I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a sufficient number of cartridges for the new magazine rifle are being manufactured to form an efficient reserve of ammunition, or whether only enough are being turned out to meet the present musketry instruction requirements of those regiments which have had the new rifle supplied to them?

It would not be to the benefit of the Public Service for me to state what number of cartridges for the new magazine rifle have been manufactured, but I am taking measures to insure the supply being sufficient for all purposes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received a copy of the Report of Colonel Sir Arthur Mackworth, of the Royal Engineers, appointed by the Governor of the Leeward Islands to inquire into and to report upon the public works in the Island of Dominica, which Report was laid before the Island Road Board, and officially condemns the public works upon which one-third of the loan has been already expended; if the said public loan of £20,000 was raised upon the security of the revenues of the island, and the Governor of the Colony, in disregard of the protests of the members of the Road Board and the unofficial members of the Local Assembly, continued with the public works now condemned by the Royal Engineer; and if he will state to the House in what way he intends to hold the Governor of the Colony responsible for this expenditure, as stated by the Under Secretary of State in answer to a question upon this subject on 4th November, 1888?

The Secretary of State has received from the Governor of the Leeward Islands a copy of a Report made by Sir Arthur Mack-worth, at his request, on certain bridges which had been commenced in Dominica, as part of a scheme for the improvement of the roads in that island, the cost of which is provided by a public loan. The Report was unfavourable as to some of the works. It is not known whether the Report has been laid before the Road Board, or what proportion of the loan has been spent on the works condemned by Sir A. Mackworth. The loan was raised on the security of the revenues of the island. The works were designed by, and their execution was commenced under, the direction of an experienced engineer, specially engaged for the work. Objections were made to them by members of the Road Board and of the Assembly. The Governor did not at first accede to their objections; but, after a time, he put a stop to the works and called in the assistance of Sir A. Mackworth. The Governor is responsible for the application of the loan to the purposes for which it was raised, but the Secretary of State does not hold him responsible for engineering mistakes.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on the 26th of June last, the Governor of the Colony used his casting vote for the purpose of overruling the opinion of the Legislative Assembly, with respect to the expenditure of a further sum of £10,000 upon these works, and whether, in his opinion, it is proper that the Governor should override the opinion of the elected Members of the Assembly on questions involving taxation?

I have received no information upon that point. The hon. Member had better put down a question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Roseau (Colony of Leeward Islands) a complaint touching the treatment of Roman Catholic patients by the Medical Officer of Institutions in the public poors house in Dominica; if he is aware of the fact that in 1888 the Legislative Assembly in Dominica passed a resolution calling upon the Governor of the Colony—

"To remove the Medical Officer of Public Institutions from the anomalous position of being Chairman of the Poor Law Board and Medical Officer to Public Institutions;"

The Secretary of State has received through the Governor of the Leeward Islands a complaint from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Roseau against the action of the Medical Officer of the Public Institutions with respect to a Roman Catholic inmate of the poor house; but after being furnished with the Governor's explanation of the circumstances, he saw no reason to blame the officer. In 1889 the Legislative Assembly of Dominica passed a resolution to the effect stated in the question, but the Secretary of State does not know whether the members of the Assembly have subsequently asked the Governor to carry it into effect. The Secretary of State has received a Report of an inquiry by the Poor Law Board, and a resolution recommending the repeal of the Statute under which the medical officer is ex officio a member of the Board. The Secretary of State has considered the question, but does not propose to instruct the Governor to give effect to these resolutions.

If the Government disputes the accuracy of the Report, is there any objection to lay on the Table the Report of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Roseau?

I will communicate to the Poor Law Board the desire of the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to state what is the daily average number of prisoners employed in mat making; how many of that number are working for the Prison Department; how many have their labour let out to the trade; and what proportion of the last-named are working on behalf of the firm of Goodacre & Company, of West Ham and Glemsford?

The Secretary of State is informed by the Prison Commissioners that the daily average for the last year was 1,218, and that this number has since been reduced. Of these, as far as can be estimated, 288 were working for the Prison Department, and 930 had their labour let out to the trade. Of these latter 532 worked for Messrs. Goodacre.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that 930 out of 1,218 is a very large proportion of prison labour to hire out in competition with free labour in a limited trade?

That is a matter for Debate.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the census clerks, selected for employment under the Registrar General will "be chosen by open competition within suitable limits of age," as specially recommended by the Census Committee in its Report; and, if not, why not?

The arrangements for appointing census clerks are not yet concluded, but steps will be taken by examination to secure that none but efficient clerks are appointed. It will be necessary to make clear that the appointments are only temporary, and do not set up any right or title to the permanent Civil Service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will explain why he refused to receive a deputation of women, mainly representing the Women's Union, who wished to lay before him certain complaints respecting the conduct of the police, who were stated to have behaved with great harshness to working women during their agitation for better wages; and whether he will re-consider his refusal and receive the deputation?

The Secretary of State in the exercise of his dis cretion did not consider then, and does not consider now, that any public advantage would be gained by his consenting to receive this deputation. Complaints as to assault should be addressed to the Courts of Law, and not to the Secretary of State, who has no power to determine whether or no assaults were committed on particular occasions. The allegations as to the harsh conduct of the police were duly referred to the Commissioner of Police, and his Report shows that every care was taken by the police to avoid rough usage, and that they in no way exceeded their duty.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the names of the Commissioners to be appointed to inquire into the subject of tuberculosis in cattle, and the nature of their inquiry?

The Commissioners are Lord Basing, Professor Brown, Dr. George Buchanan, Mr. Frank Payne, and Professor Burden Sanderson. They are appointed

"To inquire and report what is the effect, if any, of food derived from tuberculous animals on human health, and, if prejudicial, what are the circumstances and conditions with regard to the tuberculosis in the animal which produce that effect upon man."

May I ask why no person connected with Ireland has been appointed on the Commission?

The fact that Ireland might desire to be represented did not occur to me. The Commissioners chosen are men of great professional ability, in whom I am sure the three countries will have confidence.

If the Irish Members desire to have a representative, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point?

I am afraid it is too late now, because the names have received the Royal Assent, and the Warrant has been made out. I will, however, inquire and let the hon. Member know the result.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has yet considered the sentence on the men of the Grenadier Guards; if the men sentenced were old or young; if they will remain in England to undergo their sentence, or whether they will accompany the regiment to Bermuda; and if he will recommend the reduction of the sentence?

I have not considered the sentences. The men of the Grenadier Guards who have been convicted by Court Martial are aged 27 years and nine months, 26 years and two months, 28 years and one month, 25 years and seven months, 25 years and 10 months, and 29 years and six months. They will remain in England to undergo their imprisonment.

May I ask on what principle the six men, and six men only, were selected for trial, and whether any punishment, except being sent abroad, is to be awarded to the other in subordinates? I will also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table of the House a complete copy of the proceedings of the Court Martial?

My reply to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is entirely in the negative. The reason why six men were selected for trial was that, according to the custom in such cases, the men tried were the senior soldiers in the respective companies.

May I ask whether the sending of the troops abroad is to be considered a punishment?

I can only, as I have already said, lay the facts before the House. The House must draw its own conclusions.

I feel the difficulty of Parliamentary interference where discipline is concerned, but having been myself a private soldier I venture on an appeal. As the sentences passed on the convicted men were considered excessive, will the right hon. Gentleman, from the point of view of mercy consider whether part of those sentences may not be remitted?

I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing a copy of the proceedings in question, or forming any opinion upon them, but I deprecate Parliamentary interference in such cases. Of course, I take full responsibility in the matter.

Is there any special reason why the Reports of these proceedings should not be laid on the Table, as is usual in such cases?

It is not usual to lay the proceedings of Courts of Inquiry on the Table.

This is not a Court of Inquiry, but a Court Martial; and I must press for a reply to the question.

I am afraid I must decline to lay the proceedings on the Table.

Will the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry into the conduct of the officers?

Is there any precedent for sending a regiment abroad as a punishment for insubordination?

I have not pursued my historic inquiries far enough to be able to answer the question of the hon. Member.

I have not heard so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any Reports have reached him as to alleged prize fights having taken place at the Pelican Club and other places; if the fact of the men wearing a small hand glove places them beyond the restrictions of the law; if he is aware that at a recent exhibition of this nature at the Pelican Club one man was seriously hurt; and if in future the police will be instructed to stop all prize fights, whether with or without gloves?

The Secretary of State has received representations on the subject of glove fights. In the opinion of the Secretary of State the wearing of a small glove does not by itself affect the character of a contest which may, or may not, be illegal by virtue of the attendant circumstances, and irrespectively of the fact whether gloves are worn or not. I have no information as to a man having been recently hurt at the Pelican Club. The Secretary of State is advised that exhibitions of skill in boxing, as distinguished from prize fights, are not in themselves illegal. It would be impossible, therefore, to give any such general instructions to the police as are suggested.

If information reached the police that one of the combatants had been severely punished, would it not be within the province of the police to interfere, or is the fact that gloves are used, although a man may be knocked senseless, to debar the interference of the police?

I have no doubt that every case would be considered on its merits.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to several instances of alleged overloading of cattle ships from New York to Liverpool; if the death-rate among the cattle is very high on these passages; and if reports of great cruelties to cattle on board these ships have reached him?

I fear the death-rate in some of these cases has been extremely high, but I have no information that would justify a charge of cruelty. I have directed inquiries to be made on the whole subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can confirm the report that Sir Baldwin Walker has paid the damages claimed by Mr. Baird for illegal seizure of his lobster factory on the coast of Newfoundland; and whether, as the litigation is apparently now ended, he will now state under what law of the Imperial Parliament, or the Newfoundland Legislation, or in virtue of what prerogative of the Crown, the instructions to commanding officers were issued by Her Majesty's Government?

I know nothing more than the telegrams in the newspapers; and as I am not in a position to confirm the report, I must refrain from answering the second part of the question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the £40,000 he purposes to give to Scotland is to be divided proportionately between the Burgh and County Councils or given to County Councils only; if to County Councils only, can he state on what principle this decision has been arrived at?

The sum in question, which amounts to £50,000, and not to £40,000, as stated by the hon. Member, will be divided proportionately between Burgh and County Councils.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that since March last, when the official rate of exchange between the Indian and Imperial Governments was fixed at 1s. 5d. to the rupee, the rupee has risen in value to over 1s. 7d., whereas the Indian Government is, to its great profit, now paying its servants their family remittances, furlough, and pensions at 1s. 5d., the Secretary of State will now arrange, since it is practically certain that the rupee will not fall in value during the current financial year, to give the benefit of the rise in exchange to its servants by settling with them at the current rate?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question, I wish to ask a further question on the same subject, of which I have given him private notice. I wish to know whether he is aware that more than one-half of the Indian Uncovenanted Civil servants pensioned in England receive pensions of less than £200 a year; and is he aware that a nominal pension of £200 a year is reduced by the loss of the exchange to about £135, although the Government get about £160 for the same sum at the current rate?

In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King), I have to say that the Secretary of State cannot alter the official rate of exchange after it has been once fixed. It is applied to very large transactions, amounting nearly to £1,000,000. In reply to the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), I have no doubt that the figures he gives are correct, but such considerations cannot affect the current rate.

Is it not the fact that since the official rate was fixed a Silver Bill has been passed in America, which practically ensures what I state in my question, that the rupee will not fall in value during the current financial year?

I am sorry to state that the Secretary has no information of what passes in the United States.

If I put a Motion on the Paper for a Return of the amount of profit which the Government make under this head, will the right hon. Gentleman oppose it?

I must have notice of that question.

Then I will repeat it to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the Paper which he last year described as an explanatory Memorandum on the Indian Financial Statement will be circulated; and if he can say on what date the Indian Budget Statement will be made?

The Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be circulated a few days before the Indian Budget was taken. In regard to the last paragraph of the question of the hon Member, I have to say that I can neither foretell nor fix the day upon which it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss the Indian Finances.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that last year he gave us two months to consider this Paper.

The hon. Gentleman is in error. I did not give two months to consider the Paper. I circulated the Paper when I thought the Indian Budget was coming on, but the House postponed the consideration of it.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give the House any information as to the day upon which the Indian Budget is likely to be taken?

I am afraid that further progress must be made with the Bills now before the House and with Supply before the Indian Budget can be taken.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any and what communication has been recently addressed by the Viceroy of India to the Amir of Afghanistan relating to the treatment of some of the Amir's subjects; if he can state what reply has been received from the Amir; and whether he will lay Papers upon the Table?

Yes, Sir; certain communications have taken place, but it would not be to the public interest to produce them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not accept any arrangement with the Government of Portugal by which the British Settlements in the Shire district and the Shire Highlands are placed under Portuguese rule?

No such proposal has been at any time entertained by Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the report in the Daily News of 19th July, that General Hassan Hairi Pasha has been appointed Governor of Erzeroum and General Osman Nowie Pasha Governor of Van, in the places of Samih Pasha and Halied Bey dismissed; whether he knows anything as to the previous history and character of the two former; and whether it is true, as reported in the Daily News of the 21st instant, that

"Osman Ghazi Pasha has been appointed to command in Armenia to carry out a policy of wholesale persecution and suppression in Armenia"

We have no official knowledge of these appointments.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that it is the present intention of the Porte shortly to proclaim a state of Martial Law in Armenia; whether such a proclamation would be in distinct violation of the undertaking of the Turkish Government in the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878, to introduce reforms into the administration of that country; and whether, in the event of such a proclamation being issued, Her Majesty's Government will notify to the Porte that they hold themselves fully absolved from all obligations imposed upon England by this Convention?

The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will answer the question.

We have received no information of any such intention on the part of the Porte, and it is, therefore, unnecessary that I should reply to the hypothetical questions suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can explain what were the grounds for the opposition of the official members of the Legislative Council of Cyprus to a Bill, brought forward by Mr. Pascal Constantinides, having for its object the formation of an Agricultural Bank in Cyprus, which was one of the foremost remedial measures urged by the Cypriot Deputation that waited on the Colonial Office in the autumn of 1889, and which was recently passed by the majority of the members, seeing that repeated promises have been made by the Colonial Office to attain that object; whether the Colonial Office intend, in the case of the Bill in question, to allow the views of the elected representatives of the people to be carried out; whether in view of the fact that recommendations adopted by the representative section of the Legislative Council have been frequently disregarded, it is proposed to take any steps to give better effect to the wishes of the majority; whether any and that action has been taken to mitigate the heavy pressure of taxation obtaining in Cyprus, and which was also a matter of argent appeal in the Memorial submitted by the Deputation referred to; and weather it is true that Her Majesty's Government have refused appreciably to curtail the expenditure of which complaint was also made?

The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is that the High Commissioner has not yet reported officially as to the introduction of this Bill, or the proceedings which took place upon it. It is not the case that the Colonial Office has made repeated promises to attain the object of establishing an agricultural bank. All the promises which the Secretary of State has made upon the subject have been conditional on a practicable scheme being brought before him. The third paragraph of the hon. Member's question contains such controversial assumptions that it is impossible to give it an answer. If he will refer to the Colonial Office Letter, to the Cyprus Deputation of the 4th of August, 1889, at page 10 of the Blue Book C 6003, he will see that those assumptions are not admitted to be accurate by the Secretary of State. As regards the views of Her Majesty's Government on the question whether the taxation is oppressive, and whether both the taxation and expenditure can, and ought to be reduced, I would refer the hon. Member to the views of Her Majesty's Government as expressed in the Secretary of State's Despatch of the 22nd of March on pages 33 and 34 of the Blue Book C 4003, to which I have nothing to add.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the action of the Provisional Government of Brazil, in arbitrarily confiscating concessions granted to British Railway Companies in that country; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to point out to the Brazilian Government the serious injury thereby inflicted upon its credit?

The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the action of the Provisional Government of Brazil in cancelling two concessions granted to a British Railway Company in that country, on the ground that the company had failed to fulfil the conditions of the contract. The company state in their defence that this failure is due to circumstances beyond their control. Her Majesty's Minister has been instructed to make friendly representations on the subject, as it is believed that the action of the Provisional Government was founded on erroneous information as to the proceedings of the company.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Board of Trade inquiry into Railway Rates, of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh was President, will be issued, as the Midland, London and North-Western, Great Western, and North Staffordshire Railway Companies have announced an increase of 9d. per ton upon coal and coke to Hastings and St. Leonards, such increase to take effect from 1st August?

I do not see the precise connection between the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's question. As provided by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, a Report will be presented to Parliament when it is seen whether the companies do or do not come to an agreement with the Board of Trade on the maximum rates proposed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Pinching, the Inspector of Mines in Cornwall, was instructed by the Government to inquire into the excessive rate of mortality among the miners of Cornwall; whether he can state what steps Mr. Pinching took to acquaint himself with the facts as to the prevalence of the disease, its causes, its results, and the best remedies; whether he has received from Mr. Pinching any evidence upon the subject, or any written Report in addition to the opinion telegraphed on the 14th instant; whether he is aware that no notice whatever of any such intended inquiry was given in the county and among those principally interested in the subject, namely, the miners themselves, and that, consequently, no evidence on the part of the miners can possibly have been placed before the Inspector; and whether, as no inquiry will be satisfactory or command the confidence of the mining population which is not thorough and public, he will cause such an inquiry to be held in the locality?

The hon. Member seems to be under some misapprehension as to what has taken place. No special inquiry has been ordered, or is being held. In the ordinary course, the question of the hon. Member, when it first appeared on the Paper, was referred to the Inspector for his Report and observations. It may be assumed that the Inspector had made himself acquainted, in the ordinary discharge of his duties, with the necessary facts, without taking special steps to investigate a matter which had for many years past been engaging the attention of the Department, and which was specially reported upon in 1888, with a view to the amendment of the existing law. The Inspector's written Report has not yet been received. The Government are already in possession of what information they require to enable them to deal with the question of improving the conditions of work in Cornish and other metalliferous mines, so far as they can be improved by legislation, and a further inquiry of the nature suggested by the hon. Member does not seem to be necessary.

IS it the fact that the Home Office have received a telegraphic opinion, from Mr. Pinching, and do they intend to act upon that telegraphic opinion?

The Bill has been drafted which is to deal with the question.

Will the Bill be introduced this Session, so that the Representatives of the miners may have an opportunity of considering it before the Winter Session?

I am unable to say.

Do the Government share the opinion of Mr. Pinching that everything that is necessary is done for the miners, and that they are in no danger?

That is a matter of opinion upon which the hon. Gentleman will be able to form his own judgment when he sees the Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any Memorial has been recently received by the Treasury from the messengers at the Custom House praying for the redress of certain grievances; and whether, if so, he will state when a reply to it may be expected; whether the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs have recently decided to fill only each alternate vacancy to the first-class messenger ships, and whether he will state the reason for which two vacancies in such class have remained unfilled; and whether, in view of the fact that the whole of the second-class messengers entered the service under the conditions set forth in the Treasury Minute of 1st April, 1873, giving them the right of rising to the maximum of £90 per annum, he will take the necessary steps for the carrying out of such Treasury Minute?

A Memorial from the Customs Messengers was received on the 16th inst., and is now under the consideration of the Treasury. It will be answered in due course; but, pending the answer, I am not in a position to answer other questions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Civil Service writers who may be recommended by the heads of their Departments for appointments as statistical abstractors, but who previously to becoming writers may have been clerks in Government offices and have commuted their pensions, would be ineligible for such appointments under the provisions of the Superannuation Acts or otherwise?

I do not know who the officers are described by the hon. Member as statistical abstractors, and I, therefore, can give no reply as to the particular instance which he cites. The Superannuation Act requires the Government to recall pensioners to the Service when practicable. That and the Commutation Act prescribe the reductions to be made in receipts of pensioned men re-appointed to the Public Service, whether they are drawing or whether they have commuted their pensions.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the great difficulty which has been experienced in obtaining proper information for the purposes of the Quinquennial Valuation for the Metropolis, more especially with reference to the value of tenement houses, of which the weekly rentals have in the first instance been given in but very few cases; and whether, with a view of obviating such difficulty in the future, he will consider the question of the desirability of so altering the forms (9 B) as to include a question specially applicable to tenement houses, and also a notice to the owners of such houses that they are required to state the full weekly rentals received by them?

I am informed by the Inland Revenue Department that they have not heard of any such difficulty as that referred to by the hon. Member. All the Returns for the valuation now being made for the current year have already been received and laid before the Assessment Committees for the purpose of hearing objections. The question of altering the form of the notice for return in the manner suggested by the hon. Member will be considered before the next Quinquennial Valuation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to a letter which appeared in the Times of Saturday last, describing in detail the deplorable condition of anarchy which prevails in North-Western Macedonia, the frequent acts of robbery and murder perpetrated on the Christian population there by Albanians and other Mussulman tribes, and the virtual connivance of the Turkish Authorities in these outrages; whether he can now give the House any information as to the massacre of Christian refugees near Kossovo, regarding which he was questioned three weeks ago, and an account of which appeared a month ago in a semi-official journal at Vienna as well as in other German newspapers; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to inform themselves regarding the condition of this part of European Turkey, where elements of disorder exist which seriously threaten the peace of the East?

The Reports from Her Majesty's Consular Officers tend to show that there is considerable agitation and insecurity to life on the Turco-Servian frontier, and in North Albania. Troops have been sent to the disturbed districts to restore order. With regard to the alleged massacre of Christians at Kossovo, the Porte knows nothing of it, but promises to make inquiries. The truth seems difficult to arrive at. The Vice Consul at Scutari has been requested to make further inquiries.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with reference to the following passages respecting the Maltese clergy, which occur in a Despatch from Sir Lintorn Simmons to Lord Salisbury, dated 12th December, 1889, describing his interview with the Papal Secretary of State:—

"The Carninal seemed surprised at the state of ignorance of the priesthood, and expressed an opinion that measures must be taken to improve their education,"

"In discussing the subject of the education in the English language of those who will officiate as clergy in Malta, and of their instruction as to the condition under which the island is governed, I informed Cardinal Ram-polla, generally, of the sadly ignorant state of the priesthood in the island;"

"His Holiness is well satisfied at receiving the information which you furnish relative to the education of your clergy,"

I understand that Sir Lintorn Simmons's statement was founded on the Report of the Director of Education, an extract from which had been placed in the hands of Cardinal Rampolla. Cardinal Rampolla's letter to Monsignor Pace has not been communicated either to the Foreign Office or Colonial Office.

Will any apology be sent to the Maltese priesthood for this accusation of ignorance brought against them?

I have already referred the hon. Member to the authority for the statement of the special Ambassador.

I am very reluctant to forestall a discussion by moving the adjournment in consequence of the very curt answer of the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that some endeavour will be made to rectify the matter by making an attempt to procure the letter of Rampolla, I will certainly defer the Motion. I would suggest that the Cardinal's letter ought to be obtained by the Government.

I am sure it would be very far, indeed, from the wishes of Her Majesty's Government to cast any reflection upon any section of Her Majesty's subjects, and I will endeavour to get information upon the subject by next Thursday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Section 29 of the Letters Patent of the Constitution of Malta (12th December 1887) provides that

"All votes of public money shall, if challenged, be determined by a majority of the votes of the elected members present, and the votes of the official members shall not be recorded on such questions;"

The hon. Member is correct in his statement as to Section 29 of the Letters Patent. It will not be necessary to place a Vote upon the Estimates; for if the hon. Member will refer to Section 39 of the Letters Patent and the Schedule, he will see that £1,000 a year is at the disposal of the Government for special services under the title "Civil Contingencies."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the seven hours system, recommended by the recent Royal Commission, is being applied in Dublin offices; and, if so, whether it would be a ready and economical method of supplying the deficiency in the staff of the Registry of Deeds, and whether it would permit of the daily work being ready for public inspection on the following morning?

The Government is in favour of the extension of the seven hours system to the Civil Departments in Dublin wherever practicable and economical. It is already in force in the following Departments:—Chief Secretary's Office, Prisons Office, Fisheries Office, Local Government Board, Office of Works, and Registrar General's Office. It has been sanctioned for the Registry of Deeds, and will, no doubt, facilitate and hasten the process of registration.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, at the Glin Branch of the National League, the following resolution was proposed and passed unanimously, on Sunday, 29th June:—

"That the branch condemns the continued arbitrary action of the Knight of Glin in again refusing the offer of a fair rent from Mr. John G. Fitzgerald, one of his oldest and most respectable tenants, and hopes, even now, he will see the folly of carrying out another death sentence on his property;"

According to a report in the Limerick Leader, it is the case that a resolution was unanimously passed at a meeting of the Glin Branch of the National League in the terms stated in the question. I am informed that on the morning of July 8 a colt was found killed, and two other colts stabbed in several places, apparently with a hay-fork, on the farm of the Knight of Glin, from which a man of the name of Hayns had been evicted in 1882.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government intend to pay the expense of defending the constables against whom Mr. Fahy and Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions held at Gort for false arrest; also the cost of appeal which was heard before Judge O'Brien at Galway Assizes, he confirming the County Court Judge's decree, with costs; and whether he will state what course he will adopt in reference to the conduct of the constables?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question. I have not received the information that will enable me to answer it.

As the Chief Secretary is in his place, I will ask him if he is aware that the appeal has been dismissed. The fact is, that two constables arrested these two men, dragged them through the streets, kept them all night in custody, and then brought them before the Magistrates, who dismissed the case. An appeal against the decision of the County Court Judge's decree has now been dismissed by the Judge of Assize, and, as these men have acted on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman and brought their case before a legal tribunal, I wish to know what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

I will telegraph for information.

I wish to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman whether the Heligoland Bill will be taken on Thursday, and also whether he is now able to indicate the time, to which my hon. Friend behind me refers, when the Foreign Vote may be taken, and when the various questions connected with the island of Malta may be considered?

The Government propose that the Heligoland Bill shall be taken on Thursday. I am not able to say when it will be possible to put the Foreign Office Vote on the Paper, but I hope it will be in the course of next week.

Will the Heligoland Bill be the first Order?

Yes.

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a strong feeling, at all events on this side of the House, that the matter requires early attention.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the desire of the Government to consult the convenience of hon. Members as much as possible; but the right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that there is a great pressure on the Government.

Will it be possible to discuss the whole question of the Anglo-German Agreement on the Heligoland Bill?

was understood to say that the Speaker would decide that question.

The Government will make no objection?

No, Sir.

When will the Naval Estimates be completed?

I am not able to state when they will be completed.

said: The Board of Trade do not propose at present to issue any further Papers in reference to railway rates.

Where can the Papers be got?

At the Stationery Office.

I presume that the Treasury have arrived at an estimate of the expenditure. I should, therefore, like to know what will be the proportion for each of the three Kingdoms.

I am afraid that I cannot give the information without notice. I am not sure whether an estimate has yet been made of the full cost. The amount likely to be required in the course of the present year has at present only been estimated.

I will put a question down for Thursday.

Will the persons enumerated have an opportunity of declaring their religion under the head "Protestant," or "Catholic?"

That question can be raised on Clause 5.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after "age," to insert "capacity to read and write." I think the Amendment is one of very great importance. If it is necessary to ask the age and sex of the population, I think it is far more necessary and expedient that the state of their education should be ascertained. There is no acquisition more important than the power to read and write, and I do not think it will be said that it can be difficult to obtain the information.

It might be interesting if we were able to get a Return of those in this country who are unable to read or write.

Who are able.

It is the same thing.

With deference, I submit that it is not.

I will not enter into a dispute with the hon. Member. I am afraid that no person would be willing to return himself as incapable of reading and writing, and as the information would undoubtedly be inaccurate it is not desirable to endeavour to obtain it.

I do not think the argument of the right hon Gentleman should have any weight at all. At the present moment you ask for a person's age, and there can be no doubt that many inaccurate Returns are made as to ladies' ages. In many instances false Returns are made, but, nevertheless, the information is asked for. I do not see that there ought to be the least difficulty in getting a satisfactory answer to such a simple question as whether a person can read or write.

The suggestion of the hon. Member is one that is worthy of consideration, and I think there are other inquiries that would be exceedingly useful, in order that we might obtain some idea of the condition of the population. In foreign countries, especially in the colonies and in America, the Census Returns are much fuller than those of this country. It is, therefore, of importance that the Government should see their way to extending the scope of this clause.

We are quite willing to learn everything' we can from the experience of foreign countries, but I must point out that the methods by which the Returns are checked in foreign countries are such as it would be impossible to adopt here. It is perfectly clear that the Return asked for would be altogether unreliable, and, therefore, it is not desirable to enforce it. As to the age, no Return would be of any value unless the age was given.

The right hon. Gentleman opposes the Amendment on the ground that the information, because people would be unwilling to render it, and resent its being asked for, would, when procured, be unreliable and misleading. Now, there are no countries in the world where the people would more strongly resist any attempt to force information from them at the point of the sword than America and the British colonies, and there could be no difficulty experienced here that would not be experienced there. Nevertheless, this information is asked for and is supplied in the United States, and in some colonies, and I submit that in this country it would, if obtained, be of more value and utility than many of the Returns which are actually made.

The hon. Gentleman must not forget that the whole matter has already been inquired into by a strong Committee; but they did not recommend that this information should be obtained.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after "age," to insert "nationality of father." The Committee reported in favour of an improvement in the means of ascertaining the number of foreigners here. I think it is exceedingly desirable that we should possess some better data, and the best means of ascertaining the number would be if the nationality of the father were given

My hon. Friend is mistaken if he thinks that the nationality of the father would be of any real practical value. It will be sufficient to know where the individual is born and whether or not he is a British subject.

I speak only from memory, but I believe that no one in the Committee but the hon. Member himself was desirous that the nationality of the father should be given. There certainly is nothing in the Report of the Committee to justify the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.

I beg to propose, after the word "age," to insert "and religion." In moving this, I wish to remind hon. Members that this was one of the questions into which the Committee inquired, and on which they took evidence, but as to which they pronounced no definite opinion. I have now endeavoured to raise the question in a way most likely to commend itself to the attention of the Committee. The two Amendments of which I have given notice have been taken bodily from the Irish Census Bill. In these days, when the great question of the day is union or separation, it is not desirable to have different laws for the two countries. I cannot conceive anything which would tend more to the repeal of the Union. Hero it is proposed to have one law for England and another for Ireland. The hon. Member for East Mayo on the Second Reading said that he did not know any Irish Roman Catholic who would not be glad to make a declaration of his religion, and from what I know of Irish Protestants the same remark applies to them. But I know that objection is entertained to the proposal by the Nonconformists, who do not like being what they call ticketed. By a subsequent Amendment I intend to provide that nobody shall be subject to penalties for refusing to state his religious profession. It is very remarkable that the leading Members of Administrations, whether Liberal or Conservative, have always been in favour of this proposal, and they have yielded only in deference to the opinion of Nonconformists. One reason why this census is wanted is on account of the important effect it would have in any discussion on disestablishment. A respected clergyman in my own neighbourhood the other day said the Government had not done much for the Church this Session, for they had not given them a Tithe Bill, nor had they consented to a religious census. It is evident there is a strong feeling among the clergy in favour of this census.

I am not aware where the hon. Member has obtained his information as to the wishes of Nonconformists in this matter. I have sat on Conferences and Committees of Nonconformists for the last 35 years, and I never heard any of them object to being "ticketed." Personally, I have no objection to being ticketed myself, for either my political or my religious opinions. I have good grounds for holding them, and I am quite prepared to stand up and give my reasons for those opinions. I hope my hon. Friend will disabuse his mind altogether of that idea. The Amendment includes one which I was going to move, but I am willing to accept the larger proposal. I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will be merciful, and give us what we ask; if not, I will appeal to the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, in whose society I should be most happy to find myself so far as this question is concerned. It is said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in a certain publication advised how the names of those should be arranged who had gone over from the Church of England to the Church of Rome. They were people of position. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has interest enough in the rank and file to give his support to this proposal. I am aware that it would be a shock to some right hon. Gentlemen opposite to have their opinions on political or religious subjects recorded at stated intervals, because so many changes would have to be registered. I do plead that the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants, at all events, shall be given. As to whether the number of members of the Church of England, and the number of Dissenters and Nonconformists, should also be given I do not very much care; but if the numbers are given hon. Members opposite must clearly understand that there is a difference between a Dissenter and a Nonconformist. It will not do to mix up Dissenters with Nonconformists. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Baron that the census should show how many of the people are members of the Church of England and how many are Nonconformists, because by law every man who has no religion belongs to the Church of England. Put it in this way. Suppose that a man dies, declaring himself to be neither a member of the Church of England, nor a Nonconformist, nor a Dissenter, his relatives would call in a Church of England clergyman to bury him, and the man would be treated as a member of the Church of England. I do not desire to know how many people are members of the Church of England, and how many are Wesleyan Methodists. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is defeated I suppose I shall be in order in moving mine?

No.

Then, Sir, I think there is a great want of business arrangement in this House, which is supposed to be a model of Parliamentary conduct. Surely if we cannot succeed in getting the larger demand conceded, we ought not thereby to be precluded from trying to get a smaller concession. I should have thought that common sense would have dictated the adoption of such a course. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have supported for 40 years as Chairman, candidate, and Member, to consent to this Amendment or to a modification of it.

The hon. Member who last spoke taunted his fellow Dissenters.

I am not a Dissenter; I am a Nonconformist.

I am sorry I do not appreciate the hon. Member's position. I will say, however, he has taunted his fellow Nonconformists with having a distaste to be ticketed; but there is another difficulty which the hon. Gentleman has not realised. A great many persons do not know how to describe themselves in the matter of religious belief. Personally, I should not know how to fill up the Return, or how to describe myself in this respect; and there are hundreds of thousands in this country who are in a similar position. The hon. Member for the Hitchin Division of Hertfordshire has let the cat out of the bag. The religious census is to be a kind of plébiscite in favour of the Established Church; but this plébiscite is a matter which ought to be decided at the polling booths. As to the principle of equality between England and Ireland, hon. Members ought to remember that the circumstances in the two countries are very different indeed. In Ireland religious differences are clearly marked, and are comparatively few in number. The vast bulk of the population is divided into the three great denominations of Catholics, Anglicans, and Presbyterians. Other classes are exceedingly few. It is, therefore, of considerable importance to know what proportion the Catholic population in Ireland forms of the whole people. On the other hand, it may be said that there are about 365 denominations in this country—one for every day in the year. If the Irish people desire it, by all means let them have a religious census in Ireland, but we do not want one in England.

I hope, in the interests of accuracy, that the President of the Local Government Board will stand by the Bill. The whole question has been carefully considered by a Committee, and the evidence tended to show that in proportion as the number of questions to the householder were multiplied, the chances increased of diminishing the accuracy of the replies received. Quite apart from the merits of questioning people as to their religious views, as we all know, there are sufficient persons not distinctly attached to any religious denomination to destroy the value of any census records on the subject.

As a member of the Census Committee, let me say it is not accurate to say that the Report of the Committee had any definite bearing on the merits of a religious census.

I have no wish to convey an erroneous impression. I gather the Report amounts to this, that the Committee did not find themselves in a position to make any recommendation.

The Committee have not thought it right to weigh the relative merits and demerits from the political point of view of a religious census. From the statistical point of view the Return would be valuable; but when the Committee came to consider the political difficulties which surrounded a Return of this kind, they felt that they were not the proper body to go into those questions. The evidence we had before us strengthened my own opinion in favour of a religious census. It is, undoubtedly, a strong fact that in Ireland there has not been any difficulty encountered in making a Return as to religious belief. Out of the whole population only 3,000 neglected to make the return. In our Colonies this Return is cheerfully made. I confess it seems to me that the balance of argument is in favour of a religious census. The hon. Member for Leicester, whose mind on religious subjects is exceptionally flabby, need make no return of his religious belief. I believe the vast majority of the population would have no difficulty, and would in no way object to making the Return. The main objection to a religious census is that an exaggerated importance may be attached to the figures. It is said that great numbers would return themselves as members of the Church of England when, in reality, they had no very definite opinions. I quite feel the force of that objection, but it is an objection which will apply to nearly all the Returns under the census. No one pretends for a moment that the Return in any one of the columns of the census is absolutely and mathematically correct. The Return is made subject to all the inferences and deductions which an observer of human nature has a right to put upon a Return. Everyone knows the value of a Return of age; no one thinks that it is absolutely accurate, especially in the case of one sex. So, undoubtedly, it would be the case with respect to a religious census. The Return would not be absolutely and mathematically accurate, but it would be a far more trustworthy Return than any we have at present. It would be properly open to criticisms and inferences, but I think it would be an important and interesting addition to our statistical information, and, therefore, I hope the Committee will assent to the Amendment proposed.

The hon. Member for Boston, taunted us with having changed our opinions. I would remind the House that the man who never changes opinions is a fool. [Laughter.] I do not use that word to convey any personal disrespect. It is an old and true saying. I do not know where the hon. Member for Boston got his his knowledge of Nonconformist opinion. I certainly should not have guessed from his Votes whether the hon. Gentleman was a Dissenter or Nonconformist. But, speaking for myself, I have represented a constituency of Nonconformists for something like 22 years, and I can state that a great many Nonconformists look upon a religious census as a means of inviting a man to say he is a member of the Church of England. In the eye of the law I believe we are all members of the Church of England, and the consequence is you would get all the persons whom the late Mr. Miall used to call "absenters" credited to the Church of England. The hon. Member for Chelsea candidly avowed that a religious census would not be at all satisfactory, or represent the real religious opinion of the country with perfect truth. He said that an observer of human nature would be sure to draw his own conclusions, and to make allowances. But I am afraid those who looked at the Returns are not observers of human nature, and they would at once conclude that the members of the Church of England were enormously in excess of the members of other denominations, and they would, therefore, be led to a false conclusion. In Wales there is deep religious feeling, and I am perfectly certain that there the people would have no hesitation in stating their religious faith. But when you come to the "absenters" in England you have a very different state of things. I had hoped that this matter was settled. With regard to the Committee, they certainly came to no conclusion on the point. But I understand from the First Lord of the Treasury that the Government has settled the matter, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will bring some pressure to bear on his supporters to resist this Amendment, which was being quite unexpectedly sprung upon us.

The right hon. Gentleman must know that the Government are bound to the Bill which they lay before the Committee. At the same time I am bound to confess that, when the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me to control our followers on this particular matter, this is one of those points in respect of which we do not feel at all inclined to put pressure upon our supporters or the friends of the right hon. Gentleman who are with us. The Bill is the Bill of the Government, and to that Bill the Government, of course, will adhere. At the same time, I am bound to say that I think there is a very great deal to be said in favour of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, and I am not in the least astonished that he has brought forward his proposal. There is great force in the arguments used on this side of the House, and in the arguments used on the other side; at the same time I do not share the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. If the Return proved unsatisfactory, I take it that it would be because of the failure of those who are not members of the Church of England to make the Return they were asked to make. To them would attach the blame if any preponderance of the Church of England were shown. But though there is something to be said in favour of the proposal, it is not one which the Government, under the circumstances of the case, at present are prepared to accept. We should be very sorry indeed if any very sharp differences of opinion were to be raised throughout the country by a demand for such a Return. We should be sorry indeed to raise religious or political feeling in the various com- munities, and the effect of which would be felt in other matters in respect of which we desire to obtain information. We have adopted mainly the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the information to be obtained, and, looking to the sharp differences of opinion which exist, we see that it will be well to adhere to those recommendations, and not ask the House to assent to a religious census.

I intend to vote for the Amendment, for I do not think that this question is at all one to be regarded from a Party or sectarian point of view, and I am sorry those considerations have been so far introduced. No one disputes that if this item were included in the Census Returns it would be of very great statistical advantage. I believe in Canada and the United States the Religious Return is always included, and no serious difficulty has been experienced, in spite of the great number of denominations in those countries. I cannot believe that there is a very large number of people of the opinions of the hon. Member for Leicester, who would return themselves to the enumerators as members of the Church of England. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that the Welsh people had no objection to the Return, and I believe there would be very little objection in the rest of the country.

I confess I listened with considerable astonishment to the speech of the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Local Government Board. I remember distinctly the First Lord of the Treasury said that the Census Bill would be precisely the same as on previous occasions. Yet the President of the Local Government Board gets up and encourages his followers to support the Amendment, which he knows will be bitterly opposed on this side of the House. I do not say it is a breach of understanding or of faith, but certainly it is not what we expected from the statements on the part of the Government with regard to this business in particular. I speak for a good many Members on this side of the House when I say that we are not afraid of a religious census because of the result it may bring about. We object to it on principle. I object to being asked of what religion I am. If a religious census is put in practice in other countries, all I can say is, I am glad I do not belong to those other countries. It is on this principle, and not because the result might be deceiving owing to weak people representing themselves as being what they are not, that many on this side of the House are strongly opposed to this Amendment. We have been led to believe that no such proposal would be encouraged by the Government, and according to what fell from the mouth of the First Lord of the Treasury these Bills were to be really the same as those that have been passed on previous occasions. Consequently, I was amazed beyond expression to find that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, practically on the part of the Government, although he said the Government did not support the Amendment, giving a sort of backhanded support to the Amendment.

I do not think that a single word of what I stated could possibly have suggested the tone the right hon. Gentleman has adopted. I stated most distinctly that the policy of the Government was the policy of the Bill; that the Government intended to adhere to the Bill, and to oppose the Amendment; but it seems to have given the right hon. Gentleman much astonishment, that at the same time I could acknowledge there were some good arguments in favour of the Amendment, and that we did not propose to put that pressure which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire upon the supporters of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said truly that this ought not to be treated as a Party question, and we, having stated our views in regard to the matter and that we adhere to the Bill, propose to leave it to those who generally support the Government to act according to their own views on the subject.

I must remind the Committee of what took place in regard to this Bill yesterday, the result of which was that there was no discussion on the Second Reading of the Scotch Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that that was not the result of the acceptance by the Scotch Members in good faith of the statement that the Bill as it stood was to be adopted by the Government and their supporters? I say, unhesitatingly, that had we supposed that such an Amendment as this, involving a principle on which, as regards Scotland there exists the widest divergencies of opinion, these Bills would not have been allowed to pass the Second Reading as easily as they did. We were, in point of fact, led to understand that this discussion would not arise, and one of the supporters of the Government actually stated that he did not intend to press for and did not know whether a Division would be taken. It certainly is a most unusual tiling to hear a Minister say that, although the Government themselves intend to vote for a Bill, all those who support the Government are at liberty to vote as they wish. If that is the sort of understanding we are to have in regard to public measures let us be told that it is so; but at any rate it is not the sort of understanding we have been accustomed to in this House.

I only wish to say a word in reply to what has just fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite. Are we on this side of the House to be expected invariably to vote for every proposal which comes from the Front Bench, without any regard to the views we ourselves entertain, or to the views our constituents wish to express? This is a question on which, in Scotland, there has been greater division of opinion than on almost any other subject, and I intend to vote according to what I believe to be my conscientious duty. In the discharge of that duty I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I may add that I think the Government are perfectly right in the course they are taking on this question. I am glad they have left it as an open question, and that they do not regard their supporters as bound to follow them in their action on this Amendment.

We are called on to divide upon this question under somewhat peculiar circumstances, and I think it important that there should be no misapprehension, such as would appear to have been created in the mind of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) as to the attitude of the Welsh Members. It is quite true that the Welsh people are not at all afraid, and have nothing to fear from the results of a religious census; but, at the same time, it is a great mistake to suppose that they are favourable to this proposal, or at all approve of a religious census. On the contrary, they strongly object to it on principle. But, without delaying the House by going over the obvious arguments from a Welsh point of view, I would point out that the effect of adopting this Amendment would be to create a religious agitation as to the character of the machinery to be employed and to what extent it would affect the influence of the Church. I think, under the circumstances, it would be the most harassing and unwise proposal the House could pass, and I do hope it is clearly understood that coming, as this proposition does, at the last moment of the Session and by surprise, when, to our amazement, we hear from the Government that this is to be left as an open question, the Welsh Members as a body join in a vigorous protest against the Amendment.

I feel bound to enter my protest against the assumption of the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont), that because the Second Reading of this Bill was passed without a Division certain hon. Members on this side of the House have no right to dissent from this portion of the measure. I protest against the dictum of the hon. Gentleman that we are bound to vote against an Amendment the object of which is to carry out the views we have long entertained on this subject. We who are independent supporters of the Government ought not to be called upon to go with them into the Division Lobby when they are taking a course of which we do not approve, although, of course, the thirty gentlemen who are members of the Ministry are bound to vote for the Bill as it stands.

I am sure that no one can object to the right hon. Baronet and other supporters of the Government expressing their views on this subject, but, to my mind, the question is of far too much importance to be left to run loose without responsibility on the part of those who introduced the measure. No one objects to an estimate being formed of the religious opinions of the population; what is objected to is an attempt to insist on a man's making public his religious views. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members say "No," but if this Amendment be carried every man will be bound to make this Return. I know that the refusal will not be subject to a penalty, and that, legally, he need not make the Return unless he likes; but if he is asked to give his religious opinion, and he does not choose to do so, he leaves it open to the public to express doubts as to whether he really holds the religious views he professes in his private life, or to say he has no religious views to declare. This Amendment involves a change in our system of dealing with this question in England and Wales, which has never been adopted before, and to which I have always been opposed. It involves an inquisition as to men's religious opinions which ought to be most private, and ought certainly not to be made a matter of public discussion. I would much rather insist on asking a man what are his political opinions, and how he has voted; for it seems to me that from such a declaration many considerations are absent that must necessarily affect the question as to what are a man's religious opinions.

I am wholly at a loss to understand the indignation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he himself was responsible as a Member of the Government which brought in the last Census Bills, one of which contained a provision imposing on Ireland the necessity of making a religious Return. Why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman exhibit on that occasion all the energy and eloquence which he has evidenced on this? He has spoken of people being compelled to state their religious belief, but he knows there is nothing in this Amendment of my hon. Friend compelling anyone to make a statement on this point. It simply allows the people of this country, if they please, to state the religious opinions they hold, and they may either say what those opinions are, or that they have no religious opinions at all, or to decline to answer the question altogether. The hon. Member for Leicester has stated that he would have a difficulty in making such a Return. I do not think the hon. Member would find that he would have any difficulty, as he need not put any statement in that particular column of the Return; but I am sure the hon. Member does not belong to that class who would be afraid to state what religious views they hold, and I am equally certain that he would not state religious views which he does not entertain.

My statement was that if I were to refuse to state my religious views I might be put down as a member of the Church of England.

The hon. Gentleman sits among the Members for Ireland, and probably that may have influenced him in forming so rash a conclusion. Does he not know that after the census is taken no man will be one whit the wiser as to the religious belief of any of his neighbours. I should be inclined to say that Returns such as are asked for by this Amendment would furnish almost the most interesting statistics we could have. There is no reason why we should not follow the example of all our colonies and part of the United Kingdom, namely, Ireland, as well as the advice of many of our fellow subjects in this House—I refer to the Scotch Members. For these reasons I think hon. Members should feel no scruple in voting for the Amendment.

I think the noble Lord in his address to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) forgets at which end of the Bench the right hon. Gentleman sits. The noble Lord, in the language he used to the right hon. Gentleman, was almost as vehement as he would have been if he had been attacking us. But, with the consent of the noble Lord, I will say a word as to the course the Government are taking. We had hoped that we had got into smooth waters, and that we were going to conclude the Session. The Government, on the Second Reading of the Bill, made it distinctly understood yesterday that their policy was to exclude the religious question from this Bill. [Ministerial cries of "No."]"No"? Well, we so understood it. It was in the spirit and upon the faith of that statement that the Second Reading was agreed to. I have never known a Government depart from an under- standing made in this House without being justly condemned and properly punished for it. What is the position of the Government now? At an earlier part of the Session they introduced unnecessarily a liquor question, and now it appears as if they want to introduce a religious question. If they do introduce it there will be no question of Parliament meeting in November, for we shall sit till then. From the observations of the President of the Local Government Board I should say that the Government are playing fast and loose with the House. When the Government say, "We are bound to take one course ourselves, but our followers may do as they like," we know very well what it means. We know that it is an instruction to those who sit behind them, and who are a majority in the House, to defeat them on a point on which they want to be defeated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will at once remove the impression produced by the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board by assuring the House that the Government stand by the declaration made yesterday that this is not to be a religious census—a declaration which certainly prevailed up to half an hour ago.

No, no!

There is an hon. Gentleman behind the Government who undertakes to say that there was no understanding arrived at.

I do not say "no" for them; I say it for myself.

I do not at all care about the hon. Member's saying it for himself.

I do.

I quite recognise that. It is quite right that he should; but what I want to know is, what more responsible people than the hon. Member think about the matter. I think we have a right to claim a specific declaration from the Government. We have a right to expect that the Government will abide by what they have said, and that they will use their legitimate influence with their supporters to induce them to reject the Amendment.

I have no hesitation in responding to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government undoubtedly stand by what they have said. They are responsible for the Bill they have presented to the House, and, in their opinion, it is not desirable to introduce into the measure the provision under consideration. All that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board said was that the Government are not able to exert such pressure upon some of their followers as is necessary to prevent them from voting for the Amendment. Have not the followers of the Government already voted against them in the course of this Session? I wish the House to understand distinctly that the Government have presented this Bill in perfect good faith, believing that, on the whole, it is far better to proceed on the lines settled in the past than to make the census a religious one. Personally, I should have no objection whatever to the introduction of the religious question, but I respect the objections that are entertained against that course by a very large number of my fellow-subjects. I therefore deprecate strongly the attempt to introduce into a measure of this kind a subject which must cause heat, and, to a certain extent, ill-feeling, and certainly a vast amount of misrepresentation. It is a misfortune that this should be the case; a very great misfortune, for the statistics in regard to religion, if they could be obtained, would be very valuable. But if there is a very strong objection on the part of a large number of persons to give this information, I am not one of those who would insist upon its being furnished, nor do I think it would be sound policy to insist on its being given. The Government, therefore, stand by the Bill, and will vote against the Amendment, and I should regret the fact very much indeed if this provision were agreed to I trust I have satisfied the House that the Government have acted in complete good faith, and that they desire that the measure shall pass in its present form.

[Cries of" Divide !"] I take it that hon. Members who cried "Divide" are in favour of the Amendment. I can quite understand their anxiety for a Division. They fancy they have a majority—I do not think so, but they do—and they are anxious to take advantage of the circumstances. The course the Government have adopted has been somewhat curious. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board went out of his way to say that he did not intend to exert any pressure on hon. Gentlemen behind him, and that they might vote as they liked.

That observation was called forth by a remark of the right hon. member for Denbighshire, who appealed to me to put all the pressure I could upon Members who differed from me with regard to this question, so that they might vote against the Amendment. It was to that that my observation was directed.

What did the right hon. Gentleman say in response to the appeal of my right hon. Friend, who urged that the Government should put that ordinary pressure on their followers which is usual when a pledge has been given to the Opposition? The right hon. Gentleman said he could not do so. He turned round with a sort of nail-his-ears-to-the-pump look and said, "Do as you like; I will not exercise any pressure." I say that when the Second Reading was passed, it was passed on the distinct understanding that the Government were not going to allow the introduction of this religious question. It is a curious fact that the First Lord of the Treasury has avoided using any words of exhortation to his followers. In fact, he went out of his way to say that, personally, he had no objection to a religious census. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to do is this: he ought' to say that the Government pledged themselves to pass the Bill as it stands, and that if they are thwarted they will drop it. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "If this Amendment is forced upon us, we will withdraw the Bill," the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and other in depen dent Baronets and Members on the opposite side of the House would shrink into their shells at once and follow the Government humbly into the Lobby.

[Cries of "Divide !"] Hon. Members who object to further discussion have apparently come down to the House to spring this Amendment upon it. Until an hour or less ago we had no idea on this side of the House that a Religious Census Bill was contemplated. We came down to discuss a non-contentious—a Census Bill merely. If the Amendment is passed, the feeling of the country, which is that a man's religious belief is a matter purely for his own conscience and not for the State, will be even more intense than the feeling evoked by the Ministerial Liquor Bill. Hon. Members in this House may not in the least object to state their religious views, but many of the people whom they represent cannot afford to do so. There are tens of thousands of domestic servants in this country, and not a few of them are engaged on the conditions that they go to church and communicate, and in the villages of England what amounts in result to religious persecution prevails to a large extent. I mean that for a labourer to declare himself and his family to be Dissenters or Roman Catholics, would mean giving up all share in coal and blanket funds, and getting the cold shoulder in many ways. This Division List will be scanned everywhere throughout the land, for it will tell the people who the men are who wish to revive the old methods and touchstones of religious bigotry and intolerance. If the Amendment is carried, there are many of us who will exhaust every means at our disposal to prevent the Bill from passing.

As Independent Members have been spoken of, I wish to say that it would be very interesting to have these statistics as to religion, if they could be obtained; but the collection of them would cause too much heart-burning, annoyance, and irritation. I shall, therefore, vote for the Bill in its present form.

I desire to enter a protest against the proposed alteration of the measure. I had to leave the House shortly after the Debate commenced, and only heard the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in reply to some earlier Amendments. In those observations, however, the right hon. Gentleman took his stand on the recommendations of the Select Committee, and did not tell his followers that they could vote as they liked, and I naturally inferred that the Government intended to stand by the Bill. When I returned to the House, however, I found that the right hon. Gentleman had set his followers at liberty in this particular matter. If this Amendment is accepted, it will lead to very great difficulty and inconvenience. The enumerators will find it difficult to carry out their work, especially in cases where they have to instruct the people how to fill up the Returns; and, further, the selection of the enumerators will be a more serious, and perhaps contentious, matter than it need otherwise be. Then I would ask how long or wide is it proposed to make the religion column in the census paper— for there are a good many forms and shades of religious belief in this country, and some people may find it difficult to describe themselves in the ordinary space of a census paper.

It is impossible for anyone to imagine that the object of the proposal is merely to ascertain the religious belief of the people of the country. I contend that the proposal has an ecclesiastical and political object in view. Nobody will be influenced in the slightest degree by figures collected in such a way or be influenced by them in any degree in considering the question of Disestablishment, either in England or Scotland. The feeling of the country on that important question will have to be tested in a very different way—at the polls. I trust the House will not allow any form of religious plebiscite to be taken, and I hope the Government will make it clear to their followers that they do not approve of the Amendment.

Both the First Lord of the Treasury and I have declared that the Government think it would be most impolitic to introduce this Amendment into the Bill.

I beg to propose to insert, after "day," in line 14,"and whether any such person speaks Welsh only or both Welsh and English." I understand that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.

I have considered the matter since last night, and as I gather it is the universal wish of the Members for Wales that these words should be inserted, I accept the Amendment.

I beg to move the insertion, after "lunatic," in line 16, of the words "and if a child, whether he or she, is attending school." I do not wish to press the Amendment strongly; but it does appear to me that if you do not accept this Amendment, you will have no complete classification of the number of children attending school. We can get details as to the number of boys attending the great public schools and you may obtain the number of children attending Board Schools, but there are very many children who attend schools of a different character. Many children attend private adventure schools, where they get a very good education, but there are no means at present of ascertaining the number of these children. I am anxious to know how many children, both boys and girls, attend school, and it appears to me that, unless you adopt this Amendment or some Amendment going in the same direction, you will not obtain what is a most elementary piece of information.

I quite appreciate the motive that prompts the hon. Gentleman in moving this Amendment, and, if I thought that the householder could be fairly asked under all the circumstances to give such information, I should be glad to do what I could to meet his views. But I am sure he will agree with me that it is extremely probable that what he desires will not be obtained, namely, correct information. There are some classes who will, no doubt, imagine that the information may be used against them for the School Board officers, and, however desirable it is that we should do everything we can to induce people to act according to law and to obey the law, it would be unfortunate if any impression were created in the minds of anybody that we desire to put the pressure of the law upon them.

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in dealing with the deaf and dumb and the blind, he has given his attention to the recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission, which Report was presented to the House a few months ago, and in which the importance of a specific and uniform classification was set forth? May we hope that in the method to be adopted for collecting information, there will be statistics distinguishing, for example, between those who are born blind, deaf, or dumb, and those who have subsequently become thus afflicted?

My attention has been directed to the Report of the Royal Commission and to that portion of it to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If we were to obtain the information in an elaborate way, it would add considerably to the size of the Schedule. At the same time, I will undertake that the question shall be carefully looked into, and if there can be any alteration made in the Paper with regard to these persons, I shall be glad to consider it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the particular form of the question on the subject? Will he see, for instance, that the different classes of imbeciles are specified?

The person filling up the Paper is to make a Return whether the persons in the house is afflicted in any of the modes to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. If we were to subdivide the class in question the Paper might possibly be unwieldy, but I will consider the point.

I take it the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of the question I have put, and that possibly by some supplementary process he may meet the desire I have expressed.

I desire to move an Amendment which I have not been able to put on the Paper. This clause provides that every occupier shall fill in the schedule and sign his or her name. I can conceive there may be cases in which the occupier or householder may be unable to read or write, and I have not been able 'to discover within the limits of the Bill that any provision is made for a case of that kind. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether provision is made for such a case by instructing the enumerator to fill in the paper for the occupier, and whether, in that case, the occupier is required to affix his or her mark to the paper so as to authenticate it. I think it is desirable my Amendment should be moved for the purpose of eliciting from the right hon. Gentleman the information I desire.

The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is really not necessary, because in Clause 6 full power is taken by which, if the schedules appear to be defective or erroneous, or the information is not complete, the enumerators may make them complete. Instructions are printed at the back of the paper to the effect that if householders are unable themselves to fill up the paper properly the enumerators are charged with the duty of filling up the Return.

Is the enumerator required in that case to make any statement on the paper to the effect that he has filled up the paper on behalf of the occupier?

I have not had time to look into the matter, but I do not think it is one of importance. If the householder is unable, from any cause whatever, to fill up the paper he has a right to call on the enumerator to fill up the paper.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after "age," to insert "religious profession." I have no intention of reiterating the arguments which have been used in the discussion on a similar Amendment to the English Bill, but I desire to point out that the question of taking a religious census occupies totally different ground in Scotland from what it does in England. The numbers belonging to the various denominations in Scotland is a subject of discussion both inside and outside the House, particularly since the relation of the Established Church to the State has been brought into prominence by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). If this opportunity of discovering with some degree of accuracy the numbers of the different denominations is lost, there will be no certainty upon the subject when the momentous question of Disestablishment may be submitted to the country, and statistics of a misleading character may influence the House in coming to a decision. The House has received Petitions from the Kirk Sessions of almost every parish in Scotland in favour of inserting a column of this kind. There is a very strong feeling indeed among the majority of the people of Scotland on the subject, and Scottish Members untrammelled by office on this side are unanimous in its support. If the Government accept the Amendment they will be giving effect to a strong popular desire, and will obtain valuable information on a question which is most keenly interesting to the people of Scotland, and which they consider of vital importance to them. I can hardly hope that the Government will on this question be induced to give an absolutely free hand to those who sit behind them, and also to the Members who occupy the Treasury Bench. If, however, the Government can see their way to recognising this claim I would press the matter to a Division, but I have no intention of wasting the time of the House either by prolonging my remarks, or by forcing a Division, if the Government do not see their way to refrain from making this a Government question.

I am sure my hon. Friend has stated his views with great clearness and moderation, but I must say at once that we must assume, on this question, the attitude the Government took upon the English Bill; we are unable to assent to the Amendment. It is superfluous for me to dwell on the reasons; they have been adequately stated by my right hon. Friend, and I think they, in an equal degree, apply to Scotland. I do not deny the value that such statistics would have, but they could only be obtained by a census carried out with the assent of the country, and it is quite obvious, from what has passed here to-night, that that assent is not likely to be obtained. I must say, with reluctance, but quite distinctly, that we cannot accept the Amendment.

I trust that everyone will clearly understand that those who are in favour of disestablishment, and actually claim to have the people of Scotland at their back, are those who are afraid of the results this census might disclose. For our part, we on this side of the House are keenly anxious to have the information, so that we may know exactly where we are.

I am very unwilling to continue this discussion, for I think the answer of the Lord Advocate ought to be satisfactory to every Scotch Member. I am really surprised that the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the other side of the House should not be satisfied with the statistics their Party have gathered up in regard to the denomination to which they adhere. We have been told that these statistics have been proved and tested by ministers and elders, and are vouched for on the faith of their church and religion, and yet now they come here upon this Bill and say these statistics cannot be relied on and that they must have State Authority for them. ["No, no !"] Well, I think the statement of the Lord Advocate is conclusive that a large number of people will not furnish these religious statistics. This is really a manoeuvre of the Church Defence Association, with a political and ecclesiatical purpose, and I think the Government act wisely in not giving countenance to it.