I rise to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be considered upon this day six months. I admit, at once, the inconvenience of moving the rejection of a Bill at this stage, and, therefore, it is necessary that I should explain at once why many metropolitan Members regard it as their bounden duty, notwithstanding that the measure has received the approval of a Select Committee, to offer to it an uncompromising resistance. It is one of the penalties which arise from the devolution of Private Bills to Select Committees, that on certain occasions it becomes necessary to raise a discussion in regard to them in the House itself.

speaking from the Front Opposition Bench below the Gangway: I rise to a point of order. I wish to draw your attention, Sir, to the inconvenience of having the floor of the House occupied by a new contrivance connected with the presentation of Petitions, which renders it impossible for Members sitting here to see or hear what is taking place. [The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that the centre of the floor of the House from the Bar to the Table was occupied by a series of wooden boxes of a cylindrical form, containing a Petition awaiting presentation in favour of the Local Taxation Bill.]

I had no idea that the Petition would have assumed such large proportions. I have already given directions that immediately after the Private Business shall have been disposed of, the Petition shall be removed. The House will see that the framework adds largely to the proportion of the Petition.

Before I was interrupted I was placing before the House the conditions which render it the bounden duty of the metropolitan Members to offer astrenuous resistance to this Bill, even at this late stage. We had hoped that the Select Committee would have safeguarded the rights of the residents of the Metropolis against the undue intrusion of officials upon what has always been regarded as private property. This Bill confers upon the officials of the London County Council powers of compulsorily interfering with the rights of private individuals such as, I venture to say, have never before been authorised by this House except under the gravest and most special circumstances. They are powers which may probably have been given by a warrant, but a warrant can only be issued in circumstances of a very special character. No doubt an interference with the rights of private property for private objects can be made by a special Act of Parliament, passed pro hâc vice for a particular purpose. This Bill proposes to give for all time to come to the officials of the London County Council power compulsorily to enter upon private premises, in order to put up and to extend overhead wires, not only upon one occasion and for one purpose, but for all eternity. I believe that such extraordinary powers have never yet been asked for in a Bill of this kind, and I trust that the House of Commons will never consent to grant such powers to any bureaucracy or any official person whatsoever. I hope that no attempt will be made, on either side of the House, to make this a Party question, or in any way to regard the Motion which I now respectfully submit as in any way tending to an expression of distrust in the London County Council. I am one of those who have the fullest faith in the future of the County Councils of this Kingdom, and certainly in the future of the London County Council, and in the wisdom and discretion which will be shown by that important body which this House has clothed, and rightly clothed, I think, with full Local Authority in the Metropolis. At the same time, I am bound to admit that the existing London County Council may possibly have laid itself open in some measure to a charge of interfering with matters which hardly, at this time, or at this stage of its existence, come rightly within its purview. I regard it, however, as youthful arrogance on the part of the London County Council, and I entertain the hope that future Councils will learn wisdom by experience, and will avoid the errors which the present Council has committed, mainly by reason of its youthfulness and inexperience. I wish it to be thoroughly understood that the metropolitan Members, in resisting this Bill, are acting in no sense in opposition to, or from distrust of, the London County Council. We object to any officials, whether they are connected with the London County Council or any other authority, having conferred upon them for all time the inquisitorial powers which are proposed to be conferred by this Bill. It may be alleged by those who are promoting the Bill that some means must be found for enabling the necessary communications for telephonic wires to be made; but I think it is wise for those who are promoting schemes of this nature to submit to the House some proposal against which the same objections will not apply, and which will not interfere, in the same way, with private rights. One of the reasons why the Bill was not opposed in its earlier stages was that it came before the House simply as a Subway Bill, which proposed to carry telephonic and other wires through the congested thoroughfares of the Metropolis by means of subways. I admit that this would have involved a larger outlay, but it would have been more consistent with the convenience of the residents of the Metropolis. I confess that, personally, I had no idea when I heard of a Subway Bill that there was any intention of empowering the officials of the London County Council to come into all our houses and put up these wires. That, I think, is the main reason why the progress of the Bill was not opposed in its earlier stages; and if it were still proposed to deal with these wires by means of subways our objections to the measure might be overcome. The Bill has now assumed a very different form, and many important Local Bodies in the Metropolis have signified the strongest objection to its provisions in its present form. I speak here as the representative of my own Vestry—the Vestry of St. Mary Abbots, Kensington, and it will be within the knowledge of many Members of the House that a considerable number of the other Local Authorities in the Metropolis have pronounced a similar opinion—even such important bodies as the Benchers of the Inner and Middle Temple. Therefore, I venture to submit that although it is a somewhat late period at which to bring forward objections, yet, considering that the measure was introduced under another name, and under a guise in which its real purpose could not be suspected, I have no alternative but to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

I beg to second the proposal of my hon. Friend, that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months. It does seem to me a somewhat startling thing that, under the name of a Subway Bill, we should be asked to pass a measure which is to enable the Local Authorities in London to enter the house of every inhabitant.

speaking from the lower end of the Front Opposition Bench below the Gangway: May I ask, Sir, as a matter of order, that you would direct the removal of the obstruction which is now blocking up the floor of the House? Alf I can say is that we on this side do not know who the hon. Member is who is addressing the House.

I have already answered the question in regard to this Petition. I am sorry that hon. Members are suffering inconvenience, but I hope that they will put up with the inconvenience for a few minutes longer. It shall be removed as soon a3 the Private Business is disposed of.

Will the hon. Member stand on one of these things (pointing to the wooden cylinders containing the Petition)?

(removing from his place on the floor of the House to a seat behind the Ministerial Bench) continued his speech: I am afraid—he said—that the houses of the Metropolis will be similarly inconvenienced and obstructed when they are covered with these telephone poles. I had the honour on one occasion of having one of them put upon my house, and, therefore, I know what they are. This Bill proposes to enable the authorities to erect a telephone pole whether the owner or occupier likes it or not. It is the beginning of a very singular state of legislation for the Metropolis, and what will be the result when electric lighting becomes general, is, I think, a matter for very serious consideration. Whether the owner or occupier is a consenting party or not it is proposed that the Local Authority shall have power compulsorily to put up these poles and wires. Clause 11 of the Bill contains a most extraordinary provision. It authorises the erection of poles and wires against the will of the occupier, but at the end of the lease the owner may require them to be taken down. There is even a worse provision in the Bill, empowering the County Council or the Local Authority to enter a man's house at any hour in order to superintend these overhead wires.

To inspect them.

The hon. Member docs not say what the inspection is to be. If he does not know, my own personal experience will enable me to tell him. At any hour, whether the occupier is ill or well, whether his wife is ill or well, or whether anything is happening in the House, the officers of the County Council are to have the right to send workmen into the House, cause them to go upstairs, make use of his private apartments, get upon the roof, and walk about the slates. I had, on one occasion, a very long pole placed on the top of my house, and I found that at all hours, and pretty nearly on every day of the week, work people were engaged in superintending it, or inspecting, or whatever the hon. Member opposite likes to call it. In fact, workmen were walking up and down my stairs every hour of the day. The only reason that can be urged for accepting the Bill, is that it has already been passed by a Select Committee. As a general rule, that is a valid reason for accepting a Private Bill, but on this occasion, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), that there are substantial grounds why that reason should not be allowed to apply. The measure was brought in as a Subway Bill, and, in my opinion, it is only by means of subways we can get rid of the nuisance that is created by the extension of these wires through the streets of the Metropolis. If it is necessary to take houses for the erection of telephone wires, they ought to be purchased in the ordinary way. It may be said that there already exists a means of providing compensation, but the compensation is most inadequate, and fails to meet the necessities of the case. The ordinary payment for a pole is a guinea a year, but a payment of 2 guineas, or 5 or 10, would be no consideration compared with the nuisance inflicted upon the occupier of a house by these private trading companies having the right of entering his premises. I venture to think that the House were to a certain extent deluded when they allowed the Bill to be read a second time. It would never have been read a second time if it had stood as it does at present. I sincerely trust that the House will throw out the measure.

I wish to raise a point of order. The business of the House is seriously impeded by the cylindrical wheels which are now blocking up the floor of the House. They are most inconvenient, and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, whether they ought not to be removed.

The Private Business is lasting a longer time than I anticipated it would. I have already stated that it is obviously inconvenient that the Petition should be allowed to remain on the floor of the House; and will ask the officers of the House to have it removed at once.

Has any one examined the contents, or will it be open to any hon. Member to do so?

The contents will be examined by the Committee on Public Petitions. [The Petition was then rolled out in detachments, by the officers of the House.]

It was my fortune to act as Chairman of the Committee, but although the Committee are in no way responsible for the title of the Bill when it was first brought into the House, I think it is fair to say that there was nothing in the title which was intended to deceive. Originally it was a Bill to enable the County Council of London to make subways through the Metropolis, and to possess certain powers over overhead wires. The power to make subways was met with strenuous opposition from every vestry in the Metropolis, and that power was consequently cut out of the Bill before it came to the Committee. The hon. Member who spoke for the Kensington Vestry, ought, I think, to know that the Committee did not accept the Bill in the shape in which it first came before them, giving the London County Council power over the streets of the entire Metropolis. It struck that provision out of the measure, making the County Council responsible only for the framing of by-laws, and giving to the Vestries and Local Boards the duty of looking after and controlling overhead wires. The Bill, in its present shape, proposes to carry out the Report of the Select Committee which sat in the year 1885, and, with the permission of the House, I will read a few words from that Report to show what the opinion of that Committee was. The Committee say that the risk of danger to the public from overhead wires had been greatly exaggerated, but they were of opinion the probable development of the telephonic system made it desirable that there should be some change in the law relating to the control over wires, with a view to their better supervision. Dealing with telephonic wires, they say, at the end of their Report, that they were of opinion that, under proper regulations, permission should be given to pass wires over property without the owners having the right of prohibition; but that the facilities afforded should confer no vested interest. With regard to "attachment," that can only now be made with the consent of the occupier and owner; but powers are proposed to be conferred in certain cases where it is impossible to obtain access to premises for the purpose of connecting them with a general telephonic system, owing to the refusal of an individual to permit the attachment. The Committee say that they are of opinion that in special cases where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities, on investigation, that particular individuals or districts are deprived of the public convenience of telephoniccommunication owing to such refusal, the Local Authority shall be authorised to give permission to attach wires to premises, under suitable regulations, and on the payment of such compensation as the Local Authority may deem just. This Bill simply carries out the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Committee upstairs have most carefully considered and safeguarded the interests of all the householders in London, and the fears which have been expressed by two of the metropolitan Representatives appear to me to be absolutely without foundation. It is said that the Bill will empower the Council's officers by day or night to enter into private houses. Now, one of the great dangers of the overhead wires is that there are in London a great number of derelict wires, which have been used in former times, but are now abandoned, and, therefore, it is most necessary that workmen should be appointed by the Local Authorities to deal with them, as it is obviously ridiculous to expect an Inspector to inspect them through a telescope. Clause 8 of the Bill provides that the Inspector of the Council may enter a private house provided he is iii uniform, and is duly authorised in writing by the Local Authority, and provided that notice shall have been previously given. The Inspector' may then enter at some reasonable time to be named by the occupier. The rights of householders being thus most stringently guarded, I hope the Bill will be now considered.

As one of the Members in charge of the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words. The hon. Member who has moved the rejection has availed himself of the opportunity to attack the London County Council, and I think that fact affords an explanation of the motives by which those who are opposing the measure are actuated.

I especially disclaimed any such intention.

The House will be able to judge for itself whether I am right or not. These attacks are becoming a little stale, and they show the jealous hostility of some Metropolitan Members to the body which has succeeded the Metropolitan Board of Works, for which they retain a lingering affection. The London County Council has had very little to do with the drafting of the Bill. The question is one of public safety and convenience. As the Chairman of the Committee has already told the House, it mainly carries out the recommendations of the Committee presided over by Mr. George Russell, who sat in 1885, and contained three metropolitan representatives, as well as Sir J. M'Garel Hogg, the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I believe that now, as well as then, the House is' agreed upon facilitating the development of the telephone system. The hon. Member for Kensington has painted an alarming picture of the officers of the Council entering houses at any hour of the day or night, putting sick persons to inconvenience, and annoying the inhabitants. But if there are to be telephone wires it is absolutely essential that they should be inspected.

Place them in subways.

It is absolutely impossible to force the telephone wires into subways everywhere, first, because out of 1,200 miles of metropolitan streets and roads there are only 8½ miles of subway; secondly, because of the difficulty of putting high and low tension wires together. Moreover, the by-laws of the County Council will have to be approved by the Board of Trade and enforced by the District Authorities. The title of the Bill has not been changed, as some hon. Members suggest. The original title was "London Subways and Overhead Wires Bill," and the word "subways" has been dropped because that subject no longer has a place in the Bill. There could be no better arrangement than that the overhead wires should be placed under the Central Authority for London, acting through the various District Authorities. The objection to Clause 11, which gives power to attach wires upon private property, is frivolous, as it will only be exercised where an unreasonable objection is taken by the owner or occupier subject to arbitration.

The Member for Hereford stated that the Committee was entirely composed of householders, but he did not state that any one of them had ever given permission for a pole to be placed upon his house. I should like to mention my own experience in regard to telephone wires. Unfortunately, I gave a telephone company permission to put a wire over my house, and from that time the House was never my own. The Inspectors were always in and out, my stair carpets were worn out, and my silver had to be constantly locked up for fear it should be stolen. The pole, moreover, was fixed so badly that considerable damage was done to the roof of the house, by the action of the wind upon the pole. The company declined to repair the damage, and it cost me £50 to put the roof in order, when I applied for the removal of the pole. To that inconvenience every person will be subjected who has wires fixed to his house, and I protest against its being done, whether an owner or occupier objects to its being done or not. The question is not altogether one of erecting telephone wires, but of electric lighting wires, with the erection of which we are threatened all over London, and which is a very much more serious matter. We are now in the infancy of the system, and yet we have already realised that these wires greatly increase the risk of fire, a proof of which is that the insurance offices have raised the rates for property to which electric lighting wires have been fixed. In other countries, Sweden and America particularly, where such wires have been brought into requisition, the companies are compelled to have stations in various parts of the town or city from which the wires are run, and as this is a matter promoted by a company for private interests I think the promoters should be compelled to purchase fairly the rights they require, or demand, for carrying out their undertaking. It would be most arbitrary and unjust that they should have the power to interfere with the rights and convenience of the public without any consideration, and I hope the House will reject this ill-digested scheme, I think it would be altogether revolutionary to do away with the idea that an Englishman's house is his castle, and to authorise officers of the County Council to enter a man's premises, whether he likes it or not.

I wish to point out that if this Bill passes an entirely new departure in legislation will be made, for under whatever authority the Bill is applied it will give an arbitrary power of interference with property, whether the owner objects or not, and without compensation. Every occupier or owner ought to have the right to object to anything being done to his property, reasonable or unreasonable, subject only to this—that if the objection taken is against the general good he must give up his right on fair compensation. But the Bill provides no such condition as this, and by Clause 2 a man may have his property interfered with without his consent, and those interfering with him may even claim to judge whether his objection is reasonable or not. Is the House going, for the first time in the history of English legislation, to say that an occupier is not to be an occupier to the full extent which he believed he was when he entered into his property? The objections to the Bill are serious, and I trust it will be rejected.

There is yet another objection to be urged against the Bill. Since the introduction of the electric lighting system in recent times the number of attempts to enter private houses under false pretences by persons describing themselves as Inspectors has enormously increased, and I fear the Bill will enhance the danger. There will be constant applications from persons describing themselves as Inspectors, who will enter your houses, and do very much what they like with your property. In my own case applications of this kind have been made, but the Cerberus in charge of the premises was a little sharper than is usually the case, and the applicants were not admitted. One wanted to look at the gas, and another to inspect the electric lighting, which did not exist.

I think that the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman as well as the speech of the hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division are in favour of the Bill, which proposes to set up a proper system of supervision in regard to overhead wires. The Committee very carefully considered all the clauses of the Bill, they were unanimous upon the matter, and they have safeguarded the interests of private householders. To those hon. Members who say that we are giving new powers to the County Council, if they will refer to the Bill they will see that the Board of Trade will have a controlling voice in the bylaws to be administered by the County Council. The hon. Member for Northampton spoke of a new departure. That may be so in one sense, but the system of putting up overhead wires has been increasing of late years by leaps and bounds.

I did not say that it was a new departure in reference to overhead wires, but that it was anew departure in legislation as to the mode of dealing with a person's property without compensation.

It is for the House to say whether this is not necessarily a new departure in order to meet a new condition of things. In cases where the public convenience is concerned the Legislature has already interfered with private rights, as, for example, in the painting and cleansing of houses, and in other respects, on behalf of general convenience. I hold that public interest and necessity justifies this Bill, and I sincerely hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

It is too much the habit of certain hon. Members to say when we desire to look into a measure promoted by the London County Council fairly and equitably, that we are attacking that Council. The County Council must not imagine that its measures are to be exempt from the criticism which Parliament exercises in all other Bills promoted by other bodies. Now, no one can, I imagine, object to the clause which deals with derelict wires. This Bill is not a permissive but a compulsory measure. It gives powers to the authorities to say to the householder you shall have posts or polls placed on your house whether you like it or not; and, further, you shall have the wires that run through your premises inspected from time to time. No doubt this power is to be exercised under certain restrictions, but none the less it is a completely new departure, and one to be carefully watched. A Londoner does not wish his house to be considered his castle, but at any rate his home. But it is said that the men who are to inspect these wires are to produce duly signed credentials, and wear the uniform of the County Council (whatever that may be). Even that privilege does not seem an attractive one to the householder. This is no attack on the County Council. Did we wish to attack that body the heavy increase in the rating under its regime would offer a more vulnerable point of attack than its action in the various and varied measures it has introduced to the notice of this House. This Bill is one which confers extraordinary powers upon the Council, and I oppose it as a new and great departure.

I hope that the opposi- tion to this Bill is not an attack on the London County Council, but an endeavour to regulate overhead wires. The opponents of the Bill, however, attack solely two of its clauses, and it would surely be unreasonable to throw out the whole Bill on account of two clauses. As regards Clause 11, the hon. Member for Northampton says that the authority seeking the right to put up a pole is itself to determine whether a refusal was unreasonable. That is not so; the London County Council are not owners of overhead wires, and have no interest except that of the public. Then, as regards Clause 8, it is objected that the officers of the London County Council ought not to have any right of entry; but if the duty of inspection is imposed On them they must have some right of entry. The Bill has been characterised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) as an ill-digested measure, but it is a Bill which has been recommended by two Committees of this House, and I hope the House will support the Committee.

I am afraid that I shall be under the painful necessity of having to go into the opposite Lobby to my hon. Colleague. There is a good deal of force in what he has said, but I consider that all London matters should be handed over to the London Council. I want to wash my hands entirely of all London matters as far as this House is concerned. This is a question which concerns the ratepayers of this Metropolis, and it is for the County Council to settle it.

I should be very sorry to see everything connected with the Metropolis left to the uncontrolled discretion of the County Council. This Bill has been considered by a Committee of this House, and no one could have listened to the speech of the hon. Baronet who presided over that Committee without feeling impressed with the care that has been given to the subject. I hope, therefore, that the House will not reject, in this summary manner, what has been agreed to by the Committee. Another reason why we should reject this Amendment is that the strongest objection against the Bill has been brought by the hon. Member for Northampton, who objects to one clause of it only. But even if that clause were struck out, there is much that is valuable left in the Bill, to which no substantial objection can be taken. The Bill deals with the natural state of facts, namely, that there are a great number of overhead wires in London which form a source of danger and inconvenience to the inhabitants of the Metropolis, and it is most desirable that some authority should look after the wires. I venture to submit that Clause 8, which has been objected to, is a very reasonable way of dealing with the question of wires already in existence, attached to houses by the permission of the owners and occupiers.

I have not the slightest objection to the provisions dealing with the case where the owner gives permission; what I object to is the provision that poles may be erected whether the owner likes it or not.

What the hon., Member objects to is the subsequent clause, which raises a separate issue, and should be disposed of by itself. I contend that the Bill is a very valuable provision for looking after a danger which everybody knows exists. I admit that the power to put up a pole against the will of the owner of the house is a considerable step in advance, but I hope the House will not reject the Bill on account of this one item.

That power forms the essence of the Bill; or if it is not the essence it is quite as important as all the other provisions.

I submit that this is not so at all. With respect to that point, which forms the subject of a separate clause, I think it is essential that there should be some authority able to say whether these poles should be set up. The authority appointed by the Bill is the County Council, which has no private interest in the matter, and would only act as the guardian of the public interests. They can give notice to a person who, in their opinion, offers unreasonable objections, and if he continues to assert his objections the matter would he referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. Those who are so devoted to the rights of property as to want special leave for the erection of every pole, can, if they choose, move that this clause should be rejected; but it is an entirely different thing to oppose a Bill which is admittedly a useful measure.

The suggestion made by the Chairman of Ways and Means was conveyed to the promoters of the Bill; and personally I offered to withdraw my objections to the measure if it were accepted. The promoters, however, intimated that they were not in a position to accept it. We are not talking so much of keeping our houses as our castles as of preserving them as our homes.

I beg to present a Petition, signed by 600,000 inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland, praying this House to pass the provisions of the Local Taxation Bill. I beg to apologise to you, Sir, and the House, for any inconvenience that may have been caused to Members by the presence of a Petition of this magnitude.

Should I be in order, Sir, in moving that the Petition be now read by the clerk at the Table?

I do not think it would be in order for the hon. Baronet to make such a Motion. It can be done if the hon. Member who presented the Petition desires it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of three men, supposed to belong to the Orange Society, who were, on the 14th instant, at Petty Sessions at Cootehill, convicted of a serious assault upon a Catholic, whom they met alone, and which it was proved was committed for no reason whatever except his religion, and without his having given any provocation; whether he is aware that the prisoners were let off with a fine; and under what head this occurrence will be mentioned in the Returns of outrages in Ireland?

The facts appear to be substantially as stated in the first paragraph. The case was one of common assault dealt with summarily by Magistrates, and will not, therefore, appear in the Return of outrages.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason for believing these men belonged to the Orange Society?

I Lave not made inquiries on that point.

It is another slander.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received any information regarding a meeting held by the Orangemen of Killeshandra on the 12th instant, which was called to consider the conduct of one of the "brethren," who had hired a car from Mr. Brady, a Nationalist; whether any of the Orangemen of the district have been "shadowed," on the ground that they are conspiring to prevent one of their body from doing that which ho has a legal right to do; and whether Mr. Brady's name will appear in the Return of persons boycotted in Ireland?

I have no certain information, but I understand that the meeting referred to was called to make preparations for the approaching July anniversary. It has not come to the knowledge of the police that any of the transactions at that meeting were illegal. None of the Orangemen in the district have been "shadowed," as the necessity for the adoption of such a course does not at present exist. So far as the police can ascertain, there is no ground for including Mr. Brady's name in the Return of persons boycotted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the Petty Sessions district in which Mr. Thomas W. Russell, who was some since appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Dublin, has elected to serve; whether Mr. Russell has any connection by property or otherwise with the Petty Sessions district in which he has elected to serve, or with any other part of the County of Dublin; and if Mr. Russell is not connected by property or otherwise with the County of Dublin, why he was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for that particular part of Ireland?

I am informed that the hon. Member to whom this question refers was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Dublin in the ordinary course on the recommendation of Lord Monck, the Lieutenant of the county, as a lit and proper person to be a Magistrate, and be elected to sit at the Rathfarnham Petty Sessions. His property and residence are situated in the City of Dublin, and Rathfarnham is a suburb of Dublin, and adjoins the metropolitan district.

Are we to understand that this gentleman has no connection with the County of Dublin?

There is the connection that I have stated.

Do the Government intend to follow in future the precedent made in this case, and to bring Scotchmen over to Ireland to act as Magistrates?

I do not know that a better precedent could be followed; but it does not rest with the Government to follow it, appointments of the kind being made on the recommendation of the Lieutenants of counties.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the population of Dublin County is overwhelmingly Catholic, the great majority of the Magistrates are Protestant? There being plenty of Roman Catholic gentlemen in the County of Dublin who could be appointed, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why a gentle- man who is not a Catholic and not a native has been appointed?

No. This matter does net form part of my business.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bring under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant the fact that in Dublin County there are plenty of Catholics competent to act?

I repeat that that is no part of my business.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Freeman's Journal of 23rd June of the appeal heard at Portumna on Saturday last, of Mr. Lyons, a merchant of Portumna, and three other men, against a decision of Mr. Hickson, R.M., and Mr. Mayne, R.M., sentencing them to two months' imprisonment, and a rule of bail for alleged conspiracy to compel or induce a man named James Mitchel not to buy hay from a man named Dillon; whether he is aware that Mitchel, who was produced by the Crown as a witness, denied that the defendants had committed the offence, and that why he did not take the hay was "because he was disappointed about a horse to carry it away"; that the only other witness produced by the Crown was Dillon, who swore that he (Dillon) had previously been imprisoned for "breaking a neighbour's head with a shovel"; that the witnesses for the defence swore that the defendants were engaged on their legitimate business in the market on the day in question; whether he is aware that the same evidence was given at the trial before the Resident Magistrates, and that the County Court Judge of Galway (Mr. Henn, Q.C.), said—

"He could not overrule the decision of the Magistrates, as he must assume they based their Judgment on a full and fair consideration of the evidence;"

and whether, under the circumstances, and considering that the accused did not get the benefit of a Judgment based on the re-hearing, he will have inquiry made into the matter?

The facts stated in the first paragraph are accurate. As regards the second paragraph, the statement appears to me to be incorrect or misleading, but I do not propose to attempt to give a summing up of the evidence, or an analysis of the testimony of each witness. The County Court Judge did re-hear the case and did confirm the sentences, and I see no ground for further action.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that Mitchel swore in Court what is stated in the question?

No. I said it was not a convenient practice to sum up evidence given by various witnesses in a case twice tried.

Has the right hon. Gentleman before him the information of the officials in Ireland?

I have been supplied with some statements as to the evidence given in this case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why Mr. Nash, the Secretary of the Norwich Liberal Association, on his visit last week to the Clongorey Estate, in the County Kildare, was shadowed by the police all the way between New bridge and Clongorey; also, whether he is aware that the constable who followed the Rev. Mr. Macrae, and who was alleged to have been engaged on other business than shadowing, pursued the Rev. Mr. Macrae the whole length of his journey, stopping whenever he stopped, and immediately resuming his journey when the rev. gentleman moved on; and, if so, whether he still adheres to his statement that he was not shadowed?

The Constabulary Authorities report that a stranger having been observed driving with the President of the local branch of the National League in the direction of the Clongorey Estate, two policemen subsequently proceeded to the estate to ascertain if an illegal meeting was being held. The police, as a matter of fact, did not overtake them on the road, and appear to have travelled by a different route. It does not appear that Mr. Macrae was shadowed, or even observed, during the whole of his journey. How far he was followed on a bicycle during any part of his journey I do not know, but am inquiring. It must be recollected that the Plan of Campaign and intimidation in their worst form are frequently promoted by strangers to the district in which they occur. If these crimes are prevalent in any particular locality the police are obviously- quite right to take sufficient note of the movement of strangers to enable them to interfere should it be necessary in the interest of the victims of these outrages. This is not shadowing, nor does it inflict the slightest annoyance on anyone.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Macrae has publicly stated that the policeman did follow him as stated in the question? What was the crime of which the Rev. Mr. Macrae was suspected?

I have already stated that he was not suspected of any crime.

If he was not suspected, why was he shadowed?

I read with great slowness and distinctness that part of my answer which dealt with the hon. Member's question.

Is the fact that a gentleman was a stranger in a district sufficient to warrant the police in dogging his footsteps?

Do not the police follow persons for the purpose of protection?

Certainly the police often have to follow for protection purposes. As to the other question, in the first place, there is not a case, as far as I know, in any part of Ireland of a stranger having his footsteps dogged. It is, and must remain, the case in Ireland in those parts where the Plan of Campaign and intimidation exist, that any person who it is thought possible may encourage those forms of crime should be watched.

What grounds have the authorities in Ireland for supposing that Mr. Nash would be capable of encouraging such forms of intimidation and crime? Was there anything in the world against him except that he was a stranger?

I have no doubt that the gentleman is a model of every Christian virtue, but I have explained to the House the reasons that compel the authorities in some parts of Ireland to take notice of strangers.

The other day the right hon. Gentleman stated that no persons were shadowed unless there was sufficient reason to suspect that they were guilty of crime or were intending to commit some crime. Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to that statement in view of the answer he has given with reference to the Rev. Mr. Macrae?

Yes, Sir; but I also said that Mr. Macrao was not shadowed.

Would it not be desirable to lay down some rule or establish some office in Dublin where respectable persons could find out whether they would be shadowed or not?

"Will the Government consider the advisability of issuing passports?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the following letter appearing in the Pall Mail Gazette of 24th June:—

"Mrs. Edith G. Overend, sister-in-law of the rector of Euniskillen, writes,' I find some of the customs of this country very strange. I am here on a visit from New Zealand, and I am not two days in town till the police have been making inquiries about me, even in such a public place as a bank, as if I were an escaped convict, or suspected of a felony.' … I am a Protestant; and while my politics should not deprive me of the liberties of a citizen, they are not Nationalist, for being a colonist, I know little of Irish controversy;'…"

whether there is any reason to believe that Mrs. Overend is engaged in criminal proceedings; and whether the Government will issue orders to the police to ensure that this lady shall not be subjected to the shadowing of which she complains?

There is no foundation for the supposition that this lady has been placed under any sort of surveillance. She appealed to the police, as a stranger in the town, to direct her to respectable lodgings, where she could be visited by her brother-in-law, the rector of the parish. On the following day the rector told the police that he had heard of the lady's arrival, and he asked them if they knew where she was staying. This they endeavoured to ascertain, as she had not gone to the lodging recommended. The inquiry was made solely to oblige the rector, and had no public significance of any kind.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated there is no ground for asserting that the lady was under police surveillance. I have here a telegram from the lady in which she describes the conduct of the police as abominable, and asking me to ascertain who instructed them to watch her. I have also received a letter from Enniskillen, stating on the best authority that the police did follow this lady, and were instructed to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman now make further inquiries?

I gather that the police did not follow her; but if the lady will communicate with me directly, or indirectly through the hon. Member, I will inquire as to any specific allegations.

After this answer I give notice that I shall advise the lady to hold no communication with the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of' Ireland whether he can state what number of persons are now being shadowed by policemen in the County of Cork, or if he can give the number so shadowed for the first fortnight of this month?

I must ask the hon. Member to defer this question till Monday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether complaints have reached him that on Saturday, the 17th of May, the police of Tipperary attempted twice to drive off the streets the Street Inspector of Tipperary while engaged in the performance of his duty, taking down his name and threatening to summon him; that, on the 7th instant, he was also threatened with removal by the police; that on several occasions, including the 12th May, Constable Guinane and other constables impounded horses and cars, whilst their owners were in shops making purchases; and that, on the 2nd instant, the Street Inspector, accompanied by the Sub-Sanitary Officer of the. Poor Law Board, visited a house in St. Michael Street, occupied by emergency men, who had strewn over the floor of one robin in the front of the house a layer of bones several inches thick which emitted a bad odour; and whether the Chief Secretary will instruct the police to allow the Street Inspector to do his duty unmolested by the police, and will take steps to have the nuisance complained of removed' "by the police while they are in charge of the emergency men?

The Constabulary Authorities report that about the 17th of May the police ordered two night watchmen, who were on the street at 5 p.m., obstructing the footway, to move on. That on 19th inst., a day watchman, who styles himself town sergeant, was on the footway with a number of other men causing an obstruction. They were told to move on by the police, which they all did except the man referred to. His name was taken. On 12th May Constable Guinane did impound a restive horse, which he found on the street without any one in charge. No other horse or car impounded on that date. Emergency men did not strew bones over the floor of a room, but a quantity of perfectly dry bones are under the flooring, which has lately been ripped up, where they have apparently lain for years. No odour whatever arises from them.

Have the police power to order this man to move on when he was performing his duty?

I am told he was not engaged in his duties.

Are the police to be the judges as to whether he is doing his duty?

Their action must depend entirely on whether he is obstructing the streets or not.

Why should the police have authority over an official appointed under the Towns Act? Can they have such authority?

If the hon. and learned Member will put his question down, I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the course of the hearing the charge against Conaghan, the bailiff of the Olphert Estate, for presenting his revolver in a drunken fit at one Peter M'Ginley, the defence made by Conaghan was that he had been assaulted by M'Ginley, and that he swore that the blow he received "felled him to the ground, rendering him unconscious," thereby proving that the presenting of the revolver by him must have been before the alleged assault; whether the following report in the Derry Journal of 18th June instant, of the Judgment of the Court consisting of two Resident Magistrates, is correct—

"The Court commented strongly upon Conaghan's conduct in going about the country carrying a revolver in a threatening attitude, protected as he usually is by a strong body guard of police, and, to mark their sense of the outrage, they ordered Conaghan to be bound to keep the peace for 12 months;"

and whether the licence to carry arms granted to Conaghan will be revoked?

I am informed that the defence made by Conaghan was that, being threatened by M'Ginley, he attempted to draw his revolver, but that before he could do so lie was knocked senseless by M'Ginley. I am further informed that the newspaper report is not correct, except as to the fact that Conaghan was bound to keep the peace for 12 months for giving M'Ginley provocation. The revolver was unloaded, and Conaghan had no ammunition on his person that day. The Resident Magistrate sees no reason why his licence should be revoked for producing an empty revolver.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Derry Journal of the 23rd June, which describes an attack made by Mr. Hewson, agent to the Olphert Estate, Donegal, upon a number of men and women who were engaged in collecting seaweed upon the strand at Maheroarty on the 21st June, in which it is stated that

"The agent Hewson, who was accompanied by military and police (on their way back from attending evictions on the Olphert Estate) made a descent upon the people. The women and boys, who were engaged to their waists in the water catching the drift from the receding waves, fled when they saw the agent approaching. The wheel of one of the carts came off, and while Hewson was grappling in the water with the driver the other carts were galloped rapidly to the shore hotly pursued by the agent; whether the police, returning from eviction duty, had any authority to assist the agent in harrassing these men and women engaged in saving seaweed on the sea-shore; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

I am informed that the report in the newspaper mentioned is altogether inaccurate. Mr. Hewson made no attack upon the people. The constabulary and military were not with him. There were three constables protecting a bailiff, but they did not interfere.

Is it lawful for the agent or the landlord to prevent the people by force collecting seaweed floating in the sea.

I am not aware that any force was used. I gather there was not.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police engaged upon eviction duty on the Olphert Estate, Donegal, on the'19th and 20th of June instant, sang in chorus on their march back each evening to their barracks, "Glory, Glory, Hallelujah"; and whether he will give orders to stop such proceedings in future?

The song in question, which relates to John Brown, is, I am informed, a perfectly respectable one, and I see no reason to interfere.

Do you see no reason to interfere with the police coming home from evicting poor people singing in chorus as if they were rejoicing over their work?

There is no case of rejoicing in the matter. It is the practice in the Army after a long and heavy day to allow men to sing.

I must press the question whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that it is calculated to preserve the peace, or calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, that the police should be allowed to sing this joyous chorus after performing a most provocative duty, and whether he considers that there is any analogy between soldiers singing a chorus on the march and the Irish Police singing a chorus when they come away from an eviction?

There is this analogy—that in both cases men who have been on duty have a long and laborious march. These men were not singing in the neighbourhood of the evictions, as far as I understand. If they were, of course the practice would be objectionable; but why men who have long marches to perform after a day's work should not be allowed a little relaxation on the way I really cannot understand.

May I ask whether they were not singing a chorus composed by one of the hon. Members for Dublin?

That statement is false. But I would really appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing that evictions involve the keenest suffering, pain, and excitement, he does not think that the singing of joyous songs by the police returning from them is not calculated to provoke the temper of the people of Ireland, and whether, therefore, he will not discourage the practice?

Whether it is provocative or not entirely depends o" the circumstances of each case. I do not see anything particularly triumphal or cheerful in this song; but if the police were to sing cheerful songs in the immediate locality of an eviction, I think that might be a provocative proceeding, and one which should not be allowed; but when they have placed a distance between themselves and the scene of evictions, why they should not be allowed to sing on the march I cannot understand.

At the Ponsonby evictions were not the Caledonians ordered by Colonel Turner to play the bagpipes on the march every day for a fortnight?

That question refers not to the police, but to the soldiers, and might perhaps be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now afford the information as to the result of the inquiries made by the Inspector General of Constabulary into the charges of forgery and fraud against Sergeant Lord, of Lorrha; whether he has inquired if the facts are, as alleged by the complainant, Mr. Maher, that the money denied to be due to him by Lord was subsequently offered to him by Mr. Doolan, J.P., and on another occasion by Constable Edwards, of Carrigahorig; and whether, in view of such presumptive evidence that the amount claimed was due, and that the sergeant was guilty of fraud on the Police Authorities by returning as a voucher a forged receipt for the money, the Government will direct the Attorney General to consider the case?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it has now been ascertained from Mr. Doolan, J.P., that as he personally knew both the sergeant and Mr. Maher he at his own suggestion intervened in a friendly way in order to save trouble and legal proceedings. The constable named did not on any occasion offer the money as alleged. The County Inspector is still inquiring into the matter, but there is nothing as yet in what has been reported to the Inspector General to render it necessary to seek advice from the Attorney General.

If evidence is forthcoming that the allegation is true, what will be done with the Magistrate who has thus disgraced the Bench?

I understand that the statement is without foundation.

Evidence will be forthcoming that the man committed this forgery.

If there has been forgery committed, I presume the evidence will be heard before the authorities.

That was done three months ago.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho is aware of the universal feeling of leaseholders of agricultural holdings in Ireland in favour of the Leaseholders (Ireland) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, and on the Orders of the Day for Second Reading to-morrow; and whether, considering the resolutions in support of the object of the Bill which have been passed in almost every district in Ulster, he will now consent to afford facilities for passing this Bill into law during the present Session?

I have nothing to add to that I said in answer to the Member for the Scotland Division, namely, that, apart from other objections, I think a conclusive objection to the suggestion is to be found in the present state of public business.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that on St. John's Eve the police, armed with batons and blackthorns, prevented a number of children from lighting the usual bonfires at Cashel; and, if so, upon what grounds and by what right did they thus interfere with this ancient custom, and by what authority?

If the hon. Member has in mind certain occurrences at Cashel on Monday night last, I have to say that what the police interfered to prevent was the lighting of bonfires in the centre of the three principal streets of Cashel. The people were told to move them into a more suitable position which they did.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at that time of night the streets of Cashel would be perfectly destitute of traffic, and that, therefore, there would be no obstruction?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the arrest of Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, at last Youghal (County Cork) Fair, if he can now state what charge was preferred against this gentleman; is it a fact that, he was charged with jostling a policeman who was shadowing him through the fair; and why was Mr. O'Brien arrested in a summary manner, and not summoned in the ordinary way.

The Constabulary Authorities report that the man was arrested on the charge of obstructing Constable Quinn in the execution of his duty, and for conduct calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. It is not a fact that he was charged as alleged in the second paragraph. He was arrested because, owing to the persistency of his conduct, the constable was unable to discharge his duty.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state definitely what was the charge against Mr. O'Brien?

I have done so; he was charged with obstructing the police, and his conduct was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.

Why was he not summoned in the ordinary way, instead of being arrested?

I have already said that because of the persistency of his conduct the constable was unable to discharge his duties.

What duty was the constable discharging?

I must have notice of that question.

Is there any doubt in the right hon. Gentleman's mind that he was shadowing Mr. O'Brien?

I cannot say that. I have no doubt he was watching boycotting at the fair, but I cannot say if he was following this particular man.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government propose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Tyrone to omit Clause 3 from the "New Licences Bill," or will they consider the necessity which arises for some temporary licensing power by reason of such cases as that of James Blayney, of Lurgan, where, after premises being licensed for 70 years, a transfer was refused by the local bench because the applicant was a Catholic; and do the Government intend to shut out such applicants from all possibility of obtaining renewals?

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will defer his question until the Bill is considered. The refusal of the transfer had nothing to do with religion.

I give notice that I will not proceed with the Bill, which would simply be made an instrument of oppression against my co-religionists, unless some such clause as Clause 3 were adopted.

I beg to give notice that when the Bill is considered I shall move the omission of Clause 3.

No one is afraid of the opposition of the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, any report has been made by the police officer of Gorey district to the Police Authorities in Dublin Castle against Police Sergeant Jervis, of Gorey, for drunkenness in the public streets in January last; if so, what action has been taken by the authorities in reference to the charge; and also, if he is aware that a police constable from Courtown, County Wexford, recently left with Mr. William Bolyer, tailor, of Gorey, material for a suit of plain clothes, for which he was measured; whether, subsequently, this constable was ordered by Head Constable M'Cormack, his superior officer, to cancel the order and take away the stuff; and, if so, what was the reason for the head constable giving such an order; and whether the sub-constable has cancelled the contract?

I am sorry I must ask the hon. Baronet to defer his questions, as I have not been able to get the information.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the report in the Daily Express of Monday, the 23rd instant, to the effect that a young man, named James Sadleir, was fired at on Friday night, on returning to his home from Tipperary, is accurate; whether the report that Sadleir has been "frequently threatened" is true, and whether there is any evidence to prove that his unpopularity in the district is in any way due to the fact that his family has refused to join in the no-rent policy adopted against Mr. Smith-Barry; and if the police have made any report on the matter?

The facts as to this outrage appear to be as described in the question. Mr. Sadleir and two friends complained to the police on the night of the 20th inst that they had been, attacked with stones and fired at The police fully reported the matter. There can be no reasonable doubt that the cause of Mr. Sadleir's unpopularity is that he and his family have refused to join in the combination against Mr. Smith-Barry.

Has the right right hon. Gentleman received information that last night an explosive machine was thrown into the shop of a boycotted man in Tipperary?

It is the fact such an outrage has been committed.

Is there any other shopkeeper in Tipperary of the name of the man into whose shop this explosive is said to have been thrown?

Yes, Sir; there is a shopkeeper of the name of Duggan.

No, there is not.

There is.

Is there any ground for the statement of the hon. Member for South Tyrone except the assertion of Sadleir? Have the police been able to trace the shots said to have been fired?

No doubt the police have investigated the matter.

I bug to ask the Lord Advocate whether, with reference to Lady Burnett's School, Banchory, it is the case that the school is being managed by one Governor, who, under the recently sanctioned scheme, is the only one who is in the meantime capable of acting; whether, by Article 17 (h) of the Scotch Code, 1890, it is necessary before the Government grant can be paid that there should be at least three Governors to every school not a Board school; and whether, in the above circumstances, it is the intention of the Scotch Education Department to refuse any further grant to the school until steps are taken to make such an alteration on the scheme as will satisfy the requirements of the Code?

I understand that, owing to circumstances, only one Governor is now acting under the scheme recently sanctioned for the Lady Burnett's School. Article 17 (h) of the Scotch Code requires that three persons should designate one of their number to sign the receipt for the grant to the school. One Trustee and two other Managers have hitherto acted under this provision of the Code, and we have not been informed that there has been any change in this respect. The question of a grant to the school must be decided after careful examination of the usual Returns at the time when the grant falls conditionally due. The Department cannot commit themselves to any decision beforehand, nor are they prepared at present to say that any alteration in the scheme is necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Code.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the triennial election of School Boards throughout Scotland will take place next year; and whether, in view of that fact, the answer of the Secretary for Scotland to the deputation of about 30 Scottish Members on the subject of the School Board Election (Scotland) Bill, promised by himself on the 28th March to be given on an early day, and again promised by the Lord Advocate in this House on the 22nd May to be given "shortly after Whitsuntide," and again promised by the Lord Advocate in this House on the 16th instant to be given on Friday the 20th instant, will now be given; and, if not, what is the explanation of the delay?

The Government are not prepared to give time for the discussion of the hon. and learned Member's Bill, nor can they add to the number of controversial Bills now before the House. They are, However, prepared to bring in a Bill of one clause assimilating the franchise for elections of School Boards to the franchise for elections of County Councils and Town Councils, and to pass it after 12 o'clock, should it meet with general approval.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number and character of the punishments inflicted on the convict Wright during his confinement in Portsea Prison; and whether he will order an inquiry into the mental condition and responsibility of this convict by a medical man independent of the Prisons Board?

I am informed by the Prison Commissioners that this convict has been reported 52 times and punished 50 times. The punishments include dietary punishment, close confinement, loss of class privileges and remission, and corporal punishments which has been inflicted once. He is reported to be of sound mind. There is no reason to question the competence of the medical officers attached to the Prison Department to give a correct opinion on the question of a prisoner's condition of mind. I do not propose to order a special inquiry in this case; but I have given instructions that the mental condition of the prisoner shall be closely watched.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state the number of Metropolitan Police usually employed in the County of Middlesex outside the County of London?

I am informed by the Commissioner that the number of men so employed is 1,324.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what orders or instructions have been given by the new Commissioner of Police as regards the prohibition of meetings of constables to discuss the questions of their pay or pensions?

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no new general orders have been given as regards the prohibition of meetings of constables to discuss questions of pay and pension. The superintendents have been instructed to remind their men of the Standing Orders, prescribing the manner in which representations on these subjects should be made. An order was issued last night, in which, in reply to several Petitions, the Commissioner declined to allow a meeting of Representatives of divisions to be held in Bow Street, as being contrary to the best interests of the men, and the efficiency of the force. At the same time he declared his willing- ness to receive any representations from members of the force through the authorised channels, and to give them his best attention.

Is it not a fact that the Superintendents were permitted to meet for the objects indicated in the question, and is not the same privilege to be accorded to the rank and file?

I should like to have notice of the question if the hon. Member wants a full answer, but my recollection is that the Superintendents were directed to ascertain the wishes of the men in their respective divisions, that course not being deemed contrary to the Standing Orders.

Why are the men thus to be suddenly deprived of the power of discussing their grievances?

No new Regulation has been issued; their attention has only been called to existing Rules.

Is it a fact that another meeting which has been called has been prohibited?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home; Department whether he has seen the report in the Daily News, of the 24th inst., of the case of a man named Jones, who was tried before Mr. Warry, Q.C, at the London County Sessions sitting at Clerkenwell, charged with stealing a purse containing 2s. 4d., and, on conviction, was sentenced by Mr. Warry to 10 years' penal servitude, and from which it appears that the prosecution failed to prove that Jones was seen to take the purse or ever had it in his possession; and if he will consider the advisability of remitting some portion of this sentence; and I may also ask him if he is aware that this Magistrate has today sentenced another man to 10 years' penal servitude for stealing an overcoat?

I am not in possession of any particulars with regard to these cases, but I will make inquiry at once.

I will repeat the questions.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what number of messages were sent by the Telegraphic Department during 1889 on account of the railway companies, free of charge to them; and, having regard to the evidence of the Superintendent of Telegraphs before the Revenue Estimates Committee, in 1888, that this transmission of free messages had increased from 97,000 in 1871 to 961,000 in 1887, entirely at the public expense, whether he has been able in any way to check or diminish this growing charge on the National Exchequer?

The number of telegrams transmitted free of charge for the railway companies in the year 1889 was 1,244,000. The subject of the hon. Member's question is engaging my careful attention, and the legal proceedings to which I referred in answer to a question on the 31st March last are still pending.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction is caused by the postal charges made on the official forms rendered necessary by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, and that the difficulty of carrying out that Act in scattered counties is enormously increased by the action of the Postal Authorities therein, 900 Schedules having been returned in one county alone; and whether he will issue such instructions as may put an end to this grievance?

A difference of opinion has for some time existed as to how far these forms can be held to comply with the existing Regulations regarding book-rate postage, but alterations in the Regulations have been suggested, and I am at the present time in correspondence with the Treasury on the subject. I am decidedly of opinion that if the present doubts cannot be satisfactorily cleared up no time should be lost in so amending the Regulations as to make it no longer a matter of question how far these forms are entitled to pass at the book-rate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that of recent years German newspapers, partly non-official and partly semi-official, in discussing the possibility of the cession of Heligoland, have repeatedly given expression to the desire, which is widely entertainedin military circles in Germany, that the island should be converted into a high-class fortress similar to Kronstadt; whether, in view of the limited area of the island, a scheme of that description would of necessity involve the dispossession of the inhabitants, and consequently be injurious to the interests of the fishermen from the East Coast of England, who are now able to make use of Heligoland for various purposes connected with their industry; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of arriving at an understanding with Germany that in the event of the cession taking place no such scheme shall be carried out?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the advisability of stipulating, in the event of Heligoland being ceded to Germany, that the island shall not be converted into a naval fortress, and that the islanders shall be permanently exempted from military service?

No conditions with respect to the fortifications of the Island of Heligoland can be made, as the German Government must obviously be left to decide on the measures necessary for the defence of its own coasts. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the German Government with a view to the adoption of measures for the protection of British fishing interests and the immunity of the present inhabitants from conscription.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if fortifications and naval works are constructed by the Germans on so small an area, it will practically amount to an order to the inhabitants to leave the island?

No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Prime Minister is correctly reported, at the Merchant Taylors' Company's Dinner on 27th May, to have laid down as the canon of his policy as regards the surrender or the acquisition of territory that these are questions on which the public opinion of England and the full assent of Parliament should be previously obtained; whether, the opinion of Parliament will be taken on the Cession of Heligoland Bill before the Treaty is signed by the Representative of Great Britain; and whether having regard to the declarations of the Prime Minister, an opportunity will be given to this, House to discuss the whole of the arrangements come to between Great Britain and Germany before the Treaty is signed?

The Treaty will be drawn in such terms as to be conditional on the passing of the Bill. I understand that the Question does not convey an accurate representation of the remarks of my noble Friend; but as to any remarks he may have made, it would be more convenient that the question should be addressed to him in the House where he sits. I may add that any engagement of the nature indicated will be fulfilled by the submission of the Bill to Parliament, on which the whole Agreement depends.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any Reports from the Naval or Military Authorities, as to the proposed cession of Heligoland, will be laid upon the Table in time for the discussion on the Bill which is necessary to carry the cession into effect?

Confidential Reports of naval and military men upon strategic questions could not conveniently be published.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will inform the House what steps have been taken by the Government to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of Heligoland on the proposed cession of the island to Germany?

The arrangement cannot be made dependent upon a popular vote. The possession of the island was acquired without the consent of the people, and Her Majesty's Government fulfil their duty towards them by securing to all now living exceptional privileges. We have every reason to believe that their interests will in no wav suffer by the change of Sovereignty.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a series of letters in the Pall Mall Gazette to the effect that they can find no one in the island who is in favour of the transfer?

If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to draw my attention to the Pall Mall Gazette, I shall be glad to give him an answer, but he will not be surprised to hear that I am not able just now to read many newspapers.

The right hon. Gentleman says that communications are passing with the German Government with regard to the immunity of the present inhabitants of Heligoland from military service. We understood that that was one of the points stipulated in the original Agreement that no one now living should be compelled to serve. Is that point still open to discussion?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in drawing my attention to the language. There is an undertaking on the part of the German Government that all the present inhabitants of Heligoland shall be exempt from military service.

Then on what point, may I ask, are further communications with regard to military service passing?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is necessary to put these undertakings into diplomatic language.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government are willing to entertain the proposals and assist the scheme, suggested by Mr. Henry Tate in his letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, dated 17th June instant, for the establishment of a National Gallery of British Art?

On the same subject I will ask the First Lord whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any decision as to the acceptance of Mr. Tate's offer of pictures?

The views of the Government with reference to Mr. Tate's offer had been communicated to that gentleman in a letter sent yesterday from the Treasury, and this letter would probably be published. If Mr. Tate's most generous offer was not accepted at once, it was not owing so much to want of space in the National Gallery as to the fact that Mr. Tate rather insisted on the condition that his pictures should be kept together as a separate collection, and such a condition was rather at variance with the regulations that were generally observed at the National Gallery. The Government were extremely grateful to Mr. Tate for his munificent offer, and sincerely hoped that they might be able to accept it. Discussions were being held now as to the allocation of the eastern and western galleries at South Kensington to the purposes of a gallery for British Art. These galleries were well lighted and were fireproof. On this subject he had himself been in communication with the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, the Trustees of the National Gallery, and Sir Frederick Leighton. Mr. Tate attached at present certain conditions of management to his offer of his pictures which it might be difficult, if not impossible, to accept; but he trusted that when Mr. Tate should see that arrangements had been made for the establishment of a gallery for British artists at South Kensington, he would think fit to present this valuable collection of pictures, as originally proposed, to the nation.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has yet considered the Report of the Departmental Committee on the question of permitting Trustees to invest Trust Funds in colonial securities; and, if so, what conclusion has been come to?

It will be obvious to the hon. Member that whatever conclusion I may come as to the Report of the Committee, legislation on the subject of Trust Funds investments in colonial securities is impossible this Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the West Donegal Railway Company, which is promoting and proposes to work the Killy begs Light Railway Line, possesses any rolling stock, and whether its own line is worked by the Finn Valley Railway Company at a loss to the latter body; whether, before deciding to make a grant in favour of the Killybegs line, he will take into account the inadvisability of allowing that line to be worked by a company which will be constantly under the temptation in its traffic arrangements to benefit its own shareholders at the expense of the ratepayers, who will have to guarantee any loss that may occur in respect of the working expenses of the proposed new line; whether the Killybegs and Baltimore Light. Railway lines have got any precedence over the other schemes projected under the Act of last year; and, if so, on what grounds; and whether it is intended to put up to competition the engineering as well as the construction of the light railway lines which may be finally sanctioned by the Treasury?

I am informed that the rolling stock belongs to the West Donegal Company, although the line is worked under an agreement by the Finn Valley Company. The Finn Valley Company works the line for a percentage of the gross receipts, guaranteeing a minimum payment to the West Donegal Company, and up to the present the balance over the working expenses has not reached the minimum. The prospects have, I believe, improved since the line was completed into Donegal. I will certainly carefully consider how to secure that the Killybegs line is credited with its full share of the receipts and debited only with its proper share of expenditure in order to safeguard the interests of the county. The Killybegs line has got no precedence over other lines beyond the fact that they have made more progress with the proposals which they submitted to the Treasury. It is not intended to put up to competition the preparation of the plans and working drawings, but care will be taken that the scale of payments for the plans shall be a reasonable one.

Is it not a common practice to put up the engineering as well as the construction of these lines to competition, and is Mr. Barton, the promoter and engineer of this line, to be the only person with whom there shall he no competition?

I should think it is not customary to put up the engineering to competition, because, until a plan has been prepared, no presentment can be made by the Grand Jury.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will consent to grant the Return as to the income and expenditure of the Corporation of the City of London, the Irish Society, the twelve great companies, &c, mentioned in the notice on the Paper for this day?

It is not in my power to provide the information.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the Grocer of this week:—

"Nurdin and Peacock v. Hornet.

"The Falaise Tribunal sentenced Vitard to one month's imprisonment and a fine of £40, and Hornet, his accomplice, to a fine of £8, the Judgment to be inserted at their expense in several newspapers, and to be posted at the Town Hall, and also on the doors of Vitard's and Hornet's residences;"

whether he is aware that this sentence was inflicted (at the prosecution of the French. Authorities acting upon evidence given at Bow Street Police Court) for having sold adulterated French butters as pure butters to an English firm; is he aware that a merchant was fined £10 and costs, at the Westminster Police Court last Thursday, for selling butter adulterated with 25 per cent, of foreign fat, though the Magistrate admitted that he proved to the complete satisfaction of the Court that he had bought and paid for it as pure butter, and that every package was imported direct from Belgium, branded, and guaranteed pure butter; is he aware that the value of British and Irish dairy produce has been reduced this year by about 30 per cent, under its normal value, owing to this unfair competition with adulterated foreign butter; and whether, under these circumstances, he will co-operate with the French Government in suppressing this traffic, by instructing the Custom House officials at the various ports where foreign butters are landed, to enforce the powers conferred on them by section 8 of the Margarine Act of 1887?

The attention of the Board of Customs has been called to the statement made in the Grocer in regard to certain persons having been convicted in France for adulterating butter and to the proceedings at Westminster Police Court, but they have no official knowledge of the circumstances. Large quantities of margarine are imported into this country from the Continent, and the Board are not aware that it is described as butter. I am unable to say whether there has been such a reduction as the hon. Member describes in the value of British and Irish dairy produce or that it is due to competition with adulterated foreign butter. The powers conferred upon the Customs Officers by Section 8 of the Margarine Act, 1887, is limited to the taking of samples, and the officers would have no authority under that Act to detain the goods. The examination by analysis of all imported butter by the Customs Officers would not only involve a large increase in the present staff, but it would also cause much delay in the delivery of a perishable article and lead to much friction and inconvenience to the trade. I am, however, sending a copy of the hon. Member's question with a copy of this reply to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Merchandise Marks. It may be that his Committee has taken evidence on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the last accounts rendered by the German Company in Damaraland showed that on the 1st of August of last year the whole of the assets of the company amounted to 110,000 marks, or a little over £5,000; and whether he is able to give the House any later information with regard to the financial position of this company?

We have no information on this subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what part, if any, of the mainland of East Africa south of the point on the coast where the British and German "spheres of influence" meet is included in the "Sultanate of Zanzibar," over which according to Lord Salisbury's Despatch, it has been agreed that Her Majesty shall assume a Protectorate, or is it to be understood that all such part of the Sultanate as lies on the coast of the mainland from the above-mentioned point south ward to as far as Cape Delgado is to be transferred to the Protectorate of Germany?

I stated on the 20th inst. that the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, with the exception of the strip of coast farmed out to the German East Africa Company, were included in the proposed British Protectorate. The coast is south of the point where the British and German spheres of influence meet, and is not included. I should add that the Island of Mafia, lying off this coast, will probably not be included in our Protectorate in case of Germany arranging with the Sultan for its inclusion in the territory to be ceded to her.

Then the point put in my question is correct?

That is so.

The hon. Member for South Aberdeen lately asked me regarding an alleged massacre of Ghristians by Arnauts in the vilayet of Kossova, in Albania. The Consul General at Salonica has spontaneously reported, upon seeing the statement in question in certain Continental newspapers, that he had made inquiry of railway officials arriving from places in that district, who declared that they had heard of no such event. Her Majesty's Minister at Belgrade, while mentioning that complaints had been made of oppression by turbulent Albanians on their Christian neighbours, does not refer to any allegations of murders.

Cannot further steps be taken to ascertain the truth, seeing that Salonica is 200 miles away from the place where the massacres are alleged to have occurred?

The Consul General cannot travel that distance; he can only make such inquiries as he has made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a telegram in the Daily News of the 24th instant, which states that—

"A Memorandum has been presented by the Christian population to the Consuls of Foreign Poweis at Canea, containing a number of complaints. The Consuls of Austria, Hungary, and Italy declared to the deputation which presented the Memorandum that they would use contents as material for private information. The British Consul, Mr. Billiotti refused to receive the Memorandum altogether, saying his own information was sufficient for him to know all the Cretans were in need;"

whether his attention has been called to a telegram in the Manchester Guardian of 21st June, in which it was stated that the Governor of Crete had determined to re-introduce Courts Martial into the island; and whether he has received information of the existence of such a state of affairs as would warrant the adoption of these measures?

The Memorandum referred to was left at the house of Her Majesty's Consul when he was out, and was sent back to the petitioners by him the next day as not being a document which, in his position of Consul, he could properly receive, seeing that it called for his official intervention in matters on which the petitioners had addressed the Vali, and that his acceptance of it would probably have led the petitioners to believe that Her Majesty's Government would interfere when there was no reason to suppose that the Vali would not give due consideration to their representations. Her Majesty's Govern- ment are not aware of any intention on the part of the Vali to re-establish Courts Martial.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give the House any information regarding the alleged conflict between French and Newfoundland fishermen?

Inquiry has been made by telegraph, and the Governor of Newfoundland has replied that nothing is known of the rumour of a conflict between French and Newfoundland fishermen.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Memorial has been received from the Egyptian exiles at Ceylon, enclosing medical certificates showing that their health is seriously affected by the dampness of the climate, and expressing a hope that, under the circumstances and in view of their exile having lasted seven years, Her Majesty's Government will urge the Egyptian Government to allow them to return to Egypt; and stating that, if this permission be accorded to them, they will pledge their honour to abstain from taking any part in public affairs, to do which, they add, they can have no object, as the grievances which they formerly complained of have been fully redressed; and, what action Her Majesty's Government proposes to take in respect to this Memorial?

The Memorial referred to reached the Foreign Office to-day and has not yet been considered.