiry has been at the rate of £10,000 a day; what proportion of the cost has been borne by the traders, what by the Railway Companies, and what by the country; and whether it was contemplated when the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888 was passed, that such a long period would elapse before its provisions came into operation?

I have no means of knowing what is the total cost per diem of the Railway Rates Inquiry, nor have I any means of ascertaining what cost is incurred by the traders or the Railway Companies. But I cannot suppose that it reaches anything like the amount mentioned. The charge which falls upon the Public Funds is limited to the expenses connected with the hiring of a room, shorthand writers' notes, printing of proceedings, and the salaries of a few temporary clerks; but a portion, if not the whole, of this charge will be met by the fees paid by the Railway Companies on the deposit of their respective schedules. As regards the length of the inquiry, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle have used their best endeavours to shorten the proceedings as much as possible; but a large number of traders have desired to come before them whom they have not thought it compatible with their duty absolutely to decline to hear. There have been 33 witnesses for the Railway Companies, and up to yesterday, when the evidence closed, 178 witnesses for the traders.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Government will consider the advisability of advancing money, at a low rate of interest, from the Treasury for the purpose of tithe redemption?

There is a good deal of difficulty involved in the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, but the matter is receiving very careful consideration from the Government.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the Naval and Military Record of 8th May; and whether, in view of the precise and serious allegations therein contained, he will order a Court of Inquiry into the condition of the Icarus while under Commander Annesley?

I have not seen the report in the newspaper in question. In view of the serious nature of the allegations that have been made, which have already formed the subject of a question in the House, substantiated by a letter written by the hon. Gentleman, instructions have been sent to the Commander-in-Chief at Plymouth to inquire into them, as I felt that, in the interests both of the officer commanding and of the crew, an investigation was necessary.

I regret that the notice should have been so short, but the cas3 seemed tome to be very urgent.

postponed until Monday a question to ask the Postmaster General what is the estimated loss to the Revenue by the reduction of the postage rates to Australia and to India from 6d. and 5d. to 2½d. in each case; what is the estimated additional loss to the Revenue if the postage rates to Australia and to India were reduced from 2½d. to 1d.; and what is the further estimated loss if the postage rates to all the Colonies and to India were reduced to 1d.?

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Article 100 of the New Code is intended in its operation to disqualify and supersede all those uncertificated assistant teachers and others who are now teaching separate infant classes under Article 108 of the Old Code with an average attendance of 50?

Article 100 of the New Code has been framed in conformity with Article 73, by which the staff requirements have been sensibly increased; but nothing in the terms of the Article will disqualify or supersede any teacher who is superintending an infant class with an average attendance of 50.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, if the American Tariff Bill now before Congress is passed into law, the Government intend to take any steps to encourage British manufacturers to exhibit at the "World's Fair" in Chicago, seeing that the Bill in question is prohibitive as regards many classes of British manufactures?

The question of any official participation by Her Majesty's Government in an International Exhibition can only be determined upon a review of the advantages to British interests when an invitation is received from the Government promoting it. But it is only probable that manufacturers in this country would be to a great extent deterred from sending specimens of their goods for exhibition if the Customs Duties imposed in the country of the Exhibition were such as to preclude their profitable sale there.

I have on the Paper a question to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the rumours which have appeared in the public prints regarding treaties or arrangements with Native, Chiefs in the interior of tropical Africa alleged to have been recently made on behalf of Her Majesty or of any British Company; and whether he is now in a position to give the House any information upon this subject? I beg to postpone the question.

postponed until Monday a question to ask the Postmaster General whether by far the greater proportion of the loss to the Revenue of £254,000 per annum on the Foreign and Colonial Postal Services is due to the Bast and West Indian Packet Services; and whether, down to the year 1858, this portion of the loss to the Revenue was charged upon the Admiralty Vote?

I bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the effect of the licensing proposals of the Government, as explained by him at Rawtonstall, will be to establish two authorities with power to diminish the number of public houses, one the Justices with powers to do so without giving compensation, the other the County Council, who are only empowered to do so on giving compensation; and will he explain in what manner he proposes to maintain the two systems side by side without weakening the powers possessed by the present Licensing Authority?

The powers at pre sent possessed by the Justices will not be interfered with, and will be exercised side by side with the employment of the means placed at the disposal of the County Councils for the extinction of licences. The Government do not anticipate that their proposal will in any way weaken the powers possessed by the Justices.

May I ask whether it would not be desirable to postpone the proposal in question until the Committee which is to consider the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) has made its Report?

I do not think that my right hon. Friend the leader of the HOUSE would be disposed to assent to that proposal.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Ordinance directed by the Secretary of State to be introduced in the Hong Kong Legislature for amending the Contagious Diseases Ordinance of 1889 has yet been passed; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?

As the Secretary of State's instructions in regard to an amending Ordinance were only sent last January, there has not yet been time for the Ordinance to be passed and sent home, but the officer administering the Government will be requested to push the matter forward as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has any intention of improving in any way the present unsatisfactory-position of the Civil Service Writers, many of whom have already served the State continuously for a period of 20 years, and only receive, after eight-and-a-half years' service, an annual bonus of 30s., increasing annually at the rate of 1d. per day?

The case of the registered copyists was examined into by the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, who stated in their second Report that they had before them—

"The representatives of the copyists, hut we cannot report that, in our opinion, they have estahlished any grievance which it is the duty of the State to remedy."

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether James Davies, at the time he was injured in the execution of his duty, had worked in the hired department of the Pembroke Dockyard for more than 25 years, and was, therefore, entitled to a gratuity of £25 whenever he was discharged; can he explain why, although at the time of his injury, James Davies was earning £1 a week, and would have been entitled under the rules to a gratuity of £52 as a maximum on gecount of his injury, or in all to a gratuity of £77 as a maximum on account of his length of service and of his injury combined, when he was discharged (in consequence of the injury to his hand) he received a gratuity of £52 2s. 10d., of which £25 was due to him apart from his injury, and the balance, £27 2s. 10d., only paid to him on account of his injury; do the rules permit of pensions being granted to workmen in the dockyard who receive injuries in the performance of their duty, and is there anything in the rules which would debar James Davies from receiving a pension; and is he aware that the accident entirely incapacitated James Davies from using the injured hand, inasmuch as he has lost his thumb and middle finger and is unable to close the remaining fingers?

James Davies had completed 25 years' service at the time of his injury, and could have received a gratuity of £25 for his services, if he had been discharged on account of a redaction in the establishment, or through being invalided. In the second question there is a misapprehension of the regulations under which gratuities are awarded. The amount of a year's wages in full is the maximum compensation, for service and injury combined, which can be awarded in a case of this kind; and Davies received the full award of £52 2s. 10d. to which he was entitled. Pensions can be granted to workmen who are totally disabled by accident; but the injuries Davies received were of a less severe nature, and his capacity to earn a livelihood was only materially impaired and not totally destroyed. The injury resulted in the amputation of the thumb and middle finger of the loft hand.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the dangerous character of the practice firing on the Isle of Wight, a shot from Totland Bay having passed immediately over the tops of the funnels of the steamship Brodrick Castle (filled with passengers on her way from Bournemouth to Ventnor), and dropped into the sea within 300 yards of the boat whilst rounding, and within two miles of, the Needles, at about noon, in bright and clear weather, on Tuesday, the 6th of May; and if he will give orders to pre- vent such firing in future as may be dangerous to passing ships?

The officer in charge reports that before the shot in question was fired it was estimated by the position-finder on Headon Hill that it would fall 1.000 yards from the Brodrick Castle. The shot fell exactly where it was predicted, and the steamer was never in the slightest danger.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the announcement of the sale by public auction next month of the most complete collection in existence of the famous Cosway Miniatures; and whether any arrangement would be sanctioned by the Treasury, under which these beautiful works of art might be preserved to the nation?

No proposals have been made to the Government by any of their advisers in these matters with respect to the Cosway Miniatures. The Government have not been approached in the matter by the Trustees of the National Gallery with a view of placing funds at their disposal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into the matter, or some of these valuable historical miniatures will be taken off to Texas or somewhere?

I think that the notice which has been taken in the House will draw attention to the matter.

The Report of Colonel Rich, in reference to the Carlisle accident, being now in the hands of hon. Members, I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the great divergence of opinion as to the nature and character of brake failures and the urgency of the question, he will consent to refer it to a Departmental Committee of scientific and practical experts?

I have considered the point; but it appears to me that such a Committee would have to be largely composed of persons who either are inventors, or manufacturers, or users, and who would therefore be prejudiced in favour of particular forms of brakes. I do not think that the conclusions of snch a Committee would be more authoritative or useful than, the advice now at my disposal.

In consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that, on a favourable occasion, I will call the attention of the House to the matter.

I wish to know from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he intends to oppose the Return in reference to sea fishery works in Ireland, which appears on the Paper in my name to-day?

I am at present inquiring into the matter.

Then I will postpone the Motion until this day week.

The hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has handed in Amendments to this clause which will more properly form the subject of a new clause.

I notice that all the Amendments to this Bill which appear on the Paper are in the names of Scotch Members. There is one, however, which I wish to move in the interests of the cowkeepers and dairymen. In Dublin there is a very large industry connected with the sale of milk, and the persons who are engaged in it represent that their business may be entirely suspended unless provision is made for the immediate slaughter of cattle suspected of suffering from disease. I imagine that what the Government desire is that some time should elapse for the development of the disease, so that the Inspectors may know exactly what a suspected animal is suffering from — whether pleuro-pneumonia or tuberculosis; but it is rather a strong order that a man's business should be suspended, and that he should be deprived of the power of selling milk for an indefinite period. If it is necessary to hang up a man's business for more than a week, in order to enable the Inspector to discover what the disease is, I maintain that the dairyman or cow-keeper ought to be compensated. It is hardly fair that in the Imperial interests of agriculture a vendor of milk should have the whole of his means of livelihood destroyed. If the Government say that they are prepared to consider the point I will not press the Amendment; but, in the absence of such an assurance, I beg to move a proviso to this effect—

"Provided that the slaughter be carried out within one week from the enforcement of the powers conferred by the principal Act."

The proposition of the hon. and learned Member is one which has already been considered, and I am indebted to him for giving me an opportunity of expressing the views of the Government on the matter. I understand kirn to object to the discretionary power given to the Inspectors to suspend the slaughter of suspected animals, and I admit that in the case of large towns the interests of the cowkeepers and dairymen might be prejudicially affected. But, on the other hand, I must point out that a great many representations have been made to the Board in which the complaint made was that the power of slaughter has not been made imperative and obligatory in all cases. Now, I strongly object to the insertion of the word "shall," for the very reason that the hon. and learned Member has stated. I think it would be very hard for the Government, or the Board of Agriculture, to go into the dairies in the large towns and, without a moment's notice or warning', slaughter all the animals, without having any discretionary power whatever. We have endeavoured to guard against that by providing that there shall be a certain period of probation, with due restrictions for the prevention of contact with other animals.

What in London would be the probationary period?

That would be left entirely to the discretion of the Board.

That is my principal objection, because the Inspector may put under probation the entire stock of a man, and prevent him from carrying on his business, practically, for an indefinite period. What I suggest is that there should be some limit to the probationary period.

During the time the cows were in the dairy in a state of imprisonment, with a view to ultimate slaughter if necessary, the dairyman would be able to pursue his business, and to sell his milk. It was with the view of not immediately destroying his business that the Bill has been drawn up in this way. It was drawn up expressly to meet the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out.

As I understand the point which has been raised, it is that the authorities should have power to indicate a certain number of animals which it may be necessary to slaughter eventually, but to postpone the carrying out of the order for an indefinite time. Perhaps it may be worthy the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not desirable to give the owner power to call on the authorities to do one of two things—either to withdraw the restriction or to carry out the power of slaughter at once. I hope my right hon. Friend will take that suggestion into consideration. As the Bill is at present framed the town cowkeeper would not know exactly where he stood.

It might be of advantage to the dairyman to have the cash down so as to be able to replace the suspected animals; but it would be of distinct advantage to the farmer that the authorities should not be too hasty in destroying the animals.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that this discretionary power should be exercised in the case of country dairies as well as of town dairies'? I hope that ha does, and that he does not entirely exclude from consideration these cases which must arise in the country as well as in the town.

I contemplate no exclusion in any case, either in regard to town or country dairies; and when I prepared the Bill, I had in my mind the case of the farmers' fat beasts, which might be kept for three weeks or a month until they would reach their full value. Before the Report I will consider the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther).

As I understand that the matter will be duly considered I will not press the Amendment.

May I ask the President of the Board of Agriculture to amplify the answer which he gave to me recently in reference to the movement of cattle? I regret to find that no distinct arrangements have been made to regulate the movement of cattle after an epidemic. If each Local Authority is allowed to legislate for itself, great inconvenince may arise. No county has suffered more than my own from the fact that, although they have been able to frame efficient regulations for themselves, the Local Authorities of other counties have not discharged their duties so efficiently, and diseased animals have found their way into Aberdeenshire. I trust that in future the Central Authorities will frame stringent rules, and that the Local Authorities will not be left to make their own regulations. Unless something of that kind is done I am afraid the Bill will be of very little use.

I think my hon. Friend misunderstood my answer. The execution of the orders will be carried out, as usual, by the LOCAL Authorities who, of course, will be subject to the inspection of the officers of the Board of Agriculture, and in any case of default in adhering most strictly to the rules and regulations of the Board of Agriculture the Board itself will step in and carry out the orders.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has met the difficulty by saying that the rules will be uniform, and will be uniformly enforced throughout the country.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given us.

I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give such an answer to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford as will render it unnecessary for me to propose the new clause which stands in my name. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet that as the Bill now stands the owners of cattle in towns will not know their exact position. My hon. Friend has suggested that suspected cattle should be slaughtered within a definite period— say, seven days. The owners of cattle in Dublin desire to have some finality in this respect, and if the Bill passes, as framed, it will be perfectly optional for the officers employed under the Act to do as they like; the owners of dairies will be entirely at the mercy of their whims and fancies. Again, the Bill provides that the authorities may declare a place free from infection after 56 days. They may not do it sooner, but the declaration that the place is free from pleuro-pneumonia may be delayed for months, owing to the caprice or the laziness of the officers appointed under the Bill. We think the Bill should be more definite on this point. I know of one case in which the declaration of freedom from infection was delayed for three months, and all that time, although it was winter, the cattle had to be kept in the field instead of being properly housed, and the owner sustained considerable loss. The owner ought to know his exact position. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point.

I will with pleasure. I want clearly to understand one thing. I assume that the hon. Gentleman contemplates a condition of things where all the cattle have been slaughtered. In such a case a specific time might be mentioned for declaring the place free from infection. But if any of the cattle are left alive it will be quite impossible to fix a specific time.

I think it would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information as to the officers to be appointed under the Bill. What will be the relations between the staff at headquarters and the Local Authorities, and what, approximately, will be the expense to be incurred? Of course, I am aware we cannot expect to have details, but I should like, if possible, a rough outline.

I will with pleasure give what information I can. According to the estimates made by the Department of Agriculture, the additional sum required will be about £10,000 a year. It is impossible for me to take any steps for the creation of the staff until the Bill is passed; and it will be a month or six weeks after the Bill be- comes law before everything can be satisfactorily arranged. I have in contemplation a staff that would be sufficient to carry out the instructions of the Board, as a reasonable forecast would estimate them to be. It is expected that the benefits to localities from the Bill will be so great that the cordial assistance and support of the Local Authorities will be given. We hope that our officers will work in perfect harmony and co-operation with the Local Authorities, but, at the same time, it will be necessary to be prepared for any opposite result; and in any case the work of inspection must be heavy.

I should like to ask whether the Board of Agriculture intend to employ the existing County Inspectors, as by doing so a considerable economy might be effected, and their local knowledge would be of great value. I think the Board of Agriculture will lose a great deal if they pass over these gentlemen in their appointments.

I agree with the hon. Member who last spoke, but I should like to add that it is necessary that the Inspectors should be men in whom the counties have the greatest possible confidence. It would be a very unwise economy to appoint local Inspectors merely because they are such.

Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider, when the slaughtered animal has been found not to be infected with pleuropneumonia, the possibility of declaring the place free within two days? In such a case surely 56 days is too long a period to elapse before making the declaration.

I think my right hon. Friend is quite right in saying he wishes to consult the views of the Local Authorities. I believe if he takes that course he would get from them valuable information as to who are the men likely to be most trusted by the county. I know that in my own county we have often wished for the opinion of a Government Inspector, because, however excellent a man the local officer may be, he is liable, like other people, to make mistakes. In all counties, however, there are men pre-eminently qualified to carry out these duties, and if the right hon. Gentleman gets his information locally from the best men I hold it will be of great advantage, not only to his Department, but also to the country.

I hope that the hon. Member for Longford will not ask me to bind myself at present to a specific number of days for the cases which the hon. Member has mentioned. I certainly think, however, that where all the animals have been slaughtered a place might be declared free within a much shorter period than 56 days. The Board will certainly endeavour to consult Local Authorities, whose local knowledge will be essential to the effective working of the Act but I recognise the importance of having men upon whom the Board can thoroughly rely. Every endeavour shall be made on the part of the Board to see, that this is done. We are already taking measures to ascertain every centre of the country in which pleuro-pneumonia exists, and where we are likely to get the most effectual assistance.

The Amendment I have to move raises a very important question. The amount to be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer is £140,000, but, in the event of there being a deficiency, it is to be supplied out of the local taxation accounts of England and Scotland. Now, there is a very important principle involved in this. The local taxation funds are already the property of the ratepayers, and it has always been held that the expenditure of such funds should be managed by the representatives of the locality. But, according to this Bill, the rnoney required to make up the deficit will be taken from the rates by the Board of Agriculture, a Board over which the ratepayers will have no control. The result will be that as there is no limit placed on the expenditure of the Board, it may spend £300,000, of which £160,000 will be taken out of local taxation. Grants were given to localities on condition that they should be hypothecated by Parliament to purposes that were new. It is contrary to the principles of representative Government that localities should be assessed by the Imperial Government for Imperial purposes, and that they should be called upon to pay sums out of local taxation by a Board which they have no right to call to account. Hitherto the money has been found by the Local Bodies, but then those bodies had control over its expenditure, and, as a result of their good management, the expense was small. In Glasgow, for instance, we have during the past five years spent only £400 a year under the Contagious Diseases Animals Act. Now, if you are going to take the management out of the hands of Local Bodies, it is only reasonable that the Board of Agriculture should bear all the cost. Under the Bill the assessment to make up the deficiency will fall equally upon the boroughs and counties: but in the past only one-fourth of the cost has fallen upon the boroughs, while the counties have had to bear three-fourths, which shows that this is a matter which affects the counties much more than it does the boroughs. In Scotland the rental of the burghs is exactly equal to the rental of the counties, so that the proposed arrangement will give three times as much to the counties as to the burghs. We, who represent the burghs in Scotland, know very well that nearly all the Conservative Members represent counties in Scotland, and we can understand a Conservative Government granting more relief to the counties than to the burghs. Indeed, one of our great complaints in regard to Scotch legislation is that the burgh ratepayer is always worse treated than the county ratepayer. I, therefore, move to omit Sub-section 4, on the ground that the whole expense of the working of the Act should be paid out of Imperial funds, and that the sub-section imposes the burden to an unfair extent on the boroughs.

I have a suggestion to make which, I think, if adopted, will facilitate the progress of this measure. This is the clause which raises the question of the mode of payment. So far as Scotland is concerned, the Government is not satisfied with the mode of payment provided in the clause, and the Lord Advocate proposed that, instead of the deficiency being made up out of the funds for pauper lunatics, it should be made up out of the new taxes on beer and whisky. The House has not agreed to that yet; and on the very sound principle affirmed last night, that until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the purpose for which a tax is to be levied, it. should not be imposed, it is obvious that it is premature to apply to the expenses to be incurred under this Act taxes which have not yet been agreed to. I, therefore, suggest that the House should defer the consideration of the machinery for the payment of the expenses, for which, if necessary, the Bill can be recommitted before the Third Reading. This would probably save time, because there are a number of Amendments on the Paper, and if the Government persist in pressing this clause, we shall be obliged to discuss those Amendments.

I think there is a good deal of reason in the suggestion of my hon. Friend. As the Government are well aware, the proposal to supply the deficiency in Scotland out of the grant for pauper lunatics has caused a great outcry, and it is now admitted to be indefensible. The Government have, consequently, made a fresh proposal to set apart certain Customs and Excise Duties for the purpose. But the Bill appropriating these duties to the purpose is not before the House, and, that being so, I submit that the position to-day is analogous to the position yesterday, when the Government postponed the consideration of certain clauses.

The hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division seems to think that there are no Liberal Members for Scotch counties. Whatever may be the case in the West of Scotland, it certainly is not so in the East. If the proportions in which the counties and burghs have contributed in the past has been correctly stated, my contention is that the burghs have paid too little, for they are directly benefited, and they are the points of entry through which the cattle reach the districts in the counties. Therefore, I say the counties have aright to expect that the boroughs shall bear their share in securing that the cattle shall be introduced in a good, sound, and healthy condition. The boroughs derive almost the entire benefit of the trade carried on in foreign cattle, inasmuch as the middleman and the consumer, as well as the Dock Companies and the shipping trade, that obtain the advantage derived from that traffic. Therefore, if the counties pay three-fourths of the cost of slaughtering deceased cattle they pay too much, and have a right to demand that the boroughs shall have a fair charge laid upon them in connection with the enforcement of the Act. I have no objection to foreign cattle coming to this country; but we know it is the foreign competition that has brought down the price of home-grown cattle. This is a very good thing for the consumers, the bulk of whom reside in the boroughs, and who, therefore, ought to pay the greater portion of the charge.

I wish to emphasiza the arguments which have been put forward by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Marjoribanks). We, in the County of Lanark, have suffered more than any other part of Scotland from pleuro-pneumonia, and we attribute that to a great extent to the fact that deceased cattle are landed in Glasgow, whence the infection is distributed through Lanarkshire and the rest of the kingdom.

In my opinion, the whole cost should be thrown upon the counties; but before entering on that question I wish to call attention to the position in which we are placed. I hope the Government will tell us what course they are going to pursue. We are in this difficulty, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) has completely changed the original character of the Amendment of which the Lord Advocate gave notice at Sub-section 6. The Amendment put down at Sub-section 4 of this clause is, in some degree, met by the Amendment of the Lord Advocate to Subsection 6. The difficulty is that we cannot discuss Sub-section 4 without also discussing the Lord Advocate's Amendment, which comes at a later stage of the Bill. I think it would be an advantage if that part of the question could be postponed. The matter is one of great importance to Scotland. We have four proposals before us; one proposal is to take the expenses out of the Consolidated Fund; another is to take it out of the rates altogether; another to take it from the county rates; and the fourth, that the Government is to take it out of the new tax which is to be created by a Bill which has not yet been read a second time, and posssibly may never be passed. I think it would be highly inconvenient that the proposal we are discussing should be carried, and then left in the air because it is entirely dependent on the passing of another Bill. If this Bill is passed, which is very likely, inasmuch as it is supported by the Government, it would leave this Committee proposing to supplement any deficiency out of moneys to be levied by a tax not yet imposed; and if that tax be not imposed this Bill will have no effect as regards Scotland, or could only be made effectual by throwing the whole amount on the General Fund. I doubt very much whether that could be done; and I suppose it would be necessary at the last moment to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of dealing with the matter, or else to insert a provision when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. I should like to hear from the Government how they propose to obtain the money, and whether they do not think the best course would be to leave the question of Scotland out of the Bill altogether, or to postpone this clause until the money can be found under the Lord Advocate's-Bill.

I must join issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell). It ill becomes him to taunt counties for representing Conservatism, seeing that Glasgow, with her seven Members, send three to vote with the Government. I must also join issue with my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), in respect to the apportionment. It would be easy to show that the burghs are equally if not more benefited than the counties.

I trust the Government will not give way on this clause. Hitherto the counties have paid more than their fair share of the cost of the Act, and it appears to me to be a matter in which the boroughs are much more interested than the counties. We in the counties have to supply the boroughs with milk, which is a very important article of consumption, and cannot be imported from abroad. If pleuro-pneumonia once gets into the dairies it stops the supply of milk, to the great detriment of the town consumers. The counties already have spent enormous sums in endeavouring to stamp out this disease, and I think it quite time that the boroughs should be called upon to pay their fair share.

I think there is a great deal in what has been said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Bryce) in regard to the Amendment of the Lord Advocate for providing the money. I have an Amendment of my own upon the Paper, but I do not propose to move it now. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman will concur in the proposal that the chaise should be postponed, so that it may be brought up for subsequent discussion. If it be true that the counties have hitherto paid three-fourths, and the boroughs only one-fourth of the cost of enforcing the Act, the difference is exceedingly unfair to the counties; and I hope the Government will persist in their endeavour to make the burden as equable as possible. In Gloucestershire there can be no doubt that 9–10ths of the disease amongst our cattle is disseminated through the Port of Bristol. That being so, it is monstrous that the Gloucestershire dairies should have to bear the whole of the burden. This is not, and must not, be allowed to be a Party question.

I must express my surprise that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bryce) should have suggested that Scotland should be omitted altogether from the operation of the Bill.

I only meant that that part of the Bill which relates to Scotland should be postponed.

Every Amendment on the Paper refers to Scotland, and to Scotland alone, and in making such a proposition the hon. Gentleman is practically asking us to postpone the whole Bill. I admit that it is something of an anomaly that we should be looking for a portion of our funds to a Bill which has not yet been read a second time. I must decline to contemplate the possibility of that Bill not being carried during the Session, but I admit the force of the objection taken by hon. Gentlemen. My alternative will lie either in limiting my expenses, or in taking some measures before the final stages which would admit of the introduction of another Bill. The explanation which I have to give will, I hope, bo satisfactory. I am not going to enter into any controversy between the boroughs and the counties, further than to say that, although in times past it might be the case that the boroughs had to pay only only one-fourth and the counties three-fourths for all the animals slaughtered in consequence of pleuro-pneumonia, that was no guarantee of what their relative position might become under the Bill. The information which I received from those gentlemen who assist me, and whose opinions are more to be relied on than those of any others, is that the cost to the boroughs might, in the future, be very heavy, because; in the large boroughs pleuro-pneumonia undoubtedly prevailed more than anywhere else. Whatever may be the case with regard to the past, the boroughs will find that they will no longer occupy the same advantageous position with respect to the counties. But the whole of the additional cost to be raised from local resources is so comparatively small and trivial that it is not worth while to discuss the matter at any great length. I stated on the Second Reading that this was a question upon which it was impossible, from the nature of the case, to obtain an accurate estimate. But I have had a great many estimates made with great care, and the most extravagant estimate is from £200,000 to £250,000, at the outside. I am provided with £160,000, to begin with, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, in addition, I shall have all the money derived from the sale of the carcases of the animals slaughtered. I cannot say how much will be derived from that source, but I shall be greatly disappointed if I do not receive a considerable sum. I cannot conceive, even at the worst, that I shall have to ask for more than £50,000 from local resources; and I believe that sum to be an extravagant one. Supposing we are called upon to provide that sum, how could it fall upon Scotland? It is to be provided at the rate of 18 per cent. by England, and 12 per cent. by Scotland. So that, really assuming the worst, I estimate that the sum Scotland will be called upon to pay will range from £5,000 to £7,000, and that would have to be distributed among the whole of the Local Authorities of the country. Really and truly, regarded in that way, the cost which is to fall upon the counties and the boroughs becomes inappreciable. I hope, and still think, the small call will not be required, and under the circumstances I hope the Committee will allow the Bill to proceed. This Bill is accepted by all sides of the House, and hon. Members are anxious to see it pass; but, knowing the state of public business, suppose it was not possible to find a further opportunity of discussing this measure do you think that the constituencies, which have been so ably represented by the Members for Scotland, would be very well pleased at the loss of the Bill? I would remind the House that the Board of Agriculture has power at the present moment to insist on the Local Authorities carrying out the Act with regard to slaughter; and if they do not do it, then the Central Authority can do it at their expense. I thought that was a position which ought to be remedied, and, therefore, I introduced this Bill, which, accepted by all who are specially interested, will be a great gain to the country, and I think, therefore, ought to be allowed to proceed.

I think the right hon. Gentleman misapprehends the position we take up. Nothing is further from our thoughts than to prevent the Bill proceeding. When the Bill was drafted the right hon. Gentleman proposed to deal with a small surplus in a manner which may be satisfactory to English Members; but in the case of Scotland he proposes that a deficit, which may possibly amount to £7,000, should be taken out of the sum at present allocated to the maintenance of pauper lunatics. That was so very questionable a proposal that an outcry was raised in Scotland, and it was abandoned. I do not enter into any discussion about counties and boroughs. The right hon. Gentleman says they should bear the expense equally, and upon that point we are at one. But the Government have been obliged to make another proposal for obtaining the residue of the money required for carrying out the Act, and the Lord Advocate proposes to allocate a sum from the new duty on spirits and beer. I believe almost every Scotch Member is opposed to the imposition of the new Whisky Duty. But we protest, from independent and Constitutional considerations, so far as Scotland is concerned, against being committed to the expenditure of a tax which we consider to be most unjustly levied upon Scotland. The injustice of it has only become apparent since yesterday, when the Government issued a Return intended to show the equity of their proposal. We were told on Friday night that Scotland was receiving £18,000 more than she contributed as her share to the Probate Duty, but the Government Return issued yesterday shows that she will have to pay £52,000 more than her share in connection with this new tax. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a fair-minded man, and when these figures are pointed out to hirn he will incontinently abandon his proposal as indefensible. Then what becomes of the financial provisions of this Bill, so far as any deficit is concerned, if the Government have to rely upon the Amendment of the Lord Advocate, which would then not be worth the paper it is written on? The proposal I make does not mean the discussion of the whole question again. My hon. Friend (Mr. Caldwell) might object to the incidence as between the counties and boroughs, but that is the only point that would be left for discussion. But if you proceed with this now, we shall be obliged to discuss the whole of the Amendments, which will be absolutely useless, and we shall be obliged to discuss the Lord Advocate's Amendment, and certainly in nine cases out of 10 it will simply be a waste of time. On these grounds I urge the postponement of this sub-section.

The hon. Member for St. Rollox has used the argument that the money has not been voted, and last night the argument was used that the money could not be voted until we had the details. Looking at the Amendments on the Paper, it is clear that the opposition is from the Borough Members. If we are to vote on this Amendment, I see no reason why we should not at once go to a Division.

I find by the Returns that the expense connected with pleuro-pneumonia in Scotland, in 1887–8—

As far as the expenditure of the money is concerned, England and Scotland share alike in all cases in the Common Fund. Scotland, in the event of a deficiency, is only called upon to subscribe 12 per cent., and England 18 per cent.

So far as Scotland is concerned, the cost of stamping out this disease was £38,707 in 1887–8, but the actual amount spent in that year was £54,756. The proportion of the grant referring to Scotland under the new-arrangement would have been £16,800, the difference being, in round figures, the sum of £37,000. Therefore, the estimate of £7,000 as the whole of the amount that we would be called upon to pay out of the rates, is, I am afraid, rather fallacious. However, it is a good Bill; and I am sure the people will welcome it, but we really ought to see where the money is to come from, and the burden should not be laid upon the boroughs more than in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman requires more than the £140,000, it should be obtained from the rates as heretofore.

There would be no difficulty as to the money. I respectfully submit that you may meet the case by a 1s. poll tax on all foreign cattle.

I beg to move to insert in line 15, after "Great Britain," the words"(a) in England." The object of this Amendment is to give a different method of providing against any possible deficiency instead of that in the Bill. It is provided in the Bill that any deficiency that may occur is to be made good both in England and Scotland out of the local taxation accounts. That may be a very good plan in England, and I propose to distinguish the case of England by inserting these words. But it is not a good plan in Scotland, and accordingly, by consequential Amendments, I propose to provide the funds in another way. In the discussion it has been said that the Government are not adhering to the plan for providing for this deficiency which they themselves suggest in the Bill. They first suggest that the money should be taken from the local grant in aid, conferred only last year on the Local Authorities for the benefit of pauper lunatics, and now they have departed from that and propose that the deficiency should continue to come out of the Local Taxation Account, but that instead of being derived from the grant for pauper lunatics it is to be derived from the proceeds of the Spirit Tax which the House has not yet assented to. Though that plan is free from the objections which might have been urged against the proposal to take the money from the grant for pauper lunatics, it is open to other objections of its own. What I would suggest is that the deficiency might very well continue to be levied both in counties and in burghs in the same way as the assessment under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. The President of the Board of Agriculture says the sum required will be exceedingly small, and I hope his estimate will turn out to be correct. The machinery is there, and I think that would be the simplest way of making up any deficiency. I would not be a party to laying a new burden on the counties— as a County Member myself. This is not laying a new burden on the counties. Prom the enormous proportion of the tax the counties will be relieved by this Bill which we welcome and desire to see passed. The objections to the method of supplying the deficiency proposed by the Government are much greater than those to the method I now propose. The objections to the Government plan are these: We object to meeting the deficiency by a Bill which has not yet passed—and however inconvenient it may be, I find it necessary to make some reference to the provisions of the Bill itself. A share of the Spirit Tax will be granted under it to the Local Authorities in Scotland, and that money will be apportioned in a particular way. It will give so much for the superannuation of the police and so much for compensation to be paid to holders of licences which are to be abolished; and, finally, it will say that the rest of the Spirit Tax is to be chargeable with the deficiency we are dealing with in this Bill. There is a great deal in that Bill which almost all of us object to in toto; therefore, we do not want to make it a vehicle for enacting the necessary provision required under the present Bill. But we have a more specific objection than that. It says that a sum of £40,000 is to be given for the completion of the free education system in Scotland. We know that that sum is not sufficient, and we are at a loss to know why the Government—after having, as we thought, given us free education in Scotland last year—should tinker with the question by giving us another driblet instead of completing the edifice. We arc exceedingly anxious that sufficient money should be got for the purpose now that we have entered upon the policy of freeing education in Scotland. On that ground I object to the proceeds of the Spirit Tax being diminished for an unnecessary purpose, such as is contained in this Bill. I should think that nearer £70,000 than £40.000 will be required for freeing Scotch education, and I object to any deduction for other purposes from sums which can be made available to complete the system of free education.

I must say the hon. Member has introduced into the Debate very various and very controversial subjects, and I must deprecate the tone of his remarks. I have noticed that several speeches which have come from the opposite side have been characterised by the warmth of their controversial tone. The object which I have in view is to facilitate the Committee in coming to a decision on what is, after all, a very small practical question. It should be borne in mind that the amount that has to be provided for is contingent, and is almost certain to be very small. It will probably be £4,000 or £5,000 at the outside. The amount is to be distributed over the whole of Scotland, and what we have to do is to find a ready means of enabling the President of the Local Government Board to put his hands on the money without delay or embarrassment. That points to a Central Fund. The first objection I have to the Amendment is that it will, for this wretched sum of £4,000 or £5,000, make the President of the Local Government Board creditor for all the counties and burghs in Scotland, and will require him to go down and pick up the wretched fragments pertaining to each community. That is altogether inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill, which is approved by both sides of the House —that scheme being that the question should be dealt with as a matter of administration in which the whole community is interested. It is true that the proposal of the Government is to attach a fund which has not yet come into existence, and I admit that the objection to the proposal on that ground is plausible. It is said that it is problematical whether the Whisky Duty will really be imposed; but, to say the least, there is certainly an even chance that the duty will be imposed and that the fund will be available. However, to meet the objection of the hon. Member opposite, I am willing, if the Committee will now agree to the proposal to attach liability to the proceeds of the Whisky Tax, to undertake that the Bill shall not be passed until a decision shall have been come to upon the question of the imposition of the tax.

I think there is a great deal in the contention of the Lord Advocate. I am one of those who hold in the strongest manner that the liability for any deficiency ought to fall on the counties where diseased animals are killed; but, as the principle of local liability has been abandoned, it is useless to attempt to revive it when only such small sums as will be required to make good deficiencies are in question. If they have recourse to the county and burgh rates in order to make good the deficiency of £5,000 or £7,000 in Scotland, the work of collection will be quite disproportionate to the sum collected. The Government, I understand, having undertaken the duty of suppressing pleuro-pneumonia, are prepared, in the last resort, to throw the whole expense on the Treasury.

That is an unwarranted inference to draw from anything which I have said.

Nevertheless it must be the inevitable result of the course which the Government are pursuing. Supposing that the Spirit Duty proposal is not agreed to, there will be very good grounds for urging the Government to supply the deficiencies in respect of the slaughter of diseased cattle from other Imperial sources. I should myself strongly oppose the additional duty on spirits; but pending the decision of the House upon that question, I think we might well leave the matter under consideration as it stands at present.

I think it is utterly unreasonable that we should go on wrangling about a small remnant which is mere surplusage. If this is going to be a large amount, the more reason why it should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. All these new proposals should be charged upon Imperial Funds, and this is recognised by the proposal for the new Whisky Tax. It is useless to discuss now whether that proposal will pass the House or not. If it does not pass, then the Government must find some other means of meeting this remnant. County Members cannot submit to the proposal that this remnant, be it big or small, should be charged on the county rates. I shall certainly give most determined opposition to any proposal to charge the deficit on county or borough

I do not think my right hon. Friend quite appreciates the position taken up by the hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Crawford). This is not a question as between burghs and counties. This Amendment is the first of a series leading up to the proposal to provide this compensation from local taxation accounts.

I should here mention that it appears to me that the decision of the Committee upon the Amendment now before us will decide all the other Amendments on the Paper involving the question of differential treatment.

I thank you, Sir, for explaining that. I was going to point out what I conceive to be the effect of the Amendment. It is really a question as to taking the money as regards Scotland as well as England out of local taxation accounts, and not whether we should treat it differently in England and Scotland. The Lord Advocate anticipates that the deficiency will be small in amount, and he has suggested that the House should reserve its control over the Bill until the question of the imposition of the new Spirit Duty is decided, and that, I think, is a fair offer. There is, however, one difficulty. After the allocation of the proposed tax to the purposes set out, the "residue" is to be applied for purposes of pleuropneumonia, in conformity with an Amendment which the Lord Advocate has yet to move to the Bill. But suppose, for the sake of argument, we withdraw our Amendments, that we agree the money shall come from local taxation, that the proposal of the Lord Advocate is accepted, and that the Customs and Excise Bill is read a second time; and we on this side of the House—I think I may say universally—are prepared to urge in Committee that the sum allotted for the relief of school fees is inadequate; if we have assented to taking the "residue" for pleuro-pneumonia purposes, are we thereby precluded from insisting that all the money that can possibly be taken shall be devoted to freeing school fees? Either we must oppose the proposal of the Lord Advocate now with a view to the contention we intend to raise on the Customs and Excise Bill for the purpose of free education, or we must have a complete and explicit declaration that the question shall be considered entirely res Integra, and that we shall not be met with the objection that we cannot increase the sum for free education, the residue having already been appropriated.

I hope the question of differential rates will not be pressed now upon such a small sum, but I would ask the Lord Advocate, with whose opinion and remarks I agree so far, whether it is worth while to ask the Committee to commit itself to his proposition now? If we understand that the deficit shall be raised from some Imperial rate, we shall be quite content to leave the matter open, and the passing of this Bill will be facilitated.

That, I think, is a sensible suggestion; it is, in fact, the suggestion I made before the last Division, and which, if the Government-had accepted it, we might have been fairly through the Bill by this time. Let the Lord Advocate leave the Bill, as, regards Scotland, in the position in which it now stands for the present, deferring the proposition he is pledged to make to a later stage.

I am anxious to take the course suggested by my hon. Friends, and I do not wish to press my Amendment, but I hope the Government will give an assurance that our position on the question of payments in relief of school fees under the Customs and Excise Bill shall be considered as intact.

There is one consideration that presses in this matter, and which, perhaps, I should have mentioned before. As a matter of fact this disease is spreading rapidly; the Committee will regret to learn that the last Returns are most unfavourable. This means that every day I am denied the power of dealing' with this disease the loss becomes greater. If the Bill is held over, as hon. Members desire, I trust it may not be for any considerable period, for ultimately it means greatly increased cost to Scotland as well as England; the loss will certainly be greater than anything you can hope to gain. I am, therefore, anxious to come to an understanding which would facilitate the passing of the measure. The utmost limit to which I feel disposed to go is this—that while I decline to admit the possibility of the other Bill not passing, I would undertake that until that Bill does pass, or other means are provided, I will not exceed the amount to be received from Imperial sources.

But what are we to understand? The Lord Advocate gave us an assurance that the Bill should not leave our control until the principle of the other Bill was affirmed, but the right hon. Gentleman throws over his Colleague, and says, "I must make progress with the Bill." Are we to place upon the words of the Lord Advocate that reliance which on Scotch matters we usually attach to anything he says on behalf of the Government, orare we to consider him as subordinate in this matter to the decision of a Cabinet Minster? I certainly think the proposal for meeting the residue should be left in skeleton, as it stands, to be filled in afterwards by the Lord Advocate's proposal, or in some other way that may suggest itself. If that is done we are ready to forego contention now.

As an English county member I would just say a word in support of the suggestion of the Minister for Agriculture. This is a Bill for the prevention of a disease that does infinite injury, and it is very important that it should be carried into law, and I think that the offer of the Government ought to be accepted.

I must say the discussion is being carried on at needless length. Now, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has said that if the worst comes to the worst he will do without more money, and, under these circumstances, I again appeal to the Lord Advocate not to press his proposal with regard to the Spirit Duties now, but to leave it open, and the Bill will proceed fairly and smoothly.

I quite agree that would facilitate matters, but unfortunately some sort of Amendment of the kind is absolutely necessary, unless we are to fall back upon the Pauper Lunatic Fund. All that we want on this side of the House is that it shall be explicitly understood that we are not, either technically or, as I might say, morally disqualified from discussing this matter fully when we come to deal with it later.

I think we have made every effort to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate made a proposal which, I understood, was not accepted by hon. Members opposite and I then made another. As I said before, I decline to admit the possibility of the Licensing Bill not passing, but I have no hesitation in repeating my undertaking to confine the money spent for the purpose of the Bill to £160,000, until that Bill is passed or some other way settled.

In that case I do not see that we want the Amendment of the Lord Advocate to Subsection 5 of Clause 6, and the simplest plan will be to strike out the Subsection, leaving the matter practically open. I do not think that the proposal of the Lord Advocate that we should retain control of this Bill, pending the decision of the House on the other Bill, was objected to except by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) himself who seemed determined to push his Bill through. [Interruptions.] I have no wish to impede the Bill, and did not impede the Second Reading; but there are matters of detail which closely affect our constituencies. Our best plan, I think, will be to drop the Amendments relating to Scotland until we come to Clause 5, and then take a Division on Sub-section 5 of that clause.

Delay in passing this Bill will be a public misfortune, and I hope the Government will not agree to indefinitely postpone its discussion. A few days' delay will cause a greater expenditure than the whole of the sum which is now being discussed, which only amounts to some £4,000 to £7,000.I hope and believe that, if the Act is vigorously carried out, the sum required next year will be much smaller.

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to this clause. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the expenditure of £140,000 in England, but I notice that the contribution from the Treasury to Ireland is restricted to £20,000. That is not equality of treatment. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture may be aware that in March an enormous number of cattle were slaughtered in Dublin with the object of stamping out the cattle disease. If the compensation for these cattle is to come out of the £'20,000, the sum may be exhausted, and any further amount required would have to come out of the rates. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should make some provision in this clause for an additional grant to cover the amount that has already been expended.

As the learned Attorney General for Ireland has entered the House I wish to press on his attention the point raised by my hon. Friend. The slaughter of cattle for disease in Ireland takes place almost exclusively in Dublin, and the result is that a very oppressive burden has fallen on the North and South Dublin Unions. I wish to ask whether those Unions will be compensated out of the £20,000 for the special burden that has fallen on them in this respect; and I desire also to know what security we have that those Unions will in the future be saved from loss?

The £20,000 will go on from year to year, and, if it be not all spent in the first year, it will mount up. It is quite true that a large number of cattle have been slaughtered in Ireland, but I apprehend that the expenditure next year is not likely to be as great as it has been recently. The £20,000, therefore, will not probably be all spent.

The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have understood our contention. What we desire to know is whether any special step will be taken by which the amount spent by these two Unions out of the rates will be made good to them?

No doubt the greater amount of the cost of stamping out pluro-pneumonia has fallen on Dublin. I think I can promise that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will give his attention to the subject and will consider whether the clause in the Bill is adequate and gives the necessary relief.

May I point out that, as the clause is drawn at present, the first year is unfairly burdened? The £20,000 to be given for the first year will really be required to meet the debts of pre-the clause in the Bill is adequate to join the necessary relief.

I beg to move the omission from this clause of Sub-sections 4 and 5. If my Amendment be accepted, the result will be to enable the Bill to come into operation at once. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has told us that he does not propose to exceed the expenditure of £160,000, and that it is of the very first importance that he should be able to incur that expenditure. There is no reason why, if these two sub-sections were omitted from the Bill, the measure should not come into force to-morrow. The Government propose to provide for the deficit in a manner that must necessarily give rise to a considerable amount of controversy. They propose to levy a tax to which a large number of the Scottish Members are opposed. The Lord Advocate proposes to divert from free education a sum of money with which to pay compensation to landowners for the slaughtering of their cattle arising from pleuro-pneumonia. It is all very well to say the Government fully agrees to the understanding that nothing contained in this Bill is to be held as prejudicing us when we come to discuss the provisions of the Licensing Bill. But if we have spent the money here we may discuss until we are black in the face and we will not be able to get it back. The obvious cause to prevent any complication is to oppose now the application of this money. I beg to move the omission of Subsections 4 and 5.

I think the Government might readily accept this Amendment, which is really proposed with the view of carrying out their intentions. The deficiency is to be debited to the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and these sub-sections state what accounts are to be debited with the deficiency—one is the Probate Duty, and the other is the sum paid to Parochial Boards in respect to lunatics. The Lord Advocate's proposal is that neither of these two accounts are to be debited with the deficiency.

Sub-section 4 has nothing whatever to do with Scotland.

With regard to Sub-section 5. the Government have pledged themselves to find the money in another way. Certainly, the Scotch Members have only one course to adopt, and that is, to resist the taking of the money from pauper lunatics.